Alternatives to Suspension

ISS and OSS have other negative outcomes on students, as well. OSS is associated with lower high school graduation rates (Fabelo et al., 2011; Balfanz, Byrnes, and Fox, 2014; Suh and Suh, 2007), and increased adjudication and incarceration rates (Fabelo et al., 2011; Bacher Hicks, Billings, & Deming 2019; Christle, Jolivette, & Nelson, 2005). In addition, exclusionary discipline results in damaged relationships and increased alienation. Finally, exclusionary discipline has a disproportionate impact on marginalized students, especially African American students (see, for example, Bain & McPherson, 1990; Blake, Butler, Lewis, & Darensbourg, 2011; Cooley 1995; Costenbader & Markson 1998; Gordon, Piana & Kelecher 2000; Gregory & Weinstein 2008 ;  Losen 2018;  Losen 2014; Losen & Gillespie, 2012; Losen, et al., 2015; Losen and Martinez 2020; Losen & Skiba 2010; McFadden, Marsh, Price & Hwang 1992; Petras, et al., 2011; Raffaele-Mendez, Knoff & Ferron, 2002; Raffaele-Mendz & Knopf 2003; Skiba et al., 1997; Skiba, Nardo, Michael, and Peterson 2002; Skiba, et al., 2011; Skiba, Chung, Trachok, Baker, Sheya & Hughes 2014).

What are instructional alternatives to suspension?

Suspensions and and other punishment do not teach students what we want them to do instead, communicates to the student that they are not wanted aat the school, and in many cases reinforces escape motivated behaviors! Is it any wonder that ISS, OSS and other forms of exclusionary discipline, alone, have little impact on student behavior. For these reasons, it is recommended that schools and districts develop instructional alternatives to suspension. Instructional alternatives to suspension are consequences to office managed/major behaviors that teach and support students in expectation following behaviors

When considering instructional alternatives to suspension, it is important to have the mindset that a consequence does not need to cause pain or discomfort, or otherwise punish. What is important is that they result in a decrease in the likelihood that the behavior will occur in the future.

The following are suggested guidelines for developing or selecting alternatives to suspension:

• Prevent  the need to suspend with a preventative proactive behavioral framework, such as Schoolwide Positive Behavior Support, that is implemented with fidelity , consistency, and equity.
• Instruct students in the expected replacement behaviors
• Logically Connect the consequence to the behavior and the function of the behavior
• When possible, select consequences that are restorative, trauma informed, and address social-emotional needs of the student

Additional Considerations

• Incorporate instructional alternatives into a flow chart or behavior intensity levels chart that lists them as available options from which administrators can select when administering consequences for office managed/major behaviors. Share this with all stakeholders to create predictability, fairness, consistency and trust, and reduce anger and resentment.
• Engage all stakeholders (teachers/bargaining unit, classified staff, parents and, where developmentally appropriate, students) in the selection, development of the flow chart or levels table. This will help to ensure stakeholder commitment.
• ISS and OSS remain options, but reserve these consequences for the most serious and intensive behaviors, and have clear decision rules for when these consequences are available,.
  • Example decision rules
    • Behavior puts students, staff, or visitors at risk of serious bodily injury
    • Comply with district policies
    • Comply with state or federal laws
  • Have a system to develop and implement a student reintegration and behavior support plan