Introduction:
Education plays the most crucial role in forming an individual and society. However, the performance gap in education continues to exist, and this raises the alarm about race and social exclusion at the community level. The researcher strives to determine whether there is an evident disparity in the academic institutions where the selected districts from North Carolina are located. Discriminative forms of punishment, such as suspension and bullying, can inflict unfair disadvantages on students socially and academically.
According to the research by Wymer, Williford, and Lhospital (2020), academic exclusion can lead to the beginning of the educational journey an individual will embark on even when the student is relatively young. Being highly motivated and having the teacher’s reasonable opinion about one’s school performance, the student may become reluctant to lose the teacher’s good words about their performance in early school days, which may, in turn, turn into a vicious trail of disengagement. The National Assessment of the Title I – Final Report(splash screen, n.d.) mentions that the Act asks schools not to give up but to overcome other students’ barriers and create a favorable environment for all students’ success. Through implementing these laws, which also occur at the federal level, the states must carry out statewide assessments each year to maintain the system’s accountability and equity.
Besides this set of states, the making of exclusions still remains a fact that shows the need for a review and, possibly, nullification, according to Reeves’ (2023) observation. In an article called “Redesigning Excluded Practices,” the author advises approaching the causes that determine exclusionary practices by asking questions like “Are there simpler and better options to include and to support all children?” to educators and policymakers.
The following three critical questions will be answered to develop a complete understanding of the exclusionary processes in North Carolina: First, we will discuss low and high-performing school bullying, starting with the percentage. Also, bullying is not just throwing an occasional insulting word, but rather, it becomes a nonstop exploitation. Hence, it is essential to realize the setting of the school climate and its influence on students (Wymer et al., 2020). The second purpose of this study is to identify the variation in in-school suspension rates and analyze whether a similar level of disrespect leads to different punishments being assigned to different academic performers. So, the final point is the length of suspension or expulsions. Compare both and see long-term and short-term punishment effects in poorly and highly performing areas.
Bullying Differences in High Vs. Low-Performing Schools
Zero Tolerance Policies and Bullying
The Gun-Free Schools Act adoption signaled the start of the zero-tolerance procedure, and after that, bullying and other types of immoderate behavior were likewise evaluated. Their critical outlook highlights the zero-tolerance school policies study by Kana’iaupuni and Gans (2005). Such an approach, almost criticized very harshly for its lese-majeste inflexible and splayed-out punishments for more than twenty types of crimes, was subjected to monitoring to examine the results of control for the twenty types of crimes (Kana’iaupuni & Gans, 2005). Such policies might not only be ineffective in terminating bullying. Nevertheless, this could result in a situation that is not ideal in that cases of bullying remain unresolved, primarily in schools that do not have appropriate strategies to eliminate bullying.
School-to-Prison Pipeline
Heitzig (2008) argues that a school-to-prison pipeline is created by the over-reliance on harsh disciplinary measures in addition to the existence of “zero tolerance policies,” which push mostly marginalized students out of school and into juvenile and criminal justice systems. It will be revealed especially for students of color who are the ones punished more severely for their acts than their white peers; for example, they are more prone to suspension and better to stay at home or leaving school until graduation, which later contributes to their engagement of the legal system (Heitzeg, 2008). It all comes to the point when the organization of such a pipeline means the discriminatory punishment nature of disciplining in school and also a school environment that involuntarily supports bullying by creating exclusionary or marginalized classrooms.
Exclusionary Practices Based on Race/Gender
Ryan and Goodram (2013) studied discriminatory expulsions or suspensions experienced by a few students of color due to their ethnicity and those of low socioeconomic status (SES). Such a deviation explicitly displays discrimination and bias because these students will more likely be hands down suspended and expelled and will be dealing with a queer educational environment which will increase the likelihood of bullying and racism tremendously (Ryan & Goodram, 2013). The articles altogether demonstrate the necessity of transforming the school hierarchy of law and order, which is driven at an abrupt pace to reach the goals of the existing diverse community and emphasize an atmosphere of acceptance and belonging in a school.
Ultimately, the subject of these articles is to expose the essential problems in school disciplinary policies like the zero-tolerance policies, the school-to-prison pipeline, and sorting students into social classes due to race and gender. For this reason, bullying prevention can vary the bullying status, so the policies should be directed and strategies for establishing an amebic environment.
In-School Suspensions
In-school suspension is one of the sanctions used to fix disciplinary issues and simultaneously allow the students to stay in school. These forms of punishment, sanctions, and measures are being influenced by different factors, including the school’s disciplinary policies, socio-economic and demographic characteristics of the student’s body, and social and educational systems capturing their life.
Zero Tolerance Policies
Skiba (2000) emphasized that an initial emphasis of a zero-tolerance policy was to push away from extreme cases of misbehavior only, but later, they adopted a friendlier view, which is “to include everything from the little mischiefs that may lead to in-school suspensions.” In addition, Skiba notes that such policies tend to be rigid in that they direct their primary intent by punishing behavior, which is roughly similar to that of a disciplinary atmosphere in a school (Skiba, 2000). The likely reason for varying results is that the schools have already performed well, for example, by obtaining more resources, and they choose a more subtle disciplinary process instead of a zero-tolerant measure. Instead, when a school has unsatisfactory scores, it usually has few resources to build on its programs, so an in-school suspension approach was taken, and a zero-tolerance policy was adopted.
School-to-Prison Pipeline
Smith (2015) shows concerns about the school-to-prison pipeline and clearly states that pervasive application of the zero-tolerance policy takes place in places where minorities live. According to Smith, the schools that are with giant African American and Latino ethnicities usually involve themselves in implementing such policies that primarily involve the maintenance of school justice. The report done by Kang-Brown (2013), on the other hand, revealed that black middle school boys had experienced the event of suspension once six times during the 2009-2010 academic year based on the figures presented by Smith (2015) during the discussion of the research findings. As the techniques with the most significant influence are supposedly taught in schools that have huge numbers of minorities, it can be seen that the educational system is highly imperfect. It tries with all its might to eliminate inequalities and the school-to-prison pipeline as well.
Exclusionary Behavior the Race / Gender
Alamos and Williford (2023) consider the racial disparities in school discipline in the underachieving schools and the schools excelling in the selected North Carolina school districts. This research shows that students can narrow or widen the achievement gap due to the relationship between them and the teachers, but the most critical issue is the one related to Black students in the school (Alamos & Williford, 2023). They highlight that it is not solely individual prejudice that allows a high rate of suspensions and expulsions among this group but also the fact that the system itself is biased. Its model channelizes positive association and the learning environment at an individual level. Thus, fairness is encouraged, and people learn how to interact efficiently with each other. It deals with racism in personal and interpersonal teachers and intrapersonal and stereotype threat, for which these two factors become the underpinning towards a conducive and supportive education environment.
On-school confinement and a long line of other disciplinary practices have traditionally been an issue of concern for minorities and students from low-achievement schools because of the zero-tolerance policies, socio-economic reasons, and systemic inequalities. Skiba (2000) and Heitzeg (2008) hold a view that such policies exacerbate the current problem of the school-prison pipeline, which is being perpetuated by this very school environment. Alamos and Williford (2023) mention that the relationship between the teachers and the students is critical to resolving the racial gaps in discipline and stress that education in North Carolina state has to become fairer and more supportive.
Implications of Long-term Suspensions in Educational Equity:
Long-term suspensions are re-described through zero tolerance policies, school-to-prison pipeline, and prejudice in mind; they are found at the core of the systemic problem magnifying educational inequities. However, conducting a detailed analysis, as these journal articles do, reveals the tremendous effect of penal methods on the most inferior socio-economic groups in society.
Zero Tolerance Policies
Zero Tolerance Policies in schools with the purpose of security are widely applied to cases the policy does not provide for. According to Kana’iaupuni and Gans (2005), the policies do not affect the behavior (Kana’iaupuni & Gans, 2005). Although the primary goal of suspension and expulsion is to deter, we witness a surge instead (Kanai’aupuni & Gans, 2005). Firstly, they point out initiatives to punish small offenses like the possession of cough drops or asthma inhalers, but they do not correlate these with serious offenders. Smith (2015) gives the case of a principal of a school that received no benefit from disadvantaged pupils just because they had disabilities, let alone being black; he suspended all fortunate African-American male kids and disabled guys, which muted their talents and opportunities.
School-to-Prison Pipeline:
Mallett (2015) studies the formation of the pipeline from school to prison, which can be traced back to the era of Reagan’s war on drugs. The school was where the students were not allowed to show abnormal teenage behavior or were treated as criminals (Mallet, 2015). Instead of focusing only on drug and gang violence, the zero-tolerance system got involved in the issue of minor recurring offenses like the ones from students from marginalized communities, which led to suspension and expulsion as well. This punitive turn confirms the Drug-Free Schools Act of 1986 and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, which are responsible for increasing the number of troubled kids who find law enforcement officers carrying out their duties that had once been managed by school authorities inside the school. Students being in detention and punished for not complying with them are sent to the justice system under the regulations concerned. The problem is highlighted, making punishment more preferred than rehabilitation.
Exclusionary Sentiment In Race/Gender.
Reeves (2023) is talking about more severe disciplinary actions when it comes to communities of low-income families and children of color (01) for minor behaviors almost similar to what their white classmates are doing. This imbalance in disciplinary patterns is not led by the conduct of various students but more by the biases of the system that create the disciplinary decisions (Reeves, 2023). African-American and Hispanic students in Ryan and Goodram’s (2013) research are shown to have the highest rate of severe disciplinary actions with respect to similar misbehaviors. While their colleagues are punished less severely for the same behaviors, these students face heavy penalties. Such a statement displays how much prejudice there is among the disciplinary systems in the academic institutions, as the labs on the African American students being more aggressive, and so get treated much harsher.
The works done by Kana’iaupuni and Gans(2005) and Mallet(2015) present the fact that there are several disadvantages of zero-tolerance policies. These acts create facts where students who were caught using or sharing breathers or more minor drugs ended up with actions much bigger than the offense, and these were cases of suspension or expulsion. These students could even end up in the juvenile system. According to Mallet (2015), this negates the perceived benefits of policies, as they increase dropout rates and delay graduation. Through this, it becomes evident that the policies designed for the betterment of the students’ lives may end up living their lives hard.
Reference:
Alamos, P., & Williford, A. P. (2023, August 11). A conceptual model to understand and address racial disparities in exclusionary discipline through teacher-child relationships. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S088520062300100X?fr=RR-2&ref=pdf_download&rr=8617a7377b583052
Heitzeg, N. A. (2008, November 30). Education Or Incarceration: Zero Tolerance Policies And The School To Prison Pipeline. Forum on Public Policy Online. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ870076
Kana’iaupuni, S. M., & Gans, M. (2005, February). How effective is zero tolerance? A brief review. https://www.ksbe.edu/assets/research/collection/05_0232_kanaiaupuni.pdf
Mallett, C. A. A. (2015, April 28). The School-to-Prison Pipeline: A Critical Review of the Punitive Paradigm Shift. SpringerLink. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10560-015-0397-1
National Assessment of Title I – Final Report. Institute of Education Sciences (IES) Home Page, a part of the U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/titlei_final/exhibits/exhibit_01.asp#:~:text=Key%20Provisions%20of%20the%20No%20Child%20Left%20Behind%20Act&text=States%20must%20implement%20annual%20state,9%2C%20and%2010%2D12
Reeves, S. (2023). Rethinking Exclusionary Practices. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 89(3), 35-39. http://152.12.30.4:2048/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/rethinking-exclusionary-practices/docview/2866893003/se-2
Reeves, S. (2023). Rethinking Exclusionary Practices. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 89(3), 35-39. http://152.12.30.4:2048/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/rethinking-exclusionary-practices/docview/2866893003/se-2
Ryan, T. G., & Goodram, B. (2013, December 1). The Impact of Exclusionary Discipline on Students. International Journal Of Progressive Education. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ijpe/issue/26322/277386
Smith, M. L. (2015). A generation at risk: The ties between Zero tolerance policies and the school-to-prison pipeline. DigitalCommons@EMU. https://commons.emich.edu/mcnair/vol8/iss1/10/
Wymer, S. C., Williford, A. P., & Lhospital, A. S. (2020). Exclusionary Discipline Practices in Early Childhood. YC Young Children, 75(3), 36–45. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26979163
write