children out of school in america - University of Tennessee Digital ...

Arguments (verbal confrontations):
I. Insulting teacher
(and fighting); talking back 28
2. Disrespect of authority figure
(principal or teacher) 3
3. Disagreement with teacher 10
4. Swore at teacher 5
5. Argument between srudents 3
6. Calling other student bad name 1
Other Reasons:
I. Smoking
2. Punishment-related
3. Destruction of Property
4. Dress Codes
5. Drugs and Alcohol
6. Miscellaneous
.1 We have no information on the reasons 35 children, or 5.6
percent, were suspended.
Reasons for Suspension:
From School Officials
50 8.5
33
24
10
3
2
27
16.8
The most frequently stated official rationale for
suspensions was as "a tool to get parents in."14 "To
get the parents in. "15 "Sometimes it's the only way
to get the parents to come to school and deal with
the problem."16 One official said that he uses suspensions
as a way to force a face to face confrontation
with a parent. 17 When temporary, short-term
suspensions are used, one superintendent said, it is
usually done to get parents to come to school for a
conference. 18 "An attempt to get the parent in."'9
Suspension, in one principal's opinion, is a necessary
tool, especially useful to pressure parents. 20
"We use it to precipitate a crisis."21 ',[It'S] a procedure
to get parents involved."22 "When you inconvenience
the parents, they jolly well bring the
kids into line."23
14 Interview with Donald Genera, Principal, Baker Junior
High School, Denver, Colorado, 11/6/73.
15 Interview with Harold Scott, Principal, Smiley Junior
High School, Denver, Colorado, 11/7/73.
99
To communicate with parents is a weak reed to
justify Ihe serious step of throwing a child out of
school. Surely there are other ways to involve parents.
For example, school systems might hire social
or community workers to relate to parents and children
who have discipline problems. It is a sad indictment
of our schools that their leaders' imaginations
do not extend beyond punishing the child to
reach the parents. This suspension rationale is
further weakened by the numerous instances when
no parent conference is ever held following a suspension.
Whatever problem provoked the exclusion
is not discussed in person with parents. Thirty-three
percent of the suspended children we surveyed returned
to school alone without any parent-official
conference. There was little indication that the
parent-child conference, even when conducted, was
designed to di cuss the child's problem and plan for
future prevention as opposed to discussion of the
immediate infraction. One principal was asked about
the purpose of such conferences:
Q. Is it a conference to verify the facts supporting
this suspension, or is it more a conference
to determine future placement?
A. No, because almost always placement is right
back where they are. It is to communicate
with the parent, as part of my responsibility,
the problem that exists and ask for their help.
We inform them and then find out what directions
we can take that will eliminate the need
for further problems. 24
16 Interview with William Mangan, Dean, Achievement
School, Rindge Technical High School, Cambridge, Massachusells,
11/29/73.
17 Interview with Robert L. Jones, Principal, Baldwin Junior
High School. Montgomery, Alabama, 1111/74.
18 Interview with Dr. William S. Garrell, Superintendent of
Schools, Montgomery, Alabama, 1/7/74.
19 Interview witb Thomas C. Pallerson, Principal, Chisholm
Elementary School, Montgomery, Alabama, 1/10/74.
20 Interview with Dan Murphy, Principal, Lincoln Junior
High Scbool, Portland, Maine, 10/24/73.
21 Interview with Donald Hale, Principal, Deering High
School, Portland, Maine, 10/24/73.
22 Interview with Edwin C. Riddle, Superintendent of
Schools, Autauga County, Alabama, 2/74.
23 Interview witb Edward Moriarity, Principal, Holyoke
High School, Holyoke, Massachusells, 12/13/73.
24 Amicus Brief of the Children's Defense Fund filed in
Goss v. Lopez, in the United States Supreme Court, October
Term, 1973, Civil Action No. 73-898, p. II.
121