The Urban Review

, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp 245–303 | Cite as

Student suspension: A critical reappraisal

  • Shi-Chang Wu
  • William Pink
  • Robert Crain
  • Oliver Moles
Article

Abstract

This paper analyzes national level data, gathered for the Safe School Study, to directly address the question, “Why are students suspended from school?” Data are available on students in both junior and senior high schools from a representative sample of the nation's schools. Using a range of analytical techniques, the paper attempts to tease out the relationships between (1) student misbehavior at varying types of schools and suspension rates, (2) the effects of teacher judgments and attitudes, (3) the effect of administrative structures, (4) the effect of perceived academic potential, and (5) the effect of racial bias. It is concluded that suspension rates cannot be regarded as a simple reflection of student misbehavior in school, but rather as the result of a complex of factors grounded in the ways schools operate. Suspension rates are best predicted by (1) knowing the kind of school a student went to, and (2) knowing how that school was run.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Edelman, M. W., Beck, R., and Smith, P.V.School Suspensions: Are They Helping Children? Cambridge, Mass.: Children's Defense Fund, 1975.Google Scholar
  2. Garibaldi, A. M. (Ed.).In-School Alternatives to Suspension: Conference Report. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1979.Google Scholar
  3. Hargreaves, D.Social Relations in a High School. New York: Humanities Press, 1967.Google Scholar
  4. Kelly, D. H., & Pink, W. R. School commitment, youth rebellion and delinquency,Criminology. 1973,10 (4), 473–485.Google Scholar
  5. Lines, P. M. The case against short suspensions. InDiscipline and Learning: An Inquiry into Student-Teacher Relationship (Rev. ed.). Washington, D. C.: National Education Association, 1977.Google Scholar
  6. Mizell, M. H. Designing and implementing in-school alternatives to suspension.The Urban Review, 1978,10 (3), 213–226.Google Scholar
  7. National Institute of Education.Violent Schools-Safe Schools. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1978.Google Scholar
  8. Neill, S. B.Suspension and Expulsion: Current Trends in School Policies and Programs. Arlington, Va.: National School Public Relations Association, 1976.Google Scholar
  9. Pink, W. T. Rebellion and success in the high school.Contemporary Education, 1978, LXIX (2), 78–84.Google Scholar
  10. Polk, K., & Schafer, W.Schools and Delinquency. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1972.Google Scholar
  11. Rubel, R. J.The Unruly School: Disorder, Disruptions, and Crimes. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1977.Google Scholar
  12. Schafer, W. E., & Olexa, C.Tracking and Opportunity. Scranton, Pa.: Chandler Publishing Co., 1971.Google Scholar
  13. Stinchcombe, A. L.Rebellion in a High School. Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1964.Google Scholar
  14. United States Senate Subcommittee to investigate Juvenile Delinquency.School Violence and Vandalism: Models and Strategies for Change. Hearing Before the Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency of Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 94th Congress. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1976.Google Scholar
  15. Williams, J. In-school alternatives to suspension: Why bother? In: A. M. Garibaldi (Ed.),In-School Alternatives to Suspension: Conference Report. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1979.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Agathon Press, Inc 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shi-Chang Wu
    • 1
  • William Pink
    • 2
  • Robert Crain
    • 3
  • Oliver Moles
    • 4
  1. 1.Johns Hopkins UniversityUSA
  2. 2.University of Nebraska at OmahaUSA
  3. 3.Johns Hopkins UniversityUSA
  4. 4.National Institute of EducationUSA

Personalised recommendations