Healthcare, Australia (Commonwealth Union) – School expulsions, the act of permanently removing a student from an educational institution, continue to be a contentious issue in the world of education. While many argue that expulsions are necessary to maintain order and discipline, others contend that they disproportionately affect certain groups of students and contribute to a cycle of social inequality. The reasons for expulsions vary widely, but some of the most common include chronic absenteeism, academic underachievement, drug and alcohol use, and violent or disruptive behavior. While each of these issues can pose a significant challenge to educators, it is essential to consider the underlying causes and potential solutions before resorting to expulsion.
Alternatives to expulsion in light of the potential consequences of expulsion, is where many educators and policymakers are seeking alternative approaches to addressing challenging student behavior. These may include restorative justice practices, which emphasize repairing harm and building relationships rather than punishment, or positive behavioral interventions and supports, which focus on creating a supportive and inclusive school environment.
Dealing with challenging student behavior stands as a perennial hurdle for schools, marked by its persistence, complexity, and contentiousness. Despite earnest efforts to foster an inclusive and punishment-free educational environment, the prevalence of school suspensions and expulsions persists as indicated in new research.
Fresh findings from the University of South Australia (UniSA) shed light on the ineffectiveness of exclusionary measures, revealing their failure to pinpoint the underlying causes of troublesome behaviors in students. Instead of addressing and resolving these issues, such practices tend to amplify negative outcomes.
Professor Anna Sullivan, spearheading the research at UniSA, emphasizes the tough choices schools must grapple with regarding suspensions and expulsions.
Professor Sullivan notes that suspensions and expulsions have long been the go-to methods for managing behavior in schools, despite research indicating their ineffectiveness in addressing disciplinary issues. In fact, these punitive measures have been linked to various negative health outcomes, such as alienation from school, association with antisocial peers, alcohol and tobacco use, and a diminished quality of school life. This, in turn, heightens the likelihood of dropping out and engaging in unlawful activities.
She further pointed out that of particular concern is the disproportionate impact on vulnerable student groups, exacerbating their already challenging circumstances. Boys, Aboriginal students, those from low socioeconomic backgrounds, and students with disabilities are disproportionately affected by exclusionary practices.
Professor Sullivan also emphasized that there exists a notable oversight regarding how these disciplinary actions perpetuate broader social disparities. It’s crucial for schools and policymakers to shift focus from merely addressing behaviors to understanding their underlying causes. This deeper understanding is essential for crafting new, more effective school policies.
Researchers analyzing the recently reviewed NSW Student Behaviour Strategy discovered that despite increased support and management for behavior, punitive practices still persisted in the new iterations.
Professor Sullivan emphasized the detrimental impact of suspensions and expulsions on students, highlighting the restriction imposed on their educational opportunities and the subsequent limitation on their life prospects. He pointed out the discriminatory nature of these exclusion policies, particularly affecting vulnerable groups.
She further indicated that moreover, instances were noted where students with disabilities, some requiring prescribed medications, faced exclusion from school under the pretext of existing problems. This trend reflects a concerning pattern where exclusion is seen as a convenient solution due to schools lacking the necessary time, expertise, or resources to address complex behavioral needs effectively.
“Adding to such deficit thinking is removing a ‘problem child’ from the learning environment of others. Instead of helping these students, the policies are exacerbating their struggles.
“What we need is more listening, more empathy to students at risk, and a willingness to challenge the impact of wider social inequalities including poverty, race, housing, and unemployment on the most vulnerable people in society. These things do not operate in isolation; they affect families and children and cannot simply be left at the school gate.
“It’s time to look afresh at the complex and challenging circumstances in which many young people find themselves. Only then can we hope to create a more inclusive and fair education system.”
In light of the findings a case-by-case approach might also be needed to be taken into serious consideration. Quite often personal challenges can reflect a student’s behaviour hence greater involvement by school councilors might also be a move to be considered.
