Concerning Discipline
Examining Differences in Disciplinary Practices Between Charter and Traditional Public Schools
Do charter schools disproportionately use harsher disciplinary practices—particularly exclusionary practices—than traditional public schools? In recent years, this has become a particular concern among researchers, policymakers, and the media (Denice, Gross, & Rausch, 2015; Kern & Kim, 2016). A cover story headline in Education Week, for example, announced: “Charter schools’ discipline policies face scrutiny” (Zubrzycki, Cavanagh, & McNeil, 2013, p. 1). The article was accompanied by a large graphic that compared suspension and expulsion rates in charters and neighborhood schools in some of the country’s largest school districts. This increasing concern, however, has produced few empirical analyses (Johnson et al., 2016).
The attention to charter school disciplinary practices stems from a concern about exclusionary discipline more generally (Denice et al., 2015). Exclusionary discipline is commonly understood to mean any disciplinary action that removes or excludes students from their usual educational setting (Kern & Kim, 2016).
Although these practices have a place—particularly in creating safe learning environments—they have at least two significant downsides for excluded students: loss of learning opportunities and long term negative consequences, such as increased likelihood of dropping out or coming into contact with the criminal justice system (Black, 2016; Curran, 2019; Kern & Kim, 2016; Perry & Morris, 2014; Skiba, Arredondo, & Williams, 2014). Such consequences have compelled school leaders and policy makers to consider alternatives to exclusionary discipline (Gross, Tuchman, & Yatsko, 2016).
The notion that charter schools would disproportionately engage in such practices runs counter to the expectation of these public schools of choice. From the beginning, charter schools were intended, among other things, to serve as laboratories for innovation, providing opportunities for the larger public school sector to learn and improve (Johnson et al., 2016). If charters are instead relying on disciplinary practices that are increasingly proving inefficacious, that means they are at least failing in their intent of innovation and, worse, potentially causing harm to students.