There is no evidence that exclusionary discipline â removing children from learning settings as a form of discipline â is associated with beneficial positive short or long-term outcomes. Yet, exclusionary discipline is still widespread, starts early in children's educational trajectories, and is disproportionately applied to Black and Indigenous children, boys, and children with disabilities, with children who hold multiple of these identities being impacted the most. State and local discipline policies drive many decisions about exclusionary discipline in schools. These policies have the potential to exacerbate inequities or promote equity in discipline. Despite the large quantity of state discipline policies, little is known about the quality of these policies across the nation.
This brief examines the content of state exclusionary discipline policies in pre-kindergarten through 12th grade to date. We conduct a descriptive analysis of specific dimensions of policies in four areas:
1. behavior incidents,
2. limitations on exclusion by grade,
3. limitations on exclusion by duration, and
4. access to alternatives to harsh discipline.
Findings:
Our review of behavior incident policies found that 40 states allowed students to be excluded for defiant or disruptive behavior (a category known to be racially biased).
30 states had some kind of exclusion limit, the most common limit being for children in lower grades. However, there was a rise in exceptions to limits on exclusion between 2018 and 2023.
18 states and Washington, D.C. banned student exclusion for absenteeism/truancy, but four states still allow this practice.
State discipline policies do not tend to address limits for less severe forms of exclusion, such as in-school suspension.
A total of 39 states adopted alternatives to discipline policies, with 26 additional states adopting these policies over the last 5 years.
PBIS, counseling, and restorative justice emerged as the most common alternatives to discipline.
Takeaways:
Far too many states allow students to be suspended or expelled for defiance or disruptive behavior. However, states like California, Washington, D.C., and North Carolina are leading the way by limiting exclusion for these subjective behavior categories.
The number of states that have adopted policies requiring or recommending positive alternatives to exclusionary discipline has more than doubled in the last 5 years.
Exclusionary and disproportionate discipline remain a problem in pre-Kâ12 education, and state policies play a key role in shaping if, how, and when exclusionary discipline is used. A robust research base indicates that Black children, children with disabilities, boys, and in some cases, other children of color are disproportionately subject to these harsh tactics with severe short and long-term negative outcomes.56 States fail children, teachers, and families when their policies do not adequately address harsh discipline and its disproportionate impact. This report goes beyond examining whether or not states have a policy on exclusionary discipline and explores the types of state exclusionary discipline policies and changes in these policies over time. We found that many areas need to be improved to holistically address discipline disparities across behavior incident exclusion policies, age and length limits on exclusion, and alternatives to harsh discipline. Future research is needed to examine if and how the quality of these state discipline policies is related to rates of discipline, disparities, and child outcomes.
