I spent a large chunk of today writing a paper for my educational psychology course, so I decided to throw it in here in case anyone was interested in reading it. It’s about the effects of school suspensions on antisocial behavior. I titled this paper “The Toxic Medication.” As you’re reading it, keep in mind that I had to follow a very specific rubric, so the paper might not be as fulfilling as a standard analysis paper might be.

“It’s for your own good.” Adolescents hear it all the time, and sure, the motive might be there, but do the results really reflect our intentions? For example, what if a nurturing mother somehow found medication for her terminally ill daughter and fed her a pill every day, but didn’t realize that this medication was actually toxic and was only making her daughter’s situation worse? As described by Hemphill, Toumbourou, Herrenkohl, McMorris, and Catalano in “The Effect of School Suspensions and Arrests on Subsequent Adolescent Antisocial Behavior in Australia and the United States,” this exact problem is being reflected onto the American system for discipline. Academic administrators are handing out out-of-school suspensions thinking this will stop deviant behavior, but seemingly have not yet realized that these suspensions are only making the situation worse.

The study conducted in “The Effects of School Suspensions…” focused on two different cultures – the American culture from Washington, USA and the Victorian culture from Australia – and how each region’s style of punishment affected future antisocial behavior. The differences were clear: Washington state took a “zero tolerance approach … toward preventing school violence,” while Victorian schools put emphasis on “ensuring that disciplinary actions do not negatively affect students’ studies” (737). In this longitudinal study, researchers documented how students experiencing each form of punishment ended up in the future when it came to antisocial behavior.

When gauging students’ antisocial behavior, the researchers listed specific actions that they consider antisocial behavior, such as if the students had “carried a weapon, stolen something worth more than $5 (U.S.) or $10 (Australia), attacked someone with the idea of seriously hurting them, sold illegal drugs, stole or tried to steal a motor vehicle….” I found this to be a strength of the experiment, both as a method of allowing the participants to fully understand about what the survey was inquiring, and as a method of keeping responses consistent throughout the span of the longitudinal study.

As a conclusion of the study, the researchers determined by comparing American and Australian students that out of all the potential risk factors and preventive factors (which are things that may either increase or decrease the amount of engagement in antisocial behavior, respectively), out-of-school suspensions led to the most subsequent antisocial behavior. Hypotheses for this conclusion include a possibility of “students who experience suspension rebel[ling] by engaging in further antisocial behavior,” “disconnect[ing] them from a positive social environment and increase[ing] their exposure to other risk factors,” and “promoting interaction between like-minded deviant young people” (741). I believe all these hypotheses are valid and all point to the same conclusion that acts as the root of the problem: out-of-school suspensions are essentially broken.

How exactly can something like a method of punishment be broken? Clearly, if something is broken, it does not properly serve its purpose, so we have to take a look at the goals of punishment. In universal criminal law, the three main goals of punishment are deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation.

Deterrence is the act of preventing the actor or those around him/her from partaking in the activity that caused the punishment. To be deterrent, a punishment must be something undesirable. Is out-of-school suspension undesirable? In reality, for most people who receive out-of-school suspensions, it is probably the polar opposite. Those engaging in antisocial behavior in school are most likely unfocused on academics and do not even wish to be at school in the first place. “Forcing” them to leave school for a defined amount of time is better stated as giving them permission to avoid something they dislike. If anything, out-of-school suspensions have a negatively reinforcing effect (removing something one does not like) rather than a deterring effect. The only people out-of-school suspensions are deterring are the academically sound observers who have a stronger sense of order and would not engage in antisocial behavior in the first place.

Retribution is the act of giving back to the victim what (s)he has lost, or compensating him/her for his/her suffering. For the victim, is watching the offender leave school for a few days really an effective form of retribution? Of course, minimizing exposure to the offender would bring comfort to the victim, but that peace of mind is short-lived because suspensions don’t last forever.

Finally, rehabilitation is the act of restoring an offender to a crime-free lifestyle. As already previously stated, out-of-school suspensions ultimately only create more opportunities for these offenders to engage in more antisocial behavior, rather than changing their ways. Instead of helping offenders and guiding them towards better behavior, we are abandoning them and letting them continue down the wrong path. In summary, out-of-school suspensions fail to meet all three goals of punishment.

Another way in which we may be damaging American high schoolers by using out-of-school suspensions is the fact that academic administrators rarely look in to (and generally don’t have the time to analyze) each individual offender’s personality. As stated by Laurence Steinberg in Adolescence, Ninth Edition, according to a 2006 publication by psychologist Terrie Moffitt, we can distinguish between two different types of offenders: life-course-persistent and adolescence-limited. Life-course-persistent offenders show antisocial behavior starting from before adolescence and have a high chance of continuing antisocial behavior into adulthood, while adolescence-limited offenders both start and end antisocial behavior during adolescence. Without determining what style of offender a delinquent is, we may essentially be worsening the circumstances surrounding adolescence-limited offenders. Imposing excessive punishment on adolescent-limited offenders may give them the false impression that they are destined to be criminals, even though “the offenses committed by these youngsters do not develop into serious criminality, and these individuals do not commit serious violations of the law after adolescence” (Steinberg 424).

The implications of the findings of this study are clear. Academic administrators in the United States should alter their model of punishment to be more similar to those in other nations – Australia, for example. There are an abundant number of alternatives to out-of-school suspension that have minimal disadvantages. For example, closely related to out-of-school suspensions are in-school suspensions. Keeping the offender in school will not only deter him/her from engaging in additional antisocial behavior while out of school during suspension, it will also keep him/her engaged in the academic community by requiring attendance at school. Even detentions or community service would be more effective, as it orders offenders to spend more free time studying or serving the community. Overall, all effective forms of punishment make sure that the students are spending more time doing moral, ethical, or future-beneficial things rather than cutting them off from the school – something that out-of-school suspensions do not do. It’s time to stop poisoning our adolescents.

So Far in 2011…

Number of Taco Bell tacos eaten: 24

Number of times I did my own laundry: 3