CTJJA | Resource Details: Stamford Advocate: Suspension Rules

January 28th, 2008

Stamford Advocate

Suspension Rules

To the editor:

Your editorial on the state's new in-school suspension law (Jan. 22) paints a picture of school districts financially strapped by the demands of separating "trouble-making students," as you call them, from their classmates. You also call for more study to fully explore the ramifications of ending out-of-school suspensions.

Actually, there is already quite a bit of data on the issue. The facts suggest that the Legislature was wise in requiring municipalities to provide for in-school suspensions so that learning can continue (or perhaps start), and so that children are not at home unattended during the day. The behavior of many children currently suspended could have been addressed through less-drastic, more-effective measures.

For example, only 43 percent of suspensions or expulsions were for behavior the state Department of Education deemed "serious." The balance were school policy violations, including such offenses as having a cell phone in class. Many children are suspended for truancy. That's right - the punishment for not coming to school is not being allowed to come to school.

Whether a child is suspended may have more to do with where they are than what they do. A number of suburbs throughout the state suspended no students in 2006. More than 10 percent of the students in Bridgeport, New Haven and Hartford, however, were suspended or expelled last year. A student's risk of being suspended or expelled is also dramatically greater if the child is in special education, a male or a racial minority.

You object to the lack of state funding to finance in-school suspensions. Department of Education grants are available to school districts with large suspension problems to fund after-school programs, parental involvement, early reading success and other measures proven to prevent suspensions.

You argued that spending on these children diverts resources from their peers. On the contrary, when schools get their discipline problems under control, academic achievement rises for all children. And remember - suspension is a temporary measure. These children will return to their regular classrooms eventually. Out-of-school suspensions cause children to fall behind, which hampers an entire class from making progress.

Connecticut children missed 152,850 school days due to suspensions last year. That's 418 years! It's a number that casts a pall on our state's economic future and unconscionably limits the futures of our children. The Legislature got this one right.

Emily Tow Jackson

Abby Anderson

Wilton

Emily Tow Jackson is executive director of The Tow Foundation, a statewide funder of juvenile justice reform programs. Abby Anderson is executive director of the Connecticut Juvenile Justice Alliance.