I have
wanted to write my next post on the Local Control Funding Formula, but I've decided to delay that
post to discuss a new Board resolution to do away with suspensions for willful
defiance that Matt Haney will propose as a first reading this coming Tuesday,
Dec 10th.
Right off the bat
let me say that I don't support this resolution because, first of all, it is central office meddling
in school site affairs. It was the Board that mandated Restorative Practices in all schools and if it is constructive in resolving conflict why the need for a limit on suspensions? In addition, it is also creating an inequity to the extent that it's more difficult for schools with fewer intervention resources to effectively moderate student behaviors compared to schools in the Superintendent Zones which have more counseling and other intervention resources. The District should respect the school staff to do what's right, a point that Richard Carranza made just this last summer at the Administrator's Institute, though I suspect he
probably supports this resolution anyway.
I acknowledge that the high number of suspensions of African American
students is a problem, but it is also as an embarrassment to a politically far-left District that views everything through the prism of statistical equity. No doubt, suspending students who, often times, end up on the streets is a lousy outcome.
I think we can all agree that suspensions ought to be a last resort to protect teachers, students and classrooms as a whole from frequent or extreme disruptions
to instructional time and quality and the District is rightfully obligated to assure suspension protocols aren't abused, though this resolution is something quite different. It is building a high bar for suspensions, but does nothing to increase services required to implement that bar.
I believe there are genuine
cultural issues which make some unwanted behaviors understandable in context of the difficult circumstances some students face. In response, some critics of the suspension limit would
say that the necessary self-discipline and structure necessary to to succeed in high school and successfully
enter the working force or attend college requires a clear code of behavior. Others point out that suspensions as a behavioral tool aren't generally successful for inculcating discipline
anyway. They say a school system cannot mandate behavior since education is a right in California and, therefore, the "system" must learn how
to engage students such that they enjoy to be in school - a commendable if tall order for sure. In fact, as tall orders go , this one is often ridiculous since some of the students who are habitually suspended are incorrigible.
Proponents
of the resolution cite statistics that show African American suspension rates at
approximately five times the district norm.
They maintain that this number reflects a racial bias and that removing
willful suspensions will rectify what is essentially a racist policy. I believe, though I'm not sure, that those
proponents, at least the less ideological ones who dig deeper than a politically-favorable statistical correlation to use as a truncheon, believe that the cultural component of behavior is critical in
understanding what they consider to be a soft racism in high African American suspension rates. I
cannot discount this idea as invalid, though it is a rationale not a solution for destructive behavior in class and as such it fails to advance students towards the skills and attitudes necessary to compete in a society that has fundamentally
different cultural requirements for mainstream employment and upward mobility. For example, sagging
in the black community is an acceptable dress code, but few employers will hire anyone
who doesn't comport with their standards of appropriate dress and sagging isn't one of them. The schools ought to promote standards that help not hinder student transition to adult life, whether that has to do with school dress code or, more importantly, the way students act and react to others when under stress. We can respect each other's differences and at the same time require a universal code of conduct. No school administrator anywhere in the world will tell you that a school can be run without a code of conduct or that conduct can be controlled without enforcement.
School isn't
only about learning the core curriculum. It's about learning to get along and go along. Disruptive and defiant students should not be allowed
to remain in the classroom regardless of the reason why they can't or won't change their behavior. Administrators
need to be given the discretion and have the confidence of their superiors to do what is appropriate for the benefit of their schools, even if it means suspending students for willful defiance. If District officials want site administrators to refrain from suspending students that's OK in certain less egregious circumstances as long as they don't insist that defiant students be placed in the regular classroom. Provide an in-school alternative to suspension and provide the services these students need. This resolution speaks to the arrogance of the Board in lording over the more experienced site administrators. Mandating a suspension protocol without providing the tools necessary is irresponsible and pointless.
If Restorative Practices are beneficial for moderating conduct, why does SFUSD need to make it more difficult to suspend students when site administrators deem it appropriate? We have to ask ourselves whether our leaders are interested in preserving the integrity of the school as an institution of learning or whether the leaders just want to do what is politically correct and equalize suspension statistics? Or is it all just about getting the maximum ADA. One way or another, if suspensions are to be used only after a long list of other interventions have been exhausted, SFUSD will have to provide the financing necessary to implement those supports or their resolution will surely fail when administrators find themselves at their wit's .end to comply with another central office mandate.
.