Recent developments in school social control

Abstract

In the U.S., decisions regarding social control are increasingly modeled on two dominant institutions: the criminal justice and medical/healthcare systems. Sociologists and other scholars refer to this adoption of legal and/or medical terminology and technologies as criminalization and

Racial and Ethnic Identity, Gender, and School Suspension: Heterogeneous Effects Across Hispanic and Caribbean Subgroups

“…Several other limitations surrounding issues of measurement should be noted as well. First, the outcome of suspension from school represents only a single type of disciplinary response, and no information was available on such sanctions as expulsions (Owens and McLanahan 2020), office referrals (Rocque 2010), or restorative and “medicalized” behavioral responses (Ramey 2015; 2020). Second, the measure available in the FYSAS did not differentiate between in-school and out-of-school suspensions, which are distinct with regard to severity, frequency of use, and long-term consequences (Anyon et al 2014; Skiba et al 2011).…”

“…As part of a nationwide crackdown on school crime, reliance on exclusionary forms of discipline in the U.S. increased substantially over the past three decades, with educational institutions frequently using out-of-school suspensions, expulsions, and justice system referrals in response to student misbehavior (Hirschfield 2018; Ramey 2020). Indeed, even for minor forms of misconduct that otherwise might warrant informal, restorative, or “medicalized” sanctions (Ramey 2015), under zero tolerance policies teachers and administrators can employ punitive disciplinary actions designed to remove students from the school environment (Hirschfield 2008; Losen and Skiba 2010).…”

Controlling Defiance: An Examination of School Social Control in California School Districts

“…Children whose behavior meets the criteria for these conditions are considered eligible for individualized education plans (IEPs) that are designed to best provide them an appropriate education while hopefully limiting the amount of classroom disruption (Hinshaw and Scheffler 2014). While IEPs vary significantly across schools and districts and do not necessarily reflect “special education settings,” they do represent a medicalized approach to problem behaviors that often accompany criminalized disciplinary approaches like suspension and expulsion (Ramey 2020; Lavin 2016; Moody 2016).…”

“…Bans on willful defiance suspensions remove one option for handling minor misbehaviors that pose problems to the educational setting not posed by students with “average” behavior (Gerber and Semmel 1984). If schools cannot use suspension, they may instead identify children whose behavior could be characterized as defiant as needing services for symptoms of ADHD (e.g., hyperactivity, inattention, and low self-control) or related disorders (Ramey 2020; Hinshaw and Scheffler 2014). Consequently, as districts shift resources for dealing with “willful defiance” away from suspension, districts may experience increases in enrollment in behavioral IEPs (Hinshaw and Scheffler 2014).…”

“…Moreover, the effects of willful defiance suspension bans may spill over into other forms of social control, such as suspension for infractions other than willful defiance and special education placement. A large body of research demonstrates how schools are increasingly using medicalized social controls for childhood behavior problems, using medical terminology and strategies to describe and manage behaviors (Ramey 2015, 2020; Conrad 1992). Policies banning suspensions for defiance may limit the number of suspensions but may increase special education enrollment 1 as schools find other ways to manage behavior.…”