Breaking the culture of school suspension: alternatives to external suspension and exclusion for P-6 students

ABSTRACT

Exclusionary school discipline practices have long been used to address challenging behaviours by students. However, a considerable body of research exists to refute that school disciplinary absences lead to improvements in student behaviour. Evidence suggests that exclusionary discipline has negative consequences for individuals, with suspensions and exclusions predicting involvement with the juvenile justice and criminal justice systems, known as the school-to-prison pipeline. Further evidence suggests that school disciplinary absences are disproportionately applied to Black, Indigenous and People of Colour (BIPOC) students and students with disability. We conducted a systematic literature review on alternatives to exclusionary discipline to determine their applicability to a P-6 context in Queensland, Australia. Three main alternative approaches emerged: socio-emotional learning (SEL) programs, the Positive Behaviour Interventions and Supports framework (PBIS), and Restorative Justice Practices (RJP). Limitations around the generalisability of the large body of international research to a Queensland, Australia context exist. The approach with the greatest potential in our specific context is PBIS, and recommendations around avenues for future research are made.

KEYWORDS:

• School discipline
• suspension
• exclusion
• alternatives
• student behaviour

Introduction

When responding to challenging student behaviour, historically schools have resorted to school disciplinary absences (SDA), namely external school suspensions and exclusions, over other consequences, removing students from the learning environment temporarily or permanently (Freeman 2007). However, decades of research have examined the need to teach appropriate and expected behaviours to students, as we would if a student failed to meet an academic expectation. It has been long-established that SDAs do not teach students how to behave appropriately (Dupper 1998). In this paper, we explore the literature describing three potential alternatives to SDAs currently being implemented in schools to determine which approach may be successfully implemented in Queensland, Australia, to reduce the reliance on SDA as a disciplinary consequence and improve student outcomes. The Queensland education system is based on two levels – Primary (Prep to Grade 6) and High School (Grade 7 to Grade 12). Given the significant body of evidence that suggests that the younger a student is when they are first subject to SDA, the more likely it is they will end up involved in the juvenile justice system, it is pertinent to address SDA use in primary schools in Queensland (Anyon et al. 2014; Vanderhaar, Munoz, and Petrosko 2014; Yang et al. 2018).

The over-reliance on SDAs over the past several decades arose from an approach to drug enforcement in the USA in the 1980s (Skiba 2008). In response to a rise in school violence in the USA in the early 1990s, educators adopted the term zero tolerance within policies that mandated consequences for behaviours that were predetermined (Skiba 2008). These policies became increasingly widespread following the US federal Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994 that stated that students must be excluded for a minimum of one year for any offences involving firearms (Curran 2016). However, it was soon widened to include other forms of weapons and by the end of the decade had expanded to cover other behavioural infractions (Curran 2016). The zero-tolerance approach was adopted in Australia following a longstanding convention of adopting policy from abroad, amid rising concern over the growing number of students exhibiting challenging behaviours (Taylor and Kearney 2018).

Zero tolerance approaches

The zero-tolerance approach to school discipline is defined as a pre-determined set of consequences for a behavioural incident without consideration of the context or circumstances (Findlay 2008). Proponents for zero-tolerance argue that these mandated pre-determined sanction policies increase consistency of school discipline, create a school climate more conducive to learning by removal of disruptive students, deter other students from engaging in similar behaviours, and have overwhelming parental support (Curran 2016). However, there is no conclusive empirical evidence to support these assertions, with a significant body of evidence purporting the harms these policies cause (Curran 2016; Kittelman, McIntosh, and Hoselton 2019; Nasir et al. 2013; Skiba 2008). These zero-tolerance policies fail to take into account individualised circumstances including the presence of disability or trauma; instead, educators are required to implement mandatory consequences for particular behaviours without consideration of any other factors, which fails to comply with reasonable accommodations/adjustments required through legislation (Evans and Lester 2012). Researchers have identified a connection between SDA due to behavioural infractions and the likelihood of being arrested; coined the school-to-prison pipeline (Monohan et al. 2014), this phenomenon highlights the serious need for investigation into evidence-based alternatives to exclusionary discipline practices.

School-to-prison pipeline

There is a significant body of evidence that suggests that students who are suspended or excluded due to behaviours of concern in the early years of schooling are significantly more likely to be suspended in high school, disengage from education, and enter the juvenile justice system (Anyon et al. 2014; Vanderhaar, Munoz, and Petrosko 2014; Yang et al. 2018). One study found that students were more likely to be suspended in middle or high school if they had been suspended in the early years, kindergarten or first grade, leading to a significant gap in academic knowledge and increasing likelihood of disengagement (Yang et al. 2018). SDAs in the first two years of formal schooling were found to be significant predictors of future suspensions, indicating a need to address suspension predictors in the early years in an attempt to prevent future school exclusionary discipline and disrupting the school-to-prison pipeline (Yang et al. 2018).

Disproportionality in school disciplinary absences

School disciplinary absences have historically been applied disproportionately to marginalised groups, particularly Black, Indigenous, and People of Colour (BIPOC), and students with disability; these students are disciplined more severely for the same behaviours exhibited by other, non-marginalised students (Anyon et al. 2014; Camacho et al. 2022; Fenning et al. 2012). There has been found to be a significant correlation between the implementation of zero-tolerance approaches to school discipline and larger increases in suspension rates for BIPOC students compared to white students (Curran 2016). These higher rates of SDA applied to BIPOC students is a direct correlation to the disproportionately high rates of incarceration of BIPOC individuals (Henry et al. 2022).

Whilst most of the existing literature is focused on students in the United States, similar patterns of disciplinary consequences being disproportionately applied to First Nations’ students resulting in higher incarceration rates exist in Australia (O’Brien and Trudgett 2020), with First Nations’ children comprising approximately 7% of the total population of 10–17- year-olds in Queensland yet 55% of individuals involved with the juvenile justice system (Queensland Family and Child Commission 2021). Additionally, there has been found to be a greater rate of SDA increases for First Nations’ students in the primary years compared to non-First Nations’ students in Australia, prompting a need to examine school disciplinary policies in the early years to address this inequity (O’Brien and Trudgett 2020).

With respect to students with disability, the disproportionately high application of SDAs also has the potential to face legal challenges when considering the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Australian Government [Federal Register of Legislation] 2018) in Australia, and how this impacts the rights of individuals to equitable access to education (Armstrong 2021). The application of SDAs to problem behaviour incidents involving students with disability has been an identified issue for decades (Bain and Macpherson 1990), yet interventions to address these issues are still not consistently well understood amongst educators and will be unlikely to succeed unless schools undertake systemic attitudinal changes to educating students with disability (Armstrong 2021). Disabilities often first present themselves in the early years (Gleason et al. 2016), meaning alternatives to SDAs aimed at students in primary schools may have a great deal of potential to address the subsequent school-to-prison pipeline issue.

Purpose of the present study

Schools in parts of the USA (e.g. the state of Michigan) are increasingly moving away from SDA and punitive consequences for students who violate school rules or policies, and school administrators now acknowledge that SDAs should be a last resort when dealing with problem behaviours (Green, Maynard, and Stegenga 2017; Zakszeski and Rutherford 2021). School administrators are currently seeking viable alternatives to external punitive consequences for students to promote continual engagement in education and provide useful supports for students at-risk, rather than engage in punitive actions when dealing with challenging student behaviours (Ryan and Zoldy 2011).

In this study, we examined the current body of research regarding the alternatives to school disciplinary absences in the Prep to Grade 6 age groups to determine whether there are viable alternatives and how they can be implemented in primary schools in Queensland, Australia. We posed two questions. First, what are the current alternatives to exclusionary discipline policies in schools? Second, have the current alternatives to exclusionary discipline policies identified in this study demonstrated successful outcomes in reducing the time students spend outside of the classroom in response to behavioural issues?

Method

A systematic review of literature

A systematic review was undertaken, following the structure outlined in the pre-established reporting elements for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) (Liberati et al. 2009). This review was conducted during March and April 2023, with the PRISMA model adopted to ensure the comprehensiveness of the review and the relevance of the literature. Systematic reviews are designed to aid the researcher to objectively interpret and examine the immense amount of available research on a given topic and provide the opportunity to identify knowledge gaps in a way that can be replicated by others (Caldwell and Bennett 2020).

A search protocol was used to compile the studies to be examined as the first step in conducting the systematic review (Furlan and Irvin 2022). The databases searched for the review were ProQuest Education Collection and Scopus. These databases were selected due to the wide scope of the research presented in them, providing access to a large body of research. The search was guided by a well-constructed choice of search terms allowing for the identification of the most relevant studies while decreasing the number of irrelevant studies included in the results (Caldwell and Bennett 2020). The search was restricted to the last 10 years to ensure currency of any evidence-based approaches adopted to reduce SDAs (2013–2023).

Search terms

The search terms used were (alternatives) AND title (suspen* OR exclu*) AND (school), with studies only being considered for inclusion if they were in English. The search was run by title, abstract and keywords, with the middle search terms (suspen* OR exclu*) required to be present in the title of the article. The search terms were chosen in order to obtain literature specifically related to the research questions.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The following inclusion criteria were determined when selecting documents for the systematic review:

• Language: due to the monolinguistic abilities of the authors, studies were restricted to the English language. All other studies were excluded, even if the abstracts had been published in English.

• Format: only articles from peer-reviewed scholarly journals were included to maintain the integrity of the information reviewed.

• Participants: only studies that focused on students who had been suspended or excluded from school as a method of discipline were included. Studies that examined social exclusion or educational exclusion (such as may apply to students with disabilities in segregated classrooms) were removed from the review.

• Topic: studies were limited to those that proposed and implemented an alternative to exclusionary discipline practices as a consequence for negative behaviours.

• Type of research: due to the nature of the systematic review being about viable alternatives to exclusionary discipline, only studies that included data around the success/failure of the alternative practice were included.

Using the parameters described above, studies were selected and exported to Endnote where duplicate studies were identified and removed based on the digital object identifier (DOI). The articles were screened to ensure they complied with the above criteria and articles that did not meet them were removed. Figure 1 shows the results captured.

Figure 1. PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for systematic review (Page et al. 2021).

Analysis of findings

A thematic analysis was undertaken to identify and analyse patterns within the studies included in the review. A thematic analysis’ purpose is to organise the data to allow for particular themes to emerge with respect to alternatives to suspension (Braun and Clarke 2006). Studies were grouped into three overarching alternative disciplinary approaches in schools: the implementation of a Socio-Emotional Learning (SEL) curriculum or intervention space, Restorative Justice Practices (RJP), and the Positive Behaviour Interventions and Supports (PBIS) framework. A fourth category was also identified, an ‘Other studies’ category. An analysis of the literature surrounding each of these themes will be presented in the Discussion section of this paper.

Discussion

This review provides a snapshot of the current literature describing alternatives to exclusionary school discipline that have been implemented over the last decade. Most of the literature (N = 9) describes interventions from the United States, with the remaining five studies conducted in either the United Kingdom or Israel. The final three studies considered the opinions of staff and students, an intervention aimed at teachers and an analysis of school policy changes over time and the impact of these changes on exclusionary school discipline.

Socio-emotional learning

Four studies identified in the review focused on developing students’ socio-emotional skills, either through a specific program that was introduced as part of the curriculum, or through working individually in an intervention space to allow students to develop self-regulation strategies and avoid the problem behaviours. Baroni et al. (2020) examined the Monarch Room (MR) intervention, a trauma-informed alternative to school discipline and SDA. This study involved 620 adolescent girls who each had some involvement with the court system, either through juvenile justice or out-of-home-care. It identified that exclusionary discipline was a major problem for students as young as preschool age, with greater than 7,500 students in this age group being suspended or excluded from school in the USA during 2011–2012. The MR initiative comes from the perspective of trauma-informed school discipline and acknowledges the risk factors for SDAs being applied to students with disability or those living in poverty.

Baroni et al. (2020) state that students who have experienced SDAs are three times more likely to experience contact with the juvenile justice system within one year of the SDA than those who are not suspended or excluded. The researchers posit that students with multiple SDAs are more frequently absent from school leading to a decrease in academic performance and an increased propensity to disconnect from school. This disconnect is a significant contributor to higher school dropout rates due to academic disadvantage, therefore it can be seen that the application of SDAs is a direct contributor to increased school dropout (Baroni et al. 2020). The researchers identified that there was currently no evidence-based trauma-informed alternative to exclusionary discipline in schools; the MR was designed using a trauma-informed theoretical model and sensory-integration theory to maximise the time that students spent in the classroom. Baroni et al. (2020) further assert that the MR is viewed by staff and students as supportive, not punitive. The staff, trained in counselling and trauma-informed, aim to help students make connections between their sensory states, thoughts, feelings, and subsequent behaviours.

Baroni et al. (2020) used a quantitative approach to measure the impact of the MR on girls in an alternative learning environment, with 44% involved in the juvenile justice system and 56% in the foster system due to abuse or neglect. The purpose of the MR intervention was to promote socio-emotional regulation and help the girls’ self-regulation by providing individuals with brief (~10 minutes) de-escalation support when they were experiencing emotional distress or engaging in disruptive behaviour (Baroni et al. 2020). The strategies used include problem-solving, talk therapy and sensorimotor activities. The visits are documented with the trigger/reason for the visit, strategies used, and staff accessed, with data reviewed weekly.

Students used the MR on average five times per year, more BIPOC students than white students accessed the space, and Grade 9 students were the highest users of the MR. Baroni et al. (2020) commented that success in Grade 9 is a predictor of future high school graduation, so the MR allowed students to remain in class more often, potentially influencing future graduation rates. They also discovered that the introduction of the MR led to a decrease in the use of SDAs as a method of school discipline. It was also inferred that SDAs can sometimes reinforce the behaviour when its function is to escape/avoid something and can thus exacerbate challenging behaviours. The program was successful in helping students to develop their socio-emotional regulation skills; however, a limitation was that there was no comparison group, so it was impossible to determine if the decreased levels of SDAs were solely due to the MR initiative.

An earlier published study by Crosby et al. (2018) involved a convergent parallel mixed methods follow-up analysis on the MR initiative. It involved 71 students that were part of the original study and examined changes in MR usage over time over the course of the year. It broke the year into trimesters and reported that the time spent in the MR was highest in the middle trimester. The researchers theorised that this was possibly due to the academic demands of students increasing in the middle of the year, with students also having had time to build relationships with the staff in the MR; students with trauma often struggle with trust and interpersonal relationships (Crosby et al. 2018). The time spent in the MR significantly decreased in the third trimester, due to new skill development of students and thus a decreased need for a de-escalation space. Furthermore, the majority of students and staff believed the MR was positive, although some students identified that it could be seen as a ‘crutch’ open to abuse; staff overwhelmingly indicated that it supported classroom stability by allowing students to leave the room to access support. Through examination of both studies, it can be seen that the MR is a positive and successful alternative to SDA by allowing students to develop the socio-emotional self-regulation skills needed to function in the school environment.

Curriculum programs are another way for schools to build self-regulation and socio-emotional skills in students. A school-based intervention program, ‘Building Bridges’, was implemented in a high school for students with emotional and behavioural disabilities (Hernandez-Melis, Fenning, and Lawrence 2016). Its aim was to decrease the number of SDAs for physical violence and drug possession and was offered to any student who had been given an SDA in place of completing a period of exclusion. The activities in the program were designed to teach social coping strategies and decision-making skills to allow the student to see an incident from multiple perspectives, particularly if interpersonal conflict had been involved (Hernandez-Melis, Fenning, and Lawrence 2016). There were a total of 122 students in Grades 9–12 involved in the study. The study was a post-test-only non-equivalent control group design, and it was hypothesised that the intervention would decrease the likelihood of subsequent SDA referrals and increase the length of time between referrals. Through a chi-square analysis, it was found that there was no significant association between participating in the intervention and whether the student received another SDA; however, it did increase the length of time between referrals, suggesting a need to conduct more research in wider settings with a larger sample size to determine whether or not this intervention helps to reduce rates of SDA (Hernandez-Melis, Fenning, and Lawrence 2016).

A cluster-randomised controlled trial involving a twelve-week intervention called Engage in Education – London (EiE-L) was conducted in thirty-six low-income schools in the United Kingdom by Obsuth et al. (2017). The intervention consisted of one hour group and 1-to-1 sessions conducted over twelve weeks to improve student behaviour by developing communication and social skills. The sessions focused on communication, social and behavioural issues including interpersonal social skills, anger management, assertive communication and learning how to respond in an alternative way to their established norm (Obsuth et al. 2017). Program participants and teachers undertook a questionnaire to gather baseline information and the researchers found a small but statistically significant difference with respect to the number of SDAs pre- and post-intervention, where students were more likely to report being issued an SDA after the program completion, indicating that the intervention was not useful in decreasing problem behaviours that typically lead to exclusionary discipline. Obsuth et al. (2017) indicated that the average attendance rate was 6.85 sessions out of 12, which they acknowledge could have influenced the results. They also concluded that targeting social communication and skills was not effective with students at the highest risk, and short-term school-based interventions delivered by external providers were unlikely to be successful; instead, they posited that a whole school approach is needed, with the PBIS framework identified as a possible solution (Obsuth et al. 2017).

Positive behaviour interventions and supports

The Positive Behaviour Interventions and Supports (PBIS) framework is an evidence-based three-tiered approach to improving school climate, supporting prosocial development and preventing problem behaviours by teaching the expectations to all students (Tier 1), targeted supports for small groups of students displaying challenging behaviours (Tier 2), and intervening individually when working with students with intense behavioural needs (Tier 3) (Kittelman, McIntosh, and Hoselton 2019; Nese et al. 2022; Whitefield, Poed, and Barker 2023). In a quasi-experimental study conducted by Grasley-Boy et al. (2019), researchers used publicly-available discipline data from California as well as school demographic information, standardised test results, and PBIS implementation data to evaluate the potential for PBIS implemented with fidelity to reduce SDAs. They compared schools implementing PBIS at Tier 1 with fidelity to like schools without a PBIS framework in place. Grasley-Boy et al. (2019) found a statistical difference between the schools using PBIS and not for reducing SDAs for all students, but particularly students with disability and BIPOC students. However, the researchers did acknowledge that using a PBIS framework does not have a significant effect on the most serious behaviours, e.g. weapons offences, because as an intervention, it does not target those types of incidents (Grasley-Boy, Gage, and Lombardo 2019).

One of the benefits of PBIS as an approach to improving student behaviour is that it is proactive and preventative approach. One intervention that has shown empirical support for the implementation of PBIS is the Inclusive Skill-building Learning Approach (ISLA). Described by Nese et al. (2022) as an intervention to support staff to enact preventative strategies, and provide instructional support for staff, it has shown to improve the quality of student–teacher relationships, decrease the time students spend outside the classroom, and also decrease the number of SDAs issued. ISLA uses instructional discipline practices and increases the equitable practices and opportunities for students to access caring adults. Its aim is to minimise the loss of classroom time by strengthening relationships between teachers and students, teacher use of the core Tier 1 features of PBIS, and student social/behavioural problem-solving skills. ISLA was implemented in two middle schools and began with foundational preventative school-wide supports with targeted support for students out of class, assessment of fidelity, and ended with feedback. The qualitative study consisted of interviews, and focus groups made up of students and staff; the ratings from the participants were overwhelmingly positive; however, concerns were raised around the time requirement to implement the study, and this is worth exploring further. Further research into the ISLA approach is worthwhile to determine its applicability across multiple contexts and the generalisability of the findings (Nese et al. 2022).

Restorative justice practices

Restorative justice practices (RJP) have long been used in schools as a strategy to build a positive school culture and environment and address the harm caused during behavioural incidents; they first gained traction in the juvenile justice environment (Gregory et al. 2018). RJP originated in Indigenous societies and typically focus on the problem, not apportioning blame or involving retribution and punishment (Joseph, Hnilica, and Hansen 2021). A mixed-methods study including interviews, focus groups, observations, school artefacts (e.g. the code of conduct and handbook) and suspension data was conducted to determine the effectiveness of the ‘Safer, Saner Schools’ restorative justice model (Joseph, Hnilica, and Hansen 2021). The model aimed to move beyond the shame typically associated with hurting another person and did not involve any form of shaming publicly as this can break down the relationships between individuals. The model used responsive circles, mediations and re-entry circles for students who had been involved in conflict and findings indicate that schools need to implement RJP to facilitate conflict resolution, but also remove policies that compete with these practices, i.e. punitive consequences. It was also found that RJP, which ran parallel to punitive consequences resulted in chaotic disciplinary practices leading to the detention-to-suspension pipeline. Chaotic disciplinary practices were identified as those that had an inequitable application of disciplinary consequences (Joseph, Hnilica, and Hansen 2021). The data available from the study were somewhat limited by the fact that it was a preliminary report using only the first-year data of a three-year study; however, there was promising evidence to suggest that RJP were having a positive impact on reducing SDAs.

Further empirical support for RJP exists as a result of the work of Gregory et al. (2018) and Anyon et al. (2014). Gregory et al. (2018) identified the purpose of RJP were for those affected to come together to identify how they were affected, and to problem solve and repair harm through a formalised process. A facilitator asked a structured set of questions, and a plan was developed by all participants to repair the harm caused; this holds individuals accountable for their actions and helps them to reintegrate into the school environment (Gregory et al. 2018). The authors stated that there was little empirical support for RJP in schools and identified a need for randomised controlled trials. They acknowledged that there was some supporting evidence, but the studies lacked internal validity. The Gregory et al. (2018) study was conducted as a follow-up to the study conducted by Anyon et al. (2014) in an effort to determine whether RJP had an impact on racial disparity in exclusionary discipline. They found a similarity across racial groups with respect to the use of RJP leading to a 35% reduction in the likelihood of receiving an SDA (Gregory et al. 2018). Both studies were conducted in the Denver Public Schools district, with the Anyon et al. (2014) study demonstrating that RJP have potential as an inclusive strategy to improve disciplinary outcomes without the use of SDA. The authors concluded that students were less likely to receive additional SDAs if they received intervention in the form of RJP following an incident. This conclusion was further supported by the data obtained by Gregory et al. (2018). They also identified the need to conduct experimental studies on the interventions to demonstrate the causal impact, something that was partially undertaken by Gregory et al. (2018). Limitations around the generalisability of the findings were noted and future investigations in different contexts regarding the potential of RJP need to be conducted (Anyon et al. 2014).

Finally, an investigation into the impact of RJP on levels of SDAs following a district-wide ban on SDAs for ‘wilful defiance’ in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) in the 2011–2012 school year was conducted (Hashim, Strunk, and Dhaliwal 2018). RJP were implemented as the final stage in a 3-stage approach to disciplinary reform in California. It began with the introduction of PBIS in 2006, followed by a ban on SDA for ‘wilful defiance’ in 2011, and finally the implementation of RJP in 2014. The authors used an interrupted time series framework to compare data pre- and post-ban using longitudinal data obtained from the LAUSD. They found that there was a trend of decreasing levels of SDA prior to the ban, which was hypothesised to be caused by the introduction of PBIS several years before (Hashim, Strunk, and Dhaliwal 2018). Following the ban, SDA numbers decreased dramatically for the first three years, then flattened; this was believed to be because only SDAs for ‘wilful defiance’ were subject to the ban. Following the introduction of RJP, the levels of SDA continued to fall, with a statistically significant difference from the data prior to the introduction of RJP (Hashim, Strunk, and Dhaliwal 2018). The authors identified the need to further track data over a longer time period and to describe the method to identify causal evidence of the effect of the ban and RJP on student outcomes.

Other studies

A British study conducted to examine problematic student behaviours from the perception of both students and behaviour support staff indicated some support for the PBIS framework without naming it (Trotman, Tucker, and Martyn 2015). This ethnographic study consisting of semi-structured interviews and qualitative data analysis was conducted due to concerns about behaviour and achievement, SDAs and permanent exclusion of students aged 11–14. The authors identified the importance of building effective behaviour policy based on consistent and evidence-based strategies, one of the hallmarks of PBIS. In the UK, the transition from Key Stage 2 to Key Stage 3 in the curriculum coincides with the transition to high school and comes with a significant rise in expectations for academic rigour. During this period, students experienced feelings of loss, uncertainty, and insecurity, which can be a negative experience for academic achievement, wellbeing, and mental health; therefore, teachers were encouraged to use higher rates of behaviour specific praise to reinforce positive behaviours (Trotman, Tucker, and Martyn 2015).

The study involved forty-nine individual students, of whom half had been subjected to some form of exclusionary discipline, eight behaviour coordinators and two heads of alternative education programs. All identified that the transition from primary to high school was a period of concern and that schools need to address these periods as well as develop strong, high quality pastoral care programs (Trotman, Tucker, and Martyn 2015). However, a limitation of this study was that it examined student perspectives but failed to make clear recommendations around potential solutions other than vague references to aspects of schools. They briefly discussed that internal and external behaviour support systems needed to be activated at an earlier age but failed to identify what those were. While a conclusion can be drawn that the researchers were implying that a strong, evidence-based program was needed, they fell short of recommending the PBIS framework to support transition into high school.

Razer (2021) conducted a study in Israel on the use of the idea of benevolent authority and empathic limit-setting by teachers to allow them to understand the needs of their students while still defining clear boundaries. It involves teachers exercising authority without punishment or humiliation so that students feel safe and stable to develop an internal locus of control. Empathic limit-setting occurs when teachers establish realistic boundaries while attempting to move past the pain it may cause for teachers and students, teaching students to accept and internalise boundaries without needing punitive consequences. It involves a transition from power struggle to empathic limit-setting (Razer 2021). Benevolent authority refers to the development of a healthy, supportive relationship between students and teachers because teachers are important in their students’ lives even when the students are noncompliant. The approach described in the study was supported by anecdotal data but there was no empirical support presented, thus necessitating further study to determine if this approach is useful in reducing challenging behaviours resulting in SDAs.

A second alternative to exclusionary discipline that failed to fit into one of the other three themes was the Student Threat Assessment (STA) (Maeng, Cornell, and Huang 2020). Following the Columbine mass shooting in 1999, schools were recommended to use a threat assessment to prevent targeted violence. CSTAG is an evidence-based model of threat assessment that aims to resolve conflict and the problems causing students to make threats. It contains practical guidelines for schools to conduct assessments on students who threaten violence and helps individuals resolve problems. Using a quasi-experimental design, SDA levels were lower in schools using the CSTAG guidelines, and permanent exclusion rates were significantly lower due to a philosophical shift in the approach to SDA (Maeng, Cornell, and Huang 2020). The authors concluded that most threats can be resolved without an SDA due to the ability to examine the context and circumstances around the threat rather than zero tolerance, although it was acknowledged that this approach was only applicable when a student had made a threat rather than more widely (Maeng, Cornell, and Huang 2020). This makes it interesting when considering alternatives to SDA as it uses contextual indicators and could form the basis of a more widespread program.

Finally, Camacho et al. (2022) conducted a review of the changes in district discipline policies and how these had been affected by changes made at the state level in one US state, because district policies guide discipline practices in schools. They then examined how these changes impacted the likelihood of suspension for students by race. The authors identified that the majority of research had been focused on PBIS and RJP, and the research had demonstrated that implementation of PBIS resulted in a decrease in SDA, particularly for students with disability whereas the use of RJP resulted in a decrease in the number of office discipline referrals for challenging behaviours. Through the examination of publicly available data from the State Education Department that contained reports of the numbers of SDAs and the enrolment numbers broken down into race, a logistic regression determined the likelihood of BIPOC students receiving an SDA was higher than white students.

Camacho et al. (2022) further examined the handbooks (Student Code of Conduct) for the districts that contained lists of behaviours and consequences to determine which were seen as interventions and which were punishments. The authors determined that interventions were consequences that provided opportunities for students to learn, engage in restorative acts and develop skills (Camacho et al. 2022). The most common interventions identified were parent meetings and behaviour contracts, with the most common punishments being SDA and in-school suspension (ISS). The authors further stated that when zero tolerance approaches were removed, schools tended to use alternatives to SDA rather than rely on exclusionary discipline although they recognised the need for more robust data collection methods. They also acknowledged that while they had made an effort to lessen the impact of school closures on the overall data, it had been collected during the 2019–2020 school year, and COVID-19 school closures would have potentially impacted the data that was analysed.

Camacho et al. (2022) went on to discuss the use of various interventions by schools, but failed to recommend one approach over others, although they did discuss the need to teach specific skills, and the need to strengthen relationships between students and staff. They also recommended the removal of SDA as an option for low to moderate offences, instead proposing a tiered approach to support in these instances. Low offences were identified as disruptive behaviour and general defiance or non-compliance, with moderate offences revolving around bullying and fighting (Camacho et al. 2022). Some inferred support for approaches that mirror aspects of PBIS can be drawn from this analysis of policy changes over time.

Limitations & recommendations

There are a number of limitations to this study that are important to discuss. First, limiting the search criteria to the last decade potentially excluded a number of earlier studies that could have introduced further evidence to support one or more of the themes identified here. By extending the search parameters to include studies over the previous fifteen to twenty years may have allowed us to demonstrate more empirical support for a particular alternative to SDA. Second, despite the rigorous selection strategy, it is possible that relevant studies were missed in the search process. For example, the requirement that the terms ‘suspen*’ or ‘exclu*’ be present in the title will have removed studies that referred to these consequences but did not contain them in the title. This was done to limit the sheer number of papers to be reviewed but may have excluded interventions that had strong empirical data to support the given approach. Finally, the vast majority of the studies were conducted in the United States, with a very different educational structure (elementary, middle and high schools) compared to Australia (primary and high schools). The majority of the research was conducted in middle and high schools in the United States, with little consideration for students at elementary level. Thus, the generalisability of the findings needs to be further explored before it can be applied to an Australian P-6 context.

It is recommended that further research is conducted regarding the ability of the approaches to address exclusionary discipline practices in younger students and the impact these approaches have on future behavioural pathways. Due to the nature of PBIS being a whole-school framework, this approach should be considered prior to the implementation of RJP as an alternative to SDAs. RJP is typically only used with students who have already committed a behavioural infraction and those impacted (making it a Tier 3 intervention), whereas PBIS targets all students, leading to the development of a positive school climate. Further exploration of PBIS application at the primary level in Australia would yield more empirical data to support this approach to reduce exclusionary discipline practices.

Conclusion

Experiences of school disciplinary absences are widespread and proven to do more harm than good for students. Viable alternatives to removing students from the learning environment are necessary to address the school-to-prison pipeline and promote the development of skills to allow individuals to function in wider society. Three main alternatives to exclusionary discipline have been identified through this review, with the recommendation that PBIS be considered as the most promising alternative due to its universal, whole-school nature. This approach should form the basis of the school behavioural framework and teachers and administrators need to use a data-driven approach to determining the skill deficits of students and address those accordingly. By explicitly teaching the behavioural expectations and implementing PBIS with fidelity, students develop a clear understanding of the expectations and how to meet them and as a result, behavioural incidents decrease in frequency.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the Traditional Owners and Custodians of the lands on which we live and work. We recognise their continued custodianship and connection to the land, waters, and community. We pay our respects to them and their Elders past and present as our knowledge holders.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The authors received no funding to produce this article.

Notes on contributors

B. L. Avery-Overduin

Brooke Avery-Overduin is a high school teacher of over 17 years’ experience with a keen interest in student behaviour and addressing inequities in student behaviour and disciplinary approaches in primary schools. She has a Masters in Educational Studies (Behaviour Support) and is currently working towards alternative approaches to exclusionary discipline practices.

S. Poed

Shiralee Poed is an Associate Professor within the School of Education at the University of Queensland. She is also the Chair of the Association for Positive Behaviour Support Australia. Her career spans more than 30 years, and includes working as a teacher and leader in Australian state, Catholic and independent primary, secondary and special schools.