Solution to Disruptive Students Lies in Evidence-based Supports, Not More Discipline

Eighty-seven percent of public schools nationwide report that the pandemic has negatively impacted student socio-emotional development. School officials around the country cited classroom disruptions and tardiness as the most frequent illicit behaviors increasing after the pandemic. Seventy-two percent of schools report that absenteeism has increased compared with prior to the pandemic. 

Teachers are asking for more support and rightly so. At the same time, we must balance behavioral issues with what we know about classroom disruptions, which are often a symptom of larger challenges our children are facing, which can include trauma, communications barriers, learning limitations, or other underlying needs. 

Moreover, making sure students are in the classroom — not suspended or removed from the classroom to an alternative setting — is key to student achievement. Research shows that missing school takes a toll on grades, test performance, and graduation rates, all of which are linked to labor market prospects, health, and criminal legal system involvement.  

Data shows that students thrive in environments that have robust and effective social, emotional, and behavioral support. Relying on a disciplinary response to behavioral issues and absenteeism can unintentionally exacerbate the issues, particularly when that response involves loss of credits, suspension, or policing. Additionally, interventions that increase discipline will disproportionately impact Black students, foster care youth, students with disabilities and low-income students, as these groups are already overrepresented in encounters with the state’s school discipline system.

It is clear that our students and school professionals need more support. But rather than increasing discipline and time out of the classroom — either via suspension or alternate learning environment — policymakers in West Virginia can champion evidence-based supports that we know work, including: 

• More robust investments in student support services and expansions of school-based mental health supports. According to the most recent data available, at least 10 school districts do not have a single social worker and several do not have a school psychologist. In the school districts that do have some support staff, they are typically serving far more students than the recommended ratios and often have to serve multiple schools, meaning many schools only have access to them part-time. 

• Programs that equip staff to serve students in the school setting like trauma-informed care trainings, adoption of restorative practices, and increased support for Communities in Schools (CiS); and

• Policymakers must recognize that disruptive behaviors and absenteeism are often a result of underlying challenges and stresses. Programs like SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), free and reduced school lunches, Medicaid, and others that enhance family economic security and access to health supports and mental health and substance use treatment for the whole family are critical to protect and expand.  

Additionally, lawmakers considering policies that would remove more students from the classroom or increase discipline must ask themselves the following questions: 

• How will we ensure any new policy would avoid worsening the disparate impact of discipline on vulnerable students? 

• How will we address the inevitable learning loss that occurs when students are out of the classroom and ensure they can catch up when they return to their regular class? 

• Why do students need an alternative setting for mental and behavioral supports rather than resourcing schools to make sure they are widely available in a state where so many kids are dealing with complex issues?