NYC Educator: Limiting Suspensions Is a Slippery Slope

NYC Educator: Limiting Suspensions Is a Slippery Slope

Limiting Suspensions Is a Slippery Slope

I like State Senator Jessica Ramos. I'm glad she's working for us. This notwithstanding, I wonder about the bill she's pushing to limit school suspensions. According to the article, suspensions can be up to 180 days. I know this is true, and I know of a few students who committed outright atrocities who received yearlong suspensions. I won't go into what they did, but I assure you neither you, Jessica Ramos, or anyone I can think of would oppose them.

When I read about what upsets Ramos, I can't really disagree.

School suspensions have been linked to students dropping out and ending up in the criminal justice system — and Black and Hispanic students are suspended at much higher rates than their peers, statistics show.

That's not right. No one should face suspension, or any consequence whatsoever, simply because of who they are. And then there's this:

Students who miss classroom time through suspension are less likely to succeed and are more likely to wind up in the prison system.

There is certainly a connection there, but what's the cause and what's the effect? Does suspension itself cause this? Isn't it possible that the behavior that resulted in suspension is what makes students "less likely to succeed and more likely to wind up in the prison system?"

Let's take a look at the behaviors that, under this bill, would no longer result in suspension:

The bill would also prohibit suspending students for tardiness, unexcused absences, leaving school without permission, dress code violations, lack of school ID and “willful disobedience” — which it defines as disruptive, insubordinate or rowdy behavior.

There's some sense here. It's absurd to suspend students for being late or absent. Likely as not, being suspended would mean extra opportunity to be late or absent, and cause CONTINUE READING: NYC Educator: Limiting Suspensions Is a Slippery Slope