Student Discipline Regulations: 603 CMR 53.00

            This Act has been in effect since July 1,2014 and is in relation to the Student Access to Education Services and Exclusion from school (Act)[i]. The purpose of this policy is to limit the use of suspension as a consequence for student misconduct until their consequences have been considered and tried as appropriate[ii], with the exception of emergency removal. The new Act now requires both public and charter schools to follow very specific instructions and procedures when suspending and expelling. One of the main push of the Act is that it requires schools to provide opportunity for “academic progress” through what they call School-wide Education Service Plan. The services for the “academic progress” must be “based on, and provided in a manner consistent with, the academic standards and curriculum frameworks established for all students under G.L c. 69, §§ 1D and 1F”. These services may include tutoring, alternative placement, Saturday school, and online or distance learning[iii].

            According to the MA Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, the primary objectives of this Act are: 1) to prevent the unnecessary exclusion of students from school, particularly for the offenses that were not included in state law[iv]; 2) to require the schools to provide students with opportunities for academic progress while suspended or expelled. The Act was proposed when there was a nation-wide conversation regarding the ‘zero tolerance’ policy in schools. The ‘zero tolerance’ policy has disproportionally impacted students of color and students with disabilities. Data has shown that the students belonging of certain racial and ethnic groups tend to be disciplined more often and in harsher manners[v]. This paper will focus on section 53:05. This section of the Act is really important because it provides the school some room to get innovative when deciding consequence for the infraction. Although this may not be the biggest/most emphasized aspect of the Act, I believe it does the students some injustice if it goes overlooked, thus compelling me to take a closer look and examine these possibilities more.

Section 53:05 Alternative to Suspension

This section states:

“In every case of student misconduct for which suspension may be imposed, a principal shall exercise discretion in deciding the consequence for the offense; consider ways to re-engage the student in learning; and avoid using long-term suspension from school as a consequence until alternatives have been tried. Alternatives may include the use of evidence-based strategies and programs such as mediation, conflict resolution, restorative justice, and positive interventions and supports.” 

            For the purpose of this paper I want to focus on the policies supporting supports for alternative measures in schools. Although a list of other measures is provided, I will focus restorative justice (RJ), partially due to my personal experiences with it, but also because of such intriguing, innovative, non-traditional ideology for addressing students’ alleged wrongdoings[vi]. A RJ approach is a more humane, interpersonal approach to wrongdoings, which fosters a dialogue between both parties (the “victim” and the “offender”), and requires them to be actively present in the same space. This is based on the idea that wrongdoings are offenses against another individual or a community, rather than against an institution. This approach is considered to have a concept healing. I will extrapolate some ideas from Shanahan (2012), as her research really conveys the essence of this alternative to, what she calls, Traditional Discipline Model (TDM).

            TDM is a discipline model that assigns consequences ranging from in-school suspension, to short/long-term suspensions, to even expulsion. Before this Act was past, this form of consequences resulted in students falling behind in school without a sense of resolution, and without learning from the incident they were involved with. It is a matter of time and implementation before we can attest if section 53.13 Education Services and Academic Progress (or school-wide education plan) will in fact prevent students from falling behind in school.

            Healing circles are a common way of practicing RJ. Circles have been recognized as legitimate and long-term alternatives to TDM. Circles in schools can change the identity of relationships between student/student, teacher/student, and student/teacher/administrator.  The structure of a healing circle is the following: there is a neutral facilitator – anyone from a student, to a teacher, to an admin; there is a talking piece – an object with significance to the facilitator – solely the person who holds it can speak; both parties must agree to meet – no one can be forced to do so. RJ healing circles changes the culture of schools by addressing the lingering issues that come up with a broken, archaic system of punitive discipline.  This system provides leadership opportunities for students, staff and administration alike.  

            The idea of RJ on it’s own forces everyone to rethink and re-imagination how institutions currently react vs. how they should react to committed harm – TDM vs. alternative/innovative. Healing circles play into the great need for healing in urban centers.  Many students in the Boston area “are deeply affected by systemic and generational cycles of violence and harm”[vii]. Circles provide a respectful space in which people can share about their life experiences that they have often been too ashamed or humiliated to share. I do not want to go too much into the ideas of the students needing to be “healed” as that opens up a different can of worms, but it is important to mention, as it is one of the biggest aspects of the RJ approach.

            There are a good number of great reforms this Act attempts to implement in Boston Public Schools. The school-wide education plan, where schools provide the opportunity for the student to engage in learning activities while suspended, is a great innovative idea. This will give students access to certain educational support while maintaining them in learning environments, enabling the suspension to not be a total waste of time. What I do wonder, and could not figure our from what I read about the policy, is how will the schools keep students accountable for participating in such programs? Another aspect of the Act that I did not mention previously because of the nature of my argument, is that the Act will also enforce more family inclusive procedures when potential suspension. Before the student is suspended, the school administration is required to give both written and oral notice to the student and his/her parents. Families also have the right to appeal the decision. Schools are also now required to keep official track of their suspensions by submitting forms to the MA Department of Education. I think these are great measures to keep better track of the schools suspensions, and to keep them accountable for their numbers. This policy puts more onus on the schools to keep records and follow more procedures rather than simply sending students home; hopefully this will discourage schools from suspending and encourage to find new ways to deliver to their students. For further research I would love to revisit this policy in a few years and see what it results in.