Order in the Classroom:
Violence, Discipline and Student Learning

A Forum — March 26, 1999

In the early 1990's, Al Shanker, former president of the American Federation of Teachers, stated that academic standards and school discipline were the two areas of major concern in public education.  A rising public perception of American schools as unsafe and prone to violence placed school discipline at the forefront of recent presidential initiatives on education.  However, while research on academic standards has proliferated, few studies focus on discipline, particularly on the relationship between school discipline and student achievement.  This relationship is the focus of Order in the Classroom: Violence, Discipline, and Student Achievement, published by the Policy Information Center, Educational Testing Service.  The report addresses three basic questions: (1) How much do school order and discipline matter?; (2) How much have they changed?; and (3) What is being done in response to this change?

According to Paul Barton, Director of the Policy Information Center and one of the report’s authors, the analysis of the National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS:88) shows that an average 9 percent of students across the country feel unsafe in school.  This feeling is more salient among Hispanic students.   Between 1991 and 1997, the number of disciplinary infractions went up, except for alcohol use. Although serious offenses are still less frequent, more than half of the public schools nationwide reported that a crime had been committed on the premises and 10 percent reported a serious violent crime such as rape or sexual battery, suicide, robbery or physical attacks with the use of a weapon.  Of the 10th grade students responding to self-report surveys on delinquent behavior, one-third reported skipping classes or having some type of minor disciplinary problem.  On the other hand, less than one in ten students reported an in-school suspension and 5 percent or less had an out-of-school suspension, were transferred for disciplinary reasons or arrested. Male students with prior delinquency are more prone to commit offenses, including serious offenses. White male students are more likely to commit drug-related offenses and minority males are more likely to commit nonserious offenses, such as vagrancy.  Although small schools have less discipline problems simply because they have less students, school size is less important than class size in terms of improving discipline.

Students’ attitudes toward offensive behaviors vary according to the type of offense.  For instance, 29 percent considered it okay to be late to class or to copy homework, but less than one percent approved of more serious offenses, such as carrying weapons to school, stealing school property or abusing teachers.  A multivariate analysis of the NELS: 88 shows that strict monitoring systems lead to decreased class tardiness and absences, but do not affect serious offenses.  The decline in serious offenses is primarily related to the severity of punishment.  Schools with lenient discipline tend to have more incidents, particularly involving alcohol and drug abuse.   On the other hand, the report shows no significant relationship between policies related to school uniform and zero tolerance for gangs and incidence of violence.   Indeed, schools with zero tolerance for gangs present an increase of less serious offenses, such as class tardiness and absences.

Harold Wenglinsky, Research Scientist at the Policy Information Center and the report’s co-author, observes that a lack of school discipline erodes not only the school environment, but also the learning process for all students.  Wenglinsky studied the impact of violence and discipline on academic achievement and found that the frequency of drug offenses is negatively related to low academic achievement in mathematics and science (but not in social science and reading).  Therefore, a sound disciplinary policy is a prerequisite for a sound academic policy.  This policy must adjust the severity of the consequences to the severity of the offense, but all offenses must be met with consequences.

The federal, state and local governments have implemented a wide variety of approaches to combat violence in schools.  The Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994 requires that states automatically expel, for at least one year, those students who bring weapons to school.   West Virginia passed the West Virginia Productive and Safe Schools Act of 1995, creating a zero-tolerance for guns, violence and drugs.  The Safe Schools Act of 1995 requires all Texan school districts to develop codes of conduct and spell out the penalties for violation.  Many individual school districts have also issued codes of behavior, defining unacceptable behaviors and the sanctions that they elicit.  One such school district is Cincinnati Public Schools in Ohio.  Illinois implemented a conflict resolution curricula in grades 4-12.  Some schools, such as the Accelerated Schools Project and the Coalition of Essential Schools, consider that discipline problems are a consequence of bored students faced with unchallenging subjects.  These schools respond to the problem by raising expectations, improving their instructional methods and adopting challenging curricula.

Schools face many challenges in addressing issues of discipline and violence.   Parents are reluctant to participate and are concerned that too much emphasis on school discipline may curtail students’ individual rights.  Teachers lack training to implement behavior modification programs and must deal with overcrowded classes.  Principals may not feel supported by parents and school boards when implementing a severe disciplinary policy.  In addition, while concerns with school violence have risen, investment on research about discipline and violence remains small.   More research is needed on the factors that influence school discipline, the programs that are being developed to respond to school violence and their outcomes.

American Youth Policy Forum   1836 Jefferson Place NW,  Washington DC 20036
Telephone 202-775-9731      |      Fax 202-775-9733      |     Email aypf@aypf.org