It’s not just procedural, it’s psychological. Exclusionary discipline (ISS/OSS/DAEP) removes students from instruction and community, and it reliably produces the very conditions that worsen behavior and learning. The mechanism is well-documented:
1) Punishment without repair → learned helplessness and disengagement.
When consequences feel uncontrollable or disconnected from skill-building, adolescents can shift into learned helplessness – a motivational shutdown marked by passivity, apathy, and lower effort (Seligman, 1972). In school settings, exclusion signals “there’s nothing you can do to change this,” which depresses initiative, raises avoidance, and weakens self-efficacy – classic antecedents of disengagement and acting-out (Seligman, 1972).
2) Lost instructional time → lower achievement and higher dropout risk.
Across 34 studies, a meta-analysis found that suspensions are significantly associated with lower academic achievement and higher dropout, with effects evident for both ISS and OSS (Noltemeyer et al., 2015). Longitudinal analyses show even one 9th-grade suspension predicts reduced graduation and postsecondary enrollment, net of prior performance (Balfanz et al., 2014). Schoolwide, high rates of exclusionary discipline depress achievement even among students who were not suspended (Perry & Morris, 2014).
3) Developmental mismatch: adolescent brains need co-regulation, not isolation.
The APA Zero Tolerance Task Force concluded that rigid, exclusionary policies are not aligned with adolescent development and do not improve safety or climate (American Psychological Association, 2008). Adolescents learn behavioral regulation through consistent relationships, feedback, and practice; isolation interrupts exactly those developmental inputs.
4) Escalation and stigma dynamics.
Experimental evidence shows teachers are more likely to interpret a Black student’s repeated minor misbehavior as a stable, willful pattern and to recommend harsher discipline (“two strikes” effect), a bias that amplifies exclusion over time (Okonofua & Eberhardt, 2015). Such labeling erodes trust, increases stereotype threat, and can entrench a cycle of defiance ↔ punishment ↔ disengagement, again reducing the likelihood of re-engagement in learning (Okonofua & Eberhardt, 2015; APA, 2008).
5) School climate spillovers.
High suspension climates signal a punitive norm, which research links to lower overall achievement and weaker student–teacher relationships, even for students never removed (Perry & Morris, 2014). Newer work similarly finds classroom suspension rates are associated with poorer climate perceptions and academic outcomes for non-suspended peers (Liu, 2024).
6) Health, safety, and equity harms.
The American Academy of Pediatrics warns OSS/expulsions are counterproductive and can exacerbate academic deterioration, alienation, delinquency, and substance use, especially when no immediate educational alternative is provided (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2013). Disparities by race and disability status mean exclusionary discipline disproportionately removes historically marginalized students from learning, widening achievement and opportunity gaps (APA, 2008).
Bottom line: Exclusion does not teach replacement skills, repair harm, or rebuild belonging. It reliably reduces learning, degrades climate, and increases risk. Trauma-informed, restorative, and instructional responses, ones that pair accountability with skill-building and reintegration, better match adolescent development and produce stronger academic and behavioral outcomes.
References:
American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on School Health (2013). Out-of-school suspension and expulsion. Pediatrics, 131(3), e1000–e1007. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2012-3932
American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force. (2008). Are zero tolerance policies effective in the schools? An evidentiary review and recommendations. American Psychological Association. https://www.apa.org/pubs/reports/zero-tolerance
Balfanz, R., Byrnes, V., & Fox, J. (2014). Sent home and put off-track: The antecedents, disproportionalities, and consequences of being suspended in the ninth grade. Journal of Applied Research on Children, 5(2). https://digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu/childrenatrisk/vol5/iss2/13/
Liu, L. (2024). The unintended consequence of school suspension: Spillover effects on peers’ achievement via classroom climate. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. Advance online publication. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12291156/
Noltemeyer, A. L., Ward, R. M., & Mcloughlin, C. (2015). Relationship between school suspension and student outcomes: A meta-analysis. School Psychology Review, 44(2), 224–240. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1141532
Okonofua, J. A., & Eberhardt, J. L. (2015). Two strikes: Race and the disciplining of young students. Psychological Science, 26(5), 617–624. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615570365
Perry, B. L., & Morris, E. W. (2014). Suspending progress: Collateral consequences of exclusionary punishment in public schools. American Sociological Review, 79(6), 1067–1087. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122414556308
Seligman, M. E. P. (1972). Learned helplessness. Annual Review of Medicine, 23, 407–412. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/4566487/