Editor's note: This is the seventh entry in our forum on charter school discipline practices. Earlier posts can be found here, here, here, here, here, and here.
Mike Petrilli’s recent blog post regarding student discipline in charter schools is a classic example of a false dichotomy—with a bit of Chicken Little thrown in. In that post, Petrilli proposes that charter schools should not be discouraged from disciplining students. Doing so, he argues, will fundamentally limit their autonomy and ability to successfully serve students at risk of failure.
While Petrilli does not explicitly call out students with disabilities, he emphasizes that the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is a big part of the overregulation problem he perceives. The role of the OCR is to ensure that the rights of disabled students and other at-risk groups are protected; unfortunately, this sometimes requires regulation.
Petrilli may find it amusing to poke fun at OCR (i.e., “Office of Hard and Fast Rules and Directives”), but he fails to recognize that parents and advocates don’t appeal to the office as their first line of defense. Rather, they see it as an option of last resort after trying to persuade schools and districts to uphold civil rights protections like due process. In other words, any “hard and fast rules and directives” issued by OCR stem from schools and districts failing to abide by the most basic requirements that come with educating disabled students. This is a crucial consideration when contemplating the impact of charter school disciplinary practices. The disproportionate impact of discipline policies on students with disabilities is broad, deep, and credible (e.g., the Center for Civil Rights Remedies and U.S. Department of Justice). Parents and advocates have fought long and hard to ensure that students with disabilities have equal access to public schools and are provided a free, appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment.
Petrilli takes offense to top-down dictates related to discipline and proposes that discouraging charter schools from suspending students will lead to disorder in the classroom. This false dichotomy solicits a “sky-is-falling” response and completely overlooks the possibility that discouraging suspensions could lead to the implementation of instructional practices that are beneficial for all students. Discouraging exclusionary disciplinary practices, for instance, could help ensure that all students are supported in the classroom and that teachers and personnel are trained to use research-based interventions. What’s more, it might lead to a reflection on adult practices and biases contributing to student misbehavior.
In June, we issued a joint statement on discipline authored by our Equity Coalition (comprising charter school and special education leaders) that called upon the charter sector to drive change and lead the effort to improve discipline practices. The statement simultaneously reinforces our support for charter autonomy and challenges both charter and traditional public schools to pay more attention to the disproportionate discipline of students with disabilities. We also fully support Secretary King’s recommendation that charter schools “lead the way on professional reflection and growth,” and we do not see autonomy and leadership as contradictory. Autonomous charter schools have the opportunity to create rigorous and positive learning environments for all students, and many already do so. But when charter schools use their autonomy to create learning environments that unnecessarily lead to the exclusion of some students—most often minority and disabled students—authorizers, state education agencies, and OCR should absolutely be prepared to hold them accountable.
Lauren Morando Rhim and Paul O’Neill are co-founders of the National Center for Special Education in Charter Schools.
