CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATRED LITERATURE

An essential legal doctrine to note is that of in loco parentis meaning “in place of
the parent.” This was considered the backbone of disciplinary policy throughout most of
American educational history leading into the 1960s Kafka, (2011). The doctrine implies
that when teachers and principals impose disciplinary action upon a student, they have
the student’s best interest in mind, regardless of whether the actual parent agrees. As
schools became more professionalized and levels of school violence rose, the doctrine
of in loco parentis seemed to be abandoned. Researchers have argued that the
disciplinary policies that started emerging during the 1970s were intended to limit the
discretion of teachers and principals and to prohibit them from tolerating certain kinds of
behaviors (Skiba, 2000; Kafka, 2011).
The primary purpose of schools in America is to educate youth. However,
throughout most of American educational history, schools have been filled with
unwanted violence and disruption that hinder this purpose, and the disciplinary actions
to deal with these behaviors have only become more severe. The following sections will
review the literature on corporal punishment, exclusionary discipline policies, and
juvenile-court referrals and their proscribed effectiveness and consequences they have
had on school disruption and student learning. Throughout most of American
educational history, corporal punishment was widely used up until the mid-1970s
Midlarsky and Klain, (2005). The use of corporal punishment gave both school
teachers and administrators the sole power to distribute discipline. As American
schooling began to grow and became more professionalized, this discretion was
removed from teachers and administrators and given to school boards and district
administrators Kafka, (2011). What would emerge would be the use of exclusionary
discipline policies such as expulsion, out-of-school suspension, in-school suspension,
and alternative educational placement. However, during the early 1990s, these 20
exclusionary policies would be intertwined with zero-tolerance policies, which would
take the use of discipline to a whole new level Kafka, (2011). At the turn of the 20th
century, in response to incidents such as Columbine, schools across the nation would
turn toward the use of police officers in schools and this would lead to students being
referred to the juvenile court system, or what Wald and Losen (2003) called the school-
to-prison pipeline.

Corporal Punishment The use of corporal punishment in schools has been

around since Colonial America, during which its primary purpose was to aid the school
teacher in maintaining order in the classroom (Midlarsky and Klain, 2005). According
to Midlarsky and Klain (2005), to keep order within the classroom, teachers would use
threats, intimidation, humiliation, or physical abuse. It is important to note that at the
beginning of the 19th century, the use of corporal punishment had been limited to only
acts of school violence or inappropriate school behavior, not poor academic
performance Midlarsky and Klain, (2005). The frequency of corporal punishment in
schools would drop significantly between 1974 and 1994, when 25 states throughout
the U.S. banned the use of corporal punishment in schools (Gershoff & Font, 2016).
As of 2017, 31 states have banned the use of corporal punishment in schools, while it is
still legal in 19 states—Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho,
Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma,
South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming Font & Gershoff, (2017). It is
evident from the states that still use corporal punishment that a majority are located in
the South.
A defining moment in the legality of corporal punishment in schools occurred in
1977 with the Supreme Court ruling of Ingraham v. Wright. The Supreme Court ruled
that the use of corporal punishment in public schools was not a violation of the Eighth
Amendment’s cruel and unusual 21 punishment clause nor the Fourteenth
Amendment’s due process clause. (Gershoff and Font 2016) argue that, at the time of
Ingraham v. Wright, the Court based its arguments on the fact that corporal punishment
was still widely used in public schools and that only two states had banned its use—
New Jersey and Massachusetts. The decision in Ingraham allowed states to decide for
themselves whether or not they would permit the use of school corporal punishment,
and in states where it is legal, district superintendents and school principals have the
discretion on whether or not to use corporal punishment as a form of discipline
Gershoff & Font, (2016). As of 2016, there were no federal laws or regulations
concerning the use of school corporal punishment (Gershoff & Font, 2016).
Previous research findings have been somewhat consistent, reporting that use of
school corporal punishment can negatively affect students, and that there are disparities
among race, sex, and disability among students who are corporally punished (Gregory,
1995; Hinchey, 2004; Owen, 2005; Dingus & Dupper, 2008; Gershoff, Purtell, &
Holas, 2015; Gershoff & Font, 2016; Font & Gershoff, 2017 ). (Owen 2005) reported
that the use of corporal punishment in schools could increase immediate compliance,
but only when students are hit over and over again.
(Hyman 1995) argued that the use of corporal punishment could have lasting
physical and psychological effects on students, such as post-traumatic stress disorder
(PTSD), development of aggressive behavior, or poor academic performance. By
administering corporal punishment in schools, school personnel is legitimizing the
practice of violence by using violence to solve behavioral problems Owen, (2005).
One of the most distinguishing disparities in the use of corporal punishments in
schools involves race. (Gregory 1995) found that African Americans students were over
three times more likely than white students to be subjected to corporal punishment. Font
and Gershoff (2017) posit 22 that racial disparities vary from school district to school
district where corporal punishment is administered, and in some districts, White
students may be subjected to corporal punishment more frequently than African
American students. Their data showed that among schools using corporal punishment
who had a student population of mixed racial composition that African American
students receive corporal punishment at a rate 2.5 times higher than other students.
Gershoff and Font (2016) found that in Georgia school districts where corporal
punishment is allowed, racial disparities existed in 26% of them. The American
Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force (2008) found that there were no
differences in the misbehavior between African American and White students; however,
African Americans received harsher penalties for these misbehaviors.

(Gershoff and Font 2016) also noted a disparity among genders in a majority of
the Southern states, still allowing the use of corporal punishment. (Skiba, Michael,
Nardo, and Peterson 2002) noted that males are twice as likely as females to be
referred to the office for a violation of school rules, while Gershoff and Font (2016)
reported that males who are referred are four times as likely to experience corporal
punishments compared to females. (Gershoff and Font 2016) reported that, “children
with disabilities are over 50% more likely experience school corporal punishment than
their peers without disabilities in 67% of school districts in Alabama, 44% in Arkansas,
34% in Georgia, 35% in Louisiana, 46% in Mississippi, and 36% in Tennessee” (p.10).
This finding is troubling because, under the Individuals with Disabilities Act of 1997,
schools are supposed to provide extra support and assistance to these students, but the
data suggest that school administrators are not exploring other options for these
students. According to Gershoff and Font (2016), in some states where school
corporal punishment is still legal, state officials will explicitly exempt school personnel
from liability under state abuse 23 laws. In other states, parents are given the option to
opt-out of the use of school corporal punishment, “In Georgia, parents may prevent their
children from receiving corporal punishment by submitting a signed form at the time of
enrollment from a state-licensed doctor asserting corporal punishment would be
detrimental to the child’s mental or emotional stability” (Gershoff & Font, 2016, p. 16).
Official Code of Georgia Annotated (OCGA) § 20-2-731 states that corporal punishment
may not be used as a “first line of punishment” which suggests school officials should
seek out other disciplinary alternatives (1964, p. 673). While the use of school corporal
punishment is dwindling Font & Gershoff, (2017), there is still very little evidence on
what types of behaviors call for the administration of its use; this study seeks to address
the gap.

Exclusionary Discipline Policies Exclusionary discipline policies include the use of

expulsion, out-of-school suspension, inschool suspension, and alternative educational
placement. (Adams 2000) argued that these policies were attractive to school
administrators for three reasons, (1) they provide administrators a way to deal with a
large number of disruptive students, (2) these policies provide protection to the large
student body, and (3) they give school administrators a sense of power and control.
Despite the attractive nature of expulsions and out-of-school suspensions, several court
cases during the 1970s challenged their validity regarding student’s due process rights
Kafka, (2011). In 1975, the Supreme Court ruled in Goss v. Lopez that students have
the right to due process justice even though school is not a court of law. What this
meant for schools is that they now had to develop new disciplinary policies to deal with
the growing number of disruptions. In response to Goss v. Lopez, schools across the
country started implementing in-school suspension (ISS) programs, and they gained
traction because they excluded disruptive students from the general population but were
still located on school grounds Adams, (2000).
(Allman and 24 Slate 2011) note that ISS programs can vary from school to
school, but the majority incorporate the same three components, (1) students are
isolated in a separate classroom, (2) a certified teacher or paraprofessional oversees
the classroom, and (3) they eat lunch in isolation. In-school suspension programs are
thought to deter minor school disruptions such as classroom disobedience, and while
they have not fully achieved this, they are still popular among school administrators
Matt & Howard, (2003).
Another exclusionary discipline policy that emerged was the use of alternative
educational placement (alternative schools). (Kemerer and Walsh 2000) argue that
alternative placement practices are used for both serious (i.e., terroristic threats,
weapons, drugs) and nonserious (i.e., classroom disobedience) offenses, similar to
zero-tolerance policies operate. As the 1980s came to an end, schools started
implementing zero-tolerance policies alongside exclusionary discipline policies, and this
would strengthen the use of expulsions and out-of-school suspensions. According to
Skiba (2000), at the time of its implementation into schools there was no definitive
definition for the term zero-tolerance, its meaning and use have developed over time,
but it has primarily been used to send the message that certain types of behavior will
not be tolerated by punishing all offenses severely, no matter how minor. With the
signing of the Gun Free Schools Act of 1994, “The law mandates a one-year calendar
expulsion for possession of a firearm, referral of law-violating students to the criminal
justice system, and the provision that state law must authorize the chief administrative
officer of each local school district to modify such expulsions on a case-by-case basis”
(Skiba, 2000, p. 2). This law would put to rest any notion that the presence of zero-
tolerance policies was leaving schools. In Violence in America’s Public Schools: 1996-
1997, Heaviside and colleagues (1998) reported through a national study of elementary,
middle, and high school students that 79 percent of all schools had zero-tolerance 25
policies for violence, and 94 percent had policies for firearms. Although the rates of
serious violence have decreased since the 1990s, schools are continuing to implement
the harsh discipline policies for minor school disruptions Kafka, (2011). The continued
use of exclusionary discipline policies intertwined with zero-tolerance policies has had
unintended consequences for students (Raffaele-Mendez, 2003; Ryan & Goodram,
2013). According to the U.S. Department of Education (2000), during the 2000-2001
school year, approximately 3 million students were suspended, and 100,000 students
expelled. The 2016 Condition of Education report revealed that the nonfatal
victimization rate, which includes violent and nonviolent victimization, had fallen from
181 victimizations per 1,000 students in 1992 to 33 per 1,000 students in 2014 (Kena et
al., 2016). Even as victimization rates decline and the use of exclusionary punishment
rises, Musu-Gillette and colleagues (2017) reported that, in the 2011-2012 school year,
3.4 million students in public schools received an in-school suspension and 3.2 million
received an out-of-school suspension. Researchers analyzing the effects of
exclusionary policies have found their continued use disproportionately affect African
Americans and students with disabilities (Wallace, Goodkind, Wallace, & Bachman,
2008; Losen et al., 2015), that they can impact academic performance (Rausch &
Skiba, 2005), and that they primarily punish minor incidents (Raffaele-Mendez &
Knoff, 2003).

Gallup polls from the past two decades note that an average of 28% of parents worried
about their child’s safety at school. A 2018 poll noted that 35% of parents worried, which
was the among the highest levels since the poll was first conducted in 1998. The same
poll found that 20% of parents noted that their children expressed concerns about
feeling unsafe at school, which was also among the highest percentages ever recorded
Jones (2018). Concerns regarding school safety are warranted given that students
spend much time at school, which would seemingly increase their likelihood of
victimization.
Several high-profile incidents at schools across the United States largely
beginning in the 1990s and occurring sporadically since have prompted many changes
in school policies, procedures, and safety precautions. Mass murders at Columbine
High School in 1999, Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, and Marjory Stoneman
Douglass High School in 2018 are among the more high-profile incidents that generated
national attention, concerns, and responses. Aside from these and other tragic events,
less serious albeit important victimizations of students occur regularly at schools across
the United States.
School Violence and Victimization
The controlled environment of schools at all levels limits the amount of violence
and related harms that occur, and school characteristics influence levels of
victimization. Victimization rates for youths both at and away from school have dropped
significantly since 1992 (Musu-Gillette et al. 2018), however victimization remains a
problem in many schools and for many students. For instance, there were just under
750,000 theft and non-violent victimizations at schools in 2016, which represents a rate
of 29 victimizations per 1000 students. Outside of school, the rate was 24 per 1000
students (Musu-Gillette et al. 2018).
Victimization and delinquency rates vary across schools, and researchers have
examined the factors that contribute to the variation. Time and Payne (2008)
categorized school violence prevention efforts according to physical, legal, and
interactionist approaches. Physical approaches involve target hardening and related
efforts to discourage and physically prevent crimes. The use of metal detectors and
locked doors are examples. Legal remedies largely rely on law enforcement officials
and the law to control crime, including the use of school resource officers (SROs).
Interactionist approaches include the creation of a supportive school climate, or culture,
in which students have support networks and openly communicate with school officials.
The factors that comprise these three categories alone do not comprehensively
address school violence. For instance, the environment in which schools are located
has a significant impact on levels of school violence and related problems. Schools in
high-crime neighborhoods or urban areas generally have higher rates of crime and
victimization (e.g., Jennings et al. 2011; Crawford and Burns 2015). Put simply,
schools are not fully insulated from the areas in which they exist.
Aside from the direct effects of feeling unsafe at school and being victimized,
there are many negative impacts associated with misbehavior in schools. Among those
are attendance at school and academic achievement, as students may be fearful to
attend classes or instructional opportunities out of fear of victimization (e.g., Robers et
al. 2015). Further, feeling unsafe at school is associated with low academic
achievement (Akiba 2010).
Punitive School Responses
Adopting a more punitive stance to address violence in schools has become
quite popular. The arguments supporting stricter enforcement of school policies and the
law generally reflect efforts to control behavior outside of school in that there are
consequences for not following the rules. Those consequences have increasingly
become more punitive in nature, for instance through the use of removal or suspension
from school or referring incidents to legal authorities.
This particular stance involves an enforcement-oriented approach that seeks to
deter individuals from violating laws and school policies and responds punitively to
those who do. Much research has focused on security and law enforcement efforts to
control student behavior, for instance through the use of law enforcement and security
personnel in schools (e.g., SROs) and target hardening approaches such as cameras
and metal detectors (e.g., Crawford and Burns 2015; Jennings et al. 2011). Results
from these studies are generally inconsistent.
A particularly important aspect of punitive efforts to create more orderly schools
involves school policies designed to deter and punish misbehavior. This is reflected in
part through the use of removals from school, transfers to specialized schools, and
suspensions both in- and out-of-school. Such practices serve two primary purposes:
creating a safer, more positive learning environment and punishing those who violate
school policies or the law. Suspensions, however, can be more detrimental than helpful
to students (e.g., Hemphill et al. 2014).
Removing problematic students from the school is among the most punitive
approaches taken by schools to address misbehavior. Support for use of this
punishment is based on the belief that removing problematic students from schools will
remove the disruptions and problems they cause. Doing so occurs through school
exclusionary discipline practices, which include suspending or permanently removing
students from school. Suspensions are either in- or out-of-school and involve the short-
term removal of the student. Expulsion is more punitive than suspensions and involves
the removal of students for a longer period of time, and transfers to home schooling or
other schools in the district. Students missed 11 million days of instruction in schools
due to out-of-school suspensions in 2015–2016 (Losen and Whitaker 2018).
 Support for a more punitive approach centers around the belief that removing
problematic students from schools removes the problem, and strict enforcement of
policies and the law should deter students from violating either. Zero-tolerance policies
targeting disruptive students, the increased presence of law enforcement personnel in
schools, and requirements for mandatory reporting of troubling behaviors have
increasingly become ingrained in school policies and practices, and contributed to the
increased involvement of students in our justice systems (Monahan and Torres 2010).
Such policies, which became increasingly popular beginning in the 1990s, lead to more
student suspensions and expulsions (e.g., Wald and Losen 2003), and stricter
enforcement of the law and school policies throughout the United States.
Supportive Climate
Some schools seek to ensure safety through promoting a positive school culture,
or climate. Safety is an important component of school climate, and encompasses
physical, emotional, social, and intellectual safety (Ruiz et al. 2018). Generally, “school
culture” refers to unwritten, shared beliefs, norms, and values among students, faculty,
and staff. It is related to school climate, which “… is based on patterns of people’s
experience with school life and reflects norms, goals, values, interpersonal
relationships, teaching and learning practices, and organizational structures” (Cohen et
al. 2009, p. 180). A positive school climate or culture is related to both enhanced
learning and a safer environment to do so (e.g., Cohen et al. 2009).
Research generally finds that providing a supportive, safe environment in which
to learn has many benefits. Within this body of research are studies focused on student
perceptions of their learning environment and concerns for safety. For instance,
research in the area found that a weak sense of belonging and low academic
achievement were the strongest predictors of students’ fear of school violence Akiba
(2010). Other research found that students who felt unsupported by teachers and
classmates experienced maladjustment at school (Demaray and Malecki 2002), and a
lack of school bonding was related to delinquency over time (Liljeberg et al. 2011).
Providing student services and alternatives to punishment for misbehavior
assists with creating a supportive school environment. It may involve providing students
more opportunities to safely voice concerns and/or enhanced opportunities for
counseling and extracurricular activities. Research generally shows that schools that
are more communal in nature experience lower rates of delinquency and misbehavior,
and have higher levels of academic outcomes (DiPietro et al. 2015). Further, there is
evidence that student connectedness to their school and the creation of a positive
environment contribute to violence prevention (e.g., Eisenbraum 2007; Greene 2005).
Student support and acceptance groups such as those that provide a community and
support network for groups of students theoretically should contribute to lower levels of
school violence.
The research literature generally suggests that schools that make efforts to
provide support networks and a community atmosphere have lower levels of violence.
An example of providing support to the often-marginalized groups is the implementation
of Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs) and related support groups. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,
Transgender, and Questioning or Queer (LGBTQ) students generally face higher levels
of bullying and harassment compared to other students (e.g., White et al. 2018) and
are at a higher risk for negative emotions and disciplinary actions given their need to
protect and defend themselves from hostile situations (Snapp et al. 2014, White et al.
2018). GSAs and related groups have become increasingly common at schools across
the United States and, among other benefits, provide a social network of friends and
support resources for LGBTQ students (Greytak et al. 2013). The presence of these
groups is generally associated with more positive school outcomes for LGBTQ students
(Kosciw et al. 2013).
As noted, school context and security/crime-prevention efforts contribute to levels
of school violence. Schools are not isolated from the larger society in which they exist,
and the cautionary or preventive actions school administrators take to ensure safety
warrant mention. For instance, schools located in high-crime areas generally have
higher levels of violence and general disorder (e.g., Crawford and Burns 2015, 2016),
and protective measures such as a threat response team may contribute to favorable
perceptions of school climate and to reducing in- and out-of-school suspensions
(Cornell et al. 2011, 2012, 2018; Nekvasil and Cornell 2015). These and related
variables pertaining to school security practices and context impact levels of school
violence and are considered in the present work.
Ultimately, safety is an integral part of school climate, and the extent to which it is
emphasized, recognized, and enforced varies by school. Understanding the factors that
influence school violence is a primary step in properly addressing harmful behaviors
within academic settings. Accordingly, the present study addresses the impacts of both
punitive and supportive measures to address school violence, with consideration of
preventive measures and school context.
The data used in this study were part of the School Survey on Crime and Safety
(SSOCS) collected in 2016 from 2092 schools. This was the most current publicly
available data set at the time this research and analysis began. The sampling frame for
SSOCS is based on the most recent Common Core of Data Public
Elementary/Secondary School Universe data file available at the time the sample was
developed. There have been several notable changes and expansions in the types of
information provided by the SSOCS over the years, providing several measures that
were previously unavailable in earlier versions. This has allowed for a more nuanced
assessment of strategies that provide a foundation for the current study (please
see Jackson et al. (2018) for the full discussion of the survey methodology, and new
variables).
The SSOCS 2016 sample design was twofold: to obtain overall cross-sectional
and subgroup estimates of important indicators of school crime and safety. A stratified
sample of 3553 regular public schools in the United States was drawn for SSOCS 2016,
including 849 primary schools, 1230 middle schools, 1347 high schools, and 127
combined schools. The response rate was 59%, resulting in a final sample of 2092
schools. Due to the complex nature of the sample design of the SSOCS survey for
2016, sample weights were used to obtain population-based estimates, minimize bias
arising from differences between responding and nonresponding schools, and calibrate
the data to known population characteristics to reduce sampling error. The exact
weighting procedure is described in detail in Jackson et al. (2018).
The data are useful for assessing various aspects of school safety across the
United States. The large number of variables included in the dataset enable researchers
to focus on and delve deeper into specific school safety features and practices. For
instance, researchers used the 2015–2016 wave of findings in focusing on areas such
as the location of schools in relation to the presence of weapons on campus (Peguero
et al. 2019), parental involvement, and invasive school security practices (Matthews
2019).