Current research demonstrates that autistic learners face rates of school suspensions and expulsions at much higher rates than their non-autistic peers. It is likely that many of these punitive and exclusionary discipline practices are a direct result of unmet environmental needs within the school environment. While not specifically focusing on neurodivergent learners, Jeffrey Benson’s Hacking School Discipline Together: 10 Ways to Create a Culture of Empathy and Responsibility Using Schoolwide Restorative Justice (2024) examines the (unintended) negative consequences and ineffectual nature of exclusionary discipline in schools.
Benson, an educator with over 40 years of experience, acknowledges several problems within our education system, explaining eloquently that “schools live at the intersection of infinite demands and finite resources.” As a career educator, Benson writes with sympathy and understanding of the challenges teachers and administrators face daily within the system. Still, he advocates passionately that “punishment does not build skills, improve relationships, or reinforce motivation for most students. When faced with a direct punishment for their actions, students reasonably conclude that their biggest mistake was getting caught.”
There is a vast amount of research data that supports this claim. As Benson and other researchers have noted, exclusionary actions are not only ineffectual, but also alienate students. Specifically, for the autistic learner, being denied the opportunity to engage within the school community in a meaningful way further isolates an already marginalized population.
From a social justice lens, using punitive disciplinary action at higher rates for neurodivergent learners creates a failure in equitable learning opportunities; Benson agrees: “Equity doesn’t mean treating everyone exactly the same; it means developing the infrastructure to provide each student with what they need to learn.” Every student deserves the learning opportunity of a respectful and effectual disciplinary response.
Benson outlines practical, easily digestible strategies for implementing schoolwide restorative justice “hacks.” With a deep understanding of the very real stressors and limitations placed upon teachers, he offers structured methods of creating discipline policies, including steps for establishing expectations for administrator intervention, listing behaviors that require intervention, and plans for reentry.
An important piece in any discussion of school disciplinary policies is to examine first, preventative measures. When educators are able to de-escalate a dysregulated student or create learning environments that are free from potential sensory triggers, the need for punitive measures naturally decreases. Benson suggests two strategies for “Prevention Plans.”
The first includes a “Chill-Out Plan,” allowing the student to signal to an adult that they are in a state of overwhelm and need time to practice coping strategies. When an entire classroom (or even an entire school) practices individualized Chill-Out Plans, students do not need to feel singled out. As Benson points out, often in a classroom setting, what is good for some is often good for all, such as in the case of movement breaks for ADHD students.
Aside from simply having students develop their individual Chill-Out Plans, Benson recommends involving teacher training as well as parent/family involvement. In this way, parents and caregivers can form collaborative relationships with teachers to share what coping strategies work best for their child.
Benson acknowledges that some teachers may push back on these plans, citing the fear that some students may abuse the plans in order to avoid academic challenges. He refutes this idea, explaining that, even without them in place, some students will zone out, disengage, and create disturbances in situations of challenging or uninteresting assignments; however, “Denying all students the right to a plan because a few peers will misuse their plans is detrimental to the greater good.”
Another strategy recommended by the author is that of “Curious Conversation” – “a tool that builds trust, student reflection, and emotional growth.” By simply taking the time to listen to a student who may otherwise have disruptive, impulsive comments, we can build a connection and demonstrate to the student that they are heard and worthy of our attention. Building this level of connection and trust with a student with challenging behavior benefits both the student and the educator. An important note from the author establishes his understanding that educators react to students through their own background of experience, cultural expectations, morals, and biases. As he notes, “What one teacher sees as self-advocacy, another will find disrespectful.” As the school community is made up of a diversity of personal, family, and cultural assumptions, fostering an inclusive and compassionate environment is necessary to undo a long history of traditional discipline methods.
Many opponents to restorative justice operate under the misunderstanding that students will not learn the consequences of their actions unless they are punished. But as Benson notes, “Consequences and punishments are not synonymous. Students need to know that there will always be consequences for their actions.” However, the concept of teaching versus punishing creates a more inclusive culture for learners, demonstrating that there is potential for growth in all students.
Hacking School Discipline Together is a must-read for all educators who seek to create a more collaborative, authentically inclusive learning environment, free from ineffectual and unethical practices of exclusionary discipline.
