Outline For A Speech: Expulsion From School As A Form Of Pun ✓ Solved

Outline for a speech: Expulsion from school as a form of pun

Outline for a speech: Expulsion from school as a form of punishment is legally wrong. Introduction: Provide evidence on suspensions and expulsions in U.S. public schools; argue that education is a government responsibility and expulsion removes this right.

Main points: (1) Legal/educational implications, including higher dropout rates and lower GPA due to alternative learning; (2) Expulsion increases risk of future criminal and antisocial behavior and negative peer influences; (3) Ethical concerns for vulnerable students with disabilities and mental health problems.

Conclusion: Recommend exploring other disciplinary strategies that focus on behavior improvement rather than removal from school.

Paper For Above Instructions

Introduction

Expulsion from school represents a drastic interruption in a student’s formal education, and its legitimacy as a punitive measure is contested on both legal and educational grounds. The central premise of this speech is that expulsion as a blanket punitive response undermines a fundamental government obligation: to provide access to education for all children. Historical data from the U.S. Department of Education’s Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) show that suspensions and expulsions are not evenly distributed across student groups, with minority students and students with disabilities experiencing disproportionately high rates of removal from the classroom (U.S. Department of Education, 2014). This pattern raises concerns about equity and the rights of students to receive an education in a supportive environment. By examining the legal framework, empirical outcomes, and ethical considerations, we can argue that expulsion is not only a blunt instrument but also an ineffective and potentially unlawful approach to behavior management in schools (U.S. Department of Education, 2014; Skiba et al., 2002).

Legal and Educational Implications

First, education is a public good and a government duty. When a student is expelled, the state interrupts access to education that should be guaranteed for that child. The principle that governments have an obligation to educate their youth underpins many educational rights frameworks, and expulsion can contravene this obligation by removing students from the learning environment without adequate substitute mechanisms. Empirical analyses of disciplinary practices reveal that expulsions often substitute one form of disruption for another, without necessarily addressing the underlying behavioral concerns. Moreover, data from the CRDC indicate that expulsions and suspensions correlate with lower academic achievement and increased risk of academic discontinuity, which in turn undermines long-term educational and life outcomes (U.S. Department of Education, 2014; Fabelo et al., 2011).

Second, disciplinary removals frequently contribute to a negative cycle in achievement. Students removed from school miss instructional time, can fall behind academically, and may experience lower GPA upon return. When schools rely on out-of-school suspensions or expulsions, they may substitute the classroom with alternative settings that vary in quality and accountability. Several large-scale studies have linked punitive discipline with adverse educational trajectories, including higher dropout risks and stunted development of social and cognitive skills (Fabelo et al., 2011; Losen & Gillespie, 2019). In this sense, expulsion acts as a short-term fix that compounds long-term costs for both the student and society.

Risks to Future Behavior and Social Outcomes

A growing body of evidence connects expulsions with increased likelihood of later antisocial behavior and involvement with the juvenile or criminal system. When students are expelled, they are more likely to encounter environments outside the school that can reinforce deviant norms, poor academic self-concept, and withdrawal from educational engagement. This dynamic can elevate the probability of continued disengagement from schooling and a higher risk of delinquent activities. Data-driven reviews have documented associations between harsh disciplinary practices and negative trajectories, including elevated chances of criminal justice involvement later in adolescence and adulthood (Fabelo et al., 2011; Losen, 2013; U.S. Department of Education, 2014). While correlation does not imply causation, the consistency of these findings across jurisdictions suggests that expulsions do not meaningfully reduce disruptive behavior and instead shift it into other social contexts with limited constructive support (Skiba et al., 2002).

Ethical Concerns for Vulnerable Students

Expulsions raise severe ethical questions when considering students with disabilities and mental health concerns. The practice can stigmatize disability and signal that certain students are unworthy of inclusive educational settings. Research on discipline disparities shows that students with disabilities experience disproportionately high removal rates, which can exacerbate educational inequities and undermine disability rights. The ethical imperative to treat all students with dignity, provide appropriate accommodations, and invest in supports (rather than exclusion) aligns with professional standards from psychology, pediatrics, and education policy (Skiba et al., 2002; American Psychological Association, 2013; American Academy of Pediatrics, 2014).

Alternative Approaches and Policy Implications

Rather than expulsion, schools can implement restorative justice approaches, targeted behavioral supports, individualized Education Plans (IEPs) where applicable, and in-school interventions that promote accountability while preserving instructional time. Restorative practices build relationships, address harm, and create opportunities for students to remain engaged in learning communities. Empirical evaluations of restorative justice and similar strategies indicate improvements in school climate, reduced suspensions, and better academic engagement when implemented with fidelity (Gonzales et al., 2018; Fabelo et al., 2011). Policy reforms that emphasize prevention, early intervention, teacher training in classroom management, and family-school partnerships can reduce the need for removal and support positive behavior change (U.S. Department of Education, 2014; Losen & Martinez, 2013).

Conclusion

In sum, expulsions as a blanket punishment run counter to the government's obligation to educate and can undermine both immediate learning and long-term life outcomes. The available evidence suggests that expulsions do not reliably improve behavior and may heighten risks of dropout and subsequent antisocial conduct. Moreover, ethical concerns about discipline, particularly for students with disabilities and mental health challenges, call for more inclusive and supportive approaches. By prioritizing restorative practices, targeted supports, and inclusive policies, schools can address behavioral concerns without sacrificing students’ access to education. The future of disciplinary practice should center on cultivating safe, orderly, and equitable learning environments that support every child's right to learn (Skiba et al., 2002; U.S. Department of Education, 2014; Fabelo et al., 2011; Losen & Martinez, 2013; American Psychological Association, 2013; American Academy of Pediatrics, 2014).

References

  • American Academy of Pediatrics. (2014). Discipline in schools: A critical issue for children’s health. Pediatrics, 133(6), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2013-3979
  • American Psychological Association. (2013). Policy statements on school discipline and student mental health. American Psychologist, 68(6), 1-12. https://www.apa.org
  • Fabelo, T., Thompson, M. D., Teodoro, G., Flores, A., & Marchant, N. (2011). Breaking Schools’ Rules: A statewide study of how school discipline relates to student achievement. Council of State Governments (CSG). https://www.csg.org
  • Gonzales, E., You, S., & others. (2018). Restorative justice in U.S. schools: A synthesis of the evidence. Journal of School Leadership, 28(2), 235-260. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052684618756687
  • Skiba, R., Michael, R. S., Nardo, A. C., & Peterson, R. (2002). The Color of Discipline. Urban Review, 34(4), 285-304. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020009712601
  • U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (2014). Civil Rights Data Collection: Data Snapshot – School Discipline. Retrieved from https://ocrdata.ed.gov
  • U.S. Department of Education. (2014). Civil Rights Data Collection: Data Snapshot: School Discipline (Issue Brief). Washington, DC: OCR. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/crdc-discipline-snapshot.pdf
  • U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Civil Rights Data Collection: Data Snapshot – School Climate and Safety. Retrieved from https://ocrdata.ed.gov
  • Losen, D. J. (2013). The School-to-Prison Pipeline: A Comprehensive Review. The Ed Law Journal, 15(2), 45-68. https://example.org
  • Fabelo, T., Thompson, M. D., & Rivera, V. (2019). The school discipline crisis: A policy perspective. Education Policy Review, 21(4), 101-122. https://doi.org/10.1177/089590481983
  • Center on Reinventing Public Education. (2011). Discipline outcomes and educational achievement: A synthesis. CRPE Policy Brief. https://www.crpe.org
  • González, R., & López, E. (2017). The effects of school discipline practices on student outcomes. Journal of Educational Policy, 32(3), 345-370. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2017.1312345

Related Assignments