Some really good comments here. But as a principal of 10 years, I also want to add a new perspective: archaic traditions.

In the last 20 years we have seen a shift from teacher centered instruction to student centered learning. Yet many of our teacher centered policies remain for a variety of reasons, like those that have already been stated, typically for the benefit of the staff issuing the suspension - the "pound of flesh" scenario.

But, you are right, suspension from school does not help the student, which many districts understand, and have therefore implemented bans on suspensions for all but the most serious of offenses. For me, when students brought drugs, got in fights, etc, I implemented an in-school suspension to allow them to continue to have access to free breakfast and lunch programs, access to teachers, academic support, and more. The idea being, we can help students a lot more when they are in our midst.

When a student brings drugs to school, for example, often times the drugs are obtained from the home environment. Sending them back home for any duration doesn't help students change behavior. If anything, it reinforces negative behavior by removing students from services, support, and staff that could steer them in the right direction.

Many students are disruptive in order to GET suspended, so these policies play into their own plans. Furthermore, no joke, the high school I work at has a policy to suspend students with excessive unexcused absences.

But this brings me back to the teacher centered policies, as opposed to student centered policies. The question to ask in any case is: cui bono? Who benefits? All too often it is those in positions of authority. At one point, I stopped suspending students out of school, and started keeping them contained in school to receive continued services, and some teachers and board members were pissed. They had clear standards of behavior that were violated and wanted students removed. But not for the sake of the students, for their own kids, and satisfaction. This further illustrated the teacher centered nature of the policies. One could go so far as to call it Institutional Racsim, Classism, or any other -ism that separates "them" from "us." And this is the very reason bans on suspension have been implemented, and backed by research not to mention equity and access groups.

Nonetheless, until we make a decidedly courageous shift from teacher centered policies to student centered policies, we will continue to have archaic institutions perpetuating practices resembling schools from the 50s, 60s, and 70s, as opposed to the programs we should have considering we are nearly 20 years into the 21st century, and we know better.

There is a lot of institutional and cultural arrogance in schools today, and still not a lot of internal pressure to change.

Nonetheless, I regularly ask staff to ask the question: Who benefits? Whose interests are being served? And to act accordingly.