Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T09:04:34.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Ethical Critique of Suspension and Zero-Tolerance Policies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 February 2012

Yael Efreom-Lieber  and
Paul S. Lieber
Yael Efreom-Lieber*
Affiliation:
Calvary Hospital, Canberra, Australia; Optimal Health & Performance, Australia. yaelefreom@gmail.com
Paul S. Lieber
Affiliation:
Faculty of Arts and Design, University of Canberra, Australia.
*
*Address for correspondence: Yael Efreom-Lieber, Optimal Health & Performance, PO Box 4040, Hawker ACT 2614, Australia.
Get access

Abstract

Elementary and secondary school leaders advocating remediation and prevention of student discipline problems are doing so in lieu of direct development of student self-discipline (Larson, Smith, & Furlong, 2002). This shift has lead to the use of zero-tolerance strategies towards discipline (Maxcy, 2002). In this article, zero-tolerance policies — in particular, the use of out-o-school suspension — is critiqued from three ethical theory perspectives. This research argues for alternate approaches to discipline (Jackson, Boostrom, & Hansen, 1993; Skiba & Peterson, 1999) based in classical ethical theory, with specific emphasis on social justice (Rawls, 1971). Implications on Australian school systems and educational psychological development are discussed.

Keywords

zero toleranceschool disciplinesuspensionAustraliasocial justice
Type
Articles
Information
The Educational and Developmental Psychologist , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , 01 December 2010 , pp. 104 - 114
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)