Abstract
Purposes. The purposes of this study were to describe what in-school suspension programs are conducted by selected kindergarten-through-grade-six elementary schools in central California, and to determine to what degree each type of in-school suspension program changes student behavior as perceived by site administrators and teachers. Methodology. Descriptive and ex post facto research were used to complete this study. A locator card was used to identify those schools that utilized some form of in-school suspension. A detailed survey was given to those who responded to the locator card. The purpose of the detailed survey was to collect specific descriptive data regarding programs, and also to collect opinions regarding five specific student behaviors. This study included a description of the types of in-school suspension programs conducted. The ex post facto research revealed the opinions of administrators and teachers about the change in student behavior brought about by in-school suspension programs. The opinions of administrators and teachers were compared to see if a significant difference existed between those opinions. Also, each type of in-school suspension program was compared to see if any particular practice or form produced change in student behavior. Findings. (1) Three types of in-school suspension were identified in current literature regarding this topic: (a) punitive, or time out, (b) academic , where the student completes class work in isolation, supervised by a school employee, (c) therapeutic, where, in addition to completing class work, the student is provided with some form of counseling by a teacher or counselor. The therapeutic method was stated in the literature to be the most effective at changing student behavior. (2) Over one-half of those surveyed use a punitive form of in-school suspension. Less than 2 percent used a therapeutic model. Other practices not identified by the literature were used as in-school suspension by those surveyed, such as the "Buddy System," along with the practice of combining two or more forms of in-school suspension. (3) Both administrators and teachers agreed that in-schools suspension produced a positive change in student behavior. (4) Of the five identified student behaviors, a significant difference existed between the opinions of administrators and teachers regarding a decrease in repeat offenses of playground disruption and defiance. Teachers, while happy with their program, did not feel it had a significant effect on these areas. (5) No specific program was felt to be better or more effective than any other identified program. Conclusions and recommendations. Although the therapeutic method was considered the most effective, in-school suspension at the elementary level is, for the most part, punitive. This could be because (1) school professionals do not read current literature regarding in-school suspension, or (2) no funds are available to maintain a therapeutic program. The "Buddy System," sending the student to another classroom, is very popular at the elementary level. No research was available on this practice. Administrators and teachers are satisfied with their programs; however, they do not agree to the degree of effectiveness the programs have on specific student behaviors. Administrators seem to be satisfied to manage student behavior, whereas teachers set a higher standard of completion of class work in addition to management of behavior. Punitive programs focus on behavior management and not on behavior change. Behavior change should be the focus of in-school suspension practices as the literature revealed. (Abstract shortened by UMI.).