Abstract In-school suspension is used throughout our country as a punishment and tool for managing behavior. There are many different aspects, methods, and philosophies that are involved when a school develops and implements this suspension program. Unfortunately, many of these elements are extremely negative and there are many schools that are still using a very outdated method of suspension. The effects of old versions of in-school suspension are lasting in terms of both academic and psychological consequences. I explore both old and new models of in-school suspension and their implications to students, teachers, and administrators. Most importantly, I provide general themes for any school to implement and improve their suspension programs. In School Suspended I cannot count the number of times I was suspended during all my years in public school. The one punishment that I hated the most has always been in-school suspension. But even as a young student, I knew that there was a better way to run the system. Although the concept of in-school suspension is essential in any school, the ways in which we implement the systems vary and some versions are more effective than others. In terms of behavioral management, punishments are generally classified by severity level. The lowest level of formal punishment is lunch detention and then after-school detention. But the highest levels of punishment a student in school can receive are in-school suspension (ISS), out- of-school suspension (OSS), or expulsion. Although it is debatable by a student which is worse, ISS or OSS, the school uses out of school suspension as a “worse” punishment than in-school suspension and is considered more severe. The general outline of all ISS programs is the same. Students are punished and assigned ISS, and they go to a small room for the entire day and complete any schoolwork they may be given if they are given any at all. This design is the traditional ISS model. Considering everything educators know about teaching and behavior management, it is important to ask ourselves if this model is really the most effective way to be punishing and rehabilitating students. Is there a better model for in-school suspension and, if so, how do we implement it? It is also important to target the problem areas of other punishments like out-of-school suspension. All of these problems are related and if we are changing one, we really need to change the other. Growing up, I always viewed ISS as jail within a school. I was always an exception to other students in ISS because I did well in all of my classes. Although I was assigned work to do throughout the day from all my teachers, I generally was finished with all of it by second period and was left with nothing to do for the rest of the day. Then the next day in class, I was always behind since I had missed the previous lesson from the teacher, and although I tried teaching the material to myself, I rarely succeeded. What never made sense to me was that a disciplinary action should have an effect on my academics. Over the course of twenty years, this model of in-school suspension has not changed at all in some districts. However, I have seen a shift in some of the schools in terms of ISS reform. Generally, in-school suspension is assigned to students that are not a danger to others, in contrast to OSS. Although both are used as a punishment, there must be a distinction made between discipline and punishment since punishments are not always effective and do not always have the same result as proper discipline. In-school suspension is a bridge between an out-of- school punishment and being in a conventional class. There is a movement to encourage more and more students to be punished without the use of OSS. This is seen through an in-school suspension law which is “requiring that most suspensions be served in school, not at home.” In Morris and Howard’s article “Designing an effective in-school suspension program,” the authors discuss four different models of ISS. The models are: punitive, academic, therapeutic, and individual. I was raised with a punitive model of suspension and I found it to be very frustrating. Naturally, I would have loved not to have been punished at all. But while I was in school being suspended, I had always dreamed of a more academic version and I am sure my mother would have loved a more therapeutic and individual approach. The individual approach is very similar to the therapeutic method in that they both involve a lot of reflection and self regulation. But in all methods, the key to success is teachers working with students. It is essential for all teachers to interact with students as much as possible while they are being punished. There have been a number of studies done studying the efficacy of various in-school suspension methods. In Scott Stage’s article, “A preliminary investigation of the relationship between in-school suspension and the disruptive classroom behavior of students with behavioral disorders,” he found that “no type of in-school suspension generalized to classroom behavior any more efficaciously than another.” However, this conclusion can hardly be applied to all ISS models because this study was done in a residential school of small group of 36 students with behavioral disorders. Although many students in ISS nationwide have behavioral disorders, the nature of the study being done in a residential school rather than a public school affects the conclusions that can be made since there was less of a variety of students and problems to analyze. Also, only a limited number of models were tried in the study. Scott’s study analyzed the effectiveness of a “timeout” strategy, a “timeout plus” strategy which was like the timeout strategy but included a brief period of doing work, and a “problem solving” strategy where students answered and dealt with the problems that caused them to be suspended. I believe that none of these methods achieved any success because they were too simple and were not implemented together for a long enough period of time. Researchers would not use each method for any longer than one period length and did not include any sort of intervention with teachers. One of the biggest questions for all in-school suspension programs is how to transition students back into class. For many, they are just assigned to ISS for a day or two. But there were times that I was given ISS for longer than a week. This length of absence can make for a difficult switch for teachers and students. “What is the transition plan?” (Sussman 30) In many cases, the answer to this question is that there is none. Teachers are just supposed to handle the burden of one extra students falling behind and then having them readjust to class. Clearly there are a number of things wrong with the in-school suspension system that I grew up in and that is still currently in place in many schools. While students are being punished in ISS, there is often a huge lack of school interest. A study was done on 620 middle and high school students assigned in-school suspension in one inner city and one rural school where “of all the students who had been suspended, 32% found suspension ‘not at all’ helpful and thought that they would ‘probably be suspended again’; 37% found it of little use.” (Costenbader and Markson) Considering the amount of time that a student spends in ISS, there a huge opportunity to change their overall state of despondency and low self-esteem. These statistics reaffirm Sussman’s idea of in-school suspension being a “school-to-prison pipeline.” A majority of students are given ISS for aggressive behavior, and when these behaviors are not corrected early in school, there is a high likelihood of these behaviors being dealt with by the police and judges later on in life rather than by a teacher and principal in school. Consistent with the “school-to prison pipeline” theme, many of the students assigned to in-school suspension have previously had ISS. In one school, a total number of 246 students were suspended in a year and “51.2% of all students had been previously referred to the office for discipline issues and 27.4% had previous suspensions.” (Morrison, Anthony, Storino, and Dillon) Statistics like these clearly show that ISS is not doing its job of preventing poor behavior from these students. Schools must focus more on the future of how to prevent students from returning to ISS rather than just initially punishing them. The issue of school suspension has become a public issue that has actually gone to the U.S. Supreme Court. In the case of Goss v. Lopez, a group of students that were suspended from school using OSS for nine days felt as though their suspension violated their right to education. Although the case was dismissed, many still feel that in-school suspension violates many students’ right to education and is unconstitutional. One of the largest problems with ISS is that schools assume that students will do their work and that teachers will be able to give them work as well as give them the education that they deserve. “A teacher is always expected to use non-teaching periods to prepare for upcoming classes and to handle administrative duties. Expecting teachers during the same period to also tutor their students that are sentenced to ISS is unreasonable.” (Troyan 1657) It is very evident that not only is ISS unfair to students, it is unfair for teachers as well.