Considerations for School Discipline
Considerations for School DisciplineDistricts have a duty to ensure school is safe for all students. School leaders have a variety of responses available to them through district policies and procedures to fulfill that duty, including alternatives to suspension.63 ,64 Exclusionary discipline practices, such as classroom exclusions, suspensions, and expulsions, may temporarily address a safety need posed by a student’s interfering behavior. However, it is important to emphasize that school exclusions do not positively change student behavior. This manual provides multiple effective pathways to support students in learning prosocial behaviors as alternatives to interfering behavior, including guidance in Section 4 about supporting individual students with behavior needs that significantly interfere with learning.
This portion of the manual describes several key considerations for school discipline. It is not intended to be a comprehensive resource for understanding school discipline requirements – for guidance and further information, visit OSPI’s Student Discipline page. While student discipline laws and rules apply to all students, there are additional requirements for students eligible for services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and/or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Those requirements are described in brief in Section 5 of this manual.
Avoiding Ineffective and Harmful Disciplinary Practices
A study in 2006 by the Journal of Adolescent Health65 analyzed the use and effect of exclusionary discipline practices in Washington State. The study found that zero-tolerance disciplinary practices, a form of mandatory and uniformly applied pre-determined consequences, were commonly relied on in Washington State to punish students who engaged in interfering behavior. While the study stated these practices were intended as a means for preventing school violence, a follow-up report by the American Psychological Association’s Zero Tolerance Task Force 66 found no evidence that zero-tolerance disciplinary practices reduced violence, improved school climate, increased consistency in schools, or deterred future behavior. The report did find evidence, however, that these practices increased racial disparities and were likely to have negative effects on child development. In response, the report offers recommendations, including reforming disciplinary response practices to implement preventative and appropriate measures that improve school climate and promote a sense of belonging.
Student discipline in Washington includes culturally responsive discipline policies and practices that “respond to the needs and strengths of students, support students in meeting behavioral expectations, and keep students in the classroom to the maximum extent possible”.67 This aligns with the federal Every Student Succeeds Act which requires state and district plans to include provisions for improving school learning conditions by reducing the overuse of exclusionary discipline practices and the use of “aversive behavioral interventions that compromise student health and safety.” 68
Reducing Student Exclusions with School-Based Threat Assessment
School-based threat assessment is a preventative, trauma-informed process, utilizing early interventions to keep students safe and engaged in school.69 The main objectives of school-based threat assessment are to assess potential threats to determine the level of concern and action required to address, organize resources and strategies to support identified students, and maintain a sense of psychological safety within the community.
According to RCW 28.A.320.123, suspension or expulsion based solely on the grounds of a school-based threat assessment referral is explicitly prohibited. These are separate but parallel procedures. Disciplinary decisions for interfering behavior should be made separately from, and should not rely on, the outcome of a school-based threat assessment. However, discipline processes may certainly incorporate the findings or recommendations from the threat assessment, such as shortening the length of an exclusion and/or informing the development of a culturally sensitive and responsive reengagement plan under WAC 392-400-710 to support the student in successfully returning to school.
All districts are required to have a School-Based Threat Assessment Program, team, and adopted school board policy and procedure. All nine educational service districts also have Threat Assessment Coordinators within their Regional School Safety Center to provide additional guidance, training, and implementation support.
Additional resources and guidance on threat assessment can be found at:
Documenting Disciplinary Removals
All school districts must collect data on disciplinary actions taken in each school and must record these actions using the statewide student data system.70 This allows districts to take required actions, described below, to monitor the use of school discipline and prevent discriminatory use of school discipline against student groups. It can also assist districts to determine local needs for professional development and resources based on school discipline patterns.
Some districts may be accustomed to addressing student interfering behavior with “informal” disciplinary removals that are not appropriately documented as exclusions by school staff. OSPI is aware of a variety of “informal removal” practices that would be considered school or classroom exclusions, including but not limited to:
- Calling parents to pick up a student early without referring to or documenting the action as a suspension
- Repeatedly responding to a student’s behavior by having them wait in a staff member’s office for extended periods of time without documenting it as a classroom exclusion and/or in-school suspension
- Excluding a student from school unless their parent or other caregiver attends with them
- Excluding a student from school if their assigned paraeducator is absent for the day
Informal removals violate the requirements in RCW 28A.600.460 when not documented appropriately as a school suspension or classroom exclusion. School staff are always obligated to ensure educational access and must provide students due process rights when the student is excluded by school staff, regardless of whether school staff refer to that exclusion as a suspension or a "day off." Informal removals can also introduce confusion for parents around what disciplinary actions schools are permitted to take.
For students with disabilities, when informal removals are used repeatedly or as part of a pattern of disciplinary responses, those removals may be equivalent to suspensions -- in which case, state and federal disciplinary protections for students eligible under the IDEA and/or Section 504 must be followed. In addition, if a student’s interfering behavior is impacting their learning or the learning of others, the team may have cause to suspect the student may have a disability. Districts must meet their child find obligation to refer for evaluation any student suspected of having a disability and needing special education or related aids and services. For further information on requirements related to discipline for students with disabilities, see Section 5.
Preventing and Addressing Disproportionate Use of Discipline
As noted above, student discipline is often implemented in ways that demonstrate and exacerbate biases in school and district systems. Students with disabilities, Black students, and boys are suspended, expelled, and referred to law enforcement many times more often than other students relative to enrollment.71 ,72 These unjust practices can result in systemic discrimination, often beginning as early as preschool, leading to poorer educational and life outcomes for these students.73
To prevent and address possible discrimination in the use of student discipline, Washington districts are required to collect and report data on student exclusions. WAC 392-190-048 requires that, at least annually, districts must also review their discipline data – disaggregated by sex, race, multilingual learner status, and disability – and determine if the district has disproportionately disciplined students in any of these categories. If the district identifies any such patterns of disproportionate use of discipline for any of these student groups, the district “must take prompt action to ensure that the disproportion is not the result of discrimination.”
Additional resources on student discipline can be found at:
- Chapter 392-400 WAC
- OSPI - Student Discipline
- OSPI - Special Education Behavior and Discipline
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - Report of Unfair Discipline at School and Associations with Health Risk Behaviors and Experience
64 Examples of alternatives to suspension are described in the Behavior Menu of Best Practices and Strategies (pages 71–82, 151–156).
65 Hemphill, S. A., Toumbouroum J. W., Herrenkohl, T. I., McMorris, B. J., & Catalano, R. F. (2006). The effect of school suspensions and arrests on subsequent adolescent antisocial behavior in Australia and the United States. Journal of Adolescent Health, 39(5), 736–744.
66 American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force. (2008). Are zero tolerance policies effective in the schools?: An evidentiary review and recommendations. American Psychologist, 63(9), 852–862.
68 PUBL095.PS - SEC. 1111(g). [20 U.S.C. 6311]
69 Madfis, E., Silva, J. R., Crepeau-Hobson, F., & Sulkowski, M. L. (2025). School threat assessment team recommendations: Surveillance versus social support and racial/ethnic equity. School Psychology Review, 1–14.
71 OCR (2023). 2020-21 Civil Rights Data Collection: Student discipline and school climate in U.S. public schools.
72 OCR (2020). 2017-18 Civil Rights Data Collection: The use of restraint and seclusion on children with disabilities in K–12 schools.
73 Executive Office of the President (2016). Report: The continuing need to rethink discipline.