B.           Three Common Misconceptions Used to Justify Frequent Use of Suspension

Contrary to popular belief, most suspensions are for minor and nonviolent offenses, not for guns, drugs or serious violent acts. Skiba and Rausch (2006) reported that 95 per cent of suspensions fell into two categories: disruptive behavior and other. Only 5 per cent of all out-of-school suspensions in the state they studied were issued for disciplinary incidents typically considered serious or dangerous, such as possession of weapons or drugs. Similarly, the Texas study demonstrated that 97 per cent of the disciplinary actions were discretionary, meted out for violations of schools' conduct codes (Fabelo et al., 2011). Accordingly, the high rates of suspension for minor offenses raise questions about their justification, questions we might hesitate to pursue if they were responses to frequent dangerous or unlawful misbehavior.

Three reasons appear to account for the common use of out-of-school suspension or expulsion for nonviolent or repeated school code violations:

• to improve the student's behavior in the future by getting the parents' attention and active involvement;

• to deter other students from misbehaving; and

• to ensure that the school environment is conducive to teaching and learning.

These speak to the second “educational necessity” prong of the “disparate impact” analysis.