In fact as recently as 1992 approximately half of the states still legally allowed corporal punishment in the school system (Orentlicher, 1992). While corporal punishment is no longer allowed in the Canadian educational setting, punishment still receives more acceptance than does positive reinforcement. The punishment model is so prevalent because it is seen as producing quick, though usually temporary, results (Maag, 2001). Suspending students from the school setting was originally intended to serve two purposes. First, to remove a student from the school environment for behaviour deemed to be abhorrently unacceptable. Second, to provide the student with an opportunity to think about their involvement in the incident. However suspensions are increasingly seen as a tool to be used for a widening array of misdemeanors (Garibaldi, Blanchard, and Brooks, 1996). It is essential to have in place effective methods to deal with student misbehaviour, and at times suspensions may be the most effective. Clearly however there are other methods that could be used to achieve these same goals while at the same time protecting the student's opportunity to obtain an education. These options include in-school suspension, noon-hour detentions, and Saturday schools.
Part of this increase in suspension as a method for controlling student behaviour comes from the political push to stem what is perceived to be an escalating tide of violence in society (Anonymous, 1998). The escalation of mass shootings in schools across North America has not only forced schools to re-examine the way they deal with their social climate and culture, but has pushed the zero-tolerance policy to the forefront. There is nothing wrong with zero-tolerance for bullying and harassment in itself. These are issues that need to be dealt with. Our goal as educators should be to create an environment in which no student should ever have to feel unsafe or threatened.
