Let's say young Johnny's backtalk interferes with his teacher's authority to promote a positive learning environment. Johnny should not be ignored; there is obviously a need for correcting the behavior.
Let's say the teacher first tried classroom techniques, followed by removal from the classroom, then by a meeting with the principal and parents, and nothing has helped. Presumably, the next step is suspension.
But why? Will Johnny come back from suspension ready to learn? Very likely not, because suspension involves no investment in trying to solve any issues that might prevent a recurrence.
If St. Paul teacher Aaron Benner ("Teacher frustrated with debate over suspensions," Feb. 18), or those writing in his support ("A principled stand against classroom disruption," Feb. 22), told us that his students predictably improved their behavior after returning from suspensions, his views would have validity.
But he doesn't tell us that, because it doesn't happen. Research on the subject well demonstrates that suspension doesn't improve anything.
Just because it's the default response that unimaginatively has been replicated for many years doesn't make it the right response.
The longer-term solution that Benner and others offer is too vague to accomplish, inevitably replicating the failure of school suspensions.
He demands improved parent and community involvement without offering any hint of what that might actually look like, or of how to move meaningfully toward that point. In doing so, he inspires a chorus that includes racist overtones in harmony, even if that is antagonistic to his purposes.