School Safety & Violence Prevention FAQ
How principals can build physically and emotionally safe schools — protocols, prevention, and culture.
The Case for Consequences
Does suspension actually work?
About 50% of students who get suspended never get suspended again. That's a pretty good track record. And even when it doesn't change the individual student's behavior, it protects the other 25 students in the room. We need to stop evaluating suspension solely on whether it "fixes" the suspended student and start evaluating it on whether it keeps schools safe.
Watch the video →Isn't suspension just punitive?
Suspension is a boundary, not a punishment. Its purpose is to protect the school community from harm, the same way a fence around a construction site protects pedestrians. We don't expect the fence to rehabilitate the construction zone. We expect it to keep people safe.
Watch the video →Are consequences inherently punitive?
The word "punitive" is being used so broadly that it rules out literally everything. If a student can't be sent out of class no matter what they do, we've eliminated all consequences. Exclusion from the classroom isn't suffering or punishment -- it's a way of saying what you did was not okay, and we're reinforcing that with some time away.
Watch the video →What's the real purpose of school discipline?
The purpose of school discipline is not to change an individual student's behavior. It's to protect the learning environment for everyone. If we evaluate discipline only by whether it "fixes" the offending student, we'll always conclude it doesn't work. But that was never the job. The job is keeping everyone safe so learning can happen.
Watch the video →Why do consequences need to escalate?
Progressive discipline works because consequences increase with repeated or worsening behavior. If the consequence is the same every time, students learn it's a manageable cost of misbehavior. Escalation sends a clear message: continued misbehavior will have increasingly serious results, and at some point, you won't be here anymore.
Watch the video →Violence in Schools
What should happen when a student is violent at school?
They need to be sent home. Not de-escalated and returned to class. Not given a candy bar and a cool-down room. Sent home. The boundary must be clear: if you are violent, you cannot be here. That's not punishment -- it's the only way to keep everyone else safe.
Watch the video →Why can't we just de-escalate and move on after a violent incident?
De-escalation is the floor, not the ceiling. Calming a situation down is necessary, but it's nowhere near sufficient. When we de-escalate and send a student right back to class, we're teaching everyone that violence is acceptable -- that all you need to do is calm down and everything resets. That's the wrong lesson.
Watch the video →What about the argument that "home is the problem" so we shouldn't suspend?
Students go home every single night. They go home on weekends. They go home for summer. If home is truly so dangerous that a child can't spend eight extra hours there, that's a CPS call, not a reason to avoid suspension. You can't argue it's unsafe to send a child home and then send them home at 3:30 every afternoon.
Watch the video →Does out-of-school suspension just give kids more time to get into trouble?
Students already spend over 89% of their lives outside of school. A three-day suspension adds about 21 hours to the 7,000+ hours a year they're already unsupervised. The idea that those 21 hours are going to ruin a kid's life just doesn't hold up mathematically.
Watch the video →Is it compassionate to not suspend a violent student?
Flip the question: Is it compassionate to teach a student that violence has no consequences? If we send them into the real world believing they can hurt people and just calm down and carry on, we've set them up for a very dangerous adulthood. True compassion means holding the line now so they learn before the stakes get higher.
Watch the video →What happens when schools have no consequences for fighting?
You accidentally turn your school into a fight club. When fighting is mandatory (compulsory attendance) and there are no consequences for it, you've created an environment where students are forced to attend and allowed to fight. Every school that removes consequences for fighting sees an increase in violent incidents. This is entirely predictable.
Watch the video →The Forgotten Victims
What about the other students when we debate discipline policy?
They're the ones we forget. When we debate whether suspension "works," we fixate on the one student who was suspended and forget the 25 students who can now learn safely. We also forget the students on the fence -- kids who might slip into bad behavior if they see there are no consequences. Consequences work for the community, even when they don't change one individual.
Watch the video →Isn't sending a violent student right back to class a problem?
It creates what is essentially a domestic violence dynamic. The victim -- whether teacher or student -- is forced to coexist with their attacker as if nothing happened. Would you tell your daughter to keep dating someone who hit her because he calmed down? That's what we're doing to teachers and students every day.
Watch the video →When a student is violent, are we teaching others it's their fault?
Yes, and that's one of the most dangerous messages in education right now. When violence goes unaddressed, victims learn they're expected to absorb it. When teachers are asked "what did you do to provoke this?" we're modeling victim-blaming. Violence is the aggressor's responsibility, period.
Watch the video →Is being anti-violence the same as being anti-student?
Not at all. Wanting safe schools protects all students, including those with disabilities. The framing that opposing violence means opposing students is a rhetorical trick that silences legitimate safety concerns. You can support student rights and also support everyone's right to a violence-free school.
Watch the video →Restorative Practices
Are restorative practices working as a replacement for progressive discipline?
No. Thousands of schools in multiple states have been experimenting with restorative practices as a discipline replacement for years, and not a single teacher has told me it's working well. The only "evidence" of success is declining suspension numbers -- which is what happens when you ban suspension. The real test is whether behavior improves, and it hasn't.
Watch the video →What's wrong with "repairing the harm" in restorative practice?
You can't repair an assault with an apology. The "repairing the harm" component puts the burden on victims by forcing them into a reconciliation process they didn't ask for. A bullying victim who was forced to "hug it out" with her bullies later died by suicide. Consequences protect victims. Forced forgiveness re-victimizes them.
Watch the video →Should every relationship be repaired after violence?
No. Violence sometimes should end a relationship permanently. A teacher who was assaulted should not be forced into a restorative process with their attacker. Insisting that victims reconcile with people who hurt them is textbook domestic violence thinking. Separation is sometimes the healthiest outcome.
Watch the video →Special Education & IEPs
What about students with IEPs who are violent?
IEPs don't excuse violence. Students with IEPs deserve procedural safeguards and a free appropriate public education, but they don't deserve the right to assault people. You can suspend a student with an IEP -- if it exceeds 10 days, you hold a manifestation determination meeting. That meeting isn't the end of the world. Schools have handled this for decades.
Watch the video →Does the IEP override safety concerns?
No. Safety matters more than the IEP. No IEP says "tolerate violence." No behavior plan requires educators to accept being assaulted. If a student's behavior is causing injuries that require surgery -- and I hear from staff members about this constantly -- something in the IEP or placement needs to change. Documents matter, but people's physical safety matters more.
Watch the video →Can a general education classroom serve students with extreme behavioral needs?
A general classroom is not a therapeutic setting. It lacks the specialized staffing and resources needed for students with extreme behavioral needs. When behavior plans tell teachers to "let them elope" from the classroom, we've created an impossible safety conflict. Students with extreme needs deserve appropriate placements, not cheap inclusion that fails everyone.
Watch the video →Teacher Safety & Retention
Why are teachers quitting?
Violence. Being assaulted, threatened, or feeling unsafe is driving experienced teachers out of the profession. Teachers connect the dots: they see low-level violence go unaddressed, they see the warning signs ignored, and they know it's going to get worse. No other profession in America requires you to accept getting hit as part of the job.
Watch the video →Should educators have the right to refuse service?
Yes. Doctors don't do open-heart surgery on airplanes. When a student is so violent that the classroom is unsafe, educators should be able to say: "I cannot safely serve this student in this setting." That doesn't mean the district is out of options -- it means the district needs to find an appropriate placement instead of dumping the problem on the cheapest person available.
Watch the video →Will we see more lawsuits from teachers injured by students?
I think it's coming. The Abby Zwerner case showed that districts can be held liable for foreseeable harm. As violence increases and schools continue to fail at providing safe working conditions, legal action is an inevitable outcome. Prevention is a lot cheaper than litigation.
Watch the video →School Leadership & Policy
Why are principals in such an impossible position?
Principals are told to reduce suspensions and keep schools safe simultaneously. They're criminally charged for breaking up fights. They can't suspend, can't touch students, can't exclude anyone -- and then they're held responsible when someone gets hurt. If we want people to be principals, we can't strip them of every tool they need to keep people safe.
Watch the video →Are districts afraid of lawsuits, and is that making schools unsafe?
Absolutely. Districts avoid enforcing consequences because they fear litigation from parents of disciplined students. But the irony is that inaction creates far greater legal exposure. A California district paid a $27 million settlement after a student was killed by bullies the school had failed to discipline. The pendulum will swing back -- the question is how much damage happens first.
Watch the video →Are no-consequences policies creating worse behavior?
Yes, directly. When students learn that nothing happens when they're violent, behavior predictably deteriorates. Normally, bad behavior is constrained by consequences. Schools have created a unique situation where students are protected from retaliation but free to hurt others with impunity. We're manufacturing the very behaviors we're struggling with.
Watch the video →What's a good bright line for behavior that can't be tolerated?
Crime. If it would get you arrested at Walmart, it shouldn't be tolerated at school. Assault, threats, destruction of property -- these are crimes, and schools should not treat them as routine discipline matters. We lose all credibility as a safe environment when we allow criminal behavior to go unaddressed. For criminal acts on campus, law enforcement should be involved.
Watch the video →What role do cell phones play in school safety?
Cell phones are at the root of many major school brawls. Students use them to coordinate fights, film fights, escalate drama, and continue conflicts after the fact. Banning phones during class isn't enough -- schools need all-day bans including passing periods and lunch. When you take phones out of the equation, you eliminate a huge amount of the coordination and spectacle that makes school violence worse.
Watch the video →Where should a school start if safety has completely broken down?
Start with the basics. First, control physical access -- everyone must be in the right place at the right time. Sweep the halls, lock the doors, use hall passes. Second, implement a strict cell phone policy. Third, restore progressive discipline with a clear matrix: these behaviors get these consequences, escalating with repetition. These aren't innovative ideas. They're fundamentals that have always worked.
Watch the video →