School punishment and interpersonal exclusion: Rejection, withdrawal, and separation from friends

• Author: Wade C. Jacobsen
• Published date: 01 February 2020
• Date: 01 February 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12227

Received: 15 May 2018 Revised: 22 July 2019 Accepted: 23 July 2019

DOI: 10.1111/1745-9125.12227

ARTICLE

School punishment and interpersonal exclusion:

Rejection, withdrawal, and separation from friends∗

Wade C. Jacobsen

Department of Criminology and Criminal

Justice, University of Maryland—College Park

Correspondence

WadeC. Jacobsen, Department of Criminology

andCr iminal Justice, Universityof Maryland,

2220HSamuel J. LeFrak Hall, College Park,

MD20742.

Email:wcj@umd.edu

∗Additionalsupporting information

canbe found in the full text tab for this

article in the WileyOnline Librar y at

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/

crim.2020.58.issue-1/issuetoc.

Iam g rateful to D. WayneOsgood for his

suggestionsregarding my methodological

approach.I also thank him and the follow-

ingcolleagues for their comments on earlier

drafts: MichelleL. Fr isco, S. MichaelGad-

dis,Scott D. Gest, Anna R. Haskins, Derek A.

Kreager,Janet L. Lauritsen, Jean M. McGloin,

DavidM. Ramey, Sonja E. Siennick, Mei Yang,

andmultiple anonymous reviewers. Finally,I

owespecial thanks to Sara C. Jacobsen for her

invaluablesupport. Grants from the William

T.Grant Foundation (8316), National Insti-

tuteon Dr ug Abuse (R01-DA018225),and

NationalInstitute of Child Health and Human

Development(R24-HD041025) supported this

research.The analyses comprised data from

PROSPER,a project directed by R. L. Spoth,

fundedby the National Institute on Drug Abuse

(R01-DA013709)and the National Institute on

AlcoholAbuse and Alcoholism (AA14702).

Thecontent of t his article is solely myrespon-

sibilityand does not necessar ilyrepresent

the official viewsof the National Institutes of

Health.

Abstract

School suspension is a common form of punishment in

the United States that is disproportionately concentrated

among racial minority and disadvantaged youth. In label-

ing theories, the implication is that such stigmatized sanc-

tions may lead to interpersonal exclusion from normative

others and to greater involvement with antisocial peers.

I test this implication in the context of rural schools by

1) examining the association between suspension and dis-

continuity in same-grade friendship ties, focusing on three

mechanisms implied in labeling theories: rejection, with-

drawal, and physical separation; 2) testing the association

between suspension and increased involvement with anti-

social peers; and (3) assessing whether these associations

are stronger in smaller schools. Consistent with labeling

theories, I find suspension associated with greater discon-

tinuity in friendship ties, based on changes in the respon-

dents’ friendship preferences and self-reports of their peers.

My findings are also consistent with changes in percep-

tual measures of exclusion. Additionally, I find suspension

associated with greater involvement with substance-using

peers. Some but not all of these associations are stronger in

smaller rural schools. Given the disproportionate distribu-

tion of suspension, my findings indicate that an excessive

reliance on this exclusionary form of punishment may fos-

ter inequality among these youth.

KEYWORDS

labeling theory, peer networks, school suspension, social exclusion

Criminology. 2020;58:35–69. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/crim © 2019 American Society of Criminology 35

36 JACOBS EN

The emphasis on crime control over much of the past half-century did more than fill our penal institu-

tions; it also left empty desks in our classrooms. School suspension is a common response to classroom

misbehavior in the United States that is heavily concentrated among racial minority and disadvantaged

youth (Hirschfield, 2018a; Payne & Welch, 2010). Excessive reliance on suspension is problematic

because it excludes students from school activities and puts a mark on their academic records, poten-

tially leading to further disengagement and lower educational attainment (Balfanz, Byrnes, & Fox,

2015; Pyne, 2019).

This weakened institutional attachment after suspension is consistent with labeling theories

(Goffman, 1963; Lemert, 1951, 1967; Paternoster & Iovanni, 1989). In labeling theories, it is implied

that stigmatizing sanctions can foster social exclusion, which is defined as being “pushed out” of

conventional society (Foster & Hagan, 2015). A focus on institutional exclusion is important, but in

labeling theories, it is clear that exclusion may also be interpersonal. I refer to interpersonal exclusion

as a deterioration of relationships with normative others as a result of punishment. The relationship

most relevant to students involves the friendships with peers they interact with most—those in their

grade. Such friendships are the medium by which children develop social skills and learn age-graded

tasks. Indeed, having normative friends in one’s grade may be an early source of social capital

(Coleman, 1988; Crosnoe, Cavanagh, & Elder, 2003), promoting outcomes like school achievement,

emotional well-being, and behavioral adjustment (Crosnoe, 2000; Hartup & Stevens, 1997). In

contrast, exclusion from such friends may be accompanied by greater involvement with antisocial

peers (Dishion, Patterson, Stoolmiller, & Skinner, 1991).

If suspension is associated with exclusion from same-grade friends, this should be more apparent in

settings where it is more stigmatizing. In disadvantaged urban areas, the findings from prior research

indicate that juvenile sanctions are “normalized” experiences (Hirschfield, 2008; Nolan, 2011). Small-

town or rural areas, on the other hand, are often characterized by factors that reinforce social norms and

may increase costs of a deviant label. These factors include greater network density or closure, more

time with neighbors, and a larger share of ties to family and kin (Beggs, Haines, & Hurlbert, 1996;

Marsden & Srivastava, 2012; Smith, 2003). To capture such a setting, I depart from the urban focus in

prior suspension research (e.g., Mittleman, 2018) by relying on a predominantly rural sample. Rural

schools vary in size, but smaller rural schools offer less anonymity compared with largerr ural schools.

Thus, I also assess the extent to which associations between suspension and friendship outcomes are

greater in smaller rural schools.

In this study, I extend prior labeling research in school contextsby moving beyond a focus on weak-

ened institutional attachment or behavior outcomes (i.e., secondary deviance; Lemert, 1951; Wolf &

Kupchik, 2017) to test whether suspension in a rural sample is followed by interpersonal exclusion

from same-grade friends. I use a unique data set of self-reported behavior and friendship preferences,

of students and their peers. First, I examine the association between suspension and discontinuity in

friendship ties. In doing so, I focus on three mechanisms of interpersonal exclusion implied in labeling

theories: rejection,withdrawal, and separation. Second, I test the association between suspension and

involvement with antisocial peers. Third, I assess the extentto which these associations are stronger in

smaller schools.

1BACKGROUND

1.1 School suspension and social exclusion

Suspension is not a rare experience in the United States. Each year, 2.6 million children and adoles-

cents are temporarily removed from school as a result of out-of-school suspension and 2.7 million are

JACOBS EN 37

excluded from class as a result of in-school suspension (Office of Civil Rights, 2018). Reform efforts

have led to recent declines in some states (Loveless, 2017), but overall rates are still high, particularly

for disadvantaged and racial minority students, not because juvenile crime rates are high but because

suspension is often in response to minor misbehavior like classroom disruptions and attendance prob-

lems (Kupchik, 2010; Morris & Perry, 2017; Skiba et al., 2014). This is problematic because in a

growing body of research, scholars have suggested that suspension may be harmful for child and ado-

lescent development (Cuellar & Markowitz,2015; Jacobsen, Pace, & Ramirez, 2019; Mittleman, 2018;

Morris & Perry, 2016).

One way suspension may be harmful is through social exclusion, whichhas been conceptualized as

weakened attachment to important institutions after an official sanction. Prior research on this topic has

often been focused on institutional rejection of those with a criminal history. For example, formerly

incarcerated individuals may be barred from legal employment or stable housing (Geller & Curtis,

2011; Pager,2003). They may also exclude themselves (institutional withdrawalor “system avoidance”)

by minimizing involvement with schools, hospitals, or other record-keeping institutions for fear of

apprehension or having their record discovered (Brayne, 2014; Goffman, 2009; Haskins & Jacobsen,

2017; Lageson, 2016).

Suspension also involves institutional exclusion. Not only are students physically separated from

their classroom or school, but also they are formally excluded by a mark on their academic records.

School personnel who become awareof a student’s suspension may lower their expectations or increase

surveillance of the student (Ferguson, 2001; Weissman, 2015). Sensing or fearing these administrative

reactions, suspended students may lowert heir trust in school personnel (Pyne, 2019) or disengagefrom

school activities. These exclusionary processes may then be perpetuated into later grades and even

beyond secondary school. For example, many high schools send discipline information to colleges

(Weissman & NaPier, 2015), and college admissions offices often inquire about suspension history.

Thus, suspension is often associated with a lesser likelihood of school completion and postsecondary

enrollment (Balfanz et al., 2015; Noltemeyer, Ward, & Mcloughlin, 2015).

1.2 Interpersonal exclusion

This institution-focused conceptualization of social exclusion is important for understanding conse-

quences of excessive crime control for social inequality;however, another type of exclusion is left out

that is often implied by theorists but rarely examined empirically. Lemert (1967, p. 252) described

exclusion as a “process that begins with persistent interpersonal difficulties between the individual

and …other persons in the community.” Whereas institutional exclusionrefers to a person’s weakened

bonds to institutions, I refer to interpersonal exclusion as a weakening of ties to members of an

individual’s social network after punishment. For example, some researchers have suggested that

suspension strains family relationships through stress (e.g., by interrupting parent work schedules) or

embarrassment (Dunning-Lozano, 2018; Kupchik, 2016; Mowen, 2017). I extend this workby examin-

ing suspended students’ weakened ties to friends in their school. School friends are important because

they provide the context in which youth learn social and behavioral skills that are critical for healthy

development. Conforming friends encourage school adjustment and achievement; they may transmit

knowledge from parents and mentors about appropriate classroom behavior or share information such

as how to prepare for college (Coleman, 1988; Crosnoe, 2000; Crosnoe etal., 2003). Such friends may

be particularly important in rural areas where families and schools often have fewereconomic or insti-

tutional resources (Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 2001; Nelson, 2016; Roscigno, Tomaskovic-Devey, &

Crowley, 2006). I focus on friendships among same-grade peers because they represent a consistently

present audience and pool of potential friends in which to examine changes in ties from year to year.