What the Trump administration’s recent guidance on school discipline gets wrong

School discipline is one of the most persistent challenges school leaders and teachers face in the day-to-day running of classrooms.

学校纪律是学校领导和教师在课堂日常管理中面临的最持久的挑战之一。

According to many reports , student behavioral problems worsened after pandemic-era school closures, and recent data suggests educators continue to struggle with managing student behavior.

根据许多报告，大流行时期学校关闭后，学生的行为问题变得更加严重，最近的数据表明，教育工作者仍在努力管理学生的行为。

Schools have not been well positioned to address the confluence of challenges underlying this trend.

学校尚未做好充分准备来应对这一趋势背后的多重挑战。

School districts, for example, are under-resourced to offer adequate mental health and counseling services—a problem that may grow more severe due to budget cuts.

例如，学区资源不足，无法提供足够的心理健康和咨询服务——由于预算削减，这个问题可能会变得更加严重。

On Aug.

八月。

18, 2026, the Trump administration released guidance on school discipline that addresses none of the challenging questions related to discipline that schools are navigating.

2026 年 12 月 18 日，特朗普政府发布了学校纪律指南，该指南没有解决学校正在解决的与纪律相关的挑战性问题。

Instead, the guidance letter mischaracterizes public schools’ obligations under civil rights law, promotes harmful stereotypes about students of color, and encourages ineffective discipline practices.

相反，该指导信错误地描述了公立学校在民权法下的义务，宣扬对有色人种学生的有害成见，并鼓励无效的纪律做法。

In this post, I outline what education leaders need to know about the Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) on racial discrimination in school discipline.

在这篇文章中，我概述了教育领导者需要了解有关学校纪律中种族歧视的亲爱同事信 (DCL) 的哪些信息。

In doing so, I describe what the nonbinding letter gets wrong about civil rights law and school discipline.

在此过程中，我描述了这封不具约束力的信件在民权法和学校纪律方面的错误之处。

The letter comes in response to an April 2025 executive order calling for the U.S. Department of Education (ED) to issue updated guidance on how to avoid racial discrimination in the administration of school discipline.

这封信是对 2025 年 4 月一项行政命令的回应，该命令要求美国教育部 (ED) 就如何避免学校纪律管理中的种族歧视发布最新指南。

A Dear Colleague Letter is a nonbinding guidance document that is used to clarify schools’ obligations under existing federal laws and regulations.

亲爱的同事信是一份不具约束力的指导文件，用于阐明学校在现行联邦法律和法规下的义务。

The DCL sought to clarify schools’ legal obligations as they relate to racial discrimination and school discipline.

DCL 试图澄清学校在种族歧视和学校纪律方面的法律义务。

It also aimed to explain the implications of the recently revised Title VI regulations (the rules that dictate how ED enforces Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits racial/ethnic discrimination in federally funded schools and colleges).

它还旨在解释最近修订的第六章法规的含义（该规则规定 ED 如何执行 1964 年《民权法案》第六章，该法案禁止联邦资助的学校和学院中的种族/民族歧视）。

Notably, and controversially, those Title VI regulations removed the use of a disparate impact standard of discrimination.

值得注意的是，颇具争议的是，这些第六章法规取消了使用不同的歧视影响标准。

A disparate impact standard had allowed ED’s Office for Civil Rights to consider whether school policies or practices were discriminatory if they resulted in harsher punishments for one or more racial/ethnic groups but did not have clear evidence of discriminatory intent.

一项不同的影响标准允许教育部民权办公室考虑学校政策或做法是否具有歧视性，如果这些政策或做法导致对一个或多个种族/族裔群体进行更严厉的惩罚，但没有明确的歧视意图证据。

First, it made clear that it is illegal for schools to consider an individual student’s race or ethnicity when making discipline decisions.

首先，它明确规定学校在做出纪律决定时考虑个别学生的种族或民族是违法的。

(This has always been illegal.)

（这一直是非法的。）

Second, it made much broader claims about what constitutes illegal racial discrimination in discipline.

其次，它对纪律中非法种族歧视的构成提出了更广泛的主张。

According to the DCL, “a school’s decision to change its discipline policies with the purpose of avoiding or reducing racial disparities in discipline constitutes race discrimination.” Put another way, any race-conscious effort to remedy racial disparities in discipline through policy changes amounts to racial discrimination.

DCL 表示，“学校为了避免或减少纪律方面的种族差异而改变纪律政策的决定构成种族歧视。”换句话说，任何出于种族意识而通过政策改变来弥补纪律中种族差异的努力都等于种族歧视。

This is a sweeping claim with significant implications for states and school districts.

这是一个广泛的主张，对各州和学区具有重大影响。

There’s one problem, though: That’s not what the law says.

但有一个问题：法律不是这么规定的。

The DCL’s first and most important error is that it mischaracterizes schools’ obligations under federal civil rights law.

DCL 的第一个也是最重要的错误是它错误地描述了联邦民权法下学校的义务。

Let’s get back to those revised Title VI regulations.

让我们回到修订后的第六章法规。

Those regulations differ from the prior regulations in only one way: the removal of the disparate impact standard.

这些法规与之前的法规仅在一个方面有所不同：取消了不同的影响标准。

In effect, this means that ED, through its Title VI enforcement, can only identify illegal discrimination if it finds evidence of disparate treatment (a legal standard that requires evidence of discriminatory intent).

实际上，这意味着教育部只有在发现差别待遇的证据（要求提供歧视意图证据的法律标准）的情况下，才能通过其第六章执法来识别非法歧视。

So, what if a school district is working to reduce racial discipline disparities by implementing a new, facially neutral approach to discipline?

那么，如果学区正在努力通过实施一种新的、表面中立的纪律方法来减少种族纪律差异，该怎么办？

For example, what if school leaders are concerned about high suspension rates for their students of color and decide to adopt restorative practices (for all students)?

例如，如果学校领导担心有色人种学生的高停学率并决定采取恢复性做法（针对所有学生）怎么办？

Does that amount to racial discrimination under disparate treatment?

这是否构成差别待遇下的种族歧视？

The answer, according to legal scholars , is no. In fact, it remains prudent for schools to monitor and address racial disparities in discipline.

法律学者认为，答案是否定的。事实上，学校监控和解决纪律方面的种族差异仍然是谨慎的。

That’s because, despite the rescission of the disparate impact standard, evidence of racially disproportionate harm of a policy or practice “ can be part of the evidence that establishes intentional discrimination .” Moreover, according to recent guidance on anti-discrimination protections released by attorneys general from 14 states, “taking proactive measures to remove unjustified barriers and ensure more equitable opportunities is legal, cost-effective, and benefits everyone.”

这是因为，尽管废除了不同影响标准，但一项政策或做法对种族造成不成比例伤害的证据“可能成为构成故意歧视的证据的一部分”。此外，根据14个州总检察长最近发布的反歧视保护指南，“采取积极措施消除不合理的障碍并确保更公平的机会是合法的、具有成本效益的，并且使每个人受益。”

The DCL’s second error is that it perpetuates a series of falsehoods about the disparate impact standard, how it was used by past administrations, and the effects of disparate impact enforcement on school safety.

DCL 的第二个错误是，它在不同影响标准、过去政府如何使用该标准以及不同影响执法对学校安全的影响方面延续了一系列谎言。

For instance, the DCL claims that disparate impact “effectively require[d] schools to discriminate on the basis of race by imposing discipline based on racial characteristics, rather than on objective behavior alone.” This is not true.

例如，DCL 声称，不同的影响“实际上要求学校根据种族特征而不是仅仅根据客观行为实施纪律，从而进行基于种族的歧视。”这不是真的。

According to the Education Rights Institute at the University of Virginia, racial disparities in discipline alone were never used as sufficient evidence of illegal discrimination under the disparate impact standard.

根据弗吉尼亚大学教育权利研究所的说法，在不同影响标准下，仅纪律方面的种族差异从未被用作非法歧视的充分证据。

What’s more, the Obama and Biden administrations never required racial parity in discipline as a necessary condition for compliance with civil rights law.

更重要的是，奥巴马和拜登政府从未要求纪律中的种族平等作为遵守民权法的必要条件。

Resolution agreements signed between ED and school districts during these administrations required process-related outcomes (e.g., redesigning student codes of conduct or offering teacher trainings), not student-related outcomes (e.g., equal suspension rates).

在这些管理期间，教育部和学区之间签署的解决协议需要与流程相关的结果（例如，重新设计学生行为准则或提供教师培训），而不是与学生相关的结果（例如，平等的停学率）。

The DCL also makes several inaccurate or misleading claims about how discipline practices and school safety changed in response to an Obama-era DCL on school discipline, the first Trump administration’s move to rescind that DCL, and subsequent actions taken by the Biden administration.

DCL 还针对奥巴马时代关于学校纪律的 DCL、第一届特朗普政府废除该 DCL 的举措以及拜登政府随后采取的行动，对纪律做法和学校安全如何发生变化提出了一些不准确或误导性的说法。

These claims include that the Obama-era guidance led to “increased levels of classroom disorder and school violence” as well as schools “ignore[ing] or cover[ing] up…

这些说法包括奥巴马时代的指导导致“课堂秩序混乱和校园暴力加剧”，以及学校“忽视或掩盖......

student misconduct” to superficially avoid racial disparities in discipline.

学生不当行为”，表面上是为了避免纪律上的种族差异。

The DCL provides no serious evidence to support these claims.

DCL 没有提供有力的证据来支持这些说法。

The DCL also promotes outdated, ineffective ideas about what constitutes effective school discipline while perpetuating harmful, racist stereotypes about students of color.

DCL 还宣扬关于什么是有效学校纪律的过时、无效的观念，同时延续了对有色人种学生的有害、种族主义成见。

First, the DCL repeatedly appeals to policies requiring “mandatory punishments.” However, research indicates that “zero-tolerance” approaches to school discipline are ineffective in reducing student misbehavior and improving school climate.

首先，DCL多次呼吁采取“强制处罚”政策。然而，研究表明，“零容忍”的学校纪律方法并不能有效减少学生的不当行为和改善学校氛围。

The DCL also appeals to giving schools more discretion in the disciplinary process.

DCL 还呼吁给予学校在纪律处分过程中更多的自由裁量权。

However, an abundance of evidence indicates that educator and/or school-level discretion in the disciplinary process often yields unfair outcomes.

然而，大量证据表明，教育者和/或学校在纪律处分过程中的自由裁量权往往会产生不公平的结果。

Second, the DCL presents a false dichotomy between racial equity in discipline and school safety.

其次，《DCL》在纪律方面的种族平等和学校安全之间提出了错误的二分法。

Reducing racial disparities does not have to come at the expense of promoting safe schools.

减少种族差异不一定要以牺牲促进安全学校为代价。

In fact, when implemented well, efforts to promote racial fairness in discipline benefit the broader school environment.

事实上，如果实施得当，促进纪律中种族公平的努力将有利于更广泛的学校环境。

Redesigning school discipline policies and practices is difficult work.

重新设计学校纪律政策和实践是一项艰巨的工作。

That does not mean it is not worth pursuing.

这并不意味着它不值得追求。

Third, the letter promotes the idea that racial disparities are natural and downplays the presence of discriminatory treatment at school.

第三，这封信宣扬了种族差异是自然现象的观点，并淡化了学校中存在的歧视性待遇。

This runs contrary to what social scientists have documented across a wide range of study contexts using many compelling methodological approaches.

这与社会科学家使用许多令人信服的方法论在广泛的研究背景下记录的内容背道而驰。

Take, for example, a groundbreaking study by Jayanti Owens .

以 Jayanti Owens 的一项开创性研究为例。

Her research team produced a series of videos with teenage actors of different racial backgrounds acting out the same common misbehaviors.

她的研究团队制作了一系列视频，其中不同种族背景的青少年演员表现出相同的常见不当行为。

Teachers who watched the video with a misbehaving Black teen perceived the behavior more negatively and were more likely to say they would send the child to the principal’s office.

观看了行为不端的黑人青少年的视频的老师对这种行为的看法更加消极，并且更有可能说他们会把孩子送到校长办公室。

This finding is consistent with results from several survey experiments , as well as analyses of administrative data where researchers have shown that Black students receive harsher punishments than their white peers despite being involved in observably identical infractions.

这一发现与多项调查实验以及行政数据分析的结果一致，研究人员表明，尽管黑人学生犯下了明显相同的违规行为，但他们却比白人同龄人受到更严厉的惩罚。

What’s most concerning about the falsehoods perpetuated in the DCL is that they imply that racial inequalities in discipline are inevitable and intractable.

《DCL》中存在的谎言最令人担忧的是，它们暗示纪律方面的种族不平等是不可避免且难以解决的。

They suggest a false choice between school safety and racial fairness.

他们建议在学校安全和种族公平之间做出错误的选择。

The assertion that the problem is simply that kids of color misbehave more implies that efforts to reduce racial disparities in any meaningful way are pointless.

认为问题仅仅在于有色人种孩子行为不端的说法意味着，以任何有意义的方式减少种族差异的努力都是毫无意义的。

These are pernicious ideas that will only serve to further entrench stubborn inequalities to the detriment of racially marginalized students.

这些都是有害的想法，只会进一步加剧顽固的不平等，损害种族边缘化的学生。

While a DCL does not carry the weight of law and, in this DCL’s own words, “do[es] not bind the public or create new legal standards,” it is clearly signaling a new approach to pressure districts to abandon their efforts to promote racial equality.

虽然 DCL 不具有法律效力，并且用 DCL 自己的话来说，“不会约束公众或制定新的法律标准”，但它清楚地表明了一种新的方法，可以迫使各地区放弃促进种族平等的努力。

On the same day the DCL was released, ED’s Office for Civil Rights announced that two districts— Fayetteville Public Schools in Arkansas and Milwaukee Public Schools in Wisconsin —were being investigated for concerns of racial discrimination in discipline.

在 DCL 发布的同一天，教育部民权办公室宣布，阿肯色州费耶特维尔公立学校和威斯康星州密尔沃基公立学校这两个学区因纪律方面的种族歧视问题正在接受调查。

These investigations were not opened in response to concerns raised in either community (which is typically why investigations are initiated).

这些调查并不是为了回应两个社区提出的担忧而展开的（这通常是启动调查的原因）。

Instead, ED moved proactively to investigate district-led efforts to address racial disparities.

相反，教育署主动采取行动，调查学区领导的解决种族差异的努力。

Notably, Fayetteville’s efforts to implement restorative justice to reduce racial disproportionality were specifically called out in ED’s press release .

值得注意的是，教育局的新闻稿特别指出了费耶特维尔为减少种族不平等而实施恢复性司法所做的努力。

Though, again, according to legal scholars and recent multistate guidance released by state attorneys general, proactively working to remedy racial unfairness in schools is not only permissible under anti-discrimination law but also prudent and cost effective.

不过，根据法律学者和州总检察长最近发布的多州指导意见，积极努力纠正学校中的种族不公平现象不仅是反歧视法所允许的，而且是审慎且具有成本效益的。

Here, it is important to appreciate the context for this DCL.

在这里，了解此 DCL 的上下文非常重要。

It comes amid broader efforts—in education and other sectors of public life—to weaponize civil rights enforcement, often against marginalized groups of people.

它出现在教育和公共生活其他部门更广泛的努力中，以武器化民权执法，通常针对的是边缘群体。

Notably, many of the administration’s other efforts in this area have been thwarted.

值得注意的是，政府在这一领域的许多其他努力都受到了阻碍。

For example, a sweeping DCL released in February 2025 attempted to recast any race-conscious policies, programs, or efforts as racial discrimination.

例如，2025 年 2 月发布的一项全面的 DCL 试图将任何具有种族意识的政策、计划或努力重新定义为种族歧视。

That letter and the administration’s subsequent enforcement efforts were thrown out by a federal judge who found the administration was attempting to use nonbinding guidance to “substantially alter the legal obligations of schools and educators without employing the procedures necessary to implement such a change.”

一名联邦法官驳回了这封信和政府随后的执法努力，他认为政府试图使用不具约束力的指导来“实质性改变学校和教育工作者的法律义务，而不采用实施这种改变所需的程序”。

Clearly, though, the efforts to weaponize civil rights enforcement continue.

但显然，将民权执法武器化的努力仍在继续。

As that work unfolds, it is critical for state, local, and school leaders to understand what their actual obligations are under the law and the considerable room they have to pursue more equitable student outcomes.

随着这项工作的开展，州、地方和学校领导者必须了解法律规定的实际义务以及他们在追求更公平的学生成果方面拥有的巨大空间。