Violating school dress codes. Use your phone in class. Happy to the teacher.
There was a time when such behavior was called "intentional resistance" that led to the suspension of students in California public schools.
But over the past decade, the changes in national discipline policies have been made – in part because such suspensions have disproportionately impacted Black, Latino and Indigenous students, and thus largely declared such punishment. Instead, schools are advised to turn to practices including conflict resolution and counseling.
However, now, the executive order signed by President Trump could present a legal challenge ahead of time California law that overhauled school discipline by prohibiting intentional protests against K-12 students.
In the April 23 order, Trump directed the education department to take root in the school discipline framework under the “discriminatory fairness ideology” and issue new “common sense” practices in K-12 schools in the United States, while criticizing previous guidance from democratic governments. President Obama directed schools to avoid having discipline policies that disproportionately punish underrepresented student groups, a position that was later supported by President Biden.
Trump said such rules equal racial discrimination because his order says Obama-era directives “effectively require schools to achieve discipline based on racial traits, rather than discriminating race based solely on objective behavior.”
The executive order sows chaos among educators and attorneys who want to know its potential impact on California — some say it is a deduction of the Trump administration’s widespread attack on diversity, equity and inclusion programs.
Pedro A., dean of the University of Southern California Rosill School of Education, "But...where is the guidance? What is the desire to see what they do help children? None of that. The public must insist on being committed to you starting to build something better for our children before you start tearing things up."
A spokesperson for California. General Rob Bonta said in a statement that his office is reviewing executive orders and will monitor its execution “in order to comply with the law.”
The California Department of Education expressed its firm support for national policies and said the Trump administration “in our education system, disciplinary imbalances for students are a real concern that we cannot ignore or confuse.” The department said it will continue to use “equity lenses” to address student safety to “make sure that students do not differ in disciplines for students due to the color or racial background of the skin.”
"The broad concept of 'equity' is not illegal," the department said in a statement. "It is not the cause of real school safety issues, and requires strong leadership and common sense solutions."
California’s discipline law and previous federal guidance stem from a legal doctrine called “different theories of influence.”
It argues that seemingly neutral policies may have a greater adverse impact on certain racial groups than others and can be challenged on these reasons.
But Trump's order directed the administration to put aside different theories of impact and called on Education Secretary Linda McMahon to provide new guidance to schools in 30 days. By the 120-day mark, she will submit a detailed report on the status of school discipline based on discriminatory rights, which partly details a “model” policy to protect the “safety and educational environment for students.”
The executive order raised criticism from school advocacy groups and well-known educational voices, including Denise Forte, president of advocacy group Edtrust.
She said Trump signed the education order last week and others would “allow school discipline habits to punish students of color and students with disabilities in a disproportionate proportion” and “silent student and parent voices demanding that students feel safe and supportive in the classroom.”
Asked about criticism of Trump’s decision on school discipline, the U.S. Department of Education provided a statement from McMahon, saying that the Biden administration’s policy “gives racial equality quotas for student safety racial equality quotas about student safety – encouraging schools to turn a blind eye to poverty or violence in the name of inclusiveness.”
“Students’ success in adulthood begins with their performance in the classroom and we should teach our children to distinguish right from wrong from wrong from childhood,” she added.
Educational discipline issues are a tough one – from preschool to high school – norms have been changing in recent years, partly because they are driven by the freed data.
The Times reported in 2019 that California Department of Education statistics showed that in the first two years, black students accounted for 17% of the total suspensions in California, despite accounting for less than 6% of the number of students.
Data is the prelude to change. In 2019, a new state law stopped public schools’ intentional protest suspensions in grades 4 and 5, and banned it for six years from six to eighth grades. The state has ended this suspension from kindergarten to third grade.
In 2023, the state expanded its law to ban suspensions for middle and high school students. It also prohibits pauses and evictions of truancy and procrastination. The law states that earlier legislation “had a disproportionately beneficial impact on black students.”
"We didn't kick them out of school, but we attributed them to the students to find out what led to them taking action and helping them solve it," said D-Berkeley, the author of the bill. The legislation has been widely supported and is easy to pass, with only a few Republican senators voting against it.
Educators can still suspend students from taking tougher actions such as physical violence, possession or use of drugs, theft or bullying. And teachers are often able to remove destructive and rebellious students from the classroom, but only through a single-level hanging.
Los Angeles Unified School District fell into trouble when it banned suspensions in 2013 and deliberately resisted students. Instead, officials are asked to find other discipline methods. Other school districts in California, including those in Azusa and Pasadena, quickly followed suit.
A spokesman for LA Unified said it will “continue to comply with state laws and regional policies regarding student discipline, which include appropriate procedures for all students. Regardless of the protected category, all students are not considering applying student discipline policies in the area.”
Ebony Batiste, who teaches restorative justice at 74th Street Elementary School in Los Angeles United, said the “crystal-sized all-purpose” approach should not be used to eliminate discipline. “It’s like putting a band-aid on two students – one just layoffs and the other has an open wound bleeding,” she said. “Support must be tailored to individual students or a group of students.”
She directs students to resolve conflicts and shares ways to communicate their thoughts and feelings. She said she has long been looking for “alternative alternatives, as long as it’s been punished.”
“Usually, if a child does this, it’s usually the reason,” Baptiste said. “All the actions tell a story and something is being conveyed.”
As for Trump's orders, she said she was not worried. "Because it seems that most (Trump's) execution orders just express his goal and desire to educate," she said. "California will continue to serve the children as usual."
But some people are worried about major changes.
Mayra Lira, a senior supervision attorney for public legal counsel, said in a statement that the directive would result in “more people of color being kicked out of learning and learning.”
The order “destroys decades of progress and violates a lot of research that shows that punitive, exclusive discipline is ineffective,” she said. It “gives educators no choice but to exclude.”
This is not just a liberal group that criticizes the Trump order.
"The federal discipline mission - no matter which party is responsible, is not the solution," Dean McGee, a senior attorney at the Conservative legal group, said in a statement.
"Local schools should not be micromanaged by policies that transfer every new administration from Washington," McGee added. "Discipline needs may vary by region, and local school boards and principals can respond better to those needs. When they get those needs wrong, their communities may be held accountable."
But he also criticized California's ban on intentional defense of suspensions, calling it "another example of top-down policy that has the potential to bring voices from parents, teachers and local communities to disciplinary measures they believe are suitable for their schools."
McGee proposed a solution: “Give families more freedom of education through school coupons and scholarships, charter schools, open enrollment rates and reduced heavy homeschool education regulations.”
The executive order is officially titled “Restoring Common Sense School Discipline Policy” – not expected to force immediate changes, with all parties of interest monitoring the government’s next steps.
But it’s certain: Despite Trump’s previous rejection of the 2025 project – created by his allies and touted “traditional American values,” the executive order is another signal he draws inspiration from controversial conservative political initiatives.
Trump has appointed various numbers related to the 2025 project to take on the role of the administration, including the script’s architect Russell Vought, who was appointed head of the Office of Management and Budget.
The 2025 project has a lot to say about the use of different impact theories in education, with some of its criticisms appearing in Trump’s executive orders. Both quoted the same letter from the Obama administration in 2014 that pointed out differences in how schools impose penalties and warned against discriminatory discipline.
“Unfortunately, the federal government has over-pushed many school leaders prioritizing the pursuit of racial parity in school discipline indicators, such as detention, suspension and eviction – exceeding the safety of students,” 2025 Project 2025 wrote. It also proposes several steps that should be taken to correct the Democratic Party’s “over-disclosure.” This includes revoking the Biden administration guidance that points to racial disparities in discipline and encourages school districts to ensure that their policies are fair.
That's what Trump's executive order does.
In a statement, Ford said the order and others focused on education signed by Trump last week, “reflecting the blueprint set out in the 2025 program, an extreme policy plan designed to eliminate the federal role in education, redistribute public schools, and relegate higher education to only privileges for wealthy families.”
USC Dean Noguera said he sees similarities between Trump’s executive order in education and many of his opposition directives.
"Their whole strategy seems to be driven by ideology, not out of the desire to make useful new policies and plans," he said. "They didn't build anything and their credibility is so questionable."