Authors

Date of Completion

5-31-2026

Degree Type

Open Access Capstone

Degree Name

Master of Arts (MA)

First Advisor

Robert Ricketts

Second Advisor

Jeremy Szteiter

Abstract

Punitive shutdown policies at therapeutic alternative schools often do not reduce class avoidance among students with oppositional defiant behaviors. This synthesis examines why these policies do not work and proposes evidence-based alternatives. I draw on research in exclusionary discipline, Collaborative and Proactive Solutions, Self-Determination Theory, and function-based intervention, as well as my daily experience as a behavioral teacher. I argue that punitive approaches fail because they misunderstand what drives oppositional behavior. Deterrence assumes students avoid class to escape work and will return if the consequences are harsh enough. In reality, students with oppositional defiant disorder are mainly motivated by resisting outside control. When more control is imposed, their resistance grows. In these cases, punishment actually provokes more defiance. This synthesis offers a practical framework that moves away from punitive views of class avoidance and instead focuses on supporting autonomy, building relationships, and teaching skills. The approach is guided by five principles: ask why before responding, give choices within limits, build relationships before expecting compliance, teach skills rather than just give consequences, and consider group dynamics as well as individual behavior. Student interviews support the research and also highlight areas the literature often overlooks, such as the social side of avoidance and how students are left out of discussions about their education. I also draw on what I have learned in the Critical and Creative Thinking graduate program at UMass Boston, including ideas about critical thinking, dialogue, metacognition, and action research. The aim is to align discipline practices with the therapeutic mission of alternative schools, helping students who have not succeeded with traditional methods rather than repeating the same exclusionary practices that led them here.

Comments

Free and open access to this work is made available to the UMass Boston community by ScholarWorks at UMass Boston. Those not on campus and those without a UMass Boston campus username and password may gain access to this work through Interlibrary Loan. If you have a UMass Boston campus username and password and would like to download this work from off-campus, click on the “Off-Campus Users” button.

Share

COinS