Originally published October 25, 2022

Many argue that well behaved students do not deserve to have their learning disrupted by unruly behavior. But what happens to the students who are expelled or suspended  for their misbehavior?

In new research, Dylan Jackson and colleagues find that children who have been expelled or suspended from school experience earlier and more frequent police encounters.  And that the nature of these stops can be traumatic, with officers using racial slurs, excessive force, and conducting intrusive searches. children who have been expelled or suspended from school experience earlier and more frequent police encounters

The researchers speculate that these early, frequent, and traumatic interactions with the police increase the likelihood of later incarceration because they foster distrust of police and may even lead to post-traumatic stress disorder. 

There are many reasons why youth who have been expelled might experience earlier and more traumatic contact with police. Children who do not have parents at home to supervise them may be out in public during school hours – where they are likely to be stopped and questioned by police because they look out of place.

School expulsion can also make it difficult for youth to graduate high school since they miss out on class time. Because it is harder for people without a high school diploma to find jobs, such youth may seek income through illegal activities.

Jackson and colleagues suggest that schools should replace expulsion with alternatives that are supported by evidence and do not raise the risk of police contact. One approach is school-based restorative justice, which empowers students with the communication skills needed to resolve conflicts and encourages teachers to refrain from punishing students. The goals of such alternatives are to promote student health and wellbeing, improve the school climate, and reduce racial disparities – while minimizing the disruptive effects of expulsion.

Originally published May 18, 2022

For decades, conservatives have claimed that higher education has a negative influence on students’ moral and political development. A new study from Miloš Broćić and Andrew Miles provides research on one of the most understudied and misunderstood of these claims: the effect of college attendance on moral values.

Using data from the National Study of Youth and Religion, Miles and Broćić found that people who attend college are more likely to have a greater concern for others, less of a concern for social order, and be less relativistic. They used data from both before people enrolled in college and after people attended to look at the influence of college, specifically. 

People who went to college are more likely to say that compassion for people who are suffering is most important, but less likely to say that kids need to respect authority or that morals are relative. Moral relativists believe that morality is relative: that is, moral truths are not absolute and can change from one society to another, or over time.People who went to college are more likely to say that compassion for people who are suffering is most important, but less likely to say that kids need to respect authority or that morals are relative

Notably, this is distinct from previous work that found increased moral relativism among academics. This could be because college’s role in moral socialization has changed over the years. These days, critics of higher education are more likely to argue that it leads students to not be relativistic enough: too uncompromising in their morality. The authors say that their study provides preliminary evidence in favor of this critique.

Our values are fundamentally shaped by the environments and institutions we find ourselves in, and this research brings us closer to understanding how going to college shapes students as human beings.

Women who enter the armed forces are expected to be strong, tough, and masculine. Feminine insults, like being called a girl, are used to denigrate and motivate male service members. New research shows a hidden consequence of these gendered expectations: undeniably feminine moments in servicewomen’s lives, like pregnancy or entering a new heterosexual relationship, increase their risk of assault and discrimination.

Sociologist Stephanie Bonnes interviewed 50 current and former servicewomen. Over 59% of the participants experienced sexual harassment and discrimination that coincided with feminine life events like dating, engagement, marriage to a man, or  pregnancy. Feminine life events jeopardize female service members’ efforts to appear strong and masculine and put them in danger. Feminine life events jeopardize female service members’ efforts to appear strong and masculine and put them in danger

One participant explains how she was victimized  after she started dating a fellow serviceman. The day that her partner left the unit for training, her superior sexually assaulted her. 

 “This NCO cornered me and grabbed and kissed me. I was completely caught off guard. I mean it was right in front of his home, with his wife inside.“

The participant described how this had shocked her. Not only was this very public, she had also never had any issues with this coworker before. The timing of the incident led her to believe that her superior waited for her new boyfriend to leave before assaulting her. 

Discrimination against servicewomen who are pregnant or in heterosexual relationships is also deeply ingrained in military institutions. One woman described how her she was treated differently by the military organization after she told her unit she was pregnant.

 “So, I got pregnant and of course they’re liable for lots of things, so God forbid I pick up  a single chair. But then they went and made me go clean the bathrooms for the company.”

The findings show how the undeniably feminine moments in servicewomen’s lives put them at risk for both sexual harassment and workplace discrimination – and how women in the US military are put in harm’s way by their fellow soldiers.

When we hear about “poverty” in the news, it’s usually measured by income. These measures are very useful! But, we also know that poverty isn’t just about how much money you’re making, it’s also about your net worth: the value of your assets minus your debts. If people suddenly lose income, having savings or selling belongings can cushion families and cover basic expenses such as food and housing. Additionally, some assistance programs, like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), have asset tests that kick people with “too many assets” off benefits.

This puts many poor Americans in a double bind: they need assets as an economic safety net but are penalized for accumulating too many. Despite the importance of assets to the lives of poor Americans, according to Christina Gibson-Davis and her colleagues, there is not enough research on net worth poverty.

In their new study, Gibson-Davis and colleagues address our lack of knowledge about net worth poverty, which they define as a net worth less than one fourth of the federal poverty line, by examining how it affects children’s development compared to income poverty. To do so, they analyze  survey data from 2002 through 2019. This survey include information on household wealth and income, as well as children’s cognitive and behavioral development.

The researchers found that, for kids ages 3-17, net worth poverty was associated with worse reading scores, math scores, and behavioral outcomes, such as sadness and aggression. Although the effects of net worth poverty were similar to those of income poverty, kids who experienced poverty in both net worth and income had the worst outcomes.kids who experienced poverty in both net worth and income had the worst outcomes

Importantly, this research shows that having fewer assets had a greater negative influence on children’s outcomes than having more debt, although both could contribute to net worth poverty.  Debt poverty alone was associated with worse behavioral outcomes while  asset poverty was associated with worse cognitive and behavioral measures. The authors suggest that this is because asset-poor households have fewer resources on hand to invest in their kids than debt-poor households.

In short, this study suggests that children who are “doubly poor,” lacking in both income and net worth, are at the highest risk for cognitive and behavioral concerns. Policy makers should consider that interventions  that target income-poor children alone may overlook the needs of those who are net worth poor. 

Court fines and fees  are hardly new, however, their use has increased in recent years. New research from Ilya Slavinski and Becky Pettit suggests that law enforcement agencies have resurrected these “legal financial obligations”  as an additional tool of punishment that targets and constrains the same groups of people that have been historically disadvantaged by incarceration. Court fines and fees target and constrain the same groups of people that have been historically disadvantaged by incarceration

Slavinski and Pettit analyzed data from 254 counties in Texas, a large, diverse state that collected over $1 billion in legal financial obligations in 2016. 

Slavinski and Pettit found that Texas jurisdictions with high Republican voter affiliation issued monetary sanctions at a much higher rate than less conservative regions. This finding parallels prior research that links party identification with incarceration rates. Similarly, they noticed that heavy use of fines and fees was not associated with higher crime rates. This is consistent with research showing that some  “tough on crime” policies are more closely tied to politics, race, and class than they are to crime control. 

The researchers also found that legal fines and fees were disproportionately  administered in predominantly Black and Latinx areas. This builds on previous research that has linked incarceration rates to perceptions of “racial threat.”  

Slavinski and Pettit suggest that legal financial obligations are often used in combination with jail and prison time, rather than serving as an alternative to incarceration. This means that after people leave incarceration, they continue to be watched by authorities to ensure that they pay their legal financial obligations. By coupling prison sentences and legal fees in this way, the state has used legal debt to extend the surveillance and control of historically marginalized populations. 

Student behavior is greatly influenced by peers. While preschool teachers may reward students exhibiting desirable classroom behavior with special titles such as “line leader,” or with physical prizes like candy, they often rely on other students to teach acceptable conduct. Do these peer reinforcements help to build children into disciplined students? Perhaps. However, recent research from sociologist Amy August finds that these methods may have unintended consequences, facilitating social inequalities in schools. 

August observed a preschool class at a private school. The teachers used strategies that allowed children to train one another on appropriate actions by granting or refusing attention and inclusion. Specifically, children were instructed to ignore disruptive students, were excluded from play following prohibited behavior, and were welcomed back into playtime after behavioral improvement. 

Children learned that inclusion and attention are rewarded and can be used to discipline peers, thus promoting social isolation in schools. For example, a child who is upset with their classmate may “punish” that student by excluding them from a game at recess and encouraging others to do the same. While the first student may gain social status from enforcing this exclusion, the student that is left out faces peer rejection that can become a long-term pattern that lowers their self-esteem.  Children learned that inclusion and attention are rewarded and can be used to discipline peers, thus promoting social isolation in schools

August’s study points to the idea that peer socialization in schools acts as a double edged sword. While this strategy is often necessary to enforce discipline and encourage appropriate behavior, the approach inevitably facilitates exclusion as well.

Transportation is essential for everyday responsibilities like grabbing groceries or getting to work on time. But securing transportation can be difficult, particularly for people who live below the poverty line. Sociological research typically considers how poverty interacts with factors such as health, housing, and neighborhood crime, but rarely mentions transportation necessities. 

In a new research study, Alexandra Murphy and colleagues introduce the term transportation insecurity to describe difficulty traveling between places in a safe or timely manner. Experiencing transportation insecurity can include having unreliable, unsafe, or untimely transportation, as well as the emotional strain that can come from transportation problems.

Transportation insecurity is even more prevalent for those living below the poverty line. 53% of impoverished Americans experienced this phenomenon. Impoverished Americans are also most likely to experience the most severe level of transportation insecurity which may entail a higher frequency of car troubles, longer commutes, or other unsafe and inconvenient transportation conditions.

Americans who do not own cars, live in cities, are younger in age, do not have a high school diploma, or are non-white, also experience transportation insecurity more frequently.

One in four people in the United States struggle to secure safe and timely transportation. Over half of poor Americans have unreliable, unsafe, or untimely transportation. Clearly, then, policy aimed at alleviating the challenges of living in poverty needs to address transportation insecurity. One in four people in the United States struggle to secure safe and timely transportation

Parents must decide how much “screen time” is okay for their kids and how they are going to control technology use for their families. In new research, Stefanie Mollborn and colleagues examined how higher socioeconomic status (SES) families control their children’s technology use. They were surprised to find that families with higher socioeconomic status don’t set hard limits on technology use. Instead, parents and youth collaborated on setting boundaries around technology. 

Millborn and her team conducted 77 interviews with higher SES families. One of their most basic findings is that parents believe there are good and bad ways of using technology. “Good” uses of technology included reading, information gathering, producing content, developing computer skills, and family time like watching tv or a movie together. “Bad” uses of technology included watching TV content individually and playing non-educational video games. parents believe there are good and bad ways of using technology

Although parents identified “good” and “bad” uses of technology, they didn’t want to set hard limits on technology. The reason? Because they felt this would not help their children learn how to communicate with adults, a skill that they thought would benefit their children when they speak with adults in power outside of the home. 

Instead of setting limits on “bad” technology use, these parents sought to work collaboratively with their children. For instance, when April saw her daughter texting while doing her homework, she didn’t tell her not to do but but instead said: “Use it [technology] when it’s helpful. Have fun with it … but don’t let it consume you.”She then asked her daughter,“How does it feel to be sitting there doing your homework and you ‘get the ding’? Is that distracting? Would you like me to help you with a boundary?”Instead of setting limits on “bad” technology use, parents sought to work collaboratively with their children

This study highlights that parents with high socioeconomic status want to communicate about technology with their children, rather than setting hard limits. While parents tried to work collaboratively to set media limits with their children it produced conflict when youth pushed for technology use. Many high-income parents talked about just having to give in to their children at times because of the emotional effort involved in saying “no” so many times.

Many argue that well behaved students do not deserve to have their learning disrupted by unruly behavior. But what happens to the students who are expelled or suspended  for their misbehavior?

In new research, Dylan Jackson and colleagues find that children who have been expelled or suspended from school experience earlier and more frequent police encounters.  And that the nature of these stops can be traumatic, with officers using racial slurs, excessive force, and conducting intrusive searches. children who have been expelled or suspended from school experience earlier and more frequent police encounters

The researchers speculate that these early, frequent, and traumatic interactions with the police increase the likelihood of later incarceration because they foster distrust of police and may even lead to post-traumatic stress disorder. 

There are many reasons why youth who have been expelled might experience earlier and more traumatic contact with police. Children who do not have parents at home to supervise them may be out in public during school hours – where they are likely to be stopped and questioned by police because they look out of place.

School expulsion can also make it difficult for youth to graduate high school since they miss out on class time. Because it is harder for people without a high school diploma to find jobs, such youth may seek income through illegal activities.

Jackson and colleagues suggest that schools should replace expulsion with alternatives that are supported by evidence and do not raise the risk of police contact. One approach is school-based restorative justice, which empowers students with the communication skills needed to resolve conflicts and encourages teachers to refrain from punishing students. The goals of such alternatives are to promote student health and wellbeing, improve the school climate, and reduce racial disparities – while minimizing the disruptive effects of expulsion.

Across the United States, campaigns have pushed for higher minimum wages. Many are motivated by the economic benefits of these changes. New research suggests that increasing the minimum wage can also have substantial effects on non-economic domains of life such as marriage rates, family formation, and relationships.

Benjamin Karney and colleagues examined recent data on marriage and divorce rates in cities that had a minimum wage increase of $1 an hour. Their research revealed that small increases in the minimum wage have a significant effect on relationship patterns. Karney and his coauthors uncovered surprising, and somewhat contradictory, patterns.

In cities that raised the minimum wage, for example, there was actually a 5% decrease in marriage rates for men and 4.5% for women. On the other hand, researchers found that divorce rates fell by 10% for men and 7% for women after a year in these same cities. In cities that raised the minimum wage there was a decrease in marriage rates…divorce rates fell…in these same cities

The authors suggest that these decreasing marriage rates may result from higher minimum wages. When young people are more financially independent they can prolong their search for a better partner. Since marrying later usually results in longer-lasting unions, this change may spell stability for future families. 

Conversely, the researchers speculated that lower divorce rates are also due to worker’s lessened financial stress. By relieving economic concerns, the chances of divorce for couples are lessened.

Increasing minimum wages have many economic benefits. This research show that they also have significant effects on non-economic concerns such as relationships and families. These impacts may differ from our long-held assumptions about relationships. These non-economic changes are important to consider as communities work to raise wages.