There are, sadly, times when children with severe mental health issues need to be restrained from hurting themselves or others. But the lack of consistent policy on disciplinary tactics or even clear data on how restraints and other interventions are used raises questions about whether schools themselves need to be more restrained in their policing of children. In the bigger picture, harsh discipline feeds into what civil rights advocates call the school to prison pipeline , a continuum of oppression that effectively funnels children toward ever harsher forms of punishment. For instance, getting suspended for a schoolyard fight might eventually exacerbate a student’s disruptive classroom behavior; once he or she is branded a troublemaker, expulsion or arrest might follow, then a stint in youth detention — and so the cycle continues, with especially devastating effects on black and Latino communities.

According to a recent NPR-ProPublica investigation of federal data from 2011 and 2012, schools have reported instances of broken bones, bondage of children in elastic cords and duct tape and even suicide. A 2009 study (PDF) from the Government Accountability Office identified at least 20 deaths resulting from disciplinary restraint or isolation of children. NPR and ProPublica reported that in 2012 alone, students were restrained about 267,000 times — and 3 out of 4 of those kids had “physical, emotional or intellectual disabilities.” In one year, some 7,600 incidents involved “mechanical restraints,” such as binding a child with a bungee cord. At other times, children were suppressed with an adult’s bodily force. Picture a first-grader with hyperactivity disorder being pinned to the floor by a safety officer four times her size; it’s a security measure that carries grave risks of its own.

There’s a mean streak creeping into public schools based on the idea that kids are there to be fixed, straightened out, humbled and made acceptable for a world of standards and rules. This law-and-order sentiment, woven into the institutional culture of public education, has allowed schools not only to treat behavior problems like security threats but also to brand children as criminals — supposedly to teach them a lesson. The trend of heavy-handed policing in schools — from harsh discipline to suspension and even incarceration of kids — reflects a disturbing social tendency to equate control with repression. It also strips the rights of our most vulnerable citizens, letting authority figures pick on those least able to defend themselves.

Any kid who has ever faced down a schoolyard bully will understand the adage “Pick on someone your own size.” These days, the biggest bully of all is school itself: When their behavior causes too much trouble, students are sometimes pinned to the ground, tied up or locked inside a cell by an adult, supposedly for their own good. What schools call restraint is in many cases just brute force masked as social control. And according to rights advocates, it is the system that is out of control.

Even more troubling is a tendency for these abuses to mirror trends of structural violence and discrimination outside school. According to the Department of Education (PDF), black students make up 16 percent of total enrollment but 27 percent of students referred to law enforcement and 31 percent of those arrested. Similarly, students with disabilities, which can range from physical impairments to autism spectrum disorders, account for just 12 percent of the student population but a quarter of those subjected to arrest and law enforcement referral. This trend starts even before kindergarten, with far higher rates of out-of-school suspension among black preschoolers (particularly boys) compared with their white peers.

When they coincide, blackness and disability further compound the effects of the disciplinary gauntlet. Black youths make up about one-fifth of students with disabilities but more than one-third of those restrained with a mechanical device or equipment designed to restrict their freedom of movement.

Patterns of biased discipline (PDF) — whether they reflect subconscious profiling or outright bigotry in school authorities — reveal the dangers of culturally ingrained stereotypes that mark black and Latino students as inherently deviant and less worthy of empathy and care.

Despite some recent policy proposals in the Senate (PDF) to limit the use of restraint and curb excessive discipline in schools, the cruelty continues, bolstered by institutional opacity. Because the data collected from schools on the use of restraints is spotty, official statistics likely represent a major undercount. And lacking oversight of teachers and administrators’ use of physical discipline, school districts cannot develop effective ethical parameters limiting the use of force on children.

But a growing body of research gives us concrete ideas for the kind of discipline that works in unruly classrooms without violating children’s rights. In many cases, preventive solutions are surprisingly simple, starting with treating kids like kids.

To reach a détente with schoolyard rebels, education authorities should repeal zero tolerance policies that encourage overreaction to common disruptions (such as pre-emptive security crackdowns on ordinary school fights) and instead focus on proactively de-escalating violence.

The next step is to implement positive interventions (PDF): conflict resolution programs, peer dialogue, psychological counseling and training for school staff on how to cool down arguments or fights without having to resort to violent restraint. Instead of racing to fund metal detectors and guards to police the halls, officials should focus on providing on-site, comprehensive mental health care in schools so students are not automatically suspended or carted away in ambulances before school staff can properly assess their behavioral issues.

Even for more serious situations, such as when one student assaults another, youths can be diverted into rehabilitation or counseling programs that can keep them from falling into the criminal justice system. Some schools have alleviated disciplinary problems with programs based on the technique of social emotional learning. This holistic approach, which requires training for both kids and staff, fosters conflict prevention and resolution by building a social climate of self-awareness and conscientiousness among peers.

The broader lesson in this is that school safety is a collective responsibility, not merely a top-down execution of punishment. Real school security is about making young people feel safe being themselves, showing their vulnerability, asserting control of their bodies and defending themselves, calmly, against undue aggression, whether it comes from a peer or an authority figure. Conventional school disciplinary policies reflexively impose shame and fear in the name of security. It takes a lot more strength — and compassion — to secure our schools through mutual trust.