The rules and consequences vary widely, at the discretion of teachers, principals, higher-level administrators, and school boards. But the basis is the same: such a system is judged to be unbiased and impartial because it is phrased categorically, and is to be applied uniformly to all students.
Even if one leaves aside the question of whether these systems are in reality applied uniformly and neutrally to all students, there is still reason to ask whether such a system is unbiased and impartial.
A simple example is instructive.
If a school or a classroom has such a rule, that a certain amount of tardiness will bring upon itself the consequence of having to serve one hour of after-school detention, then one might ask what the experience of a student in such a system is. The experience will be different from student to student, and therefore the deterrent effect will be different.
For one student, the experience of an hour of after-school detention might be overwhelmingly negative: he is missing a chance to practice with his sports team, to play with his friends, to be at home with his electronic gaming, etc. Substantial things are lost, and little or nothing is gained. For this student, then, the threat of an hour of detention will have a meaningful deterrent effect.
For another student, after-school detention is an hour spent in a clean, quiet, well-lit space, in which unpredictable and jarring events are unlikely to happen. This student might otherwise be in an unsafe, unhealthy, or uncomfortable environment. For this student, an hour of detention has little deterring power, and may even have some attractions.
Paradoxically, imposing the same consequences on all students uniformly may well be unfair.
If the purpose of a consequence is to deter, then it is necessary to know what a given student will find sufficiently negative in order for the consequence to be effective.
From the one example here given about detention, one can generalize and examine other types of consequences. Some schools have devoted thought to the matter and developed impressive catalogues of possible consequences.
Two students might perform identical actions, but in order for discipline to be constructive, receive different consequences.
This requires that the adults in the school have a bit of knowledge about each student, and about what this student will find deterring, and it requires that the teachers and administrators are granted the leeway to invent and implement a variety of consequences.
In the current litigious environment, it also requires that boards of education be ready to support and defend teachers and principals when the inevitable objections and lawsuits arise.
