disproportionality in school discipline in the road map region

Disproportionality in School

Discipline in the Road Map Region

by Kristina Johnson, MPA Candidate 2012Evans School of Public Affairs

Source: Skiba & Losen, 2010.

Perc

ent

1973 2006

A Well Documented Pattern

7 Districts: • Auburn • Federal Way • Highline • Kent • Renton• Seattle(South Seattle

schools only)• Tukwila

Demographics• 60% students of color• 54% FRL eligible• 17% ELL students

The Road Map Project

The Road Map Project Goal

“…is to double the number of students … who are on track to graduate from college or earn a career

credential by 2020.”

“…committed to closing the unacceptable achievement gaps for low-income students and

children of color, and increasing achievement for all students from cradle to career.”

• Context and explanations of exclusionary discipline

• Findings from data analysis: Are subgroups of students disproportionally represented in exclusionary discipline in the Road Map Region?

• Best practice interventions and policies that reduce disproportionality and exclusionary discipline rates

Outline

Context and Explanations for

Disproportionality

Exclusionary Discipline

• In school suspension• Out of school suspension• Expulsion

Zero Tolerance Policies• Use of exclusionary discipline has risen due to zero

tolerance policies

• Concerning trend is use of zero tolerance and suspension for minor behaviors

• However, evidence shows that punishment and suspension are the least effective strategies for changing student behavior (CCBD, 2002)

Explanations for Disproportionality

Low-income students• Cultural differences between socio-economic classes• Face risk factors that contribute to lower social-emotional and

behavioral outcomesRace/ethnicity• Low-income status – evidence to the contrary• Higher rates of misbehavior – evidence to the contrary• Different communication styles and other cultural differences• Discrimination based on race Special education• Many students referred to special education for behavioral

reasonsMales • Higher rates of discipline are a proportionate response to

higher rates of misbehavior

Impacts of Exclusionary Discipline on Students

• More likely that they will fall behind in school• Decreases engagement & connection• More likely to drop-out• More likely to end up in the juvenile justice

system “School to prison pipeline”

(APA, 2008; Christle, et al., 2005; Costenbader, et al., 1998)

Data• District data - from districts and Office of the

Superintendent of Public Instruction• School year 2009-10 • 7th – 9th grades, N = 26,406• Student- level data, not incident level• Auburn not included in analysis• South Seattle only • No in-school suspension for South Seattle• Low-income data not available for Seattle and Kent• Highline missing 25% of race/ethnicity data • Analysis does not include the race category “two or more

races” due to unclear inferences

Methods• Literature Review• Descriptive statistics• Disproportionality:

o Comparison of Rates or Risk of Suspension (t-tests)

Preliminary Findings

Out of School Suspensions Rates: All Road Map Districts by Gender,

Low-income and Special Education Status

Source: OSPI and districts, 2009-2010Seattle data only includes portion of district within the Road Map regionFree & reduced lunch data available for four districts only

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

18.0%

9.2%

17.4%

7.7%

27.0%

12.0%

% o

f 7th

– 9

th g

rade

rs r

ecei

v-in

g ou

t of s

choo

l sus

pens

ions

Source: OSPI and districts, 2009-2010Seattle data only includes portion of district within the Road Map regionHighline missing 25% of race/ethnicity data

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%25.6%

21.3% 19.6%

13.4%11.5%

6.8%

Out of School Suspension Rates:All Road Map Districts by Race/

Ethnicity

% o

f 7th

- 9t

h gr

ader

s re

ceiv

ing

out

of s

choo

l sus

pens

ions

Discussion of Findings

• Unlikely that disproportionality and high exclusionary discipline rates are explained solely by higher rates of misbehavior for all subgroups

• Exclusionary discipline has proven to be ineffective at reducing problem behaviors and increasing positive school climate

Best Practice Program Models

• Positive Behavior Intervention & Supports• Cultural Sensitivity & Awareness

Positive Behavior Intervention & Supports (PBIS)

• PBIS – proactive (vs. reactive) o Positive behavior expectations understood by all students,

teachers and administratorso Data-driven decision makingo Evidence-based behavior support practiceso School-wide systems (Vincent et al., 2011)

• Evidenceo Reduces exclusionary discipline rates o Increases student achievemento Increases positive school climate

Not a curriculum; a decision-making framework: o Peer Mediation, Classroom Management Training AND…

Cultural Sensitivity & Awareness

• Successful schools combine PBIS and cultural awareness training

• Illinois successful schools “were committed to having tough conversations about race/ethnicity”

• Professional development options that:

Assist educators in understanding their own cultural framework and how this affects their perceptions of

behavior

Best Practice in District Policy

Short-term next best steps for districts:o Improve data collection & analysiso Shorten the allowable length of suspensions o Support or require the adoption of best practice

programso Establish and state publicly the goal of reducing

suspensions & disproportionality

Encourage a new approach towards school discipline that is:o Proactiveo Inclusiveo Preventative

Thank you!Kristina Johnson

johnsk24@uw.edu

AcknowledgementsKirsten “Avery” Avery, MPAProject Associate, Community Center for Education ResultsAndrew Sahalie, PhDSenior Data Manager, Community Center for Education ResultsMary Jean Ryan, MPAExecutive Director, Community Center for Education ResultsMary Kay Gugerty, PhD, AdvisorAssociate Professor, UW Evans School of Public AffairsMarieka Klawitter, PhDAssociate Professor, UW Evans School of Public AffairsSheryl Johnson, PhDLecturer, UW – Bothell School of Business

Areas for Further Research• Why are discipline rates so much higher for the

subgroups identified in this research? o What kinds of behaviors or offenses are subgroups referred

for? o What behaviors typically result in suspension?o Are certain groups of students punished more severely for

similar behaviors?o Do particular schools have significantly higher rates of

suspension and disproportionality than other schools?o How has Highline learned from its several year experiment

with PBIS? o What are student, parent and teacher perceptions of discipline

policies in the Road Map region?o What is the feasibility of implementing recommended

strategies in Road Map districts?