1 School Discipline in Arkansas - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

1

School Discipline in Arkansas

Kaitlin Anderson, Jennifer Ash, Dr. Gary RitterUA Office for Education PolicyDecember 11, 2014Arkansas School Boards AssociationSlide2

AR Education Reports

Policy Briefs

Report Cards Newsletters Data Resourceswww.officeforeducationpolicy.org/2Slide3

Refer to menu bar at

the top left of the OEP homepage. http://www.officeforeducationpolicy.org/

Click on Arkansas School DataAccessing Data Resources through the OEPArkansas School Data has multiple databases at both school and district levels.Slide4

Overview of The Next Hour

Introduction – Background on School Discipline and Act 1329Limitations and Challenges in InterpretationResults

Are there regional differences in discipline rates?Are there differences in discipline rates based on district size, demographics, or academic performance?Are discipline rates and academic outcomes correlated?4. Policy Implications and Further Research5. Questions4Slide5

Introduction and Issues in the School Discipline Debate

5Slide6

Background on School Discipline - US

US Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights Database (2014)African-American students without disabilities are more than three times as likely as their white peers without disabilities to be expelled or suspended

Over 50% of students involved in school-related arrests or referred to law enforcement are Hispanic or African-American6Slide7

Joint “Dear Colleague” Letter

USDE and US DOJ: “Federal law prohibits public school districts from discriminating in the administration of student discipline based on certain personal characteristics”Can launch investigations based on complaints, public reports, or ongoing monitoringTherefore, possible legal ramifications of disparate discipline rates

7Slide8

Zero Tolerance Polices

Mandatory expulsion for certain offensesSome organizations such as Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families have advocated replacing zero-tolerance with more administrator discretionZero tolerance v. discretion – not sure which of these is rightOften viewed

as contributing to a school-to prison pipeline8Slide9

School-to-Prison Pipeline

Defined by American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) as “a disturbing national trend wherein children are funneled out of public schools and into the juvenile and criminal justice systems”A.K.A cradle-to-prison pipeline“Criminalizing” minor infractions within schools through referrals to law enforcement

9Slide10

Arkansas Context

Arkansas ranks 15th in the country in the use of Out-of-School Suspension (OSS) for all students, and 13th in the disparity

between the use of OSS for black and white students*Disparity refers to the fact that black students receive OSS at a disproportionate rate compared to their white peersAdvocacy groups have proposed possible solutions: Abolition of corporal punishmentAbolition of zero-toleranceAbolition of the use of OSS for truancy (accomplished in Act 1329 of 2013)Use of other alternative strategies (PBIS, behavioral and mental health services, support for returning ALE students to regular classrooms)10*Source: Losen, D.J. and Gillespie, J. (2012, August) Opportunities Suspended: The Disparate Impact of Disciplinary Exclusion from School. Slide11

Why does this matter for AR students?

Clearly, safety of students, teacher and staff is a top priorityBut lost instruction time and chronic absences can have harmful effects on performance and achievement

Judge Joyce Williams Warren, Sixth Judicial District, Division 10 said: “the schools are contributing, more than ever, to the cradle-to-prison pipeline, and they are doing this for offenses that are not necessarily related to safety”11Slide12

Why does this matter for AR students?

192 out of 260 school districts in Arkansas reported using corporal punishment during the 2012-13 school year19 states still have legal corporal punishment but only 17 states

used it during 2009-10Some groups (like Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families) view as a violation of each student’s right to human dignity12Slide13

Introduction to Arkansas Act 1329

Act 1329: An Act to Evaluate the Impact of School Discipline on Student Achievement; And For Other Purposes Report to be prepared by July 1 of each year, beginning in 2014, to include:

District enrollment, subgroup enrollment, disciplinary rates, achievement, and disciplinary disparity between subgroups Possible disciplinary strategies and resources Arkansas school districts can access13Slide14

Description of Data

Student level office referral data from three school years (2010-11 to 2012-13)14Slide15

Limitations of Data

Discipline data – obtained from the Arkansas Department of Education: Self-reported by districtsSome categories unstandardized Including undefined “other” category (e.g. six districts had “other” rates of over 20%)

One district with only about 400 students, had about 1300-1400 “other” actions each yearMissing dataIncluding “referrals to law enforcement authorities”15Slide16

Challenges of Interpreting Data

Districts have varying:Discipline policies and plansPersonnel to implement policies and plansUnclear whether high or low discipline rates are

positive or negativeHigh discipline rates = chaos?High discipline rates = extreme order?Unclear how to interpret any potential disparitiesAct 1329: “Disparity in discipline rates does not necessarily indicate discrimination; it can result from an ineffective school climate or from cultural strategies that are not successful in engaging the academic efforts of all students.”16 Slide17

How to Calculate Discipline Rates?

Two definitions of discipline ratesDefined by Act 1329:“Three-year average for each discipline measure of the number of students in a school district or the number of students in a subgroup in the school district who have at least one

(1) discipline measure divided by the corresponding total enrollment in the school district or the total enrollment in the subgroup”Ignores repeated disciplinary actionsAlternate Definition:Incidences per 100 students17Slide18

Results

18Slide19

Discipline Data Overview

19

Percent of students receiving at least one disciplinary action in a school-year, 3 year averageN = 257Incidents per 100 students Slide20

ISS Rates by Subgroup

20Disparity

= 5.0%Disparity = 7.1%Incidents per 100 students12.821.6Percent of students receiving at least one ISS in a school-year, 3 year averageDisparity = 2.8%

8.9Slide21

OSS Rates by Subgroup

21Disparity

= 3.7%Disparity = 5.2%Incidents per 100 students8.011.9Percent of students receiving at least one OSS in a school-year, 3 year averageDisparity = 1.7%4.4Slide22

State-wide Differences

22Slide23

Discipline Rates by District Size

23

ISS rates are highest in mid-size districtsOSS rates increase with district sizeCorporal Punishment rates decrease with district sizeNone of the 5 largest districts use corporal punishment

Smallest

Largest

Districts

DistrictsSlide24

Discipline Rates by Racial Composition

24

ISS rates are higher in districts serving more minority studentsCorporal Punishment rates are highest in mostly white districtsOSS rates are higher in districts serving more minority studentsSlide25

Discipline Rates by District % Low-Income

25

The relationship between poverty rate and Corporal Punishment is slightly less clear as there is a dip in CP in higher poverty districtsLower HigherPoverty PovertyISS rates increase as poverty level increasesIn general, OSS rates increase as poverty level increasesSlide26

Discipline Rates by Academic Performance

26

Lower Higher Performance PerformanceThe relationship between CP rates and academic performance is less clear, but in general, there is still a downward trendISS rates are lower in higher performing districtsOSS rates are lower in higher performing districtsSlide27

Regional Differences

27Slide28

Regional Differences - ISS

28

Central ISS = 5.2%Southeast ISS = 11.8%Southwest ISS = 9.5%Northeast ISS = 7.3%Northwest ISS = 5.8%

Percent of students receiving at least one ISS in a school-year, 3 year average

Southeast: 11.8%

Southwest: 9.5%

Northeast: 7.3%

Northwest: 5.8%

Central: 5.2%Slide29

Regional Differences – ISS

29

Central ISS = 11.9Southeast ISS = 28.0Southwest ISS = 22.8Northeast ISS = 16.4Northwest ISS = 13.3

Incidents per 100 students

Southeast: 28.0

Southwest: 22.8

Northeast: 16.4

Northwest: 13.3

Central: 11.9

Southeast also has the highest OSS rate and Corporal Punishment incidents per 100 studentsSlide30

Regional Differences -

O

SS30Central OSS = 5.2%Southeast OSS = 7.7%Southwest OSS = 4.7%Northeast OSS = 4.9%

Northwest OSS = 3.5%

Southeast: 7.7%

Central: 5.2%

Northeast: 4.9%

Southwest: 4.7%

Northwest: 3.5%

Percent of students receiving at least one ISS in a school-year, 3 year averageSlide31

Regional Differences – Corporal Punishment

31

Central CP = 2.8%Southeast CP = 7.6%Southwest CP = 6.4%Northeast CP = 6.8%Northwest CP = 3.9%

Percent of students receiving Corporal Punishment at least once in a school-year, 3 year average

Southeast: 7.6%

Northeast: 6.8%

Southwest: 6.4%

Northwest: 3.9%

Central: 2.8%

Central

Corporal Punishment Rate is low due to zero use of Corporal Punishment in large schools such as LRSD, PCSSD, Conway SDSlide32

But are there really differences within districts?

32Slide33

Within District Disparity: Male to Female

33

Difference in the percent of students in certain mutually exclusive subgroups receiving discipline action at least once in a school-yearWithin district3 year average% for Male Students - % for Female StudentsPositive numbers: higher rates for male studentsNote: these are based on the Act 1329 definition of discipline rates as % of students receiving discipline at least once, which may underestimate true gap if there are repeat offendersSlide34

Within District Disparity: Non-White to White

34

Difference in the percent of students in certain mutually exclusive subgroups receiving discipline action at least once in a school-yearWithin district3 year average% for Non-White Students - % for White StudentsPositive numbers: higher rates for non-white studentsSlide35

Within District Disparity: FRL to Non-FRL

35

Difference in the percent of students in certain mutually exclusive subgroups receiving discipline action at least once in a school-yearWithin district3 year average% for FRL-eligible students - % for non-FRL-eligible studentsPositive numbers: higher rates for FRL-eligible studentsSlide36

Within District Disparity: SPED to Non-SPED

36

Difference in the percent of students in certain mutually exclusive subgroups receiving discipline action at least once in a school-yearWithin district3 year average% for SPED students - % for non-SPED studentsPositive numbers: higher rates for SPED studentsSlide37

Within District Disparity: Low Achieving to High Achieving

37

Difference in the percent of students in certain mutually exclusive subgroups receiving discipline action at least once in a school-yearWithin district3 year average% for low-achieving students - % for higher achieving studentsPositive numbers: higher rates for low-achieving studentsSlide38

Policy Implications and Next Steps

38Slide39

Policy Implication #1

Room for improvement in collection and categorization of data (e.g. “other”)This great database provided by the state can be used by the OEP to answer many more questions

39Slide40

Policy Implication #2

Interpretation of outcomes not obviousOutcome disparities do not equal discriminationWhat if certain groups of students are in districts that use more expulsions and suspensions?

What if certain groups of students are misbehaving more than others?What if certain students misbehave repeatedly and received harsher punishments for repeat offenses?Arkansas data allows us to dive deeper40Slide41

Further Research

Analyzing disparities in discipline actions for a given infractionFrom 2010-2013, black students in Arkansas written up for “Truancy” were over twice as likely to be expelled than their white peers and almost six times as likely to receive OSS than their white peers More work to be done

41Slide42

Further Research

Preliminary findings: for infractions that result in expulsions or suspensions at least 90% of the time (drugs, alcohol, gang activity, fighting, guns, and knives)African-American students are slightly more likely to be expelled than

white students in the same district for the same infraction, even after controlling for the number of office referrals that yearAfrican-American and Hispanic students also received slightly longer suspensions, on average42Slide43

Questions?

kaitlina@uark.eduoep@uark.eduwww.officeforeducationpolicy.org

43