View
2
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Gail L. Sunderman Robert Croninger
The Maryland Equity ProjectDepartment of Teaching and Learning, Policy and Leadership
College of Education2311 Benjamin BuildingUniversity of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742
mdequity.orgmdequity@umd.edu
October 2018
High Suspending Schools in Maryland: Where are They Located and Who Attends Them?
MARYLAND EQUITY PROJECTADVANCING EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES
|C o l l e g e o f E d u c a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f M a r y l a n d
AbouttheMarylandEquityProjectTheMarylandEquityProjectseekstoimproveeducationthroughresearchthatsupportsaninformedpublicpolicydebateonthequalityanddistributionofeducationalopportunities.Itconducts,synthesizes,anddistributesresearchonkeyeducationalquestionsinMarylandandfacilitatescollaborationbetweenresearchersandpolicymakers.Copyright©2018TheMarylandEquityProject,UniversityofMaryland,CollegePark,MD.Thispublicationshouldbecitedas:Sunderman,G.L.&Croninger,R.(2017).HighsuspendingschoolsinMaryland:Wherearetheylocatedandwhoattendsthem?CollegePark,MD:MarylandEquityProject,TheUniversityofMaryland.
AdditionalcopiesofthisreportmaybeobtainedfromourWebsiteat:www.mdequity.orgTheMarylandEquityProjectisaprograminTheDepartmentofTeachingandLearning,PolicyandLeadershipintheCollegeofEducationatTheUniversityofMaryland.
1|C o l l e g e o f E d u c a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f M a r y l a n d
TableofContents
ExecutiveSummary……………………………………………………………………………………….……2
Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………………………….…...3
HighSuspendingSchoolsinMaryland………………………………………………………….………4
School-LevelPredictorsofSuspension…………………………………………………..…….5
Methodology………………………………………………………………………………………….…...6
WhoGetsSuspendedinMarylandPublicSchools?…..……………………...….….…….9
SchoolswithMultipleSuspensions……………………………………………………………12
CharacteristicsofHighSuspendingSchools……………………………….………………14
ConclusionandRecommendations…………………………………...……………………….16
MethodologicalNotes……………………………………………………………………………………….21
Appendix1:CharacteristicsofHighSuspendingElementarySchools…………………23
Appendix2:CharacteristicsofHighSuspendingSecondarySchool…….....……………26
References…………………………………...……………………………………………………………...…..29
2|C o l l e g e o f E d u c a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f M a r y l a n d
ExecutiveSummaryThereare196publicschoolsinMarylandorabout14%thatouranalysisidentifiedas“highsuspending”—thatis,schoolsthatsuspend25%ormoreofatleastonesubgroupoftheirstudentenrollment.Theseschoolsarelocatedinbothruralandurbanareas,insmallandlargedistricts,andinallregionsofthestate.Whiletherearemoresecondaryschoolsthanelementaryschoolsthatsuspendstudentsacrossmultiplesubgroups,wefoundthatBlackstudentsandstudentswithdisabilitiesweredisproportionallysuspendedout-of-schoolacrossallschoollevels.Considerthemajorfindingsofthisreport:
• Closeto60%ofout-of-schoolsuspensions(OSS)areBlackstudents,eventhoughBlackstudentsmakeuponly35%ofpublicschoolenrollmentinMaryland.
• Studentswithdisabilitiesrepresent13%ofenrollmentinMarylandpublicschoolsbut25%ofout-of-schoolsuspensions.
• SchoolOSSratesforBlackstudentsaretwiceashighasOSSratesforWhitestudents.
• Thehighestschoolsuspensionrateisforstudentswithdisabilities,with
schoolssuspendingonaverage9.5%oftheirstudentswithdisabilities.
• SchoolswithhigherenrollmentsofBlackstudents,studentswithdisabilities,andlow-incomestudentsandlowerenrollmentsofWhite,AsianandHispanicstudentssuspendedmorestudentsacrossmultiplesubgroups.
• Highsuspendingschoolswerelesssuccessfulacademically,hadlower
graduationrates,lowerattendance,highermobility,andfewerexperiencedteachers.Inotherwords,thesewerestrugglingschoolsacrossmultipleindictors.
ThisreportshowsthatasubsetofschoolsdrivesthehighsuspensionratesinMaryland.Thehighrateofvariabilityacrossschools—anddistricts—suggeststhattheuseofdisciplinaryconsequencesisrelatedtocontextualvariablesthatgobeyondindividualstudentbehavior.Indeed,itappearsthatboththedistrictandschoolastudentattendsplayaroleinsuspensionrates.Thissuggeststhatdistrictswithlargenumbersofhighsuspendingschoolseitherhaveaculturewhereexclusionarydisciplineiscondonedorarenotprovidingtheleadership,resourcesandtrainingneededtopreventinappropriatebehavior.Thevariabilityinsuspensionsacrossschoolsprovidesevidencethatschoolscandothingsdifferently,butsomeschoolsmayneedmoresupportthantheyarecurrentlyreceiving.
3|C o l l e g e o f E d u c a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f M a r y l a n d
AcknowledgementsTheauthorsaregratefulfortheassistanceandsupporttheyreceivedwhileresearchingandwritingthisreport.MathewHenryhelpedusconceptualizetheprojectandErinJanulisassistedwithconstructingthedatasetsweneededfortheanalysis.WewouldliketothankShilpaBista,PamelaCallahan,KaylaGood,CharlotteHealy,andCierraKahler-Jonesfortheirassistanceinformattingthetablesandfiguresandputtingthisreporttogether.PeterLeoneprovidedinvaluablefeedbackonthereport.WealsothankourcolleaguesattheMarylandEquityProjectfortheirsupportandinsightfulcommentsatvariousstagesofwritingthisreport.Finally,wegratefullyacknowledgethesupportoftheCollegeofEducationandtheDepartmentofTeachingandLearning,PolicyandLeadership.Nonetheless,theviewsandopinionsexpressedinthisreportaresolelythoseoftheauthors.
4|C o l l e g e o f E d u c a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f M a r y l a n d
HighSuspendingSchoolsinMaryland:WhereareTheyLocatedandWhoAttendsThem?
Exclusionarydiscipline—theuseofsuspensionandexpulsiontoremovemisbehavingstudentsfromclassrooms—remainsacommonapproachtoschooldisciplineeventhoughthereisalackofevidenceontheeffectivenessofremovalasameansofreducingmisbehaviororimprovingthelearningenvironment(AmericanPsychologicalAssociationZeroToleranceTaskForce,2008;Skiba,Shure,&Williams,2012).Theuseofexclusionarydisciplinehasbeenlinkedtobothshort-andlong-termnegativeoutcomes,includingloweracademicperformanceattheschoolandindividuallevels,higherdropoutrates,andlowergraduationrates(Barrett,McEachin,Mills,&Valant,2017;Chu&Ready,2018;Fabeloetal.,2011;Gregory,Skiba,&Noguera,2010;Hwang,2018;Losen,2015;Losen&Skiba,2010;Morris&Perry,2016;Noltemeyer,Ward,&Mcloughlin,2015).Exclusionarydisciplinehasalsobeenassociatedwithincreasedriskofinvolvementwiththejusticesystem,bothasstudentsandasadults(Skiba,Arredondo,&Williams,2014;Wolf&Kupchik,2014).Marylandwasanearlyleaderintheoppositiontoexclusionarydiscipline,adoptingnewdisciplinaryguidelinesin2014thatincludedeffortstomakeexclusionarydisciplineatooloflastresort(MarylandStateDepartmentofEducation,2014).However,despitethestate’sefforttoreducetheuseofexclusionarydiscipline,disparitiespersist.WhileinitiallytheoverallsuspensionrateinMarylandfell1,disparities,particularlybetweenBlackandWhitestudents,increasedasschoolscontinuedtosuspendBlackstudentsatsignificantlyhigherratesthanotherstudents(Henry,2015).Eventhoughdisparitiesandthenegativeimpactsofexclusionarydisciplineonstudentsandschoolsarewelldocumented,thereislittleunderstandingofwhichschoolsinMarylandhavehighsuspensionrates,wheretheyarelocated,ortheextenttowhichtheyimpacttheeducationalopportunitiesofdiversestudents.Onereasonforthisisthatwedonothaveaclearunderstandingofwhatconstitutesahighsuspendingschool.Whiletherearewell-acceptedmethodsofcalculatingsuspensionratesanddisproportionality,therearedifferentguidelinesforidentifyinghighsuspendingschools.ComplicatingthepictureisthatdataonschooldisciplineinMaryland,whileavailableisnotwidelyreported.DisciplinedataisnotincludedontheMarylandReportCardandstatedisciplinereportsaredifficulttofindandinterpret.AsaresultthereisnoclearunderstandingoftheextentofthedisciplineprobleminMarylandpublicschools.Thisreportexaminesthecontinuingdisproportionalitiesinsuspensionratesbyidentifyingthecharacteristicsofschoolswithexceptionallyhighsuspensionrates.
1Thepercentofstudentssuspendedorexpelledfellin2014-15,butincreasedinsubsequentyears(MarylandStateDepartmentofEducation,2018).
5|C o l l e g e o f E d u c a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f M a r y l a n d
Tocalculatethenumberofhighsuspendingschools,wedefineanyschoolthatsuspends25%ormoreofstudentsinatleastoneofanymajorsubgroupashighsuspending(Losen,Hodson,KeithII,Morrison,&Belway,2015).2Weadoptedthisdefinitionofhighsuspendingschoolsbecauseitreflectsschoolpracticesandarticulatesathresholdthatweconsidertoohigh.Identifyingschoolswithhighsuspensionratescanhelpdistrictstargetsupportsandinterventionstoschoolsthatneedthemmost.
School-LevelPredictorsofSuspensionResearchershaveexaminedarangeoffactorsinseekinganswerstodisparitiesinsuspensionrates.Whilepresumedexplanationshavefocusedondifferencesinstudents’behavioracrossracial/ethnicandothersubgroupsofstudents,thereisvirtuallynosupportintheliteratureforthislineofthinking(Barrettetal.,2017;Skibaetal.,2012;Skiba&Williams,2014).Forexample,Barrettetal.foundthatBlackandpoorstudentsweredisciplinedmoreoftenandharshlythantheirpeersforthesameinfractions.Incontrast,thereissubstantialevidencethatdifferentialselectionattheclassroomlevelanddifferentialprocessingintheadministrationofconsequencescontributestodisparitiesinsuspensionrates(Barrettetal.,2017;Gregoryetal.,2010;Losen&Gillespie,2012;Skibaetal.,2011).Bothprocessespointtotheroleofdiscretionintheinterpretationofbehaviorandadministrationofconsequences.Relativelyfewstudieshavefocusedontheinfluenceofschool-levelcharacteristicsonOSS,althoughthehighrateofvariabilityintheuseofdisciplinaryconsequencesbyschoolssuggeststhatschoolcontextualcharacteristicscontributetosomeofthatvariabilityinsuspensionrates(Skiba,Chung,etal.,2014).ThepercentageofBlackstudentsenrolledinaschoolhasbeenfoundtobeastrongpredictoroftheuseofexclusionaryandpunitivediscipline(Sartainetal.,2015;Welch&Payne,2010).AndersonandRitter(2017)providedevidencethatracialdisparitiesindisciplinearedrivenbydifferencesacrossschoolsthatdifferentgroupsofstudentsattend.Specifically,schoolsservinglargerproportionsofnon-WhitestudentsadministeredlongerpunishmentsthanschoolsservingmostlyWhite,non-poorstudents,suggestingthatracialdisparitiesoccurduetodifferentdisciplinarypracticesusedinschoolsservingdifferentracialcompositionsofstudents(Anderson&Ritter,2017).Thecontributionofpovertytosuspensionratesisinconsistent,withsomestudiesfindingschoolpovertytobepredictorsofsuspensionparticularlyinpoorurbandistricts(Losen&Skiba,2010;Sartainetal.,2015),whileothersfindthatthecontributionofschool-levelpovertywasaninconsistentpredictorofexclusionarydiscipline(RaffaeleMendez,Knoff,&Feron,2002;Skiba,Chung,etal.,2014).
2Losenetal.used“anymajorracial/ethnicgroup”whileweincludedstudentswithdisabilitiesandEnglishlearnersaswell.Inaddition,Losenetal.definedhighsuspendingelementaryschoolsasschoolsthatsuspended10%ormoreofstudentsinanymajorracial/ethnicgroup.Weused25%.
6|C o l l e g e o f E d u c a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f M a r y l a n d
Anumberofotherschoollevelvariables,includingprincipals’attitudestowardsdisciplinaryapproaches,havebeenfoundtopredictthelikelihoodofsuspensionandexpulsion.Schoolswithaprincipalfavoringpreventiveapproachesarelesslikelytohavehighsuspensionrates(Skiba,Chung,etal.,2014).Schoolswithlowerattendancerates,pooracademicachievement,andhigherdropoutratestendtohavehighersuspensionrates(Christle,Jolivette,&Nelson,2007;Fabeloetal.,2011;T.Lee,Cornell,Gregory,&Fan,2011).Researchalsohasfoundarelationshipbetweenthestabilityoftheschoolenvironmentandsuspensions.Forexample,thepercentageofnewstaffinaschoolandstudentmobility,orchangingschoolsfrequentlyisassociatedwithhigherratesofschoolsuspension(RaffaeleMendezetal.,2002).Finally,theduplicatedsuspensionrate,thatismultiplesuspensionsforthesamestudent,isasignificantschool-levelpredictorofsuspensions,whichimpliesthatsomeschoolsaremorepunitiveinhowtheyrespondtostudentbehaviorthanothers(Theriot,Craun,&Dupper,2009).Notallschoolswiththesecharacteristicshavehighsuspensionrates.Rather,theysuggestthereareschool-levelvariablesassociatedwithanincreasedriskofsuspension.InthisreportwelookatdisparitiesinOSSratestounderstandwhichschoolsacrossMarylanduseOSSathighratesandanalyzetheschool-levelfactorsthatpredicthighsuspensionrates.Understandingschool-levelfactorsassociatedwithsuspensionsdeserveattentionbecausetheyoffertheopportunitytotargetinterventionsonhighsuspendingschoolsaswellasprovidelarge-scalepreventionefforts.Tothataim,weaddressthefollowingresearchquestions:
1. Dodifferentgroupsofstudentsexperiencehigherout-of-schoolsuspensionratesthanothers?
2. Whichschoolssuspendstudentsathigherratesthanotherschools?3. Whatschool-levelcharacteristicspredictthelikelihoodofhighout-of-
schoolsuspensions?
MethodologyWeanalyzedschool-levelout-of-schoolsuspension(OSS)datafromtheU.S.DepartmentofEducation’sCivilRightsDataCollection(CRDC)asameasureoftheuseofexclusionarydisciplineinMarylandpublicschools.TheCRDCincludesdataonthenumberofOSSforeachschoolinMaryland.Becauseourschool-levelanalysisinvolvesidentifyinghighsuspendingschools,weaverageddatafromtheCRDCacrossthreeyears—2011-12,2013-14,and2015-16.3Thisprovidesaconservativeestimateofthenumberofhighsuspendingschoolssinceaveragesadjustforthevariabilityinsuspensionsacrossdifferentyears.Forschool-levelvariables,weusedCRDCdataonenrollmentaveragedacrossthreeyearsandteacherexperienceforthe2013schoolyear.Otherschool-levelvariablesarefromtheMarylandSchoolReportCardforthe2013schoolyear.Thereportcardsare3TheCRDCsurveysschoolsandschooldistrictseverytwoyears.TheCRDCsfor2011-12,2013-14,and2015-16schoolyearsincludesdatafromeveryschoolandschooldistrictinthecountry.
7|C o l l e g e o f E d u c a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f M a r y l a n d
publiclyavailableontheMarylandStateDepartmentofEducation(MSDE)websiteandpresentsummaryinformationonallpublicschoolsinMaryland.Toincludeasmanyschoolsaspossibleandatthesametime,maketheanalysisunderstandable,wegroupedschoolsintoeitherelementaryorsecondaryschools.ElementaryschoolsincludedanyschoolthatservedgradesK-6oranycombinationofthosegrades(i.e.,K-3,3-5,PreK-6,etc.).Secondaryschoolsincludedschoolsthatservedgrades5-12oranycombinationofthoseschools(i.e.,5-7,6-8,6-12,7-12,9-10,10-12).Weuseddescriptivestatisticstodescribetheextentofout-of-schoolsuspensionsandone-wayANOVAstodeterminewhethertherewerestatisticallysignificantdifferencesbetweenschoolswithdifferentcharacteristicsandschoolswithdifferentcategoriesofsuspensionrates.Thesemethodsareappropriateforcomparingunequalsamplesizes,thatis,whensubgroupenrollmentsarenotequal—inthiscase,schoolscategorizedashavinglowerandhighersuspensionrates.Werefertothepercentageofstudentssuspendedasthe“percentsuspended”andreportdisparitiesinout-of-schoolsuspensionsbysevensubgroups:race/ethnicity(Asian,Hispanic,Black,White,andotherraces),Englishlearners(EL),andstudentswithdisabilities(SWD).Descriptiveresultsarepresentedascompositionindicesandrates(Nishioka,withShigeoka,&Lolich,2017).Weusedthecompositionindextodescribethedistributionofsuspensionsbysubgroupatthestatelevelandtheratetolookatschool-leveldisproportionality.Thedisciplinecompositionindexdescribestheracialcompositionofdisciplinaryevents,thatis,thepercentageofstudentsreceivinganout-of-schoolsuspensionthatarefromaspecificracialgroup.Itisinterpretedbycomparingthegroup’spercentageinadisciplinarycategory,inthiscaseout-of-schoolsuspensions,tothatgroup’spercentageofenrollment.WhencalculatingtheproportionofOSSassociatedwithasubgroup,wedividedthesumofallstudentsinasubgroupinthestatethatweresuspendedbyallincidencesofOSSinthestate.Therateshowsthepercentageofstudentsfromaspecificsubgroupthatreceivedanout-of-schoolsuspension.Itshowstheprobabilityofaspecificsubgroupofstudentsreceivinganout-ofschoolsuspension.Therateisdirectlyrelatedtooveralldisciplinaryratesanddoesnotvarywiththedistrict’sunderlyingracialdistribution.Wecalculatedtherateforeachschoolandthenaveragedthoseratesforschoolsacrossthreeyears.Theresultsincludeschoolsthathadatleasttwoyearsofvalidrates(i.e.,ratesthatdidnotexceed1.0).NextwecalculatedthenumberofhighsuspendingschoolsinMaryland.Wedefinedanyschoolthatsuspended25%ormorestudentsinanyoneofsevensubgroupcategoriesashighsuspending.Wethenaggregatedourcountsofhighsuspendingschoolstothedistrictandstatelevel.Schoolsthatsuspend25%ormorestudents
8|C o l l e g e o f E d u c a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f M a r y l a n d
fromoneormoresubgroupsmeansthattheseschoolsregularlysuspendalargenumberofstudents.Ourgoalinidentifyinghighsuspendingschoolsistounderstandtheconditionsthatcontinuetoexposesomestudents—particularlyBlackstudentsandstudentswithdisabilities—toextraordinarilyhighsuspensionrates.Werecognizethatdedicatedandhard-workingteachersandadministratorsstaffmanyoftheseschools,buttheymaynothavetheresourcesandsupporttheyneedtomovebeyondtheuseofpunitivedisciplinarypractices.Toidentifyfactorsthatmaydifferentiatehighsuspendingfromotherschools,wedividedschoolsintothreegroups:(1)schoolsthathadnosubgroupswithsuspensionratesgreaterthan25%;(2)schoolsthatsuspended25%ormoreofstudentsinonesubgroup;and(3)schoolsthatsuspended25%ormoreofstudentsintwoormoresubgroups.Wethenusedanalysisofvariancetoexamineanumberofschool-levelvariablesandtheirrelationshipswiththedifferentlevelsofsuspensionrates.Forschooldemographics,weincludedtheracialcompositionofaschool,thepercentageofstudentseligibleforfreeorreducedpricedmeals(FRPM),percentageofstudentswithdisabilities(SWD),andthepercentageofstudentslearningEnglish(EL).ThepercentofstudentswhoscoredproficientoraboveonPARCCmathandreadingtestsingrades3to8,Englishtestsingrades9,10,and11,andAlgebraI/IItestswereourmeasuresofachievement.Proficiencyratesareincludedbecausetheytellussomethingabouttheschool’sacademicprogram.Weincludedameasureofschoolsizeandtype.Attheelementarylevel,schooltypecomparedP-8schoolstoP-6schools.Forsecondaryschooltype,weusedmiddleschool,highschool,ormiddle/highschoolcombinationandalternativeschools.Manyofthevariablesthatmaydifferentiatehighsuspendingschoolsfromotherschoolsaredifficulttomeasuredirectly.Forthosevariablesweusedproxies.Forteacherqualityweusedteacherexperience(teacherswith2orfeweryearsteachingexperience).Forschoolstability,weusedstudentmobility,attendancerates,and,atthesecondarylevel,dropoutrates.Finally,itisimportanttonotethatwearenotusingstudentleveldatabutrathersuspensiondataaggregatedtotheschoollevel.Toanswerthequestionofhowmanystudentsaresuspendedoutofschool,weusetheunduplicatednumberofstudentssuspended,thatis,studentsarecountedonceregardlessofthenumberofsuspensionsthestudentreceived.Inthefollowingsections,wefirstpresentevidenceofdisparitiesinschooldisciplineatthestatelevel,usingthedisciplinecompositionindex.Wethenidentifyschoolswithmultiplesuspensionsratesatthestatelevelandforeachdistrict,followedbyananalysisofschool-levelriskfactorsthatdifferentiatehighfromlowsuspendingschools.
9|C o l l e g e o f E d u c a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f M a r y l a n d
WhoGetsSuspendedinMarylandPublicSchools?Marylandaveraged46,170OSSacrossthreeschoolyears(2011,2013,2015),representing5.2%ofallMarylandpublicschoolstudents.Asshowninfigure1,BlackstudentsrepresentedthelargestshareofOSSbyrace—onaverage,60%ofallOSSwereBlackstudents.Incontrast,Whitestudentsrepresented24%ofsuspendedstudents.Figure1:Averageout-of-schoolsuspensionsbyrace/ethnicity,2011,2013,&2015
Figure2showsthatBlackstudentsaretheonlyracialgroupsuspendedatahigherratethantheirproportionoftheschoolenrollment.Blackstudentsrepresent35%oftotalstudentenrollmentinMarylandbut60%ofstudentssuspendedoutofschool.Incomparison,White,AsianandHispanicstudentsarefarlesslikelytobesuspended.Forexample,Whitestudentsrepresent41%oftheschoolpopulationbut24%ofOSS.Studentswithdisabilitiesarealsodisproportionallysuspended(figure2).Studentswithdisabilitiesrepresent13%ofenrollmentbut25%ofOSSonaverage.BesidesWhitestudents,wealsofoundthatsuspendedstudentswerelesslikelytobeEnglishlearners,HispanicorAsianstudents.
1%
9%
60%
24%
6%
AveragePercentOut-of-schoolSuspensionsbyRace/Ethnicity
Asian Hispanic Black White Other
10|C o l l e g e o f E d u c a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f M a r y l a n d
Figure2:Averagepercentofout-ofschoolsuspensionsandenrollmentbysubgroup,2011,2013,&2015
AverageSchoolOut-of-SchoolSuspensionRatesFigure3showstheprobabilitythatastudentfromaparticularsubgroupreceivesanout-of-schoolsuspension.Sincethesuspensionratedoesnotvarywiththedistrict’sunderlyingracialdistribution,therateallowsustocomparetheaverageOSSrateofonesubgrouptoanother.Onaverage,schoolsinMarylandreportedsuspending5.2%oftheirstudentsout-of-school,asshowninfigure4.StudentswithdisabilitieshadthehighestOSSrate,withschoolssuspendinganaverageof9.5%ofstudentswithdisabilities.ThesecondhighestOSSratewasamongBlackstudents,withschoolssuspending7.8%oftheirBlackstudents.Thiswasfollowedbystudentsclassifiedas“other”race/ethnicity,withof6.3%ofstudentssuspendedonaverage.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
AsianHispanicBlackWhiteOther
ELSWD
AveragePercentOut-of-schoolSuspensionRates&EnrollmentsbySubgroup
Enrollments Suspensions
11|C o l l e g e o f E d u c a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f M a r y l a n d
Figure3:Averageschoolout-of-schoolsuspensionratesbysubgroup,2011,2013,2015
Averagesuspensionratesarethreetimeshigherinsecondaryschoolsasinelementaryschools,asshowninfigure4.Elementaryschoolssuspended2.8%ofstudentsonaveragewhilesecondaryschoolssuspended10.1%ofstudents.Additionally,thegapinsuspensionratesbetweenracial/ethnicgroups,SWDandELisgreateratthesecondarylevel.StudentswithdisabilitieshadthehighestOSSrate,with6.6%ofelementarystudentsand15.5%ofsecondaryschoolstudentssuspended.ThesecondhighestOSSratewasamongBlackstudents(4.2%inelementary;15.3%insecondaryschools).Figure4:Averageelementaryandsecondaryout-of-schoolsuspensionratesbysubgroup,2011,2013,2015
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10%
AsianHispanic
BlackWhiteOther
ELSWDAll
AverageOut-of-schoolSuspensionRatesbySubgroup
0%2%4%6%8%10%12%14%16%18%
Asian Hispanic Black White Other EL SWD All
AverageElementaryandSecondaryOut-of-schoolSuspensionRatesbySubgroup
Elementary
Secondary
12|C o l l e g e o f E d u c a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f M a r y l a n d
SchoolswithMultipleSuspensionsOurnexttaskwastoidentifythenumberofschoolswithmultiplesuspensionsratesatthestatelevelandforeachdistrict.Ourcriterionforidentifyingschoolsas“highsuspending”wasschoolswhere25%ormoreofstudentsinanyoneormoreofsevensubgroupswassuspendedoutofschool.Weusedschool-levelsuspensionratesaveragedacrossthreeyears,aconservativeapproachtoidentifyinghighsuspendingschoolssinceaveragesadjustforthevariabilityinsuspensionsacrossdifferentyears.Thatmeansthathighsuspensionratesinoneyearcanbeoffsetbylowerratesinanotheryear.Inaddition,byusingunduplicatedcounts,weundercountthetotalnumberofOSSsincestudentsthatreceivemultiplesuspensionsarecountedonlyonce.AcrossallpublicschoolsinMaryland,14%ofschools(196)suspended25%ormoreofstudentsinoneormoresubgroup(Table1).Ofthistotal,therewere126schools(9%ofallschools)thatsuspended25%ormoreofstudentsinatleastonesubgroupandanother37schools(2.6%)thatsuspended25%ormoreofstudentsin2subgroups.Anadditional33schools(2.3%)suspended25%ormoreofstudentsacross3to7subgroups.Table1:NumberofSchoolswithOSSRatesGreaterthan25%inOneorMoreSubgroup(0-7),2011,2013,2015#Subgroups>25% Frequency Percent
Valid .00 1210 83.81.00 126 8.72.00 37 2.63.00 16 1.14.00 7 .55.00 6 .46.00 3 .27.00 1 .1Total 1406 97.4
Missing System 38 2.6Total 1444 100.0Twenty-twoofthe24schooldistrictshadoneormoreschoolswithmultiplesuspensions.4Amongelementaryschools,49schools(5.5%)in10districtssuspended25%ormoreofstudentsinoneormoresubgroups.Foroursampleof468secondaryschools,147or31.4%ofschoolsin22districtssuspendedmorethan25%ofstudentsinoneormoresubgroups.TherewerenohighsuspendingschoolsinCarolineandTalbotcounties.
4Informationonwhichschoolswerehighsuspendingisavailablefromtheauthors.
13|C o l l e g e o f E d u c a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f M a r y l a n d
Withindistricts,schoolsvaryintheextenttowhichstudentsaresuspendedout-of-school.Table2showsthenumberandpercentofschoolsbydistrictthatarehighsuspending.Forthe10districtswithhighsuspendingelementaryschools,thepercentofadistrict’sschoolsrangedfrom42.9%inDorchesterCountyto2.7%inFrederickCounty.Amongthe22districtswithhighsuspendingsecondaryschools,thepercentofadistrict'ssecondaryschoolsthatwashighsuspendingrangedfrom81.8%inCecilCountyto3.2%inHowardCounty.Therewere12districts,orhalfofalldistricts,where40%ormoreofthedistrict’ssecondaryschoolswerehighsuspendingschools.Table2:NumberandPercentofSchoolsbyDistrictwithOSSRatesGreaterthan25%inOneorMoreSubgroups,2011,2013,2015District
#ofElem
#ElemOSS>25%
OSSasPercentofElem
#ofSec
#SecOSS>25%
OSSasPercentof
SecCaroline 5 0 0.0% 4 0 0.0%Talbot 5 0 0.0% 3 0 0.0%Howard 40 0 0.0% 31 1 3.2%Montgomery 132 0 0.0% 67 5 7.5%StMary's 17 0 0.0% 7 1 14.3%Calvert 14 0 0.0% 11 2 18.2%Frederick 37 1 2.7% 24 5 20.8%Washington 25 0 0.0% 17 4 23.5%BaltimoreCounty 107 0 0.0% 54 13 24.1%Carroll 24 2 8.3% 21 6 28.6%Harford 32 1 3.1% 20 6 30.0%PrinceGeorge's 140 11 7.9% 54 19 35.2%Worcester 7 0 0.0% 5 2 40.0%BaltimoreCity 127 24 18.9% 56 23 41.1%Kent 5 1 20.0% 2 1 50.0%QueenAnne's 8 0 0.0% 6 3 50.0%AnneArundel 79 3 3.8% 33 19 57.6%Allegany 14 1 7.1% 8 5 62.5%Wicomico 17 0 0.0% 8 5 62.5%Charles 21 0 0.0% 15 10 66.7%Somerset 5 0 0.0% 3 2 66.7%Dorchester 7 3 42.9% 4 3 75.0%Garrett 8 0 0.0% 4 3 75.0%Cecil 17 2 11.8% 11 9 81.8%
Thesefindingssuggestthatbothschoolanddistrictlevelpoliciesandpracticescontributetodifferencesinsuspensionrates.First,notallschoolsarehighsuspending,suggestingthatschoolsusedifferentdisciplinarypracticeswhen
14|C o l l e g e o f E d u c a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f M a r y l a n d
respondingtomisbehavior.Thevariabilityacrossdistrictssuggeststhatdifferencesindistrict-levelpoliciesandapproachestoschooldisciplinecontributetothedegreetowhichschoolsadoptalternativestoexclusionarydiscipline.
CharacteristicsofHighSuspendingSchools:SchoolContributionstoOSSGiventhatsome,butnotallschools,hadhighsuspensionrates,thequestionis,arethereschool-levelriskfactorsassociatedwithhighersuspensionrates?Toaddressthisquestion,wecomparedschoolsthatsuspended25%ormoreofstudentsinnocategoriestoschoolsthatsuspended25%ormoreofstudentsinonecategoryandschoolsthatsuspended25%ormoreintwoormorecategories.Wedefinedthefirstcategoryas“lowsuspending”schoolsandthelasttwocategoriesas“highsuspending”schools.Weusedthefollowingschoolcharacteristicsinouranalysis:schooldemographiccomposition(i.e.,race/ethnicity,EL,SWD,socioeconomicstatus);achievement(performanceonPARCC);teacherexperience(percentageofteacherswithfewerthan2yearsexperience);andschoolstability(mobility,attendances,and,atthesecondarylevel,dropoutandgraduationrates).Wealsoincludedameasureofschoolsizeandschooltype.ResultsforelementaryschoolsarepresentedinAppendix1andforsecondaryschoolsinAppendix2andaresummarizedbelow.ElementarySchoolsSchoolDemographicComposition:TheuseofOSSisstronglyrelatedtothedemographiccompositionofaschool.AstheaverageenrollmentofBlackstudents,studentswithdisabilities,andlow-incomestudentsincreasedinelementaryschoolssodidthelikelihoodofoneormorehighOSSrates.ThereisasteadyincreaseinBlackenrollmentinschoolswithgreaternumbersofsuspensionratesexceeding25%.Inlowsuspendingschools,averageBlackstudentenrollmentwas35.1%,whileinhighsuspendingschoolsitwas59.7%forschoolswithonerateexceeding25%and69.9%inschoolswithtwoormoreratesexceeding25%.Incontrast,asWhiteandAsianenrollmentincreased,thelikelihoodofmultiplehighOSSratesinaschooldecreased.Wealsofoundthatschoolsthatsuspended25%ormoreofstudentsinoneormoresubgroupshadhigheraverageenrollmentsoflow-incomestudentsandstudentswithdisabilitiesbutlowerenrollmentsofHispanicandELstudents.Lowsuspendingschoolsenrolledonaverage50.4%low-incomestudentscomparedtobetween78.5%and86.8%inhighsuspendingschools.Enrollmentofstudentswithdisabilitiesinschoolswithtwoormoresuspensionratesexceeding25%wastwicethatoflowsuspendingschools(24.9%comparedto12.6%).Achievement:Wefoundthatschool-levelachievementwaspredictiveofwhetheraschoolhadhighsuspensionrates.TheaveragepercentageofstudentsscoringproficientoraboveonthePARCCinmathandreadingwassignificantlylowerinhighsuspendingschoolsingrade3,4,5,and6thaninlowsuspendingschools.At
15|C o l l e g e o f E d u c a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f M a r y l a n d
eachgradelevel,asthenumberofOSSincreased,therewasacorrespondingdecreaseinachievement.However,therewerenostatisticallysignificantdifferencesinthe7thand8thgrademathandreadingscores,althoughthedirectionshoweddecliningachievementassuspensionsincreased.Thelackofsignificancemayberelatedtothesmallnumberofelementaryschoolswith7thand8thgrades.Teacherexperience:Highsuspendingelementaryschoolshadahigherpercentageofteacherswithtwoorfeweryearsofexperiencethanschoolswithlowersuspensionrates.Between21.9%and24.2%ofteachersinhighsuspendingschoolshadtwoorfeweryearsexperiencecomparedto14.4%inschoolswithlowsuspensionrates.Schoolstability—mobilityandattendance:Theschoolcommunityislikelytobelessstableinhighsuspendingelementaryschoolsastheseschoolshadhighermobilityratesandlowerattendance.Mobilityratesinschoolsthatsuspended25%ormoreofstudentsinoneormoresubgroupswerebetween30%and39.2%comparedto19.8%inlowsuspendingschools.Therewasalsoasteadydecreaseinthemeanattendancerateinschoolsasthenumbersubgroupswithsuspensionratesexceeding25%increased.Schoolsizeandtype:Smallerelementaryschoolsweremorelikelytohavehighersuspensionratesthanlargerschools,asomewhatsurprisingfindinggivenresearchsuggestingthatsmallschoolsaremoreproductiveandeffectivethanlargeones(Iatarola,Stiefel,&Chellman,2008).Thisfindingmaysuggestthatsmallerschoolsarestruggling,forexample,theymaybeexperiencingdecliningenrollment,highmobility,havehighteacherturnover,orarelocatedinhighpovertyareas(V.E.Lee&Smith,1997).Forschooltype,wedidnotfindthatthegradelevelcompositionofelementaryschools(i.e.,gradesPre-Kto6versusPre-Kto8)differentiatedhighsuspendingfromlowsuspendingschools.SecondarySchoolsSchooldemographiccomposition:Insecondaryschools,wealsofoundthatthelikelihoodofbeingsuspendedincreasedastheenrollmentofBlackstudents,studentswithdisabilities,andlow-incomestudentsincreased.Schoolsthatsuspended25%ormoreofstudentsinoneormoresubgroupshadhigheraverageenrollmentsofBlackstudents(between44.5%and46%)comparedtoschoolswithnosuspensionsratesexceeding25%(33.6%).TherewerefewerHispanicandAsianstudentsenrolledinhighsuspendingschoolsthoughWhitestudentenrollmentswerenotsignificantlydifferentacrosshighandlowsuspendingschools.SchoolsenrollingmoreSWDhadhigherOSSrates(between18.3%and21.7%comparedto15.1%inlowsuspendingschools),whileschoolswithfewerELshadlowerOSSrates.Theenrollmentoflow-incomestudentsinhighsuspendingsecondaryschoolswasalsohigherthaninlowsuspendingschools(between49.5%and58%comparedto37.8%).
16|C o l l e g e o f E d u c a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f M a r y l a n d
Achievement:TherewasasignificantrelationshipbetweentheaveragepercentageofstudentsscoringproficientonthePARCCandthelikelihoodofsuspension.Secondaryschoolsthatsuspended25%ormoreofstudentsinoneormorecategorieshadloweraveragemathandreadingscores,andlowerhighschoolAlgebraandEnglishscores,comparedtolowsuspendingschools.Thegapbetweenachievementscoresinlowsuspendingschoolsandschoolswithtwoormoreratesexceeding25%widenedbetween6thand8thgrade,from16percentagepointsingrade6,to21.8percentagepointsingrade7,and25percentagepointsingrade8.Teacherexperience:Thepatternofhighsuspendingschoolshavingmoreteacherswithlessexperienceandlowsuspendingschoolshavingmoreexperiencedteacherswasevident,butthedifferencebetweenschoolswasnotlargeenoughtobestatisticallysignificant.Schoolstability—mobility,attendance,anddropoutrates:Highsuspendingschoolsexhibitedhighermobilityrates,lowerattendancerates,andhigherdropoutrates.Mobilityrateswerebetween19.3%and26.9%inhighsuspendingschoolscomparedto15.8%inlowsuspendingschools.Theadjustedfour-yeardropoutrateinsecondaryschoolswithtworatesexceeding25%wasmorethandoublethatinlowsuspendingschools—20.6%comparedto9.5%.Attendanceathighsuspendingsecondaryschoolswaslowerthanattendanceinlowsuspendingschools,averaging94.8%inlowsuspendingschoolscomparedtobetween92.3%and90.3%inhighsuspendingschools.Schoolsizeandtype:Similartoelementaryschools,therewasaninverserelationshipbetweenschoolsizeandtheprobabilityofsuspensionsacrossmultiplesubgroups.Assecondaryschoolenrollmentdecreased,thelikelihoodofmultiplesuspensionsincreased—smallerschoolshadmoresuspensions.Thismayreflecttheinfluenceofalternativeschools,whichtendtobesmallerschoolsandamongtheschoolswiththehighestsuspensionrates.Indeed,alternativeschoolsandmiddle/highschoolcombinationsaremorelikelytosuspend25%ormorestudentsintwoormorecategories.While3%ofhighschoolsarealternativeschools,theyrepresented20%ofhighsuspendinghighschools.Therewere12outof14alternativeschoolsthatwerehighsuspending.Themiddle/highschoolcombinationrepresents7.1%ofsecondaryschoolsbut29.9%ofschoolsthatsuspended25%ormoreofstudentsintwoormorecategories.Neithermiddleschoolsnorhighschoolsweremorelikelytobeamongstlowsuspendingschoolsorthetwocategoriesofhighsuspendingschools.
ConclusionandRecommendationsThereare196publicschoolsinMarylandorabout14%thatsuspend25%ofstudentsinoneormoreofsevensubgroupsoutofschool.Theseschoolsarelocatedin22ofthe24schooldistrictsinMaryland,butthenumberofhighsuspending
17|C o l l e g e o f E d u c a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f M a r y l a n d
schoolsvariesbydistrict.Whiletherearemoresecondaryschoolsthanelementaryschoolsthatsuspendstudentsathighlevelsacrossmultiplesubgroups,wefoundthatBlackstudentsandstudentswithdisabilitiesweredisproportionallysuspendedout-of-schoolacrossallschoollevels.Thehighrateofvariabilityacrossschools—anddistricts—suggeststhattheuseofdisciplinaryconsequencesisrelatedtocontextualvariablesthatgobeyondindividualstudentbehavior.Indeed,itappearsthatboththedistrictandtheschoolthatastudentattendsplayaroleinsuspensionrates.Wedidnotfindthathighsuspendingschoolsarelocatedinanyonedistrictorregionofthestate.Rather,theyarefoundinbothruralandurbanareas,insmallandlargedistricts,andinallregionsofthestate.Thissuggeststhatdistrictswithlargenumbersofhighsuspendingschoolseitherhaveaculturewhereexclusionarydisciplineiscondonedorarenotprovidingtheleadership,resourcesandtrainingstaffneedtopreventinappropriatebehavior.Thevariabilityinsuspensionsacrossschoolsprovidesevidencethatschoolscandothingsdifferently,butsomemayneedmoresupportthantheyarecurrentlyreceiving.Aprimaryconclusionpolicymakersshoulddrawfromthisanalysisistheclearevidenceitprovidesofdisparitiesacrossschools.SchoolswithhigherenrollmentsofBlackstudents,SWDandlow-incomestudentsandlowerenrollmentsofWhite,AsianandHispanicstudentssuspendedmorestudentsacrossmultiplesubgroups.Fortheseschools,reducingsuspensionsrequiresdiscerningwhythesedisparitiesexist.Itmaybethatteachersandadministrators’professionaltrainingindisciplinepracticesisinsufficientsotheylackknowledgeandskillsabouthowbesttomanagestudentbehavior.Itmayalsobethatthedistricthasnotmadeadoptingalternativestosuspensionapriorityorprovidedthetrainingandsupportneeded.ThehighrateofsuspensionsamongBlackandlow-incomestudentsandSWDsuggeststhatstaffmayviewsimilarbehaviorsdifferentlybasedonastudent’srace,incomelevel,ordisabilitystatus.Alternatively,itsuggeststhatschoolswithahigherproportionofBlackandlow-incomestudentsandSWDtendtousemorepunitivedisciplineandmayhavefewersupportiveresourcesandinterventions(Anderson&Ritter,2017;Skiba,Chung,etal.,2014).Wefoundarelationshipbetweenmeasuresofschoolsuccess/failureandthelikelihoodofsuspensionsacrossmultiplesubgroups.Twomeasuresofschoolsuccess—achievementscoresonthePRACCandgraduationrates—differentiatedhighandlowsuspendingschools.Highsuspendingschoolsalsohavehighermobilityrates,lowerattendanceandgraduationrates.Whilewecannotconcludethatattendingaschoolwithhighsuspensionratesisdetrimentaltoallstudentsintheschool,itdoessuggestthatattendinghighsuspendingschoolsincreasesthelikelihoodofacademicfailure.Thefindingthathighsuspendingschoolshaveteacherswithfeweryearsofexperience,atleastattheelementarylevel,againarguesforaneedforgreaterteachertraininginclassroommanagementandotherapproachestoresolvingconflict.
18|C o l l e g e o f E d u c a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f M a r y l a n d
Thefindingthatstudentsfromvulnerablepopulationsaremorelikelytobesuspendedandtherelationshipbetweenschoolsuccessandfailureraisesconcernsthatsuspensionsmayexacerbatetheracialachievementgap(Morris&Perry,2016).Thisisobviouslyamulti-prongedissue.Itsuggeststhatapproachestoreducingthesuspensionratewillneedtoadoptstrategiestoaddressdisruptivestudentbehavior,confrontstaffperceptionsofstudentbehaviorthatmaycontributetodisparitiesbutalsocreatelearningenvironmentsthatengageallstudents.Onthepositiveside,thevariabilityacrossschoolsanddistrictssuggeststhatitispossibleforindividualschoolsanddistrictstoaltertheirdisciplinarypracticesinwaysthatreducesuspensions.Whilethisstudydidnotexaminewhattheseschoolsanddistrictsaredoingdifferently,it’sagoodbetthattheyaretakingstepstoimplementalternativeapproachesthatresultindifferentdisciplinaryoutcomes.Recommendations
• Becauseofthevariabilityacrossschoolsanddistrictsindisciplinarypractices,werecommendthatschooldisciplinedatabewidelysharedwitheducationstakeholders,includingteachers,administrators,families,andcommunity.
Thelocaleducationcommunitymaynotbeawareofdisciplinaryproblemsintheirschoolsordistrictwhencomparisondataisnotwidelysharedoravailable.Reportsthatallowforcomparisonsindisciplinarypracticesandconsequencesacrossschoolsanddistrictscanraiseawarenessamongthelocaleducationcommunityandalertdistrictandschoolleaderstopotentialdisciplinaryproblems.Awarenessofpotentialdisciplinaryissuesmaythenserveasacatalystforeducatorstoseekoutalternativestrategiestoaddresstheissuesorgalvanizeparentstoadvocateforbettersolutionstodisciplinaryissues.WespecificallyrecommendthatschoolleveldisciplinedatabereportedontheMarylandSchoolReport,disaggregatedbycommonlyreportedsubgroups.Inaddition,werecommendthattheStateroutinelyprovidedistrict-levelreportsthatcomparedistrictsacrossthestateandschool-levelreportsthatcompareschoolswithinadistrict.Thesereportsshouldbepubliclyavailable.
• MSDEshouldtakeanactiveroleinfunding,supporting,andpersuadingschoolstoadoptapproachesthatfocusonprevention,earlyidentification,andearlyinterventionratherthanmanagingandpunishingbehaviorafteritoccurs.
WhileMarylandtookstepstocurtailexclusionarydisciplinarypracticesbyrevisingitsschooldisciplineguidelines,disparitiesinsuspensionratespersist.Theseguidelineslaidoutaprocessforschoolstofollowwhendiscipliningstudents;however,researchshowsthatthereisnoclearrelationshipbetweenthealignmentofdistrictcodesofconducttostateguidelines,out-of-schoolsuspensionrates,orthe
19|C o l l e g e o f E d u c a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f M a r y l a n d
Black-Whitedisciplinegap(Curran&Finch,2018).Thesefindingssuggestthathowthedisciplinarycodeisimplementedinschoolsandclassroomsmatters.Thatis,becauseteachersandschooladministratorsretainconsiderablediscretionintheapplicationofdisciplinarypractices,theirdecisionscontributetowhoisreferredformisbehaviorandhowconsequencesareadministered.Shiftingtoapreventativeapproachcandecreasethefrequencyofbehaviorproblemsandreducethedevelopmentofmoreseriousproblemswithstudents.Preventativeapproachesandprogramsaredesignedtopreventmisbehaviorinschoolsandseekpro-activewaystodetermisbehaviorearlybycreatingpositiveandinclusiveschoolcommunitiesandbyfosteringcommunicationamongstudents,teachers,andadministrators.Programssuchaspeermediation,conflictresolution,anti-bullyingprograms,restorativejusticepractices,andtieredapproachestobehaviormanagementrecognizethatschoolbehaviorproblemsarenoteasilyamenabletosimplesolutions.Becauseofthehighrateofracialdisparities,itmayalsobenecessarytoincludetrainingoninterventionsthataddressracialbias(Ispa-Landa,2018).
• Districtsshouldworkwithhighsuspendingschoolstofirstassesswhyaschool
suspendsstudentsathighrates,andthentodesignaplanforaddressingthoseissues.
Districtpoliciesandleadershipcanprovidetheimpetusforschoolstoidentify,adoptandimplementmoreeffectivepractices.Thechallengefordistrictswithhighsuspendingschoolsistwofold.First,thedistrictneedstoassesseachhighsuspendingschooltodeterminewhysuspensionratesarehighandidentifywheretherearedisparities.Second,theschoolneedstoreducetheuseofsuspensionsasadisciplinarypracticeandadoptpreventativemodelsofschooldiscipline.Bothoftheseissuescallforbetterpractices,theadoptionofalternativestosuspension,andmoreeffectivetrainingofschoolpersonnelinbehaviormanagement.Inaddition,professionaldevelopmentthatfocusesonbuildingproductiverelationshipsamongstaff,students,andthecommunitycanincreasestudentengagementinschooling.Formanystudentsthereisarelationshipbetweenactingoutandpooracademicperformance.Thismaybebecausethecurriculumandinstructionarenotengagingortheinstructionalprogramisnotrelevanttostudents’racial,ethnic,culturalandlinguisticdiversityortheirdisabilities.Providingtraininginculturallyrelevantpedagogycanprovideteacherswithskillsforteachingdiversestudents(Osheretal.,2015).
• Schoolsneedadisciplinedatacollectionsystemthattheycanreviewregularly.OneofthefirststepsthatschoolscantaketoreduceOSSistotrackdisciplinaryevents,interventions,andconsequencesandmonitorthedataonaregularbasis.Thisincludecollectinginformationonwhathappenedforeachdisciplinaryevent,
20|C o l l e g e o f E d u c a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f M a r y l a n d
whenandwheretheeventhappened,whichstudent,teacher,staff,orotherswereinvolved,whatinterventionswereattempted,andwhatconsequenceswereadministered.Collectingandreviewingthisdatawillhelpschoolsidentifypatternsindisciplinaryevents,discernifconsequencesaremorepunitiveforsomestudentsbasedontheirraceordisability,andcloselyexaminethereasonsastudentmaymisbehave.Summary:Reducingtheuseofexclusionarydisciplineisnotoftenthoughtofasareformstrategy.However,itmaybeoneofthemostproductiveapproachesadistrictandschoolcantaketobothimprovingtheschoolclimateandstudentoutcomes.
21|C o l l e g e o f E d u c a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f M a r y l a n d
MethodologicalNotes
DataforthispolicybriefcomesfromtheOfficeofCivilRights’(OCR)website(https://ocrdata.ed.gov)andtheMarylandStateDepartmentofEducation(MSDE)website(http://reportcard.msde.maryland.gov).WedownloadedMarylanddatafromOCR’sDisciplineReportfor2011,2013and2015.Thesedataincludeawiderangeofinformation,includingthenumberofunduplicatedout-of-schoolsuspensions(OSS)andenrollmentsforspecificstudentpopulationsreportedbypublicschoolstoOCRinagivenyear.Wemergedthesedatawithschoolinformation,suchasproficiencyratesandattendancerates,thatwedownloadedfromtheMaryland’sReportCardfor2013. WethencalculatedtheOSSratesbyracial/ethnicgroups(Asian,Hispanic,Black,White,andOther),Englishlearners(EL),andstudentswithdisabilities(SWD)foreachschoolfor2011,2013,and2015.Wedividedthenumberofsuspensionsforaspecificgroupofstudentsbythenumberofthatgroupofstudentsenrolledinaschoolandmultipliedtheresultby100.BecauseweusedtheunduplicatedOSScounts,inwhichastudentiscountedonlyonceregardlessofthenumberoftimessuspendedduringtheyear,norateshouldexceed100.However,wefoundasmallnumberofschoolsineachyearhadabnormallyhighratesforoneormoregroupsofstudents(21in2011;3in2013,and10in2015).Weexcludedthesecountsandratesfromouranalyses.WethenaveragedtheschoolOSSratesforeachracial/ethnicgroup,ELstudents,andSWDsacross2011,2013,and2015.WealsoaveragedtheOSScountsforeachgroupofstudentsandstudentenrollmentsacrossthistimeperiod.Schoolswithfewerthantwoyearsofdatawereexcludedfromtheanalyses.UsingthesedataandthedatawedownloadedfromtheMSDEwebsitefor2013,wecreatedthreedatasets:a)adatasetthatincludedallschools;b)adatasetforelementaryschools;andc)adatasetforsecondaryschools.Wedefinedanelementaryschoolasanyschoolwithmostlyelementary-levelgrades;themajorityoftheseschoolswereK-6.Wedefinedasecondaryschoolasanyschoolwithmostlysecondary-levelgrades;themajorityoftheseschoolswereeither5-8or9-12.Thedatasetwithallstudentsincluded1,406schoolsorapproximately97%ofallpublicschoolsinMaryland. Wecalculatedthecompositionindex–thepercentageofOSSassociatedwithspecificracial/ethnicgroups,ELstudents,SWDs–usingthedatasetthatincludedallpublicschoolsinMaryland.WesummedtheaverageOSScountsforeachracial/ethnicgroup(Asian,Hispanic,Blacks,Whites,andOther)andforELstudentsandSWDs.WethendividedthesenumbersbytheaverageincidencesofOSSacrossallschoolsinthestate.TheresultistheaveragepercentageofOSSacrossthestatethatinvolvedstudentsfromeachracial/ethnicgroup,ELstudents,andSWDs.Inthecaseofrace/ethnicity,thesepercentagesaddto100%.WealsocalculatedtheaverageOSSratesacrossallschoolsinthestateandcomparedtheseratestotheaverageschoolenrollmentsforspecificgroupsofstudents.
22|C o l l e g e o f E d u c a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f M a r y l a n d
Usingtheelementaryandsecondarydatasets,wenextidentifiedhighsuspendingelementaryandsecondaryschoolsandexaminedthecharacteristicsoftheseschools.Wedefinedahighsuspendingschoolasanyschoolthatsuspends25%ormoreofagivenstudentpopulation.ThisstandardwasusedbyTheCivilRightsProjects’recentanalysisofdisciplinedata,thoughitsetalowerstandardintheiranalysisforelementaryschools(Losenetal.,2015).Wethenexaminedeachschool’saverageOSSratesforeachpopulationofstudents,andwetotaledthenumberofaverageOSSratesequaltoorgreaterthan25%.Wecategorizedaschoolashavinglowsuspensionratesifnoneoftheratesexceededourstandard,highsuspensionratesifonlyonerateexceededthestandard,andhighestsuspensionratesiftwoormoreratesexceededthestandard.WethenlistedalltheelementaryschoolsandsecondaryschoolswithoneormoreaverageOSSratesof25%ormoreofagivenstudentpopulation. Becausewewereinterestedinthecharacteristicsofschoolswithhighsuspensionsrates,wecomparedthecharacteristicsofschoolswithlow,high,andhighestaveragesuspensionrates.WeusedOnewayAnalysisofVariance(ANOVA)todoso,comparingthegroupmeansforaseriesofschoolcharacteristicsforeachcategoryofsuspensionrates.WeusedthepvaluefortheFstatistictodetermineiftherewasastatisticallysignificantrelationshipbetweenaschoolcharacteristicandschoolswithlow,highandhighestaverageOSSrates.Ifthepvaluewaslessthan.05,weconsideredtherelationshiptobestatisticallysignificant.Forexample,inthecaseofachievement,wefoundstatisticallysignificantrelationshipsbetweenthepercentageofstudentswhoscoredproficientorhigherformostgrade-levelstateassessmentsandwhetheraschoolhad0,1or2ormoreaverageOSSratesgreaterthanorequalto25%.Asaresult,weconcludedthatschoolswithhighOSSratesalsotendtobeschoolswithlowerlevelsofachievement,atleastwhencomparedtoschoolswithlowOSSrates.
23|C o l l e g e o f E d u c a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f M a r y l a n d
Appendix1:CharacteristicsofHighSuspendingElementarySchoolsTable1.1.ElementarySchoolEnrollmentsbyNoRate,OneRateandTwoorMoreOSSRatesGreaterthanorEqualto25%
N Mean Std.DeviationAveragepercentAsianenrollment,2011,2013&2015
None 843 5.36 7.55One 37 1.28 1.90TwoorMore 12 0.57 0.83Total(p=.000) 892 5.13 7.41
AveragepercentHispanicenrollment,2011,2013&2015
None 843 13.89 16.69One 37 12.64 20.22TwoorMore 12 6.97 7.92Total(p=.337) 892 13.74 16.77
AveragepercentBlackenrollment,2011,2013&2015
None 842 35.13 31.89One 37 59.68 38.85TwoorMore 12 69.86 29.00Total(p=.000) 891 36.62 32.74
AveragepercentWhiteenrollment,2011,2013&2015
None 842 40.65 32.49One 37 23.78 33.89TwoorMore 12 19.88 27.50Total(p=.001) 891 39.67 32.71
AveragepercentOtherenrollment,2011,2013&2015
None 842 4.96 3.11One 37 2.61 2.70TwoorMore 12 2.72 2.75Total(p=.000) 891 4.83 3.13
AveragepercentELenrollment,2011,2013&2015
None 843 9.22 13.19One 37 7.99 14.72TwoorMore 12 3.35 5.06Total(p=.270) 892 9.09 13.19
AveragepercentSWDenrollment,2011,2013&2015
None 843 12.63 7.50One 37 14.85 5.27TwoorMore 12 24.9 26.33Total(p=.000) 892 12.89 8.06
24|C o l l e g e o f E d u c a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f M a r y l a n d
Table1.2.ElementarySchoolSize(TotalEnrollment)&MobilityRatebyNoRate,OneRate&TwoorMoreOSSRatesGreaterthanorEqualto25%
N Mean Std.DeviationAverageelementarytotalenrollment2011_2013_2015(min2yrs.)
None 843 469.99 170.68One 37 348.41 143.36TwoorMore 12 250.54 128.76Total(p<.000) 892 462.00 172.52
Averagepercentmobility None 781 19.77 10.86One 36 29.99 12.58TwoorMore 11 39.16 16.98Total(p<.000) 828 20.47 11.42
Table1.3.ElementarySchoolAchievementbyNoRate,OneRate&TwoorMoreOSSRatesGreaterthanorEqualto25%
N Mean Std.DeviationAveragepercentproficientorbetterfor3rdgrademathandreadingscores
None 794 74.64 16.64One 35 58.53 19.98TwoorMore 10 48.68 10.82Total(p<.000) 839 73.66 17.24
Averagepercentproficientorbetterfor4thgrademathandreadingscores
None 806 82.63 13.73One 32 67.54 17.78TwoorMore 8 59.15 19.19Total(p<.000) 846 81.83 14.41
Averagepercentproficientorbetterfor5thgrademathandreadingscores
None 810 79.72 14.43One 35 63.10 17.32TwoorMore 11 58.09 18.28Total(p<.000) 856 78.76 15.14
Averagepercentproficientorbetterfor6thgrademathandreadingscores
None 106 63.71 17.56One 12 47.61 14.09TwoorMore 3 42.15 11.23Total(p<.002) 121 61.58 17.98
Averagepercentproficientorbetterfor7thgrademathandreadingscores
None 46 63.64 20.94One 6 43.93 19.17TwoorMore 1 51.25 --Total(p<.092) 53 61.17 21.36
Averagepercentproficientorbetterfor8thgrademathandreadingscores
None 75 50.62 20.41One 13 42.62 17.89TwoorMore 3 34.53 14.87Total(p<.189) 91 48.94 20.13
25|C o l l e g e o f E d u c a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f M a r y l a n d
Table1.4.ElementarySchoolAttendance,FARMsRate&TeacherswithTwoorFewerYearsExperiencebyNoRate,OneRate&TwoorMoreOSSRatesGreaterthanorEqualto25%
N Mean Std.DeviationAveragepercentfree&reducedpricemealsenrollment
None 843 50.39 28.36One 36 78.51 23.79TwoorMore 11 86.82 10.56Total(p<.000) 890 51.98 28.83
Meanattendancerate None 838 96.68 1.74One 35 94.42 2.30TwoorMore 12 93.37 3.21Total(p<.000) 885 96.54 1.88
Averagepercentofteacherswithtwoorfeweryearsofexperience
None 842 14.37 12.16One 36 21.85 17.56TwoorMore 12 24.16 16.91Total(p<.000) 890 14.81 12.61
Table1.5.ElementarySchoolGrades&FocusbyNoRate,OneRate&TwoorMoreOSSRatesGreaterthanorEqualto25%
N Mean Std.DeviationElementarySchoolgradesP-8
None 843 9.49 29.33One 36 36.11 48.71TwoorMore 12 25 45.23Total(p<.000) 891 10.77 31.02
ElementarySchoolgradesP-6
None 843 90.51 29.33One 36 63.89 48.71TwoorMore 12 75 45.23Total(p<.000) 891 89.23 31.02
Alternativeeducationschool?*
None 843 0 0.00One 37 0 0.00TwoorMore 12 8.00 28.90Total(p<.000) 892 0 3.30
*Thereisonlyonealternativeelementaryschool
26|C o l l e g e o f E d u c a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f M a r y l a n d
Appendix2:CharacteristicsofHighSuspendingSecondarySchoolTable2.1.SecondarySchoolEnrollmentbyNoRate,OneRate&TwoorMoreOSSRatesGreaterthanorEqualto25%
N Mean Std.DeviationAveragepercentAsianenrollment,2011,2013&2015
None 322 6.51 7.37One 89 2.44 3.25TwoorMore 58 1.71 1.80Total(p<.000) 469 5.15 6.62
AveragepercentHispanicenrollment,2011,2013&2015
None 322 11.9 13.50One 89 7.56 9.49TwoorMore 58 7.82 7.17Total(p<.002) 469 10.57 12.33
AveragepercentBlackenrollment,2011,2013&2015
None 322 33.62 30.05One 89 44.48 35.73TwoorMore 58 46 31.89Total(p<.001) 469 37.21 31.81
AveragepercentWhiteenrollment,2011,2013&2015
None 322 43.82 30.82One 89 41.94 35.16TwoorMore 58 40.07 31.23Total(p<.667) 469 43 31.70
AveragepercentOtherenrollment,2011,2013&2015
None 322 4.15 2.25One 89 3.61 2.44TwoorMore 58 4.39 2.57Total(p<.086) 469 4.08 2.33
AveragepercentELenrollment,2011,2013&2015
None 322 3.36 5.27One 89 2.02 3.70TwoorMore 58 2.24 3.13Total(p<.031) 469 2.97 4.82
AveragepercentSWDenrollment,2011,2013&2015
None 322 15.11 10.78One 89 18.34 15.22TwoorMore 58 21.66 16.99Total(p<.000) 469 16.53 12.79
27|C o l l e g e o f E d u c a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f M a r y l a n d
Table 2.2. Secondary School Size (Total Enrollment) &Mobility Rate byNo Rate, OneRate&TwoorMoreOSSRatesGreaterthanorEqualto25%
N Mean Std.DeviationAveragesecondaryschooltotalenrollment2011_2013_2015(min2yrs.)
None 322 979.95 520.56One 89 834.07 491.36TwoorMore 58 560.69 388.82Total(p<.000) 469 900.42 518.82
Mobilityrate None 268 15.78 10.73One 84 19.32 13.19TwoorMore 45 26.93 19.69Total(p<.000) 397 17.80 13.04
Table2.3.SecondarySchoolAchievementbyNoRate,OneRate&TwoorMoreOSSRatesGreaterthanorEqualto25%
N Mean Std.DeviationAveragepercentproficientorbetterfor6thgrademathandreadingscores
None 169 77.06 14.43One 39 70.49 15.75TwoorMore 22 61.07 12.12Total(p<.000) 230 74.42 15.24
Averagepercentproficientorbetterfor7thgrademathandreadingscores
None 173 72.95 17.00One 42 62.54 15.74TwoorMore 26 51.13 15.54Total(p<.000) 241 68.78 18.10
Averagepercentproficientorbetterfor8thgrademathandreadingscores
None 172 70.54 16.44One 43 59.62 17.28TwoorMore 30 45.50 19.53Total(p<.000) 245 65.56 18.96
AveragepercentproficientorbetterforhighschoolstudentsinEnglishandAlgebra
None 151 83.32 17.07One 50 75.54 21.49TwoorMore 27 72.97 19.55Total(p<.002) 228 80.39 18.80
Table2.4.SecondarySchoolFARMsRate&TeacherswithTwoorFewerYearsExperiencebyNoRate,OneRate&TwoorMoreOSSRatesGreaterthanorEqualto25%
N Mean Std.DeviationAveragepercentofteacherswithtwoorfeweryearsexperience
None 318 13.67 11.96One 89 15.73 13.71TwoorMore 57 16.49 12.01Total(p<.151) 464 14.41 12.34
Averagepercentfreeandreducedpricemealenrollment
None 312 37.76 24.19One 87 49.52 23.30TwoorMore 56 58.04 16.76Total(p<.000) 455 42.51 24.34
28|C o l l e g e o f E d u c a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f M a r y l a n d
Table2.5.SecondarySchoolAttendanceRate&FourYearDropoutRatebyNoRate,OneRate&TwoorMoreOSSRatesGreaterthanorEqualto25%
N Mean Std.DeviationAveragepercentattendanceNone 320 94.78 6.21
One 89 92.31 8.69TwoorMore 57 90.34 5.93Total(p<.000) 466 93.77 6.89
Numericadjustedfour-yeardropoutrateinpercentages
None 154 9.48 13.71One 51 11.67 13.13TwoorMore 30 20.63 22.47Total(p<.001) 235 11.38 15.35
Table2.6.SecondarySchoolFocus&GradeSpanbyNoRate,OneRate&TwoorMoreOSSRatesGEGreaterthanorEqualto25%
N Mean Std.DeviationCombinedmiddlehighsecondaryschool
None 322 3.73 18.97One 89 8.99 28.76TwoorMore 57 22.81 42.33Total(p<.000) 468 7.05 25.63
Secondarymiddleschool None 322 50.31 50.08One 89 41.57 49.56TwoorMore 57 42.11 49.81Total(p<.232) 468 47.65 50.00
Secondaryhighschool None 322 45.96 49.91One 89 50.56 50.28TwoorMore 57 31.58 46.90Total(p<.068) 468 45.09 49.81
Alternativeeducationschool?*
None 322 1.00 07.90One 89 1.00 10.60TwoorMore 58 9.00 39.50Total(p<.000) 469 3.00 17.00
*Thereare17alternativesecondaryschoolswithdata
29|C o l l e g e o f E d u c a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f M a r y l a n d
ReferencesAmericanPsychologicalAssociationZeroToleranceTaskForce.(2008).Arezero
tolerancepolicieseffectiveintheschools?AmericanPsychologist,63(9),852-862.
Anderson,K.P.,&Ritter,G.W.(2017).Disparateuseofexclusionarydiscipline:EvidenceoninequitiesinschooldisciplinefromaU.S.state.EducationPolicyAnalysisArchives,25(49).
Barrett,N.,McEachin,A.,Mills,J.N.,&Valant,J.(2017).Whatarethesourcesofschooldisciplinedisparitiesbystudentraceandfamilyincome?.RetrievedfromNewOrleans:https://educationresearchalliancenola.org/publications/what-are-the-sources-of-school-discipline-disparities-by-student-race-and-family-income
Christle,C.,Jolivette,K.,&Nelson,C.M.(2007).Schoolcharacteristicsrelatedtohighschooldropoutrate.RemedialandSpecialEducation,28(6),325-339.
Chu,E.M.,&Ready,D.D.(2018).Exclusionandurbanpublichighschools:Short-andlong-termconsequencesofschoolsuspensions.AmericanJournalofEducation,124,479-509.
Curran,R.C.,&Finch,M.A.(2018).Marylandschools'codesofconduct:Comparingdisciplinepolicyacrossdistricts..RetrievedfromBaltimoreCounty,MD:https://edpolicylab.umbc.edu/files/2018/04/Maryland-Schools-Codes-of-Conduct-Comparing-Discipline-Policy-Across-Districts.pdf
Fabelo,T.,Thompson,M.D.,Plotkin,M.,Carmichael,D.,MarchbanksIII,M.P.,&Booth,E.A.(2011).Breakingschools'rules:Astatewidestudyofhowschooldisciplinerelatestostudents'successandjuvenilejusticeinvolvement.RetrievedfromNewYork:https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Breaking_Schools_Rules_Report_Final.pdf
Gregory,A.,Skiba,R.J.,&Noguera,P.(2010).Theachievementgapandthedisciplinegap:Twosidesofthesamecoin?EducationalResearcher,38(1),59-68.
Hwang,N.(2018).Suspensionsandachievement:Varyinglinksbytype,frequency,andsubgroup.EducationalResearcher,47(6),363-374.
Iatarola,A.E.,Stiefel,A.E.,&Chellman,C.C.(2008).SmallschoolsreformandNewYorkCity'sstudents.TeachersCollegeRecord,110(9),1837-1878.
Ispa-Landa,S.(2018).Persistentlyharshpunishmentsamideffortstoreform:Usingtoolsfromsocialpsychologytocounteractracialbiasinschooldisciplinarydecisions.EducationalResearcher,47(6),384-390.
Lee,T.,Cornell,D.,Gregory,A.,&Fan,X.(2011).Highsuspensionschoolsanddropoutratesforblackandwhitestudents.EducationandTreatmentofChildren,34(2),167-192.
Lee,V.E.,&Smith,J.B.(1997).Highschoolsize:Whichworksbestforwhom?EducationEvaluationandPolicyAnalysis,19,205-227.
Losen,D.J.(Ed.)(2015).Closingtheschooldisciplinegap:Equitableremediesforexcessiveexclusion.NewYork:TeachersCollegePress.
30|C o l l e g e o f E d u c a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f M a r y l a n d
Losen,D.J.,&Gillespie,J.(2012).Opportunitiessuspended:Thedisparateimpactofdisciplinaryexclusionfromschool.RetrievedfromLosAngeles:
Losen,D.J.,Hodson,C.,KeithII,M.A.,Morrison,K.,&Belway,S.(2015).Areweclosingtheschooldisciplinegap?RetrievedfromLosAngeles:https://www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/resources/projects/center-for-civil-rights-remedies/school-to-prison-folder/federal-reports/are-we-closing-the-school-discipline-gap
Losen,D.J.,&Skiba,R.J.(2010).Suspendededucation:Urbanmiddleschoolsincrisis.Retrievedfromhttp://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/publications/suspended-education
MarylandStateDepartmentofEducation.(2014).TheMarylandguidelinesforastatecodeofdiscipline.RetrievedfromBaltimore,MD:http://marylandpublicschools.org/about/Documents/DSFSS/SSSP/MDGuidelinesforStateCodeDiscipline08072014.pdf
MarylandStateDepartmentofEducation.(2018).Suspensions,expulsions,andhealthrelatedexclusionsMarylandPublicSchools,2017-2018.RetrievedfromBaltimore,MD:http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/about/Documents/DCAA/SSP/20172018Student/2018SuspExpulHRExc.pdf
Morris,E.W.,&Perry,B.L.(2016).Thepunishmentgap:Schoolsuspensionandracialdisparitiesinachievement.SocialProblems,63(1),68-86.
Nishioka,V.,withShigeoka,S.,&Lolich,E.(2017).Schooldisciplinedataindicators:Aguidefordistrictsandschools(REL2017-240).RetrievedfromWashington,DC:http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.
Noltemeyer,A.L.,Ward,R.M.,&Mcloughlin,C.(2015).Relationshipbetweenschoolsuspensionandstudentoutcomes:Ameta-analysis.SchoolPsychologyReview,44(2),224-240.
Osher,D.,Fisher,D.,Amos,L.,Katz,J.,Dwyer,K.,Duffey,T.,&Colombi,G.D.(2015).Addressingtherootcausesofdisparitiesinschooldiscipline:Aneducator'sactionplanningguide.RetrievedfromWashington,DC:https://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/sites/default/files/ActionPlanningGuide508.pdf
RaffaeleMendez,L.M.,Knoff,H.M.,&Feron,J.M.(2002).Schooldemographicvariablesandout-of-schoolsuspensionrates:Aquantitativeandqualitativeanalysisofalarge,ethnicallydiverseschooldistrict.PsychologyintheSchools,39(3),259-277.
Sartain,L.,Allensworth,E.M.,Porter,S.w.,Levenstein,R.,Johnson,D.W.,Huynh,M.H.,...Steinberg,M.P.(2015).SuspendingChicago'sstudents:Differencesindisciplinepracticesacrossschools.RetrievedfromChicago:https://consortium.uchicago.edu/publications/suspending-chicagos-students-differences-discipline-practices-across-schools
Skiba,R.J.,Arredondo,M.I.,&Williams,N.T.(2014).Morethanametaphor:Thecontributionofexclusionarydisciplinetoaschool-to-prisonpipeline.Equity&ExcellenceinEducation,47(4),546-564.
31|C o l l e g e o f E d u c a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f M a r y l a n d
Skiba,R.J.,Chung,C.-G.,Trachok,M.,Baker,T.L.,Sheya,A.,&Hughes,R.L.(2014).Parsingdisciplinarydisproportionality:Contributionsofinfraction,student,andschoolcharacteristicstoout-of-schoolsuspensionandexpulsion.AmericanEducationalResearchJournal,51(4),640-670.
Skiba,R.J.,Horner,R.H.,Chung,C.-G.,Rausch,M.K.,May,S.L.,&Tobin,T.(2011).Raceisnotneutral:AnationalinvestigationofAfricanAmericanandLatinodisproportionalityinschooldiscipline.SchoolPsychologyReview,40(1),85-107.
Skiba,R.J.,Shure,L.,&Williams,N.(2012).Racialandethnicdisproportionalityinsuspensionandexpulsion.InA.L.Noltemeyer&C.S.McLoughlin(Eds.),Disproportionalityineducationandspecialeducation.Springfield,IL:CharlesC.ThomasPublisher,Ltd.
Skiba,R.J.,&Williams,N.T.(2014).Areblackkidsworse?Mythsandfactsaboutracialdifferencesinbehavior:Asummaryoftheliterature.RetrievedfromBloomington,IN:http://www.indiana.edu/%7Eatlantic/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/African-American-Differential-Behavior_031214.pdf
Theriot,M.T.,Craun,S.W.,&Dupper,D.R.(2009).Multilevelevaluationoffactorspredictingschoolexclusionamongmiddleandhighschoolstudents.ChildrenandYouthServicesReview,32,13-19.
Welch,H.F.,&Payne,A.A.(2010).Racialthreatandpunitiveschooldiscipline.SocialProblems,57,25-48.
Wolf,K.C.,&Kupchik,A.(2014).Schoolsuspensionsandadverseexperiencesinadulthood.JusticeQuarterly,34(4),407-430.
Recommended