High Suspending Schools in Maryland · percentage of new staff in a school and student mobility, or changing schools frequently is associated with higher rates of school suspension

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

[email protected]

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


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.


AcknowledgementsTheauthorsaregratefulfortheassistanceandsupporttheyreceivedwhileresearchingandwritingthisreport.MathewHenryhelpedusconceptualizetheprojectandErinJanulisassistedwithconstructingthedatasetsweneededfortheanalysis.WewouldliketothankShilpaBista,PamelaCallahan,KaylaGood,CharlotteHealy,andCierraKahler-Jonesfortheirassistanceinformattingthetablesandfiguresandputtingthisreporttogether.PeterLeoneprovidedinvaluablefeedbackonthereport.WealsothankourcolleaguesattheMarylandEquityProjectfortheirsupportandinsightfulcommentsatvariousstagesofwritingthisreport.Finally,wegratefullyacknowledgethesupportoftheCollegeofEducationandtheDepartmentofTeachingandLearning,PolicyandLeadership.Nonetheless,theviewsandopinionsexpressedinthisreportaresolelythoseoftheauthors.


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).


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%.


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.


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


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.


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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%).


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


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.


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


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,


whenandwheretheeventhappened,whichstudent,teacher,staff,orotherswereinvolved,whatinterventionswereattempted,andwhatconsequenceswereadministered.Collectingandreviewingthisdatawillhelpschoolsidentifypatternsindisciplinaryevents,discernifconsequencesaremorepunitiveforsomestudentsbasedontheirraceordisability,andcloselyexaminethereasonsastudentmaymisbehave.Summary:Reducingtheuseofexclusionarydisciplineisnotoftenthoughtofasareformstrategy.However,itmaybeoneofthemostproductiveapproachesadistrictandschoolcantaketobothimprovingtheschoolclimateandstudentoutcomes.


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.


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.


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


AveragepercentBlackenrollment,2011,2013&2015


AveragepercentWhiteenrollment,2011,2013&2015


AveragepercentOtherenrollment,2011,2013&2015


AveragepercentELenrollment,2011,2013&2015


AveragepercentSWDenrollment,2011,2013&2015



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


Averagepercentproficientorbetterfor4thgrademathandreadingscores







None 46 63.64 20.94One 6 43.93 19.17TwoorMore 1 51.25 --Total(p<.092) 53 61.17 21.36




Table1.4.ElementarySchoolAttendance,FARMsRate&TeacherswithTwoorFewerYearsExperiencebyNoRate,OneRate&TwoorMoreOSSRatesGreaterthanorEqualto25%

N Mean Std.DeviationAveragepercentfree&reducedpricemealsenrollment


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


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


Alternativeeducationschool?*

None 843 0 0.00One 37 0 0.00TwoorMore 12 8.00 28.90Total(p<.000) 892 0 3.30

*Thereisonlyonealternativeelementaryschool


Appendix2:CharacteristicsofHighSuspendingSecondarySchoolTable2.1.SecondarySchoolEnrollmentbyNoRate,OneRate&TwoorMoreOSSRatesGreaterthanorEqualto25%

N Mean Std.DeviationAveragepercentAsianenrollment,2011,2013&2015


AveragepercentHispanicenrollment,2011,2013&2015


AveragepercentBlackenrollment,2011,2013&2015


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


AveragepercentELenrollment,2011,2013&2015


AveragepercentSWDenrollment,2011,2013&2015



Table 2.2. Secondary School Size (Total Enrollment) &Mobility Rate byNo Rate, OneRate&TwoorMoreOSSRatesGreaterthanorEqualto25%

N Mean Std.DeviationAveragesecondaryschooltotalenrollment2011_2013_2015(min2yrs.)


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






AveragepercentproficientorbetterforhighschoolstudentsinEnglishandAlgebra


Table2.4.SecondarySchoolFARMsRate&TeacherswithTwoorFewerYearsExperiencebyNoRate,OneRate&TwoorMoreOSSRatesGreaterthanorEqualto25%

N Mean Std.DeviationAveragepercentofteacherswithtwoorfeweryearsexperience


Averagepercentfreeandreducedpricemealenrollment



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


Table2.6.SecondarySchoolFocus&GradeSpanbyNoRate,OneRate&TwoorMoreOSSRatesGEGreaterthanorEqualto25%

N Mean Std.DeviationCombinedmiddlehighsecondaryschool


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?*


*Thereare17alternativesecondaryschoolswithdata


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.


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.


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.