Disproportionate School Discipline, and How Long-Term Suspensions Don’t Work and Don’t Improve Classroom Conditions When Students are Gone (An Unexpected Part III)
The Numbers Don’t Lie, But Are They Enough to Prompt Change?
Dear Colleagues,
Introduction
Honestly, I did not expect to be writing today about:
- School discipline (again);
- The presence and effects of disproportionate discipline referrals on students of color (and with disabilities); and
- How we can improve school discipline practices. . . . even if your district or school has small number of these students, or “does not have this problem.”
Relative to the last bullet above, my Blog discussions in this area are generally more about maximizing positive and safe school climates, effective classroom management and academic engagement, and teaching and reinforcing students’ social, emotional, and behavioral self-management skills. . . than about “school discipline” and disproportionality.
Moreover, these discussions most emphasize the science-to-practice that often is missing in how many schools approach school discipline and classroom management, and they critically analyze (and discourage) many of the programs (e.g., PBIS, SEL, Restorative Justice) that some educators believe (or have been told) “work” (see more about this below).
But the reason for this “Unexpected Part III”—extending the discussions of my last two Blogs (August 14, 2021 and July 31, 2021)—is a Study published just this past week on the long-term impact of different lengths of school suspensions for middle and high school students in the New York City School District from 2009 through 2018.
July 31, 2021 Blog
The Critical Common Sense Components Needed to Eliminate Disproportionate School Discipline Referrals and Suspensions for Students of Color: This is NOT About Critical Race Theory—But We Discuss It (Part I)
_ _ _ _ _
August 14, 2021 Blog
The Components Needed to Eliminate Disproportionate School Discipline Referrals and Suspensions for Students of Color Do Not Require Anti-Bias Training: Behind Every Iron Chef is an Iron-Clad Recipe (Part II)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
More Severe Suspensions Have Greater Negative Student Effects: On Academics, Attendance, and Future Behavior
This past week, the American Institutes for Research (AIR) published a comprehensive analysis of middle and high school suspensions across the New York City School District from 2009 through 2018.
The study used sophisticated matching techniques to study every student who was eligible to be suspended over this ten-year period, and it involved 1.24 million student behavior incidents— ranging in severity from minor (e.g., insubordination) to violent offenses (i.e., the use of weapons).
The study also compared the outcomes of students who received a harsher disciplinary response with students who received a less harsh response for the same type of offense.
The statistical analyses compared the following discipline actions:
- Out-of-School Suspension (OSS) versus In-School Suspension (ISS);
- ISS of 2 or 3 days versus ISS of 1 day;
- ISS of 4 or 5 days versus ISS of 2 or 3 days;
- OSS of 6-20 days versus OSS of 1-5 days; and
- OSS of 21 or more days versus OSS of 6-20 days.
_ _ _ _ _
Relative to disproportionality, the Study really did not emphasize a very concerning fact that it nonetheless reported:
Black students in New York City had a far greater risk of being reported for a behavioral incident and of receiving severe exclusionary discipline as compared to white students. For example, Black middle and high school students had a relative risk of being suspended for 21 or more days that was 8 and 6 times that of white middle and high school students respectively.
These results suggest that, despite the negative effects of receiving a more severe exclusionary discipline response being similar regardless of race, the disparate use of exclusionary discipline by student race contributes to the racial achievement gap and the racial gap in high school graduation.
And so, once again, the negative impacts of disproportionate disciplinary actions against student of color were both present and compelling.
[See the Links above to Parts I and II of this Series, and how to effectively change disproportionality in schools]
_ _ _ _ _
As describe by AIR, the primary results of their New York City study included the following:
- More severe exclusionary discipline had a consistent negative effect on middle and high school students’ math and English language arts (ELA) credit accumulation and likelihood of on-time graduation.
For example, high school students who received an OSS rather than an ISS were about three percentage points less likely to attain both a math and ELA credit the following year.
An OSS of 21 or more days had the largest negative effects on graduation, with a five-percentage point reduction in the likelihood of graduating on time.
_ _ _ _ _
- More severe exclusionary discipline had a consistent negative effect on middle school students’ future reported behavior.
Receiving an OSS rather than an ISS and receiving a longer OSS rather than a shorter one had particularly negative consequences. No effects were found for high school students.
This suggests that more severe exclusionary discipline does not serve as a deterrent to reported future misbehavior and, for younger children, may exacerbate reported future behavior.
_ _ _ _ _
- The effects of exclusionary discipline on students’ later behavior and educational outcomes were similar for all students regardless of race, socioeconomic status or disability.
However, since data show that Black students and students with disabilities face exclusionary discipline at much higher rates, the negative effects disproportionately impact students in those subgroups.
[CLICK HERE to Link to the AIR Study]
_ _ _ _ _
An Education Week article (August 26, 2021) summarizing the AIR study framed the results in a series of “myths.”
Here are a few of the myths they reported:
- Myth: Suspensions improve student behavior
Fact. Middle school students in the AIR study became more likely to misbehave in the future when they were suspended out of school rather than in school, and when they were suspended for longer periods of time.
_ _ _ _ _
- Myth: Suspensions help get at-risk students ‘back on track’
Fact. Both AIR and a separate recent study by the Civil Rights Project find time out of class for suspensions caused damage to students’ academic progress similar to any other absences from class.
The article noted that, (S)tudents with multiple and long suspensions. . . could end up having chronic absenteeism, just from the suspensions, even if they don’t miss any other days of school.
(For) high school students who were suspended out of school, . . . (t)he longer the suspension, the worse its effect on students’ long-term academic prospects. Students who were suspended 21 days or more over the length of the study were 20 percent less likely to graduate high school in four years.
_ _ _ _ _
- Myth: The severity of a student’s behavior drives suspensions
Fact. In 2017-18, the most recent year of federal data, more than 2.6 million students nationwide received at least one suspension in school, and another 2.5 million served at least one suspension out of school.
Suspensions continue to disproportionately affect students of color and those with disabilities or trauma, even when they engage in the same misbehaviors as their peers.
AIR’s study, like others, finds that exclusionary discipline hurt academic and behavior outcomes for students of all races, including those with and without disabilities. But students of color, particularly Black students, were significantly more likely to have more and longer suspensions than white students.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Other Students Do Not Benefit When Suspended Students are Missing from Class
Another important outcome of the AIR Study was that:
- The analysis did not find any effect of the severity of discipline a student receives on the behavior, attendance, or achievement of their peers.
Additionally, teacher and student reports of school climate, including school safety and classroom learning environment, were not affected by the severity of the discipline a student received.
As the Education Week article put it:
- Myth: Excluding a troublemaker from class improves learning for the rest of the students
Fact. The study found that the number and severity of students’ suspensions had no effects on the behavior or academic performance of their peers in high school. In middle school, more and longer student suspensions were actually associated with more absenteeism and lower math and reading standardized test scores for their peers.
This significant (and rarely studied) outcome clearly contradicts some educators’ beliefs that there are substantive effects on peers in the classroom when a “disruptive” student is both present and absent. While, naturally, a disruptive student does interrupt instruction, it appears that the substantive effects of the disruption—and how some educators use this as a rationale to suspend a student (i.e., to “benefit” the teacher and other students—are not present or well-founded, respectively.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Great Study, But Poor Recommendations and Responses
While the AIR Study provides sound research that reinforces many of the realities and issues discussed in our previous two Blogs, one of its recommendations—made in passing—was very disappointing.
The Study suggested that:
Exclusionary discipline is a strategy that teachers and administrators use in an attempt to create a learning environment in which students are able to learn and are held accountable for their actions. If it is removed as a possible response and teachers are not provided with the resources and training they need to respond in more positive ways to attain these same goals, we might anticipate negative effects of the policy on misbehaving students and their peers.
However, if the policy shift is accompanied by increased funding and training for PBIS, SEL, and restorative practices, the effects might change direction.
Critically, even before this AIR recommendation, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio announced, on June 19, 2019, that all New York City elementary schools would participate in a specific SEL program, and that all middle and high schools would receive Restorative Justice training.
With all due respect, why would AIR—which completed this study in collaboration with the New York City School District and which receives millions in funding from the U.S. Department of Education annually, make the recommendation above—ignoring research that demonstrates that PBIS, SEL, and Restorative Justice programs have little or no objective research support in the schools?
Could it be that AIR does not want to compromise its relationship with the New York City School District. . . . or its funding from the U.S. Department of Education—which also spends millions of your tax dollars to fund three separate PBIS, SEL, and Restorative Justice National Technical Assistance Centers?
If you are shocked by this assertion, please go back to Part I and Part II of this Blog Series:
July 31, 2021 Blog
The Critical Common Sense Components Needed to Eliminate Disproportionate School Discipline Referrals and Suspensions for Students of Color: This is NOT About Critical Race Theory—But We Discuss It (Part I)
_ _ _ _ _
August 14, 2021 Blog
The Components Needed to Eliminate Disproportionate School Discipline Referrals and Suspensions for Students of Color Do Not Require Anti-Bias Training: Behind Every Iron Chef is an Iron-Clad Recipe (Part II)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Effective Disciplinary Questions Before or When Suspending Students
Regardless of any controversy around PBIS, SEL, or Restorative Justice, and given the research that we reported (in the two earlier Blogs in this Series) regarding Administrators holding “a key” to legitimately decreasing disproportionate disciplinary referrals for students of color, we would like to ask Administrators to ask the situational questions below when a referral does occur.
When students of color (and disabilities) are sent to the Office for “discipline,” please ask yourself the following seven questions:
- Question 1. Did the “offense” that prompted the referral involve a significant social, emotional, or behavioral offense that requires the attention of the Administrator (either by Code or in function)?
Implication/Recommended Response: Research and analyses of schools’ discipline data show that many students of color are sent to the principal’s office for (a) mild inappropriate classroom behaviors that should be handled between student and teacher, and/or for (b) behaviors that are addressed more personally or informally in the classroom when exhibited by White students. This occurs for a variety of reasons—including teacher (implicit) bias or cultural/racial misinterpretation.
Regardless, principals should investigate and answer this question and, when inappropriate (teacher) referrals do occur to the office: (a) the discipline referral should be expunged from the student’s record, and (b) the teacher should receive—along a continuum of need—feedback and correction, professional development and coaching, or—after many inappropriate referrals—a formal administrative letter of concern or reprimand.
_ _ _ _ _
- Question 2. Did the offense involve only the student(s) who was/(were) referred, or were other students involved (who were not referred, and why)?
Implication/Recommended Response: As noted above, sometimes teachers refer only students of color to the office when a situation occurs in the classroom, and not everyone who is involved. This may be a continuation of the teacher’s (implicit) bias, or the teacher may assume that the student of color is the instigator or the individual who needs to leave the classroom in order to de-escalate the event.
Once again, principals should investigate this possibility and, when inappropriate referrals do occur: (a) the entire event should be analyzed and debriefed with all of the students involved; and (b) the discipline referral should be expunged from the originally referred student’s record (or added to the records of all the students involved).
If this is a recurring (inappropriate) referral pattern by the teacher, s/he should receive—along a continuum of need—feedback and correction, professional development and coaching, or a formal administrative letter of concern or reprimand.
_ _ _ _ _
- Question 3. Does the referring teacher (or staff member) have a history of referring disproportionately more students (in general) or more students of color (specifically) to the Office?
Implication/Recommended Response: This question continues the theme established in the two questions above.
Here, principals need to track—using an interactive data-base or Student Information System—the month-to-month and year-to-year pattern of staff disciplinary referrals relative to the students, teachers, peers, places, offenses, times of the day, and other variables involved.
Once again, when the data indicate that certain teachers are making unnecessary, disproportionate discipline referrals, they should receive—along a continuum of need—feedback and correction, professional development and coaching, or a formal administrative letter of concern or reprimand.
_ _ _ _ _
- Question 4. What is the academic standing, home and peer relationship status, and disciplinary history of the student being referred?
Implication/Recommended Response: The ultimate goal of an office discipline referral is to determine (a) what the problem (as opposed to the symptom) is; (b) who has the problem (as above, it may be the teacher); (c) why it is occurring, and (d) how it can be prevented or eliminated in the future.
Some students’ inappropriate behaviors are not disciplinary in nature, nor are their root causes always behavioral in nature.
For example, some students behaviorally act out in class because of academic frustration. Others have past or ongoing issues with their peers or at home. Some students, based on the absence of a previous disciplinary history, are just having a bad day. . . or conversely, the behavior is part of a chronic pattern of behavior (that may have been successfully resolved in a previous year).
When principals, per Covey, “seek first to understand,” they often have a broader understanding of the student and the referred behavior. This then allows them to make the strategic intervention decisions needed to resolve the problem at-hand and prevent its reoccurrence in the future.
Admittedly, this does take time.
But it often takes less time than the time involved when same students are continually sent to the office, when students need to be served in expensive alternative programs, or when districts are sued because they did not respond appropriately to teacher bias or a student’s legitimate social, emotional, or behavioral needs.
And beyond the time involved, is our mission not the education of all students?
Not to be trite (and I have worked with the most challenging students in schools, alternative programs, and juvenile justice lock-ups). . . but, what we accomplish now with our most challenging students can create a path to their future success and productivity.
_ _ _ _ _
- Question 5. Is the referred student (or has the student in the past) receiving mental health or social, emotional, or behavioral support or interventions in the school (or in previous schools)?
Implication/Recommended Response: As noted above, principals need to (investigate and) know the background of every student referred to the office for discipline so that the referred behavior can be contextualized, as needed, in that background. This will help the principal to discriminate problems that are related to a student’s social, emotional, or behavioral challenges versus problems that are disciplinary in nature.
While a principal may still have to suspend a student (hopefully, once) for a significant infraction, s/he can simultaneously refer the student (and/or the family) to the school’s Multi-Tiered Service (Child Study) Team, and/or to one or more of the school’s mental health professionals (i.e., counselors, school psychologists, social workers) to address the “real” root cause(s) of the referred behavior.
_ _ _ _ _
- Question 6. Would formal or informal mediation with the referred student, the teacher (or referral source), other school staff, and (possibly) the students’ parents/guardians help eliminate the potential of future office referrals?
Implication/Recommended Response: At times, an office discipline referral actually reflects the fact that the teacher and student involved are in (perhaps, a reciprocal) conflict. If this is true, mediation may be needed so that future conflicts can be eliminated either through conflict prevention and/or conflict resolution strategies.
Conflict resolution through mediation is a learned skill, and there are training courses in this area in many communities, as well as on-line. In fact, many lawyers and business professionals are trained and certified in negotiation and mediation, because they are trying to keep clients out of court or in a profitable business, respectively.
Principals (or superintendents) might ask a number of staff to take a mediation course together so that there is an available pool of individuals to provide these services.
In the end, if an interpersonal (or related) problem is the source of an inappropriate office discipline referral, a sit-down only with the principal or a suspension out of school is not going to solve the problem—in fact, it might exacerbate it.
Principals should ask this important question, and staff should be alerted ahead of time that mediation might be recommended in some cases or situations.
_ _ _ _ _
- Question 7. Even if I “need” to suspend the student for this offense, will the suspension—in and of itself—significantly eliminate the potential of a future disciplinary offense by this student?
Implication/Recommended Response: To summarize a number of the points above, this question is essential.
Indeed, if a principal asks this question—as s/he is processing a student’s suspension—and the answer is “No,” or “I don’t know,” the principal should refer the student to the school’s Multi-Tiered Service (Child Study) Team, and/or to one or more of the school’s mental health professionals (i.e., counselors, school psychologists, social workers) to address the “real” root cause(s) of the referred behavior.
If the answer to this question is, “Yes,” then the principal could suspend (if warranted) the student, but track his or her disciplinary data and offenses over time. After a specific number of additional office referrals and suspensions, the data will compel a conclusion that the recently tried disciplinary actions are not changing the behavior.
At this point, it is once again recommended that the school’s Multi-Tiered Service (Child Study) Team get involved to functionally analyze the student’s social, emotional, and/or behavioral status so that strategic or intensive discipline-related services, supports, strategies, or interventions can be implemented to successfully change the student’s behavior.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Summary
In Part I of the Series, we presented a definition of “racism,” and talked about Critical Race Theory. We did this to emphasize that (a) the disproportionate disciplinary treatment of students of color—especially Black students (as well as students with disabilities)—has existed for decades, and that (b) initiatives to eliminate disproportionality should not be linked to the recent politicized conversation involving Critical Race Theory.
Part I then discussed six different approaches/flaws that have been implemented in the past to address school-level disciplinary disproportionality—explaining why they have not worked and, hence, why they should be avoided in the future.
In Part II of this Series, we addressed the six reasons/flaws from Part I by providing effective practices and solutions to decrease or eliminate disproportionality.
This was done by describing five interdependent psychoeducational components and their specific, embedded practices as organized within a strategically-implemented, evidence-based, multi-tiered professional development and coaching-centered whole-school initiative. This initiative is focused on teaching students—from preschool through high school—specific, observable, and measurable social, emotional, and behavioral self-management skills.
In this Part III, we summarized a study published this week that analyzed over 1.24 million student behavior incidents that occurred between 2009 and 2018 in the middle and high school of the New York City Public Schools. The focus of the study was the academic and behavioral impact of different amounts of In-School and Out-of-School Suspensions.
The Study’s results concluded that more severe exclusionary discipline had (a) a consistent negative effect on middle and high school students’ math and English language arts credit accumulation and likelihood of on-time graduation; and (b) a consistent negative effect on middle school students’ future reported behavior.
These results were similar for all students regardless of race, socioeconomic status, or disability. And, teachers and other students reported that their classroom climate was not affected by the severity of the discipline a peer received, or a student’s suspension-related absence from the class.
Critically, despite the consistent effects of school suspensions across race, Black students had a 6 to 8 greater risk of being reported for a behavioral incident and of receiving severe exclusionary discipline as compared to white students.
In addition, the Study’s passing recommendation that PBIS, SEL, and Restorative Justice programs could moderate the behavioral infractions reported was rejected by virtual of the already-reviewed research and practice in the first two Blogs in this Series.
This Blog concluded by recommending that Administrators ask themselves seven critical questions—when students of color are sent to the office for discipline—so that the legitimacy, context, and accuracy of the behavior can be evaluated. By objectively answering these questions, Administrators can choose the necessary steps to strategically address student (peer, and staff) behavior and eliminate its probability of reoccurrence—steps that include professional development and coaching with teachers who are making inappropriate discipline referrals due to (implicit) bias or cultural/racial insensitivities.
_ _ _ _ _
With the unexpected Part III addition, I hope that this Series is useful to you. And I always look forward to your comments. . . whether on-line or via e-mail.
If I can help you, your colleagues, your school, or your district to further understand or implement any of the multi-tiered recommendations in this Series, know that I am always available to you—virtually and on-site—to address your needs.
As such, I am always happy to provide a free one-hour consultation conference call to help you clarify your needs and potential directions on behalf of your students.
Best,
