Alternatives to Exclusionary DisciplineRethinking School Discipline

Matthew Dailey Monday, December 1, 2014

From the Desk of Arne Duncan (2014)

“Creating and maintaining [safe] schools is both challenging and complex….too many schools are still struggling to create the nurturing, positive, and safe environments that we know are needed to boost student achievement and success.”

“Simply relying on suspensions and expulsions...is not the answer to creating a safe and productive school environment. Unfortunately, a significant number of students are removed from class each year...due to exclusionary discipline practices, which disproportionately impact students of color and students with disabilities.”

● Any disciplinary consequence that removes a student from school (out-of-school suspension).

● ZERO TOLERANCE: school or district-wide policies that mandate predetermined, typically harsh consequences or punishments (such as suspensions and expulsion) for a wide degree of rule violations (NASP, 2014) o Favored by some teachers and administrators - remove “difficult

students from school”; seen as “fast-acting interventions that send a clear, consistent message”

Exclusionary Discipline

Suspensions: ● 1974: 1.7 million ● 2006: 3.3 million

Texas Public Schools:● 31% of students with at

least one suspension, repeated their grade level vs. 5% of students with no disciplinary record

Exclusionary Discipline by the Numbers

Graduation rates: ● 60% of students receiving ten

(10) or more suspensions, failed to graduate

● 18% of students failing to graduate have no disciplinary violations

Juvenile Justice System (JJS)● 23% of students receiving

exclusionary disciplinary actions had contact with JJS

● 2% of students with no exclusionary disciplinary actions had contact with JJS

Council of State Governments Justice Center (Mergler, et. al, 2014)

Connecticut State Department of Education (2010)

Trends in Connecticut (2006-07)● Males two times more likely to be disciplined than females (43,172 vs. 21,265). ● Students with special education services (11.5 percent of population) received

19.5 percent of statewide disciplinary sanctions. ● Suspensions are disproportionate to racial makeup of state (school

population/suspension rate): ○ Black students (14.1% / 30.6%)○ White students (65.3% / 41.3%) ○ Hispanic students (26.3% / 16.5%)

● Students scoring higher on Connecticut’s state standardized tests had lower rates of discipline.

Duncan (2014)

Trends Nationally● African-American students (without disabilities) more than three times more

likely to be suspended than their white peers. ● Students receiving special education services (12 percent of school population),

make up: ○ 19% of suspensions ○ 20% of one out-of-school suspension○ 19% of students expelled ○ 23% of students referred to law enforcement ○ 23% of students receiving school-related arrest

● Suspended students are less likely to graduate on time or even drop-out (Connecticut State Department of Education, 2010; Duncan, 2014; Mergler et al., 2014; NASP, 2014).

● Students receiving exclusionary suspension consequences fail to develop the skills and strategies needed to improve behavior to make adjustments for avoiding future issues (Duncan, 2014; Merger et al., 2014).

● Exclusionary discipline practices disproportionately impact students of color (Mergler et al., 2014; Patterson, 2014) and students with disabilities (Connecticut State Department of Education, 2010; Duncan, 2014).

● Students experiencing exclusionary discipline were more likely to come in contact with juvenile justice system (Mergler et al., 2014).

● Zero tolerance policies are seen as ineffective and do not make schools any safer (Mergler et al., 2014; NASP, 2014).

Findings

Middle School ContextCase Study

XYZ Middle School

CASE STUDY A:Eighth grade student brings tequila to school in a water bottle. Student then consumes alcohol at lunch and distributes alcohol to friends.

CONSEQUENCE: Out-of-School Suspension (10 days); Board Hearing

CASE STUDY B:Eighth grader is on fifth dress code violation. Progressive discipline necessitated that student write dress code (first violation), speak with guidance counselor (second violation), contact parent (third violation), speak with assistant principal (fourth violation).

CONSEQUENCE: In-School Suspension (1 day), parent bring change of clothes.

● The Connecticut State Department of Education (2010) states a suspension will be awarded if the administration feels the student is: ○ in violation of a publicized policy; or○ serious disruption to the educational process; or ○ endangerment to persons or property.

● With Connecticut’s revised suspension policy, school leaders can “determine whether the pupil subject to disciplinary action may be maintained in the public school environment in a manner that is safe for all persons or property or whether the pupil’s conduct is so disruptive that the orderly provision of educational services may not be maintained” (p. 8).

Suspension Considerations

● Bringing alcohol and admitting to the clear intent to distribute to her friends, the school leader, under Connecticut’s new emphasis on in-school suspensions, when making a determination if the conduct is “severely disruptive,” must consider if “the conduct involved the use of alcohol” (p. 9).

● Connecticut recognizes “the proper application of discipline are complex and must take into account both the context…, and the many individual, social and environmental factors that may play a role when determining a course of action” (p. 11): o “degree of involvement and the level of parent support in efforts to

improve the students’ behavior in school”

Suspension Considerations

● Student’s older brother had been expelled (2013)

● Student’s mother and father work during the day and could not arrange childcare.

● It took the adult three hours to get to LMS to pick-up his daughter.

Considerations - Case Study A

● Student had been through five disciplinary interventions over a two and a half week time-span.

● Mother arrived to school with new clothes in less than 45 minutes.

● Serious disruption of educational process (Connecticut State Department of Education, 2010):○ frequency of same offense;○ number of different offenses; and○ intensity of any or all offenses.

● Endangerment to Persons or Property

Considerations - Case Study B

Couple In-School-Suspension (ISS) with intervention:1) Restorative Justice Circle - body of students, faculty, guidance counselor(s), and

principal(s) discuss behavior and impact on peers, learning environment, and school community

2) Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) a) School creates consistent expectations for student and teacher behavior b) Interventions based on small groups teaching students social skills and

conflict resolutionc) Highly individualized responses to behavior - personalized support plan

3) Social and Emotional Learning - school-wide curriculum focused on self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship skills, and responsible decision-making

Alternatives - Case Study A and B

The MDE “Model Student Code of Conduct” states the following:In developing a policy governing school rules and regulations, the following

principles to assure substantive due process should be considered:● The policy must provide notice of what conduct is prohibited or permitted.● The rules must be reasonably understandable to the average child/student, taking into account the

age of the individual child/student.● The rules must be rationally related to a valid educational purpose.● The rules must be precise so as not to prohibit constitutionally protected activities.● The policy must provide students with notice of potential consequences for violating specific

rules. ● The type of consequence specified in the policy must be within the expressed or implied

authority of the school district to utilize.● The consequence must be of reasonable severity in relation to the seriousness of the

misconduct or the number of times the misconduct was committed. ● A copy of the rules and procedures must be disseminated to all students.

Suspension Considerations

“..schools must understand their civil rights obligations and strive to ensure fairness and equity for all students by continuously evaluating the impact of their discipline policies and practices on all students using data and analysis.”

“It is difficult work to create schools that are safe and free of violence, where teachers can concentrate on teaching and, to the greatest extent possible, all students are in class and focused on learning…. It is also essential to our nation’s efforts to expand and accelerate student success and achievement.”

Alignment with our Fundamental Beliefs

Duncan (2014)

ReferencesConnecticut State Department of Education. (2010, December). Guidelines for in-school and out-of-school suspensions [Presentation slides]. Retrieved from http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/pdf/pressroom/In_School_Suspension_Guidance.pdf.

Duncan, A. (2014). United States Department of Education: Guiding principles. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

Mergler, M. S., Vargas, K., & Caldwell, C. (2014, October). Alternative discipline can benefit learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 96(25), 25-30.

Michigan Department of Education. (2014). Model Code of Student Conduct 2014 [PDF Document] Retrieved fromhttp://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/Revised_Code_of_Student_Conduct_SBE_Approved_465406_7.pdf

National Association of School Psychologists. (2014). Zero tolerance. Zero tolerance and alternative strategies: A fact sheet for educators and policymakers. Retrieved from http://www.nasponline.org/resources/factsheets/zt_fs.aspx.

Patterson, G. (2014, October). Boys from the ‘hood - often misunderstood: Four African-American educators speak out about the underlying dynamic at play in many American classrooms. Phi Delta Kappan, 96(25), 31-36.