1. 1 School Discipline in Arkansas Kaitlin Anderson, Jennifer Ash, Dr. Gary Ritter UA Office for Education Policy December 11, 2014 Arkansas School Boards Association

2. AR Education Reports Policy Briefs Report Cards Newsletters Data Resources www.officeforeducationpolicy.org/ 2

3. Refer to menu bar at the top left of the OEP homepage. http://www.officeforeducationpolicy.org/ http://www.officeforeducationpolicy.org/ Click on Arkansas School Data Accessing Data Resources through the OEP Arkansas School Data has multiple databases at both school and district levels.

4. Overview of The Next Hour 1.Introduction – Background on School Discipline and Act 1329 2.Limitations and Challenges in Interpretation 3.Results a)Are there regional differences in discipline rates? b)Are there differences in discipline rates based on district size, demographics, or academic performance? c)Are discipline rates and academic outcomes correlated? 4. Policy Implications and Further Research 5. Questions 4

5. Introduction and Issues in the School Discipline Debate 5

6. Background on School Discipline - US US Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights Database (2014) – African-American students without disabilities are more than three times as likely as their white peers without disabilities to be expelled or suspended – Over 50% of students involved in school-related arrests or referred to law enforcement are Hispanic or African-American 6

7. Joint “Dear Colleague” Letter USDE and US DOJ: “Federal law prohibits public school districts from discriminating in the administration of student discipline based on certain personal characteristics” Can launch investigations based on complaints, public reports, or ongoing monitoring Therefore, possible legal ramifications of disparate discipline rates 7

8. Zero Tolerance Polices Mandatory expulsion for certain offenses Some organizations such as Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families have advocated replacing zero- tolerance with more administrator discretion Zero tolerance v. discretion – not sure which of these is right Often viewed as contributing to a school-to prison pipeline 8

9. School-to-Prison Pipeline Defined by American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) as “a disturbing national trend wherein children are funneled out of public schools and into the juvenile and criminal justice systems” A.K.A cradle-to-prison pipeline “Criminalizing” minor infractions within schools through referrals to law enforcement 9

10. Arkansas Context Arkansas ranks 15 th in the country in the use of Out-of-School Suspension (OSS) for all students, and 13 th in the disparity between the use of OSS for black and white students* Disparity refers to the fact that black students receive OSS at a disproportionate rate compared to their white peers Advocacy groups have proposed possible solutions: – Abolition of corporal punishment – Abolition of zero-tolerance – Abolition of the use of OSS for truancy (accomplished in Act 1329 of 2013) – Use of other alternative strategies (PBIS, behavioral and mental health services, support for returning ALE students to regular classrooms) 10 *Source: Losen, D.J. and Gillespie, J. (2012, August) Opportunities Suspended: The Disparate Impact of Disciplinary Exclusion from School.

11. Why does this matter for AR students? Clearly, safety of students, teacher and staff is a top priority But lost instruction time and chronic absences can have harmful effects on performance and achievement Judge Joyce Williams Warren, Sixth Judicial District, Division 10 said: “the schools are contributing, more than ever, to the cradle-to-prison pipeline, and they are doing this for offenses that are not necessarily related to safety” 11

12. Why does this matter for AR students? 192 out of 260 school districts in Arkansas reported using corporal punishment during the 2012-13 school year 19 states still have legal corporal punishment but only 17 states used it during 2009-10 Some groups (like Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families) view as a violation of each student’s right to human dignity 12

13. Introduction to Arkansas Act 1329 Act 1329: An Act to Evaluate the Impact of School Discipline on Student Achievement; And For Other Purposes – Report to be prepared by July 1 of each year, beginning in 2014, to include: District enrollment, subgroup enrollment, disciplinary rates, achievement, and disciplinary disparity between subgroups Possible disciplinary strategies and resources Arkansas school districts can access 13

14. Description of Data Student level office referral data from three school years (2010-11 to 2012-13) 14

15. Limitations of Data Discipline data – obtained from the Arkansas Department of Education: – Self-reported by districts – Some categories unstandardized Including undefined “other” category (e.g. six districts had “other” rates of over 20%) One district with only about 400 students, had about 1300-1400 “other” actions each year – Missing data Including “referrals to law enforcement authorities” 15

16. Challenges of Interpreting Data Districts have varying: – Discipline policies and plans – Personnel to implement policies and plans Unclear whether high or low discipline rates are positive or negative – High discipline rates = chaos? – High discipline rates = extreme order? Unclear how to interpret any potential disparities – Act 1329: “Disparity in discipline rates does not necessarily indicate discrimination; it can result from an ineffective school climate or from cultural strategies that are not successful in engaging the academic efforts of all students.” 16

17. How to Calculate Discipline Rates? Two definitions of discipline rates Defined by Act 1329: – “Three-year average for each discipline measure of the number of students in a school district or the number of students in a subgroup in the school district who have at least one (1) discipline measure divided by the corresponding total enrollment in the school district or the total enrollment in the subgroup” – Ignores repeated disciplinary actions Alternate Definition: – Incidences per 100 students 17

18. Results 18

19. Discipline Data Overview 19 Percent of students receiving at least one disciplinary action in a school-year, 3 year average N = 257 Incidents per 100 students

20. ISS Rates by Subgroup 20 Disparity = 5.0% Disparity = 7.1% Incidents per 100 students 12.8 21.6 Percent of students receiving at least one ISS in a school-year, 3 year average Disparity = 2.8% 8.9

21. OSS Rates by Subgroup 21 Disparity = 3.7% Disparity = 5.2% Incidents per 100 students 8.0 11.9 Percent of students receiving at least one OSS in a school-year, 3 year average Disparity = 1.7% 4.4

22. State-wide Differences 22

23. Discipline Rates by District Size 23 ISS rates are highest in mid-size districts OSS rates increase with district size Corporal Punishment rates decrease with district size None of the 5 largest districts use corporal punishment SmallestLargest Districts

24. Discipline Rates by Racial Composition 24 ISS rates are higher in districts serving more minority students Corporal Punishment rates are highest in mostly white districts OSS rates are higher in districts serving more minority students

25. Discipline Rates by District % Low- Income 25 The relationship between poverty rate and Corporal Punishment is slightly less clear as there is a dip in CP in higher poverty districts Lower Higher Poverty ISS rates increase as poverty level increases In general, OSS rates increase as poverty level increases

26. Discipline Rates by Academic Performance 26 Lower Higher Performance The relationship between CP rates and academic performance is less clear, but in general, there is still a downward trend ISS rates are lower in higher performing districts OSS rates are lower in higher performing districts

27. Regional Differences 27

28. Regional Differences - ISS 28 Central ISS = 5.2% Southeast ISS = 11.8% Southwest ISS = 9.5% Northeast ISS = 7.3% Northwest ISS = 5.8% Percent of students receiving at least one ISS in a school-year, 3 year average 1.Southeast: 11.8% 2.Southwest: 9.5% 3.Northeast: 7.3% 4.Northwest: 5.8% 5.Central: 5.2%

29. Regional Differences – ISS 29 Central ISS = 11.9 Southeast ISS = 28.0 Southwest ISS = 22.8 Northeast ISS = 16.4 Northwest ISS = 13.3 Incidents per 100 students 1.Southeast: 28.0 2.Southwest: 22.8 3.Northeast: 16.4 4.Northwest: 13.3 5.Central: 11.9 Southeast also has the highest OSS rate and Corporal Punishment incidents per 100 students

30. Regional Differences - OSS 30 Central OSS = 5.2% Southeast OSS = 7.7% Southwest OSS = 4.7% Northeast OSS = 4.9% Northwest OSS = 3.5% 1.Southeast: 7.7% 2.Central: 5.2% 3.Northeast: 4.9% 4.Southwest: 4.7% 5.Northwest: 3.5% Percent of students receiving at least one ISS in a school-year, 3 year average

31. Regional Differences – Corporal Punishment 31 Central CP = 2.8% Southeast CP = 7.6% Southwest CP = 6.4% Northeast CP = 6.8% Northwest CP = 3.9% Percent of students receiving Corporal Punishment at least once in a school-year, 3 year average 1.Southeast: 7.6% 2.Northeast: 6.8% 3.Southwest: 6.4% 4.Northwest: 3.9% 5.Central: 2.8% Central Corporal Punishment Rate is low due to zero use of Corporal Punishment in large schools such as LRSD, PCSSD, Conway SD

32. But are there really differences within districts? 32

33. Within District Disparity: Male to Female 33 Difference in the percent of students in certain mutually exclusive subgroups receiving discipline action at least once in a school-year Within district 3 year average % for Male Students - % for Female Students Positive numbers: higher rates for male students Note: these are based on the Act 1329 definition of discipline rates as % of students receiving discipline at least once, which may underestimate true gap if there are repeat offenders

34. Within District Disparity: Non-White to White 34 Difference in the percent of students in certain mutually exclusive subgroups receiving discipline action at least once in a school-year Within district 3 year average % for Non-White Students - % for White Students Positive numbers: higher rates for non-white students

35. Within District Disparity: FRL to Non-FRL 35 Difference in the percent of students in certain mutually exclusive subgroups receiving discipline action at least once in a school-year Within district 3 year average % for FRL-eligible students - % for non-FRL-eligible students Positive numbers: higher rates for FRL-eligible students

36. Within District Disparity: SPED to Non-SPED 36 Difference in the percent of students in certain mutually exclusive subgroups receiving discipline action at least once in a school-year Within district 3 year average % for SPED students - % for non-SPED students Positive numbers: higher rates for SPED students

37. Within District Disparity: Low Achieving to High Achieving 37 Difference in the percent of students in certain mutually exclusive subgroups receiving discipline action at least once in a school-year Within district 3 year average % for low-achieving students - % for higher achieving students Positive numbers: higher rates for low-achieving students

38. Policy Implications and Next Steps 38

39. Policy Implication #1 Room for improvement in collection and categorization of data (e.g. “other”) This great database provided by the state can be used by the OEP to answer many more questions 39

40. Policy Implication #2 Interpretation of outcomes not obvious Outcome disparities do not equal discrimination – What if certain groups of students are in districts that use more expulsions and suspensions? – What if certain groups of students are misbehaving more than others? – What if certain students misbehave repeatedly and received harsher punishments for repeat offenses? Arkansas data allows us to dive deeper 40

41. Further Research Analyzing disparities in discipline actions for a given infraction From 2010-2013, black students in Arkansas written up for “Truancy” were over twice as likely to be expelled than their white peers and almost six times as likely to receive OSS than their white peers More work to be done 41

42. Further Research Preliminary findings: for infractions that result in expulsions or suspensions at least 90% of the time (drugs, alcohol, gang activity, fighting, guns, and knives) – African-American students are slightly more likely to be expelled than white students in the same district for the same infraction, even after controlling for the number of office referrals that year – African-American and Hispanic students also received slightly longer suspensions, on average 42

43. Questions? kaitlina@uark.edu oep@uark.edu www.officeforeducationpolicy.org kaitlina@uark.edu oep@uark.edu 43