Brandy Bynum Director of Policy & OutreachMarch 5, 2011

Addressing problems with school suspension: Practice and policy

strategies

This presentation stems from materials created by Jenni Owen, Director of Policy Initiatives at Duke University for the 2010 NC Family Impact Seminar, School Suspension: Research and Policy Options, held April 27, 2010, at the North Carolina General Assembly.

Seminar materials are available at http://www.childandfamilypolicy.duke.edu/engagement/ncfis_2010.php

Questions abound about the frequency of suspension as a consequence as well as about the use of suspension for some groups of students more than others.

This discussion – Highlights what we know from research– Provides a broad overview of suspension data for

NC– Offers possible strategies for addressing the

problem

We know a lot from 30 years of research but need to be mindful of the limitations

Single school, single points in time – hard to generalize

So What?

Research shows that being suspended may have impacts on multiple aspects of students’ experiences with schooling, development and overall success. It may affect: – Truancy– School dropout and ultimate academic

achievement– Future behavior problems– Social development– Future legal problems– Later access to employment opportunities

Characteristics of suspended students

Many more males than females Those frequently suspended = less likely to have

parental supervision but need it more Students with emotional, behavioral, or learning

disabilities more likely to be suspended – especially African-American students with disabilities– African-American students more likely to be

disciplined more severely for minor misconduct– Poverty not the distinguishing characteristic

District, school, and personnel characteristics also matter

Examples: School Characteristics -

– Strict school conduct codes → higher rates of suspension

Personnel Characteristics -– Those who want to suspend less, suspend

less. Predictable perhaps but highlights the impact of school-level discretion – important to consider its pros and cons

Short-term suspensions

293,453 short-term, out-of-school suspensions for K-12 students in NC (2008-09)

High school students received about ½ of these 151,291 different students (about 1 in 10 K-12

students) Average duration of a single short-term suspension

was 2.98 days.

Source for data and related charts: North Carolina Department of Public Instruction consolidated report,

http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/research/discipline/reports/consolidated/2008-09/consolidated-report.pdf

Suspensions by student characteristic

Male students: 211,841 (72%) Female students: 81,612 (28%) Higher proportion of black students suspended than

students of any other race. Black students also received the most short-term

suspensions, followed by whites and Hispanics. Ninth graders - over 70,000 short-term suspensions –

highest of any grade. Next highest number for a single grade - 8th with

slightly under 40,000 Exceptional children - 65,089 short-term suspensions

Long-term suspensions

3,592 long-term suspensions given to 2,407 different students

Average long-term suspension - 70 school days – that’s 14 weeks of school and over 3 months.

31% fewer long-term suspensions than in previous years but…should we be celebrating?

What accounts for the dramatic reduction? Possibly changes in student behavior but also

possibly– new policy (likely at the district or school level)– new interpretation of existing policy– change in how certain offenses are

classified/recorded– more students placed in alternative schools or

programs

NC has the…

3rd highest suspension rate4th highest number of suspensions

(2008 NCES report, 2006 data. Even if the numbers have declined in recent years…)

Offenses that lead to suspension

16 criminal acts that schools must report to DPI (includes homicide, rape, sexual offense, burning a school building)

Consequences for these acts vary widely among districts and schools

All acts not among the 16 are reported as “other” (such as dress code violations, use of vulgar language, truancy)

“Other” accounted for 97 percent of short-term suspensions

District differences

Variation in short-term suspensions across districts

4.1 suspensions per 100 students – Avery 111 suspensions per 100 students – Robeson

84 percent of reported infractions resulted in suspension - Wake

47 percent resulted in suspension - Forsyth

Why the differences?

Possibly… District policy differences regarding the

severity of punishment for the same disciplinary infractions

Differences in district practices for reporting disciplinary infractions that are not among the 16 required to report

Critical not only to look at the data but to pay attention to what’s behind it. Can’t interpret differences between and among districts purely as a reflection of student behavior.

Evidence on alternative practices – what matters?

Assess school/student needs in order to tailor programs

Comprehensive school-wide changes that address student/school characteristics through prevention and reinforcement of positive behaviors →lower suspension rates

School-wide conflict resolution focused on alternatives to violence reduces students’ acts of violence in school

Training in cultural (including race, poverty) responsiveness and sensitivity may result in fewer suspensions

Evidence (cont’d)

Conflict resolution training implemented outside of school does not reduce suspensions

Corporal punishment (district discretion in NC)– ineffective in reducing misconduct– often administered inconsistently – can cause serious physical, psychological, and emotional injury

Punitive behavior management methods (e.g., ridiculing, shaming) - ineffective at reducing misconduct, and may cause harm to students

Key takeaways from research:•School-wide•School-based•Culturally sensitive•Suspension alternatives

Overview of three types of programs

Prevention of disruptive behaviorsAlternatives to out-of-school

suspensionMitigation of impacts of suspension

Prevention of disruptive behavior

Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports (PBIS) - currently in multiple NC districts – see DPI report http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/docs/positivebehavior/data/evaluation/pbs08-09.pdf

On-Campus Intervention Program (OCIP) Consistency management and Cooperative

Discipline (CMCD) Other prevention approaches

Alternatives to out-of-school suspension

In-school alternatives:– “Intervention” room for students to use to “cool

off.”– Individual counseling.– Space for “offending” student to work privately.– Before/after-school detentions or Saturday

school In-school community service (e.g., assisting

teachers with preparatory work, grounds clean-up, etc.).

Alternatives (cont’d)

Disciplinary systems that:– Have graduated levels of disciplinary actions -

consequences are matched to the seriousness of the infraction with suspension as last resort instead of default

– Shorter suspensions to mitigate new or exacerbated academic struggles

Use data management system to record and analyze student misconduct; develop suspension alternatives tailored to individual schools’ discipline challenges

Mitigating the impact of suspension

Ideally, mitigating programs – Are an active part of local systems of care– Facilitate referrals and communication

among agencies.

Mitigation strategies include– Engagement with student and family – Facilitation of student’s continuation of

academic work during suspensions or alternatives to suspension

Other strategies for reducing/offsetting suspension

Clear communication to all student and school personnel regarding what constitutes student misconduct

Restorative justice approach Evaluating prevention, reduction and mitigation efforts to

assess “true” and thorough implementation Involving multiple stakeholders within the broader

community in the development of school discipline policies and alternatives

Establishing school discipline oversight committees in particular to address potential racial disparities in suspension rates

Policy options

Where law requires suspension, give districts latitude to allow principals to consider specific circumstances of discipline cases

Select a limited number of evidence-based prevention programs, encourage a limited number of schools to adopt one or more of them, and provide continuing support and monitoring to ensure proper and sustained implementation.

Clarify reporting terms and requirements. Currently, high “rates” of suspension can easily be misinterpreted, potentially leading to a poor match between policy, practice and the actual needs of schools and students.

Instead of defaulting to suspension, direct districts to

default to research-based alternatives to suspension such as in-school suspension, community service and other programs.

Policy options

Eliminate the option of suspending students “to the street.” Current NC law states that every district must have alternative education programs. The law does not require that all suspended students be assigned to such a program.

When an alternative learning placement is not an option, North Carolina has community service and restorative justice programs with which districts might consider partnering for alternatives to suspension.

Policy options

Eliminate suspension as a consequence for truancy at least until students age out of compulsory school attendance – currently age 16. Otherwise, suspending truant students may, in effect, force the students to continue their truant behavior.

Require consideration of the student’s age when

assigning consequences for disciplinary infractions. Currently not a requirement in NC.

Policy options

Testing the policy options

Monitor the outcomes – such as educational achievement - among students who receive different types of consequences for similar infractions to discern which discipline-related policies produce the best outcomes for students and schools.

Note: to do so likely would require a more refined approach to reporting suspensions than what NC currently relies on.

Challenges for policymakers

Balancing the needs of students, schools, and communities with approaches to discipline that take into account what evidence says will have the greatest positive outcomes with regard to improved behavior.

Resource limitations. Balancing statewide standards with strong

local control.

Brandy Bynum

Director of Policy & Outreach

(919) 834-6623 ext. 234

brandy@ncchild.org