Disproportionate Discipline and Student Success:

Are discipline disparities impacting your students?

Carl Hermanns, Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College

“You can’t get to excellence without equity”

- Pasi Sahlberg (keynote ASUEdCon14)

But what does that mean in our context?

•  Disproportionate discipline •  The intersection of discipline disparities with

student success •  Practices and policies to mitigate inequitable

treatment and outcomes

Purpose: to assist public elementary and secondary schools in meeting their obligations under Federal law to administer student discipline without discriminating on the basis of race, color, or national origin.

Impetus: the alarming increase in out-of-school suspensions, the disproportionate impact of those suspensions on certain groups of students, and the significant negative educational and long-term outcomes that can result from these trends.

January 8, 2014 Dear Colleague:

Disproportionate discipline

Facts: •  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 who were involved in school-related arrests or referred to law enforcement are Hispanic or African-American.

•  These substantial racial disparities are not explained by more frequent or more serious misbehavior by students of color. Ø  Investigations have shown African-American students were

disciplined more harshly and more frequently than similarly situated white students for the same type of offense.

January 8, 2014 Dear Colleague:

Facts: •  The increasing use of disciplinary sanctions such as in-school and out-

of-school suspensions, expulsions, or referrals to law enforcement authorities creates the potential for significant, negative educational and long-term outcomes. Ø  Individual students who are suspended and removed from class are

less likely to graduate on time and more likely to repeat a grade, drop out, or become involved in the juvenile justice system.

Ø  High rates of suspensions in schools have been related to lower school-wide academic achievement and standardized test scores.

January 8, 2014 Dear Colleague:

The good news...

Exploring Achievement Data

But what about the

gaps...

Proficient: solid

academic performance

Basic: partial

mastery

¹ Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools).

Mathematics2013 S t a t e S n a p s h o t R e p o r t

ArizonaGrade 8

Public Schools

Overall Results

� In 2013, the average score of eighth-grade students in Arizona was 280. This was lower than the average score of 284 for public school students in the nation.

� The average score for students in Arizona in 2013 (280) was not significantly different from their average score in 2011 (279) and was higher than their average score in 1990 (260).

� The score gap between higher performing students in Arizona (those at the 75th percentile) and lower performing students (those at the 25th percentile) was 50 points in 2013. This performance gap was not significantly different from that in 1990 (47 points).

� The percentage of students in Arizona who performed at or above the NAEP Proficient level was 31 percent in 2013. This percentage was not significantly different from that in 2011 (31 percent) and was greater than that in 1990 (13 percent).

� The percentage of students in Arizona who performed at or above the NAEP Basic level was 69 percent in 2013. This percentage was not significantly different from that in 2011 (68 percent) and was greater than that in 1990 (48 percent).

Achievement-Level Percentages and Average Score Results

* Significantly different (p < .05) from state's results in 2013. Significance tests were performed using unrounded numbers.

For information about NAEP accommodations, see http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/about/inclusion.aspx.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

Compare the Average Score in 2013 to Other States/Jurisdictions

In 2013, the average score in Arizona (280) was� lower than those in 30 states/jurisdictions� higher than those in 8 states/jurisdictions� not significantly different from those in 13 states/jurisdictions

Average Scores for State/Jurisdiction and Nation (public)

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2013. Significance tests were performed using unrounded numbers.

NOTE: For information about NAEP accommodations, see http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/about/inclusion.aspx.

Results for Student Groups in 2013

Reporting Groups Percent of

studentsAvg.

score

Percentages at or above Percent at

AdvancedBasic Proficient

Race/EthnicityWhite 41 294 83 45 13Black 5 266 54 19 3Hispanic 43 269 59 19 2Asian 3 306 91 60 16American Indian/Alaska Native 7 259 49 13 1Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander # ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡Two or more races 1 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡

GenderMale 51 280 69 32 8Female 49 279 69 29 6

National School Lunch ProgramEligible 56 268 58 18 2Not eligible 42 295 83 47 14

# Rounds to zero. ‡ Reporting standards not met. NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding, and because the "Information not available" category for the National School Lunch Program, which provides free/reduced-price lunches, is not displayed. Black includes African American and Hispanic includes Latino. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin.

Score Gaps for Student Groups

� In 2013, Black students had an average score that was 28 points lower than White students. This performance gap was not significantly different from that in 1990 (26 points).

� In 2013, Hispanic students had an average score that was 25 points lower than White students. This performance gap was not significantly different from that in 1990 (29 points).

� In 2013, male students in Arizona had an average score that was not significantly different from female students.

� In 2013, students who were eligible for free/reduced-price school lunch, an indicator of low family income, had an average score that was 27 points lower than students who were not eligible for free/reduced-price school lunch. This performance gap was not significantly different from that in 1996 (23 points).

NOTE: Statistical comparisons are calculated on the basis of unrounded scale scores or percentages.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1990–2013 Mathematics Assessments.

a Accommodations not permitted.

Basic: Partial mastery Proficient: Solid academic performance

In 2013, 31% of AZ 8th grade students scored Proficient or Advanced in math

(AZ 8th Grade Math)

Data available at http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2013/#/

22% 21%

14%

20%

A few additional facts....

A few additional facts....

Facts: •  Out-of-school suspensions have increased dramatically. •  Some groups of students are being suspended disproportionately

Facts: •  Secondary suspension rates are significantly higher than elementary •  Male suspension rates are significantly higher than females

Facts: •  The same patterns hold, and are exacerbated for students with

disabilities

Facts:

•  Research has found no evidence that over-representation in suspension of students of color is due to higher rates of misbehavior. Ø  Studies show that Black students are more likely than white

students to be suspended for the same behavior.

•  Many districts are frequently resorting to suspension for violations of even minor school rules Ø  Contrary to popular belief, most suspensions are not for

guns, drugs, or violence – only 5% of all out-of-school suspensions were considered serious or dangerous.

Ø  95 percent of out-of-school suspensions were for nonviolent, minor disruptions such as disrespect, or defiance.

Facts:

•  Suspensions are significantly influenced by factors other than student misbehavior. Ø  Recent research indicates that the attitude of school

principals and district leaders toward the use of suspension correlated highly with its use.

•  Middle school is a real concern Ø  Out-of-school suspensions almost doubled between 2007

and 2010 for Black and White middle school students.

Facts:

•  The oft-repeated claim that it is necessary to kick out the bad kids so the good kids can learn is a myth. Ø  The frequent use of suspension brings no benefits in terms

of test scores or graduation rates. Ø  After controlling for race and poverty, schools with higher

out-of-school suspension rates tend to have lower academic achievement.

Ø  Conversely, the lower use of out-of-school suspension rates correlates with higher test scores, not lower.

•  Suspensions are among the leading indicators of whether a child will drop out of school.

Facts: (Civil Rights Project report, 2015)

•  In terms of academic success, suspensions matter because:

Ø  Loss of classroom instruction time damages student performance. ²  In 2011-12, nearly 3.5 million public school students were

suspended out of school at least once ²  Of that 3.5 million, 1.55 million were suspended at least twice ²  The average suspension is conservatively put at 3.5 days. ²  U.S. public school children lost nearly 18 million days of instruction

in just one school year because of exclusionary discipline. ²  One recent study (Attendance Works, 2014) found that missing

three days of school in the month before taking the National Assessment of Educational Progress translated into fourth graders scoring a full grade level lower in reading on this test.

Ø  We conclude that our nation cannot close the achievement gap if we ignore the discipline gap.

Facts:

•  Bottom Line: a strong body of research indicates that frequent out-of-school suspension does not produce better learning environments, deter future misbehavior, or stimulate effective parental involvement

Ø  Since 2003, the Academy of American Pediatrics has a policy criticizing the use of out-of-school suspension, except under exceptional circumstances (APA, 2008).

The good news:

How are we doing in AZ?

Data from Are we closing the school discipline gap (2015)

Elementary school suspension rates:

Secondary school suspension rates:

Three schools in metro Phoenix (2013-2014)

Disproportionality

School 1

Three schools in metro Phoenix (2013-2014)

Disproportionality

School 2

Three schools in metro Phoenix (2013-2014)

Disproportionality

School 3

How do we tackle this?

To search for suspension rates and disproportionality by district and school:

http://ocrdata.ed.gov

Resources: data sites

http://ocrdata.ed.gov example

Resources: U.S. Dept. of Ed.

Resources: reports

Resources: CRCM articles

Resources: CRCM articles

Implicit bias

Kirwan Institute State of the Science: Implicit Bias Review 2014

Implicit bias: definitions

National Center for State Courts: Helping courts address implicit bias - FAQs

•  Implicit bias is the bias in judgment and/or behavior that results from subtle cognitive processes (e.g., implicit attitudes and implicit stereotypes) that often operate at a level below conscious awareness and without intentional control.

•  The underlying implicit attitudes and stereotypes responsible for implicit bias are those beliefs or simple associations that a person makes between an object and its evaluation that “...are automatically activated by the mere presence (actual or symbolic) of the attitude object”

Implicit bias: law enforcement

Mr. Comey said there was significant research showing that all people have unconscious racial biases. Law enforcement officers, he said, need “to design systems and processes to overcome that very human part of us all.”

“Although the research may be unsettling, what we do next is what matters most,” Mr. Comey said.

Implicit bias: medicine

- Chapman, E.N., et al., 2013

Physicians and Implicit Bias: How Doctors May Unwittingly Perpetuate Health Care Disparities

Although the medical profession strives for equal treatment of all patients, disparities in health care are prevalent.

... Research suggests that implicit bias may contribute to health care disparities by shaping physician behavior and producing differences in medical treatment along the lines of race, ethnicity, gender or other characteristics.

Implicit bias: science education/gender

We know that women are underrepresented in math and science jobs. What we don’t know is why it happens.... A new study points to the influence of teachers’ unconscious biases, but it also highlights how powerful a little encouragement can be....The pipeline for women to enter math and science occupations narrows at many points between kindergarten and a career choice, but elementary school seems to be a critical juncture. Reversing bias among teachers could increase the number of women who enter fields like computer science and engineering...

Implicit bias: disproportionate discipline

School discipline was one of the most prominent education issues this year. A major theme within the discipline conversation conversation has been the large discipline disparities by race/ethnicity and gender, which are exhibited as early as pre-K.These disparities drew attention to the important issue of implicit bias – i.e., the idea that we all harbor unconscious attitudes that tend to favor individuals from some groups while putting others at a disadvantage.

New research on school discipline - Quintero, E., 12/18/2014

Resources: implicit association test

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html

Resources: reports

Can “de-biasing” strategies help to reduce racial disparities in school discipline?

Summary of the literature March 2014

The positive news it that unconscious stereotypes are not set in stone. They can be “unlearned.”

The authors describe a “toolkit” of five strategies that research showed to be effective in reducing implicit bias in school.

Resources: reports

Patricia Devine, University of Wisconsin: likes bias to “habits” that, with intention and practice, can be broken

1.  Stereotype Replacement: An individual recognizes that he or she is responding to a situation or person in a stereotypical fashion. (S)he considers the reasons and actively replaces this biased response with an unbiased one.

2.  Counter-stereotypic Imagining: Once an individual detects a stereotypical response, he or she thinks of examples—either famous or personally known to the person—that prove the stereotype to be inaccurate.

3.  Individuating: This strategy involves gathering very specific information about a person’s background, tastes, hobbies, and family, so that one’s judgments will be based on the particulars of that person, rather than on group characteristics.

Resources: reports

Patricia Devine, University of Wisconsin

4.  Perspective-taking involves stepping into the shoes of a stereotyped person. What does it feel like to have your intelligence automatically questioned, or to be trailed by detectives each time you walk into a store? Perspective-taking can be very useful in assessing the emotional impact on individuals who are constantly being stereotyped in negative ways.

5.  Increasing Opportunity for Positive Contact: A final strategy for reducing implicit bias is to actively seek out situations where one is likely to be exposed to positive examples of African Americans or others subject to stereotypes.

Concluding thoughts:

AZ Secondary Suspension rates

AZ 8th Grade NAEP Math results

Proficient or Advanced Below Basic or Basic

31%

The good news: We’ve seen districts with substantial declines in suspensions

The research: We cannot close the achievement gap if we ignore the discipline gap

Concluding thoughts:

Schott Foundation for Public Education report

Underwater Dreams documentary

Talent is equally distributed, but opportunity is not

Disproportionate Discipline and Student Success:

Are discipline disparities impacting your students?

Carl Hermanns, Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College