A Replicable Identity-Based Intervention Reduces the Black-White Suspension Gap at Scale
Geoffrey D. Borman; Jaymes Pyne; Christopher S. Rozek; Alex Schmidt (2022). American Educational Research Journal, v59 n2 p284-314. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1330767
-
examining2,149Students, grade7
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: November 2025
- Single Study Review (findings for Self-affirmation writing exercises - Borman et al. (2022))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Office disciplinary referrals |
Self-affirmation writing exercises - Borman et al. (2022) vs. Writing exercises without self-affirmation - Borman et al. (2022) |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
|
Number of suspensions |
Self-affirmation writing exercises - Borman et al. (2022) vs. Writing exercises without self-affirmation - Borman et al. (2022) |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Office disciplinary referrals |
Self-affirmation writing exercises - Borman et al. (2022) vs. Writing exercises without self-affirmation - Borman et al. (2022) |
1 Year |
Asian students;
|
1.47 |
2.03 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Office disciplinary referrals |
Self-affirmation writing exercises - Borman et al. (2022) vs. Writing exercises without self-affirmation - Borman et al. (2022) |
1 Year |
White students;
|
2.22 |
2.79 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Number of suspensions |
Self-affirmation writing exercises - Borman et al. (2022) vs. Writing exercises without self-affirmation - Borman et al. (2022) |
1 Year |
Asian students;
|
0.32 |
0.39 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Office disciplinary referrals |
Self-affirmation writing exercises - Borman et al. (2022) vs. Writing exercises without self-affirmation - Borman et al. (2022) |
1 Year |
Hispanic students;
|
2.72 |
3.29 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Number of suspensions |
Self-affirmation writing exercises - Borman et al. (2022) vs. Writing exercises without self-affirmation - Borman et al. (2022) |
1 Year |
White students;
|
0.46 |
0.52 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Office disciplinary referrals |
Self-affirmation writing exercises - Borman et al. (2022) vs. Writing exercises without self-affirmation - Borman et al. (2022) |
1 Year |
Black students;
|
5.65 |
6.21 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Number of suspensions |
Self-affirmation writing exercises - Borman et al. (2022) vs. Writing exercises without self-affirmation - Borman et al. (2022) |
1 Year |
Hispanic students;
|
0.54 |
0.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Number of suspensions |
Self-affirmation writing exercises - Borman et al. (2022) vs. Writing exercises without self-affirmation - Borman et al. (2022) |
1 Year |
Black students;
|
0.99 |
1.05 |
No |
-- | ||
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
17% English language learners -
Female: 50%
Male: 50% -
Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Wisconsin
-
Race Asian 11% Black 19% Other or unknown 17% White 53% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 17% Not Hispanic or Latino 83% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 45% No FRPL 55%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place across 11 urban middle schools located in Madison, Wisconsin. The study took place over two school years, across 157 classrooms.
Study sample
The study randomly assigned 2,328 seventh grade students, across two school years. The analytic sample consisted of 2,149 students. Of these students, 50% were female, 53% were White, 19% were Black, 17% were Hispanic, and 11% were Asian.
Intervention Group
Students in the intervention condition participated in self-affirmation writing exercises. Students were asked to complete these writing exercises in the first few weeks of school and then again later in the school year when stressful events occurred (e.g., high-stakes testing). The writing exercise started with a general cover page that asked students to choose three values from a list of presented values that were most important to them. Students were then asked to write why they felt these values were personally important to them. All students had between 15-20 minutes to complete the task. Each school chose whether the writing exercise took place in either language arts or homeroom classes.
Comparison Group
Similar to the intervention condition, students in the comparison condition were given a writing exercise, but their prompts were general and not about their own values. Students were shown a list of values and asked to select three of them that are not important to themselves but could be important to other people. Students then completed a writing prompt on why these selected values may be important to others. Students completed the writing exercises at the same time that students in the intervention completed their exercises. All students had between 15-20 minutes to complete the task. Each school chose whether the writing exercise took place in either language arts or homeroom classes.
Support for implementation
Teachers received a brief, 30-minute training prior to implementation. Teachers were provided with materials and a list of frequently asked questions to help them respond to any questions from students.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, statistical significance, and sample size of the findings within a domain, the WWC assigns effectiveness ratings as one of the following: Tier 1 (strong evidence), Tier 2 (moderate evidence), Tier 3 (promising evidence), uncertain effects, and negative effects. For more detail, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).