Ask A REL Question:

What is the evidence regarding Black male students and exclusionary discipline?

Response:

Thank you for the question you submitted to our REL Reference Desk regarding exclusionary discipline practices. We have prepared the following memo with research references to help answer your question. For each reference, we provide an abstract, excerpt, or summary written by the study’s author or publisher. The references are selected from the most commonly used research resources and may not be comprehensive. Other relevant studies may exist. We have not evaluated the quality of these references, but provide them for your information only.

Research References

1. Anderson, K.P., & Ritter, G.W. (2017). Disparate use of exclusionary discipline: Evidence on inequities in school discipline from a U.S. state. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 25(49), 1-32.
   https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1144442
   From the abstract: “There is much discussion in the United States about exclusionary discipline (suspensions and expulsions) in schools. According to a 2014 report from the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, Black students represent 15% of students, but 44% of students suspended more than once and 36% of expelled students. This analysis uses seven years of individual infraction-level data from public schools in Arkansas. We find that marginalized students are more likely to receive exclusionary discipline, even after controlling for the nature and number of disciplinary referrals, but that most of the differences occur across rather than within schools. Across the state, black students are about 2.4 times as likely to receive exclusionary discipline (conditional on reported infractions and other student characteristics) whereas within school, this same conditional disparity is not statistically significant. Within schools, the disproportionalities in exclusionary discipline are driven primarily by non-race factors such as free- and reduced-price lunch (FRL) eligibility and special education status. We find, not surprisingly, that schools with larger proportions of non-White students tend to give out longer punishments, regardless of school income levels, measured by FRL rates. Combined, these results appear to indicate multiple tiers of disadvantage: race drives most of the disparities across schools, whereas within schools, FRL or special education status may matter more.”
2. Musu-Gillette, L., Robinson, J., McFarland, J., KewalRamani, A., Zhang, A., & Wilkinson-Flicker, S. (2016). Status and trends in the education of racial and ethnic groups 2016. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
   https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED567806
   From the key findings: “In 2012, the percentage of Black male students who had ever been suspended from school (48.3 percent) was more than twice the percentage of Hispanic (22.6 percent), White (21.4 percent), and Asian/ Pacific Islander (11.2 percent) male students who had ever been suspended. Similarly, the percentage of Black female students who had ever been suspended (29.0 percent) was more than twice the percentage of Hispanic (11.8 percent), White (9.4 percent), and Asian/Pacific Islander (7.9 percent) female students who had ever been suspended. (Indicator 14).”
3. Noltemeyer, A.L., & Mcloughlin, C.S. (2010). Changes in exclusionary discipline rates and disciplinary disproportionality over time. International Journal of Special Education, 25(1), 59-70.
   https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ890566
   From the abstract: “Exclusionary discipline involves the use of suspensions, expulsions, and other disciplinary action resulting in removal from the typical educational environment; it is frequently used as a consequence for inappropriate student behavior. Because this form of discipline is associated with detrimental outcomes, it is of concern that in the United States of America the frequency of use of exclusionary discipline is consistently higher for the racial-minority group of African American students than for the majority racial group. This investigation utilized current district-level data from public schools in the state of Ohio to replicate previously documented findings of disciplinary disproportionality, to examine changes in overall use of exclusionary discipline over time, and to examine changes in disciplinary disproportionality over time. Results of repeated measures multivariate analyses confirm that African American students continue to be overrepresented as recipients of exclusionary discipline. Limitations of this investigation, implications related to public policy, and future directions for research are proposed.”
4. Petrosino, A., Fronius, T., Goold, C.C., Losen, D.J., & Turner, H.M. (2017). Analyzing student-level disciplinary data: A guide for districts. REL 2017-263. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast and Islands.
   https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED573337
   From the abstract: “Discipline in schools can be categorized as exclusionary actions, which remove students from their normal learning setting (for example, out-of-school suspension), or inclusionary actions, which do not (for example, afterschool detention). The relationship of exclusionary discipline to negative outcomes for students, particularly racial/ethnic minority students and students with disabilities, has raised questions among policymakers, parents, and other stakeholders about equity in school punishment and whether alternatives may be employed in response to student offenses. Every public school and district is required to report disciplinary data at the aggregate level to the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights. Federal guidance from the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (2014) recommends that districts examine those data and review their disciplinary policies to determine the extent to which exclusionary disciplinary actions are being used and whether they are being administered disproportionately to subgroups of students, such as racial/ethnic minority students or students with disabilities. This report, conducted in collaboration with the Urban School Improvement Alliance, provides information on how to conduct such an examination and explores differences in student academic outcomes across the types of disciplinary actions that students receive. It serves as a blueprint to assist districts with designing and carrying out their own analyses and engaging with external researchers who are doing the same. The methods described in this report are designed to answer three core questions: (1) What disciplinary actions do students in the district receive and for what offenses?; (2) Does the district use exclusionary disciplinary actions more frequently for some subgroups of students than for others?; and (3) Do student academic outcomes differ by the type of disciplinary actions that students receive? This report identifies several initial tasks that are important to consider prior to analyzing student-level disciplinary data: (1) Defining all data elements to understand how the district categorizes student offenses and disciplinary actions; (2) Establishing rules to make the analysis transparent (including rules for handling missing data); (3) Determining whether data are missing or inaccurate; (4) Defining the unit of analysis: the who or what (students, schools, or offenses) that is being studied; and (5) Avoiding disclosure of personally identifiable data. In addition, this report demonstrates a number of calculations, using fictitious data to calculate the number and percentage of: (1) Students receiving any disciplinary action; (2) Students receiving exclusionary disciplinary action versus inclusionary disciplinary action; (3) Students receiving out-of-school versus in-school suspensions; and (4) Disciplinary actions for types of major offense. The following are appended: (1) Core Planning Group member data; (2) Common checks to reduce data errors; and (3) SPSS syntax.”
5. Porowski, A., O’Conner, R., & Passa, A. (2014). Disproportionality in school discipline: An assessment of trends in Maryland, 2009-12. (REL 2014-017). Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Mid-Atlantic.
   https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED544770
   From the abstract: “In the United States exclusionary discipline (suspension and expulsion) is commonly used to remove disruptive students from the classroom or school. While any disciplinary action should be applied fairly and consistently to all groups, for more than 35 years the research literature has highlighted a discipline gap between racial/ethnic minority students and White students. Recently, the literature has identified a gap in the rates of exclusionary discipline between students in special education and other students. These disparities are a concern because exclusionary discipline has been linked to poor academic achievement, grade retention, recurrent misbehavior, dropout, juvenile delinquency, and other undesirable outcomes. This study examines whether disproportionate rates of suspensions and expulsions exist for racial/ethnic minority students and special education students in Maryland K-12 public schools during the period 2009/10 to 2011/12. Findings during these three school years include: (1) The percentage of Maryland students receiving out-of-school suspension or expulsion dropped from 5.6 percent in 2009/10 to 5.0 percent in 2011/12; (2) Because rates of out-of-school suspension and expulsion decreased more rapidly for White students than for Black students, disproportionality between Black and White rates increased in 2011/12, the most recent year examined; (3) For the same type of infraction, Black students had higher rates of out-of-school suspension or expulsion than did Hispanic and White students; and (4) Statewide, students in special education were removed from school at more than twice the rate of other students. Even though the number of out-of-school suspensions and expulsions decreased for both groups over the three years, it decreased more slowly for students in special education than for other students. Two appendices present: (1) Data sources and disciplinary infraction codes; and (2) Relative rate ratios for students not in special education receiving out-of-school suspension or expulsion, by school system, 2009/10-2011/12.”
6. Ryan, T.G., & Goodram, B. (2013). The impact of exclusionary discipline on students. International Journal of Progressive Education, 9(3), 169-177.
   https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1016712
   From the abstract: “The impact of exclusionary discipline on students is clear and negative as we report herein. The impacts of exclusionary discipline have been negatively linked to the academic and social development of disciplined students. We argue that this discipline form has been disproportionately used among certain groups, particularly those students of certain minority and/or ethnic groups, students from lower socio-economic backgrounds, and those students with identified exceptionalities. Exclusionary and zero-tolerance approaches to school discipline are not the best techniques to create a safe climate in contemporary education settings.”
7. Simmons-Reed, E.A., & Cartledge, G. (2014). School discipline disproportionality: Culturally competent interventions for African American males. Interdisciplinary Journal of Teaching and Learning, 4(2), 95-109.
   https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1063075
   From the abstract: “Exclusionary policies are practiced widely in schools despite being associated with extremely poor outcomes for culturally and linguistically diverse students, particularly African American males with and without disabilities. This article discusses zero tolerance policies, the related research questioning their basic assumptions, and the negative effects on students in special education and the larger society. Behavioral and academic interventions also are discussed relative to evidence of effectiveness, potential outcomes, and culturally responsive applications.”
8. Smolkowski, K., Girvan, E.J., McIntosh, K., Nese, R.N.T., & Horner, R.H. (2016). Vulnerable decision points for disproportionate office discipline referrals: Comparisons of discipline for African American and White elementary school students. Behavioral Disorders, 41(4), 178-195.
   https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1113080
   From the abstract: “Racial disparities in rates of exclusionary school discipline are well documented and seemingly intractable. However, emerging theories on implicit bias show promise in identifying effective interventions. In this study, we used school discipline data from 1,666 elementary schools and 483,686 office discipline referrals to identify specific situations in which disproportionality was more likely. Results were largely consistent with our theoretical model, indicating increased racial and gender disproportionality for subjectively defined behaviors, in classrooms, and for incidents classified as more severe. The time of day also substantially affected disproportionality. These findings can be used to pinpoint specific student-teacher interactions for intervention.”
9. Steinberg, M.P., & Lacoe, J. (2017). What do we know about school discipline reform? Assessing the alternatives to suspensions and expulsions. Education Next, 17(1), 44-52.
   https://eric.ed.gov/?q=EJ1122195&pr=on&id=EJ1122195
   From the abstract: “What evidence supports the call for discipline reform? How might alternative strategies affect students and schools? In this article, the authors describe the critiques of exclusionary discipline and then examine the research base on which discipline policy reform rests. They also describe the alternative approaches that are gaining traction in America's schools and present the evidence on their efficacy. Throughout, they consider what they know (and don't yet know) about the effect of reducing suspensions on a variety of important outcomes, such as school safety, school climate, and student achievement. In general, they find that the evidence for critiques of exclusionary discipline and in support of alternative strategies is relatively thin. In part, this is because many discipline reforms at the state and local levels have only been implemented in the last few years. While disparities in school discipline by race and disability status have been well documented, the evidence is inconclusive as to whether or not these disparate practices involve racial bias and discrimination. Further, the evidence on alternative strategies is mainly correlational, suggesting that more research is necessary to uncover how alternative approaches to suspensions affect school safety and student outcomes.”
10. U.S. Department of Education. (2016). 2013-2014 Civil rights data collection: A first look. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights.
    https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED577234
    From the abstract: “The 2013-14 Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) is a survey of all public schools and school districts in the United States. The CRDC measures student access to courses, programs, instructional and other staff, and resources — as well as school climate factors, such as student discipline and bullying and harassment — that impact education equity and opportunity for students. The U.S. Department of Education (ED) will release additional data highlights later in 2016 on key topics such as student discipline, early learning access, teacher and staffing equity, access to courses and programs that foster college and career readiness, and chronic student absenteeism. The full CRDC data file may be downloaded now; please visit crdc.ed.govfor more information. In Fall 2016, the public will be able to look up 2013-14 CRDC data for individual schools, school districts, and states by visiting the CRDC website at ocrdata.ed.gov.”

Additional Organizations to Consult

• The Council of State Governments Justice Center: https://csgjusticecenter.org/youth/projects/school-discipline-consensus-project/
  From the website: “The CSG Justice Center comprises approximately 120 employees based in offices that span three time zones. Our professional backgrounds vary extensively, with decades of experience in law enforcement, community corrections, court administration, housing, mental health and addiction services, state prisons, local jails, juvenile justice, education, workforce development and victim advocacy. Staff here have served governors, state legislators and members of Congress on both sides of the political spectrum. What bonds us together is a shared commitment to our mission, to a common set of values, and to the national, bipartisan Board of Directors that guides our work. Our in-depth data analyses, coupled with extensive interviews of people on the front lines of criminal justice, inform recommendations designed for a particular state or county seeking to improve its justice system. Original, groundbreaking research we conduct prompts new national initiatives. The on-the-ground training and assistance we provide helps local and state agencies translate the latest research into policy and practice. Our national and state-level convenings bring together colleagues from across the country to share their successes and challenges with the most pressing and complex issues facing the justice system today. And, briefings we provide to top officials in Congress and the federal government result in legislation that enjoys broad, bipartisan support.”
• The Dignity in Schools Campaign: http://www.dignityinschools.org/
  From the website: “The Dignity in Schools Campaign (DSC) challenges the systemic problem of pushout in our nation's schools and works to dismantle the school-to-prison pipeline. As a national coalition, the Dignity in Schools Campaign builds power amongst parents, youth, organizers, advocates and educators to transform their own communities, support alternatives to a culture of zero-tolerance, punishment, criminalization and the dismantling of public schools, and fight racism and all forms of oppression. We bring together our members through direct action organizing, public policy advocacy and leadership development to fight for the human right of every young person to a quality education and to be treated with dignity. This website includes a searchable database of research on pushout, school discipline, and positive alternatives, specific resources for youth, parents and educators, and information about our active campaign projects.”
• The School Superintendents Association: http://www.aasa.org/schooldiscipline.aspx
  From the website: “AASA, the School Superintendents Association, advocates for the highest quality public education for all students, and develops and supports school system leaders. AASA, the School Superintendents Association, founded in 1865, is the professional organization for more than 13,000 educational leaders in the United States and throughout the world. AASA members range from chief executive officers, superintendents and senior level school administrators to cabinet members, professors and aspiring school system leaders. AASA members are the chief education advocates for children. AASA members advance the goals of public education and champion children’s causes in their districts and nationwide. As school system leaders, AASA members set the pace for academic achievement. They help shape policy, oversee its implementation and represent school districts to the public at large. This website includes information about AASA's governance activities, advocacy initiatives, membership, conferences and meetings, program and resource development and more.”
• U.S. Department of Education (Resources on school climate and discipline): https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/school-discipline/index.html
  From the website: “Teachers and students deserve school environments that are safe, supportive, and conducive to teaching and learning. Creating a supportive school climate—and decreasing suspensions and expulsions—requires close attention to the social, emotional, and behavioral needs of all students. Administrators, educators, students, parents and community members can find on this site tools, data and resources to:
  • Increase their awareness of the prevalence, impact, and legal implications of suspension and expulsion;
  • Find basic information and resources on effective alternatives; and
  • Join a national conversation on how to effectively create positive school climates.”

Methods:

Search Strings: Black male exclusionary discipline OR school discipline African American students

Searched Databases and Resources.

• ERIC
• Academic Databases (e.g., EBSCO databases, JSTOR database, ProQuest, Google Scholar)

Reference Search and Selection Criteria. The following factors are considered when selecting references:

• Date of Publication: Priority is given to references published in the past 10 years.
• Search Priorities of Reference Sources: ERIC, other academic databases, Institute of Education Sciences Resources, and other resources including general internet searches
• Methodology: Priority is given to the most rigorous study types, such as randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental designs, as well as to surveys, descriptive analyses, and literature reviews. Other considerations include the target population and sample, including their relevance to the question, generalizability, and general quality.