As many AJE families know from an earlier AJE blog post, the Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE) recently released the 2018-19 school year discipline report. The report compiles data on suspension and other exclusionary school discipline practices, which are linked to chronic absenteeism, academic failure, school drop-out, juvenile delinquency, and the school-to-prison pipeline. (pg. 5). This data helps to identify disciplinary challenges and therefore focus solutions toward those most adversely impacted by these practices so that targeted adjustments can be made to better suit these students. This blog post goes into more detail about the report, shares some of the key findings and highlights of the report.  This post references the pages numbers of the discipline report that are discussed in parenthesis (pg. #) throughout the post so readers can find that information easily.  It is important to remember that this report covers the period prior to the full implementation of the Student Fair Access to School Act (SFASA), and in many ways demonstrates why the Fair Access Act was so needed and important.

For more information on the Fair Access Act / SFASA click here. 

How often were students being suspended in the 2018-19 school year?

There has been a slight drop in out-of-school suspensions from 6,383 students in the 2017-2018 school year to 6,073 students in the 2018-2019 school year. This may be attributed to district-wide efforts to discourage the use of out-of-school suspension. However, over that same time period, there has been a slight increase in in-school suspensions from 939 to 979, and a slight increase in expulsions from 78 to 82. (pg. 1). Though the increase in in-school suspension seems slight, it is likely they are being underreported. OSSE notes that 44 LEAs reported zero in-school suspensions for the 2018-2019 school year. (pg. 26). While 22 of the 44 LEAs certified the zero count, OSSE does not explain what certification is, or if they call in-school suspension detention or something else. The other 22 LEAs did not certify the zero count which allows for the possibility that in-school suspensions are being used but are not being reported. These increases might suggest that certain students who would have received out-of-school suspension in the past are still receiving exclusionary punishment in the form of in-school suspension or expulsion. There is a cumulative negative impact caused by this exclusionary punishment referred to as school push-out. Students that are repeatedly met with exclusionary punishment for minor infractions become discouraged and disengaged which at worst can result in these students dropping-out. For some students the build-up of minor infractions results in longer and longer suspensions, and possibly expulsion. The schools that are meant to be a welcoming place for youth end up removing the students that face the most difficulties. Ultimately, school push-out is a process that attempts to solve student disciplinary issues by denying those students access to education. For these reasons, when looking at the increases and decreases between numbers of out-of-school suspension and in-school-suspension, it is important to note that any exclusionary practice can further the negative impact of push-out. 

Why were students being suspended in the 2018-19 school year?

Of the 9,676 out-of-school suspensions for the 2018-2019 school year, fighting and disruptive/reckless behavior accounted for the vast majority of reasons for suspension: fighting accounted for 3,330 incidents and disruptive/reckless behavior accounted for 2,996. (pg. 13). The next most cited reason is violence at 520 incidents. (pg. 13). While fighting is a self-explanatory objective act, disruptive/reckless behavior is not, and the report does not attempt to define it. Based on the other reasons for suspension listed, however, disruptive/reckless behavior is not necessarily violence, threat/intimidation, minor physical altercation, other, offensive behavior, possession or use of marijuana, insubordination, vandalism, weapons, attendance policy violation, bullying, harassment, or theft. (pg. 13) More than anything, the overlap and subjective nature of many of these reasons for suspension suggest that there is not a consistent uniform method for reporting these behaviors among all LEAs/schools. For example, one school may report insubordination as intimidation, another may report it as disruptive/reckless behavior, while many will report it exactly as insubordination. This lack of consistency makes it unnecessarily difficult to accurately identify and then resolve the largest disciplinary challenges that DCPS faces. There is a clear attempt by the SFASA to increase transparency regarding reasons for student discipline. One notable provision seeks to remedy this issue by encouraging schools to “identify conduct or categories of conduct…for which a student may be disciplined.” Still, it is clear from the report that this has not happened. However, OSSE is tasked with publicizing the data on discipline and SFASA compliance. So far OSSE has succeeded in collecting the data which demonstrates this problem. Hopefully, OSSE also recognizes the issue as such and focuses on remedying it. 

Who was being suspended in the 2018-19 school year?

Four populations of students are experiencing disproportionate levels of discipline: Black Students, Students who are At-Risk, Students with Disabilities, and Students in grades 6 to 9 (knowns as middle school grades, even though in DC most 9th graders attend high schools).  At only 66% of the District’s student population, Black students received 90% of out-of-school suspensions and 95% of expulsions. At-risk students—those who are homeless, in foster care, qualify for TANF or SNAP, or are one year older than the expected age for their grade and in high school—make up 46% of the District’s student population, but account for 70% of the disciplined population. (pg 26). Out of all students in the District from K-12, the students in the four middle-school grade levels—grades six through nine—represent more than half of all disciplinary incidents at 53.6%. (pg. 1). 

Significantly, this year’s report dedicates a section to the disproportionate exclusionary discipline rates for students with disabilities. That section is analyzed in more detail below.

Students with disabilities. 

Making up only 16% of the District’s total student population, students with disabilities made up 31% of the suspended population for the 2018-2019 school year. (pg. 22). Moreover, students with disabilities accounted for 39% of students who received more than one out-of-school suspension. Students with disabilities are also overrepresented in each other exclusionary disciplinary action category as well, making up 28% of students who received in-school suspension, 21% of students who were expelled, and 37% of students who experienced involuntary dismissal. (pg. 35). 

Breaking down the numbers by the type of primary disability, the vast majority of suspended students were designated with the primary disability of Emotional Disturbance (ED). Emotional Disturbance is defined as: 

“a condition exhibiting one or more of the following characteristics over a long period and to a marked degree that adversely affects a child’s educational performance: An inability to learn that cannot be explained by intellectual, sensory, or health factors. An inability to build or maintain satisfactory interpersonal relationships with peers and teachers. Inappropriate types of behavior or feelings under normal circumstances. A general pervasive mood of unhappiness or depression. A tendency to develop physical symptoms or fears associated with personal or school problems.” (pg. 36)

Students designated with the primary disability of ED were 6.5 times more likely to receive an out-of-school suspension than any other student with a disability. (pg. 36). In fact, 43% of students with a primary disability of ED were suspended at least once, and 27% were suspended more than once. (pg. 37). After students with ED as their primary disability, 13% of students with the designated primary specific learning disability were impacted by exclusionary discipline, and 9% of students with intellectual disability were impacted by exclusionary discipline. (pg. 36). One would hope that the reasons for these discrepancies would be analyzed within the report, but they are not  This is especially frustrating given that OSSE’s stated strategic focus is on students with disabilities.   

The 106-page report claims to focus on students with disabilities on page 2, but only dedicates two and a half pages (starting on pg. 35) to students with disabilities, and, the entirety of the findings regarding students with disabilities are not found in that section. Appendix N on page 98 contains data which measures the suspension rates of disabled students broken down by other criteria. From this data, it is evident that the disproportionate exclusionary suspension rates that at-risk and Black students experience outside of the disabled student population are still evident within it. In other words, students who have a disability and who are also at-risk are about 1.5 times more likely than other disabled students to receive an out-of-school suspension. (pg. 98). Even more statistically significant, Black students with disabilities are almost 2 times as likely to receive out-of-school suspension than non-black students with disabilities. (pg. 98).  This data itself is troubling, but the difficulty of finding this data within the report also deeply concerning: OSSE collected this highly significant data about how race, disability and “at-risk” status interact to increase school exclusion for at-risk Black students with disabilities, but failed to present it in an understandable manner, and only included it in the report’s appendix. 

The overall disproportionate discipline rates among students with disabilities are troubling. It could suggest that these students are not being excluded because their actions require it, but because the schools either don’t have the ability or the resources to meet the needs of these students, and are therefore attempting to fix a difficult situation through the most convenient means for the school rather than with means most beneficial to the student.