This document discusses disciplinary disproportionality, which refers to inequitable distribution of disciplinary actions like suspensions and expulsions along racial lines. It provides context on the historical documentation of disproportionate discipline of Black students dating back to 1971. Risk indexes and ratios are used to calculate disproportionality rates. Factors influencing disproportionality include interpretation of student behaviors and zero tolerance policies, with the highest rates found in urban schools.
2. WHAT ARE WE REALLY TALKING ABOUT?
Disciplinary
Disproportionality
-Behavior
-Policies & Procedures
-Rules & Expectations
-Inequitable outcomes
-Race
Can we discuss
disciplinary
disproportionality
without discussing
race?
3. WHAT IS DISCIPLINARY DISPROPORTIONALITY?
It is a term used to describe the inequitable
distribution of disciplinary actions in schools
(Wallace, Goodkind, Wallace, & Bachman, 2008).
Exclusionary disciplinary practicessuspensions, expulsions, or other actions that result
in the removal of the student from the educational
environment.
The inequity occurs on the basis of race.
4. HOW IS IT CALCULATED?
Risk Index is “the percentage of a given racial/ethnic group
that is in a specific category.”
Risk Ratio is a comparison of the “Risk Index for the target
racial/ethnic group and the risk index of all other groups.”
Risk Ratio presents a quantifiable number indicating the level
of over or under-representation of members of a certain
racial/ethnic group to be included in a particular category.
In the case of disciplinary disproportionality the category would
calculate the risk for certain racial/ethnic groups for receiving
suspensions, expulsions, or other exclusionary disciplinary
outcomes.
Risk Index = Number of Suspensions- received by Black Students
Total Number Enrolled- Students who are Black
Risk Ratio= Risk of Suspensions- for Black Students
Total Risk of Suspensions- for all other racial groups
(The Equity Project at Indiana University, 2011).
7. FIRST DOCUMENTATION OF EVIDENCE
HEW/OCR, 1971: First collection of data regarding
expulsions by race
Black students 3X more likely to be expelled
HEW/OCR, 1973: First national survey to collect data
regarding suspensions by race
Black students 3X more likely to be suspended
Children’s Defense Fund, 1974: Children Out of School
in America
Children’s Defense Fund, 1975: School Suspensions:
Are they helping children?
10. CIVIL RIGHTS DATA COLLECTION 2012
Disparate Discipline Rates SY 2009-2010 (CDRC, 2012)
100%
90%
29%
39%
80%
36%
33%
51%
70%
60%
22%
24%
50%
23%
25%
40%
24%
30%
46%
39%
35%
20%
35%
2%
3%
1%
2%
ISS
OSS-single
OSS- multiple
Expulsions
18%
10%
6%
0%
Overall Enrollment
White
Hispanic
Black
Asian/Pacific Islander
American Indian
11. RESEARCH- INFLUENTIAL FACTORS
Class and gender are factors that impact the rate of
disciplinary referral but do not fully account for
racial differences.
(Skiba, Michael, Nardo, & Peterson, 2002) (Skiba, Michael,
& Nardo, 2000; Skiba, Michael, Nardo, & Peterson, 2002;
Hinojosa, 2008)
Types of behaviors do not appear to be significantly
different- but interpretation of behaviors does
appear to be a factor that contributes to
disproportionality.
(Bahr & Fuchs, 1991 in Noltemeir and McGlothlin)
12. GENDER AS A FACTOR
Race and Gender
Percentage of OSS received (CRDC, 2012)
20%
15%
10%
Males
5%
Females
0%
American Indian
Asian/Pacific
Islander
Black
Hispanic
White
For students who are Black, both males and females have higher rates of
suspensions.
1 in 5 males and 1 in 10 females receive an out-of-school suspension.
13. BEHAVIORAL DIFFERENCES
Black students appear to be referred to the office
for infractions that are both less serious and more
subjective in their interpretation than white
students.
White students were significantly more likely than black
students to be referred to the office for
smoking, leaving without
permission, vandalism, and obscene language.
Black students were more likely to be referred for
disrespect, excessive noise, threats, and loitering.
(Skiba, Peterson, & Williams, 1997; Wu, Pink, Crain, &
Moles, 1982)
14. MISPERCEPTIONS
Highest rates of disproportionality occur in the
categories of “disruptive” and “Other” (Rausch &
Skiba, 2004).
Misinterpretation of African American student
behaviors as inappropriate
overlapping speech as disrespect
play fighting as aggression
ritualized humor as insults
(Hanna, 1988 as cited in Monroe, 2005;
Weinstein, Curran, and Tomlinson-Clark, 2004 in
Monroe, 2005).
15. WHERE DOES IT HAPPEN?
Racial disparities in school suspension appear to
be greatly impacted by disproportionate rate of
office referral for African-American students.
(Skiba, Michael, Nardo, & Peterson, 2002)
16. TYPE OF SCHOOL
Out-of-school Suspension Incident Rates by Race and
Locale
60
52.39
Incident Rate Per 100 Students
50
40
39.21
38.89
African American
30
28.15
Hispanic
White
20
19.19
16.9
19.03
13.9
10
10.01
10.38
9.97
6.6
0
Urban
Suburban
Town
Rural
(Rausch & Skiba, 2004)
17. ZERO TOLERANCE
“In districts that reported
expulsions under zerotolerance
policies, Hispanic and
African-American
students represent 45%
of the student body, but
56% of the students
expelled under such
policies” (CRDC, 2012).
18. REFERENCES
Children’s Defense Fund, (1975). School Suspensions: Are they helping children?
A Report. p. 1-270. Washington Research Project, Inc.
Children’s Defense Fund (1974). Children Out of School in America.
Cambridge, MA: The Washington Research Project, Inc. Retrieved November
1, 2011 from:
http://diglib.lib.utk.edu/cdf/main.php?bid=124&pg=1.
Children’s Defense Fund, (2011). Portrait of Inequality 2011: Black Children in
America. Retrieved August 3, 2011 from: http://www.childrensdefense.org/childresearch-data-publications/data/portrait-of-inequality-2011.html.
Civil Rights Data Collection Report (2006). Projected Values for the Nation.
Retrieved April 2, 2011 from: http://ocrdata.ed.gov/.
Civil Rights Data Collection Report (2012). The Transformed Data Collection
(CRDC). Retrieved March 8, 2012 from:
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/crdc-2012-data-summary.pdf.
Hinojosa, M. (2008). Black-White differences in school suspension: Effect of
student beliefs about teachers. Sociological Spectrum, 28, p. 175-193.
Losen, D. (2011). Discipline Policies, Successful Schools and Racial Justice.
Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved March 8, 2012 from:
http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED524711.pdf.
19. REFERENCES
Mendez, L. (2003). Predictors of suspension and negative school
outcomes: A
longitudinal investigation. New Directions for Youth
Development, 99, p. 17- 33.
Monroe, C. (2005). Why are “Bad Boys” always Black? Causes of
Disproportionality in School Discipline and Recommendations for
Change. The Clearing House, 79, 1.
Noltemeyer, A. & Mcloughlin, C. (2010). Changes in Exclusionary
Discipline Rates and Disciplinary Disproportionality Over Time.
International Journal of Special Education, (25) 1, p. 59-70.
Rausch, M. & Skiba, R. (2004). Disproportionality in school discipline
among minority students in Indiana: Description and Analysis. Children
Left Behind Policy Briefs Supplementary Analysis 2-A, Center for
Evaluation and Education Policy, July 2004. Retrieved March 13, 2012
from: http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED488897.pdf.
Skiba, R., Peterson, R. & Williams, T. (1997). Office referrals and
suspension: Disciplinary intervention in middle schools. Education and
Treatment of Children, 20, 3, p. 295-315.
Skiba, R., Michael, R., Nardo, A., & Peterson, R., (2002). The color of
discipline: Sources of racial and gender disproportionality in school
punishment. The Urban Review, 34,4, 317-342.
20. REFERENCES
Skiba, R., Horner, R. Chung, C., Rausch, M., May, S. & Tobin, T. (2011). Race is not
neutral: A national investigation of African American and Latino Disproportionality
in school discipline. School Psychology Review, 40, p. 85-107.
Skiba, R. J., Peterson, R. L., & Williams, T. (1997). Office referrals and suspension: Disciplinary
intervention in middle schools. Education and Treatment of Children, 20(3), 295-315.
Skiba, R., Poloni-Staudinger, L., Simmons, A, Feggins-Azziz, R., & Choong-Geun, C. (2005).
Unproven Links: Can poverty explain ethnic disproportionality in special education? The Journal
of Special Education, (39)3, p. 130-144.
Skiba, R. & Rausch, M. (2006). Zero Tolerance, Suspension, and Expulsion: Questions of
equity and effectiveness. In Everston, C. & Weinstein, C (Eds.) Handbook of Classroom
Management: Research, preactice, and contemporary issues. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Publishers.
Skiba, R., Simmons, A., Ritter, S., Kohler, K., & Wu, T. (2003) The Psychology of
Disproportionality: Minority placement in context. Minority Voices, 6, p. 27-40.
The Equity Project (2012). Glossary of equity terms. Retrieved March 8, 2012 from:
http://www.indiana.edu/~equity/glossary.php.
Wallace, J., Goodkind, S., Wallace, C., & Bachman, J. (2008). Racial, Ethnic, and Gender
Differences in School Discipline among U.S. High School Students:
1991-2005. The Negro
Educational Review, 59, p. 47-62.
Wu, S., Pink, W., Crain, R., Moles, O., (1982). Student suspension: A critical reappraisal. The
Urban Review, 14, p. 245-303.
21. RESOURCES
Elementary and Middle Schools Technical Assistance Center (EMSTAC)
Indiana Center for Evaluation and Education Policy: Indiana
Disproportionality Project
http://centerforcsri.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=625&Itemid=119
NCCRESt Policy Brief
http://www.nccrest.org/about.html
The Center for Comprehensive School Improvement
http://ceep.indiana.edu/equity/idp/reports.shtml
NCCRESt
http://www.emstac.org/resources/disproportionality.htm
http://www.nccrest.org/Briefs/School_Discipline_Brief.pdf
Race is Not Neutral
http://vimeo.com/14102730
