1 School Discipline in Arkansas Kaitlin Anderson, Jennifer Ash, Gary Ritter UA Office for Education Policy July 11, 2014 State Board of Education.

1

School Discipline in Arkansas

Kaitlin Anderson, Jennifer Ash, Gary RitterUA Office for Education Policy

July 11, 2014State Board of Education

•AR Education Reports

• Policy Briefs

• Report Cards

• Newsletters

• Data Resources

www.officeforeducationpolicy.org/2

Refer to menu bar at the top left of the OEP homepage. http://www.officeforeducationpolicy.org/

Click on Arkansas School Data

Accessing Data Resources through the OEP

Arkansas School Data has multiple databases at both school and district levels.

4

Overview of 20 Minutes

1. Introduction – Act 1329 requires study of school discipline

2. Initial Report and Database3. Additional Analyses

a) Are there regional differences in discipline rates?b) Are their differences in discipline rates based on

district size, demographics, or academic performance?c) Are discipline rates and academic outcomes

correlated?

4. Questions

5

Introduction

• Act 1329: An Act to Evaluate the Impact of School Discipline on Student Achievement; And For Other Purposes – Report to be prepared by July 1 of each year,

beginning in 2014, to include:• Data on enrollment, disciplinary rates, achievement

status of districts, and disciplinary disparity between subgroups • Possible disciplinary strategies and resources Arkansas

school districts can access

6

Limitations of Data

• Discipline data – obtained from the Arkansas Department of Education: – Self-reported by districts– Some categories unstandardized • Including undefined “other” category (e.g. six districts

had “other” rates of over 20%. Norphlet, a district of about 412 students, had 1321-1474 “other” actions each year.)

– Missing data• Including “referrals to law enforcement authorities”

7

Challenges of Interpreting Data• Districts have varying:– Discipline policies and plans– Personnel to implement policies and plans

• Unclear whether high or low discipline rates are positive or negative?

• Unclear in how to interpret any potential disparities?– Act 1329: “Disparity in discipline rates does not necessarily

indicate discrimination; it can result from an ineffective school climate or from cultural strategies that are not successful in engaging the academic efforts of all students.”

8

Initial Report

• While interpretations not obvious, discipline findings are nonetheless interesting

• Initial Report includes:– Main Report: overview of state level findings– Appendix A: District Level Database (searchable) of all

7 disciplinary outcomes– Appendix B: District Level Database (searchable) with

7 disciplinary outcomes by subgroup– Appendix C: District Level Database (searchable) of

disparities between subgroups

9

Searchable Databases

10

Additional Analysis

11

District Mean

District Max

16.7 90.6

9.4 79.4

0.1 1.711.5 191.9

0.1 6.7

0.4 29.66.3 344.1

Discipline Data OverviewDiscipline rates (as defined by Act 1329), 3 year average (2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13)

N = 257

Incidents per 100 students

District Mean

District Min

District Max

In-School Suspension (ISS)

7.2% 0.0% 28.3%

Out-of-School Suspension (OSS)

4.7% 0.0% 22.2%

Expulsion Rate 0.1% 0.0% 1.5%Corporal Punishment 5.1% 0.0% 39.7%

Alternative Learning Environment (ALE)

0.1% 0.0% 2.8%

No Action 0.2% 0.0% 12.1%Other 2.1% 0.0% 45.1%

12

ISS Rates by Subgroup

Disparity = 5.0%

Disparity = 7.1%

Incidents per 100 students

12.8

21.6

Percent of students receiving at least one ISS in a school-year, 3 year average

Disparity = 2.8%

8.9

13

OSS Rates by Subgroup

Disparity = 3.7%

Disparity = 5.2%

Incidents per 100 students

8.0

11.9

Percent of students receiving at least one OSS in a school-year, 3 year average

Disparity = 1.7%

4.4

14

ISS and OSS Subgroup Disparities

Regional Differences

15

16

Regional Differences - ISS

Central ISS = 5.2%

Southeast ISS = 11.8%

Southwest ISS = 9.5%

Northeast ISS = 7.3%

Northwest ISS = 5.8%

17

Regional Differences – ISS (Incidents per 100 students)

Central ISS = 11.9

Southeast ISS = 28.0

Southwest ISS = 22.8

Northeast ISS = 16.4

Northwest ISS = 13.3

Southeast also has the highest OSS rate and Corporal Punishment incidents per 100 students

18

Regional Differences - OSS

Central OSS = 5.2%

Southeast OSS = 7.7%

Southwest OSS = 4.7%

Northeast OSS = 4.9%

Northwest OSS = 3.5%

19

Regional Differences – Corporal Punishment

Central CP = 2.8%

Southeast CP = 7.6%

Southwest CP = 6.4%

Northeast CP = 6.8%

Northwest CP = 3.9%

Central Corporal Punishment Rate is low due to zero use of Corporal Punishment in large schools such as LRSD, PCSSD, Conway SD

20

State-wide Differences

21

Discipline Rates by District Size

Quintile 1 µ = 628

Quintile 2 Quintile 3 Quintile 4 Quintile 5 µ=17,757

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

9.0%

10.0%

6.4%

5.8%

4.5%

8.1%

6.4%

0.0%

Discipline Rates by District Enrollment

ISSOSSCP

• ISS rates are highest in mid-size districts

• OSS rates increase with district size

• Corporal Punishments rates decrease with district size

• None of the 5 largest districts use corporal punishment

Smallest Largest Districts Districts

22

Discipline Rates by Racial Composition

• ISS rates are higher in districts serving more minority students

• Corporal Punishment rates are highest in mostly white districts

• OSS rates are higher in districts serving more minority students

Quintile 1

µ = 96% White

Quintile 2

Quintile 3

Quintile 4

Quintile 5 µ=71% Minorit

y0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

4.7%

10.9%

2.9%

9.3%6.5%

4.7%

Discipline Rates by Racial Composition

ISSOSSCP

23

Discipline Rates by District % Low-Income

Quintile 1 µ =

40.8% FRL

Quintile 2 Quintile 3 Quintile 4 Quintile 5 µ=87.7 % FRL

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

4.5%

10.0%

3.2%

8.1%

3.0%

5.8%

Discipline Rates by % Low-Income

ISSOSSCP

• In general, discipline rates increase as district poverty increases

• Corporal Punishment is slight less clear as there is a dip in the higher poverty districts

Lower HigherPoverty Poverty

24

Discipline Rates by Academic Performance

Quintile 1 µ = 63.2%

Prof or Adv

Quintile 2 Quintile 3 Quintile 4 Quintile 5 µ=86.4 % Prof

or Adv

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

10.5%

4.9%8.5%

3.1%

7.0%

4.2%

Discipline Rates by Benchmark Performance

ISSOSSCP

• In general, discipline rates are lower in districts with higher test scores

Lower Higher Performance Performance

25

Correlation Between Discipline Rates and Academic Outcomes

• We see a similar story with graduation rates• Graduation rates are negatively correlated with ISS rates and

OSS rates• Graduation rates and corporal punishment rates are barely

related at all

Literacy Benchmark GPA (3 Year Mean)

Math Benchmark GPA (3 Year Mean)

EOC GPA (3 Year Mean)

ISS Rate 3 Year Avg -0.38 -0.35 -0.36

OSS Rate 3 Year Avg -0.56 -0.55 -0.58

Corporal Punishment Rate 3 Year Avg -0.12 -0.13 -0.20

26

What Do These Correlations Look Like?

Weak Negative to Unrelated

Stronger Negative

27

In Summary…• Disparities exist between discipline rates for different

subgroups, in predictable ways• These disparities are greater when considering students have

repeated discipline actions• Caution: Not obvious how to interpret high or low discipline

rates• ISS and OSS rates are negatively correlated to academic

outcomes• Room for improvement in collection and categorization of data

(e.g. “other”)• This great database provided by the state can be used to answer

many more questions

28

Questions?