Disparate use of exclusionary discipline: Evidence on inequities in school discipline from a U.S. state

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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Kaitlin P. Anderson, Gary W. Ritter
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Arizona State University 2017-05-01
Series:Education Policy Analysis Archives
Subjects:
Online Access:https://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/2787
id doaj-3b8f058e036344108902ccb018121c54
record_format Article
spelling doaj-3b8f058e036344108902ccb018121c542020-11-25T03:24:20ZengArizona State UniversityEducation Policy Analysis Archives1068-23412017-05-0125010.14507/epaa.25.27871620Disparate use of exclusionary discipline: Evidence on inequities in school discipline from a U.S. stateKaitlin P. Anderson0Gary W. Ritter1University of ArkansasUniversity of ArkansasThere 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.https://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/2787discipline policyschool disciplineexclusionary disciplineracedisproportionalities
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Kaitlin P. Anderson
Gary W. Ritter
spellingShingle Kaitlin P. Anderson
Gary W. Ritter
Disparate use of exclusionary discipline: Evidence on inequities in school discipline from a U.S. state
Education Policy Analysis Archives
discipline policy
school discipline
exclusionary discipline
race
disproportionalities
author_facet Kaitlin P. Anderson
Gary W. Ritter
author_sort Kaitlin P. Anderson
title Disparate use of exclusionary discipline: Evidence on inequities in school discipline from a U.S. state
title_short Disparate use of exclusionary discipline: Evidence on inequities in school discipline from a U.S. state
title_full Disparate use of exclusionary discipline: Evidence on inequities in school discipline from a U.S. state
title_fullStr Disparate use of exclusionary discipline: Evidence on inequities in school discipline from a U.S. state
title_full_unstemmed Disparate use of exclusionary discipline: Evidence on inequities in school discipline from a U.S. state
title_sort disparate use of exclusionary discipline: evidence on inequities in school discipline from a u.s. state
publisher Arizona State University
series Education Policy Analysis Archives
issn 1068-2341
publishDate 2017-05-01
description 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.
topic discipline policy
school discipline
exclusionary discipline
race
disproportionalities
url https://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/2787
work_keys_str_mv AT kaitlinpanderson disparateuseofexclusionarydisciplineevidenceoninequitiesinschooldisciplinefromausstate
AT garywritter disparateuseofexclusionarydisciplineevidenceoninequitiesinschooldisciplinefromausstate
_version_ 1724602112764018688