Dismantling the Cradle to Prison Pipeline: Analyzing Zero Tolerance School Discipline Policies and Identifying Strategic Opportunities for Intervention

Policy Analysis Exercise Jen Vorse Wilka, MPP Candidate Harvard Kennedy School

Prepared for the Children’s Defense Fund and the Massachusetts Coalition to Dismantle the Cradle to Prison Pipeline

October 1, 2011

Research Objectives:

1.

2.

3.

4.

Assess the current state of school discipline policies in Massachusetts, including: • Federal and state requirements, • Variation in district policies subject to the same requirements, and • Areas of discretion (what is and what is not zero tolerance).

Characterize the nature of zero tolerance in Massachusetts schools.

Analyze and draw findings from the 2009-10 Massachusetts school discipline data.

Identify high-leverage/strategic opportunities for intervention for the coalition. Methodology: Literature review, stakeholder interviews, analysis of DESE school discipline data, review/sampling of MA district and school-level discipline policies, cross-district variation analysis, case studies.

Definitions:

-

Cradle to Prison Pipeline:

-High risk of ending up in jail, particularly for certain groups - Root causes: poverty, disparate educational opportunities, gaps in early childhood development, inadequate health and mental health care, overburdened/ineffective juvenile justice systems

Disciplinary Exclusion/Disciplinary Removal:

Suspension and Expulsion

Zero Tolerance School Discipline Policies:

- Mandatory/predetermined punishments without considering context/circumstances. - Increased use of suspension and expulsion for relatively minor offenses.

Unassigned Offenses:

- Non-serious offenses (not involving violence, criminal activity, or illegal substances) - Can include: tardiness, skipping class, talking back, swearing, classroom disruption

Background How does

school discipline

fit into the

Cradle to Prison Pipeline?

Two

Paths

to Prison

Incident Outside school

Direct

Serious Behavioral Incident Arrest, Expulsion DYS/DOC Custody Future Incarceration

Indirect

Incident Outside school Behavioral Incident Suspension Absenteeism Alienation, Disconnection Drop-out Future Incarceration

Findings from National Research

• Students’ sense of connection to school strongly associated with ability to succeed in school • • • Suspension doesn’t deter kids; it disconnects them – High rate of repeat offenses – Students who experience disciplinary removal tend to be less connected, less invested in school rules, and less motivated academically Absenteeism (a necessary implication of disciplinary removal) and suspension consistently cited as strong predictors of dropping out of of school Strong correlation between dropping out of school and becoming incarcerated later in life

Possible Intervention Points—Direct Path to Prison

Serious Behavioral Incident Arrest, Expulsion DYS/DOC Custody Future Incarceration Prevention; efforts to address root causes Student & family supports Referral to alternative education setting/support services Rehabilitation programs; services and support Efforts to re-engage students in school Programs to promote positive climate and relationships Intervention Points Generally Not Focused on School Discipline

Possible Intervention Points—Indirect Path to Prison

Behavioral Incident Suspension Absenteeism Alienation, Disconnection Drop-out Future Incarceration Prevention; efforts to address root causes Programs to promote positive school climate and relationships; supportive school environment Alternative disciplinary approaches that keep students in school for minor offenses Intervention Points Relevant to School Discipline Reform Efforts to re-engage students in school Dropout recovery; reintegration into school Rehabilitation programs and services

Research Objective #1: Analyzing School Discipline Policy in Massachusetts

1. Assess the current state of school discipline policies in Massachusetts, including:

•

Federal and state requirements,

•

Variation in district policies subject to the same requirements, and

•

Areas of discretion (what is and what is not zero tolerance).

2. Characterize the nature of zero tolerance in Massachusetts schools.

1. Analyze and draw findings from the 2009-10 Massachusetts school discipline data.

1. Identify high-leverage/strategic opportunities for intervention for the coalition.

Assessing School Discipline Policies in Massachusetts: How are Policies Constructed? What’s Required?

Where is the zero tolerance problem “located?”

Federal State District School Individual • Several federal and state requirements govern school discipline policy in MA. • But,

federal and state policies leave a lot of room for discretion, and are largely not zero tolerance policies.

•

Interpretation and implementation of these requirements at the district, school, and individual level can be zero tolerance —

superintendents, principals, and sometimes teachers making decisions that apply the maximum penalty, even though they are not legally required to do so, and in effect

giving up their discretion.

Assessing School Discipline Policies in Massachusetts: Where is the Zero Tolerance Problem Located?

Federal State District School Individual

Federal policy is not zero tolerance, with the exception of the Gun Free Schools Act.

State policy is not zero tolerance. It indicates what schools MAY do, not what they MUST do. District policies vary. Some use a zero tolerance approach to weapons, assault and/or illegal substances.

School policies vary. Some use a zero tolerance approach to weapons, assault and/or illegal substances.

Even within a school, attitudes and approaches vary between individuals.

Where is Zero Tolerance Located, and What are the Opportunities for Intervention?

Federal State District School Individua l Federal policy is generally not zero tolerance, except for the Gun Free Schools Act.

State policy is not zero tolerance. It indicates what schools MAY do, not what they MUST do. District policies vary. Some have zero tolerance for weapons, assault, and/or illegal substances.

School policies vary. Some have zero tolerance for weapons, assault and/or illegal substances.

Even within a school, attitudes and approaches vary between individuals.

- Not an optimal level for intervention.

- Focus on policy advocacy.

- Focus on policy advocacy and supporting districts in updating guidelines.

-Focus on implementation reform through facilitating peer to-peer networks.

CPP Public Education Campaign - Not an optimal level for intervention.

District-Level Variation in School Discipline Policies: Example—Boston vs. Lowell

Federal State District School Individual

Boston

- Lists 25 “alternatives” to be used before progressing to disciplinary exclusion - Explicitly states a policy of attempting to resolve disciplinary problems without school exclusion - Only comments specifically on very serious offenses (students may be suspended or expelled for possession of weapons, illegal substances, and assault)

Lowell

- Lists 5 “alternatives” to be used before progressing to disciplinary exclusion - Does not state a policy of seeking to resolve disciplinary issues without exclusion; punitive in tone - Comments on very serious offenses, as well as 36 behaviors considered “major violations” that “warrant suspension at the discretion of the administrator”— including property damage,cutting class, disturbing classroom work, and tardiness

Research Objective #2: Characterizing the Nature of Zero Tolerance in MA

1. Assess the current state of school discipline policies in Massachusetts, including: • Federal and state requirements, • Variation in district policies subject to the same requirements, and • Areas of discretion (what is and what is not zero tolerance).

2. Characterize the nature of zero tolerance in Massachusetts schools.

1. Analyze and draw findings from the 2009-10 Massachusetts school discipline data.

1. Identify high-leverage/strategic opportunities for intervention for the coalition.

Benefits and Costs of Zero Tolerance

Benefits Costs

zero tolerance is a philosophy ; not a policy .

Research Objective #3: Analyzing School Discipline Data

1. Assess the current state of school discipline policies in Massachusetts, including: • Federal and state requirements, • Variation in district policies subject to the same requirements, and • Areas of discretion (what is and what is not zero tolerance).

2. Characterize the nature of zero tolerance in Massachusetts schools.

1. Analyze and draw findings from the 2009-10 Massachusetts school discipline data.

1. Identify high-leverage/strategic opportunities for intervention for the coalition.

Data Source: SSDR

• • • • Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (ESE) School Safety and Discipline Report (SSDR) Lists all REPORTED disciplinary incidents resulting in suspension or expulsion – 60,610 incidents in 2009-10 2 Data sets: – School, district, grade, offense, punishment, # of school days missed – Grade, race, gender, special education status, limited English proficiency status, low-income status, # of school days missed Limitations of the data: – Little accountability for reporting – Short-term exclusions for unassigned offenses for regular education students not required – Incident vs. headcount data

Massachusetts School Reporting Requirements

Special Education Students Offense resulting in suspension of 1 to 10 days:

OR

Offense resulting in suspension of > 10 days or expulsion: Offense resulting in suspension of 1 to 10 days:

OR

Offense resulting in suspension of > 10 days or expulsion:

Serious Offenses

• Violence • Criminal activity • Illegal substances

Non Serious/Unassign ed Offenses

• Not involving violence, criminal activity, or illegal substances For each incident, school must file: 1. An Incident Report 2. A Student Discipline Record for each student offender(s) involved Offense resulting in suspension of 1 to 10 days:

OR

Offense resulting in suspension of > 10 days or expulsion: For each incident, school must file: 1. An Incident Report 2. A Student Discipline Record for each student offender(s) involved For each incident, school must file: 1. An Incident Report 2. A Student Discipline Record for each student offender(s) involved Offense resulting in suspension of 1 to 10 days: Offense resulting in suspension of > 10 days or expulsion:

No reporting required

File Student Discipline Record

Offenses resulting in:

• Referrals to the principal’s office • Detentions • Half-day suspensions

No reporting required No reporting required

Serious Offenses

• Violence • Criminal activity • Illegal substances

Incidents Reported, 2009-10

Special Education Students Offense resulting in suspension of 1 to 10 days:

5,338

Offense resulting in suspension of > 10 days or expulsion:

166

Regular Education Students Offense resulting in suspension of 1 to 10 days:

22,599

Offense resulting in suspension of > 10 days or expulsion:

1,021 Non Serious/Unassign ed Offenses

• Not involving violence, criminal activity, or illegal substances

Number of Serious Offenses: Number of Non Serious Offenses: Total # of Incidents: Total: 5,504 Total: 23,620

Offense resulting in suspension of 1 to 10 days:

23,073

Offense resulting in suspension of > 10 days or expulsion:

78 Total:21,151

Number Reported: 5,504 incidents 23,151 incidents 28,665 Offense resulting in suspension of 1 to 10 days: Offense resulting in suspension of > 10 days or expulsion: Not required.8,323incid ents reported— Actual # likely much higher.

12 Total:8,335

Number Reported: Estimated Numbers:* 23,620 incidents 23,620 incidents 8,335 incidents 121,847 incidents* 31,995 incidents 145,467incidents* *See Appendix D for estimates and methodology

Number of Disciplinary Removals by Grade Level

14000 As in past year, disciplinary Removal Used at all Grade Levels; Rises through Middle School Years and Peaks at 9 th Grade with 13,072 Disciplinary Removals.

13 072 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 510 817 946 1 311 1 814 2 744 5 095 6 751 7 255 9 022 6 445 4 784

Number of School Days Missed

Half of reported exclusions resulted in 1 day of school missed; 44% or 26,353 incidents resulted in 2-9 days of school missed; The remaining 6%, or 3,901 incidents, resulted in 10 or more days missed Together, Massachusetts students missed 199,056 days of schools as a result of disciplinary exclusions

Number of School Days Missed due to Disciplinary Exclusion, Massachusetts (2009-10)

0 5 000 10 000 15 000 20 000 25 000 30 000 35 000 4%2%0% 1 Day 30 350 1 Day (n = 30,350) 2-9 Days 26 353 2-9 Days (n = 26,353) 10 Days (n = 2,629) 10 Days 2 629 44% 50% 11-89 Days (n = 1,111) 11-89 Days 1 111 90 or More Days (n = 161) 90 or More Days 161

Type of Disciplinary Removals

Overall, 76% of incidents resulted in out-of-school suspensions.

Referral to alternative settings is used very infrequently.

Type of Disciplinary Exclusion Massachusetts (2009-10) (n = 60,610)

< 1% 0% 0% 24% Out-of-School Suspension (n = 46,137) In-School Suspension (n = 14,167) Expulsion (n = 219) 76% Removed by School Personnel (n = 73) Removed by Hearing Officer (n = 13)

Type of Disciplinary Exclusion: Expulsion vs. Referral to Alternative Setting Massachusetts, 2009-10 (n = 305)

24% 4% 72% Permanent Expulsion (n = 219) Removed by School Personnel (n = 73) Removed by Hearing Officer (n = 13)

Magnitude of the Problem: Number and Type of Incidents Reported

•

60,610 disciplinary exclusions

reported in 2009-10; pre-K to 12 th –

Together,Massachusetts students missed a total of 199,056 days of school

as a result of disciplinary exclusions…or 1,076 school years.

• •

31,486 of these were for unassigned (non-serious) offenses

Actual disciplinary exclusions likely

reported disciplinary exclusions

–

more than double the number of 120,000+ incidents, not 60,000

Type of Disciplinary Removal: Serious vs. Non-Serious Offenses

Type of Punishment, Serious Offenses (n = 29,124) Permanent Expulsion 1% In-School Suspension 13% Type of Punishment, Non-Serious Offenses (n = 31,486) In-School Suspension 33% Out-of School Suspension 86% Out-of-School Suspension 67%

Research Objective #4: Identifying Opportunities for Intervention

1. Assess the current state of school discipline policies in Massachusetts, including: • Federal and state requirements, • Variation in district policies subject to the same requirements, and • Areas of discretion (what is and what is not zero tolerance).

2. Characterize the nature of zero tolerance in Massachusetts schools.

1. Analyze and draw findings from the 2009-10 Massachusetts school discipline data.

1. Identify high-leverage/strategic opportunities for intervention for the coalition.

Framework for Reform: Segmenting Offense Types

The Coalition can prioritize low-hanging fruit by segmenting different types of offenses.

What type of behavior/offense occurred?

Type of Behavior Is the offense considered serious or non-serious?

Serious Offenses Violence - Criminal activity - Illegal substances Does the behavior pose a legitimate safety threat?

Threatens safety/school environment Unlikely to pose a safety threat Non-Serious Offenses Unassigned offenses No safety threat

Framework for Reform: Segmenting Offense Types

The Coalition can target its efforts by segmenting the different types of offenses, identifying and prioritizing the “low-hanging fruit,” and developing specific strategies for” Yellow Light” and “Green Light” offenses.

“Red Light” Offenses: Stop! The school discipline arena is not the place to fight this fight.

“Yellow Light” Offenses: Proceed with caution! This is a critical area, but can be perceived as a slippery slope.

“Green Light” Offenses: Full speed ahead! Reform for unassigned offenses is high-impact and low-risk.

Recommendations: Implementation Considerations

• • • Recognize the need for disciplinary exclusion as a legitimate strategy for schools in situations that pose a safety threat, and communicate this acknowledgement to stakeholders.

Segment offense types into “green light,” “yellow light,” and “red light” offenses.

• Capitalize on the combination of policy advocacy and grassroots implementation reform.

Focus on policy reform at the state and district level, and on implementation reform at the school level.

Where are the Opportunities for Intervention?

Federal State District School Individua l Federal policy is generally not zero tolerance, except for the Gun Free Schools Act.

State policy is not zero tolerance. It indicates what schools MAY do, not what they MUST do. District policies vary. Some have zero tolerance for weapons, assault, and/or illegal substances.

School policies vary. Some have zero tolerance for weapons, assault and/or illegal substances.

Even within a school, attitudes and approaches vary between individuals.

- Not an optimal level for intervention.

-Expand reporting requirements.

- Limit permissible penalties for unassigned offenses. - Require progressive discipline policies.

- Provide guidelines for - Identify “bright spots” and facilitate peer learning networks.

- Partner with non-excludable offenses.

schools to support training efforts. CPP Public Education Campaign - Not an optimal level for intervention.

State Level: School Level:

Recommendations: Opportunities for Intervention

Policy Advocacy for “Green Light” Offenses

District Level:

Policy Advocacy for “Green Light” and “Yellow Light” Offenses Implementation Reform for “Green Light” and “Yellow Light” Offenses  

Advocate for expanded reporting requirements.

 Report on the nature of unassigned offenses  Report all unassigned offenses for all students

Advocate for state policy change to limit permissible penalties for unassigned offenses.

 Reserve out-of-school suspensions for most serious offenses  Encourage alternative strategies   

Advocate for district to require progressive discipline policies

 Use and document progressive techniques; exclusion as a last resort

Advocate for districts to provide guidelines for non excludable offenses.

 Not just what should be grounds for exclusion, but also what shouldn’t

Encourage districts to adopt a duel-responsibility philosophy

 Maintain safety AND keep students in school whenever possible  

Identify “bright spots” and facilitate peer learning opportunities.

 Build a database of “ambassador schools” that are effectively using alternatives to zero tolerance  Facilitate conferences, trainings, and/or online resources

Partner with schools to train personnel in alternative approaches.

Recommendations: Opportunities for Intervention

State Level

State Level: Policy Advocacy for “Green Light” Offenses

  Advocate for expanded reporting requirements—Schools should be required to report on the nature of unassigned offenses to ESE (as recommended by the Rennie Center). In addition, school should be required to report to ESE all unassigned offenses resulting in either short-term or long-term disciplinary removal (suspension or expulsion) for regular education students as well as special education students. (See page 15 for current reporting requirements.) Advocate for state policy change to limit permissible penalties for unassigned offenses— Rather than using out-of-school suspensions that remove and disconnect children from school, state policy should encourage half-day in-school suspensions, detentions, or alternative discipline approaches such as restorative justice practices in response to non serious, unassigned offenses.

Recommendations: Opportunities for Intervention

District Level

District Level: Policy Advocacy for “Green Light” and “Yellow Light” Offenses

   Advocate for districts to require progressive discipline policies—Work with districts to revise district discipline codes so that they require schools to use and document a sequence of progressive discipline techniques before resorting to suspension or expulsion as a last resort. Advocate for districts to provide guidelines for non-excludable offenses—Work with districts to revise discipline policies so as to provide a list of student behaviors that should not be punished with suspension or expulsion (rather than only listing those offenses that may be punished with suspension or expulsion, as is currently the case).

Encourage districts to adopt a dual-responsibility philosophy—Encourage districts to include a “mission statement” in their discipline codes that recognizes schools’ dual responsibility to maintain a safe school environment AND keep students in school whenever possible.

Recommendations: Opportunities for Intervention

School Level

School Level: Implementation Reform for “Green Light” and “Yellow Light” Offenses

  Identify “bright spots” and facilitate peer learning networks—Even in a district with perfect discipline policies, it is the implementation of the policy that determines whether a school uses a zero tolerance approach to discipline. There are schools in Massachusetts that are succeeding in exercising their discretion and adopting approaches that keep children in school following behavioral incidents that do not pose a significant threat to school safety. The Coalition should build a database of “Peer Ambassador” schools and facilitate peer learning opportunities, including conferences, trainings, and/or online resources for schools to learn from their peers—particularly those with similar demographic profiles—who are effectively using alternatives to disciplinary exclusion. These could be either one-time events or ongoing networks/relationships.

Partner with schools to train personnel in alternative discipline approaches—The Coalition should serve as a resource to encourage and facilitate training opportunities for personnel in schools interested in pursuing alternative discipline approaches.

Appendix

Guidelines for District and School Discipline Policies

     Adopt a mission statement recognizing the dual imperative of balancing safety for all students with the importance of keeping students in school whenever possible.

Emphasize the importance of considering the circumstances of the behavior/incident and whether or not it poses a safety threat before deciding to exclude a student.

Require that schools implement and document progressive/alternative discipline strategies before excluding a student. This could take the form of an alternative program or approach, or a more traditional “progressive discipline” approach, such as a parent-teacher conference.

Moderate the list of “major” offenses constituting grounds for suspension that are included in the policy (see Boston versus Lowell example).

Include a list of offenses that should not result in suspensions—for example, first time unassigned offenses—and provide guidelines about how to address these behaviors through alternative/progressive discipline strategies.

Alternatives to Zero Tolerance: What are They?

“Alternatives”—Working Definition:

In the context of zero tolerance, alternatives refers to strategies for managing school discipline that take into account the nuances of student behavior and the situational context. Alternatives often incorporate the following elements: • Alternatives recognize that there is a wide range of behavioral issues in schools, and that there is no one-size-fits-all response. • Alternatives encourage supportive school climates and positive relationships.

• Alternatives seek to remediate student behavior while keeping students in school whenever possible.

Alternatives to Zero Tolerance DO:

• Strive to consider the circumstances of each student and behavioral incident, and fit the “punishment” to the crime.

• Empower schools to customize their discipline practices, while still meeting federal and state requirements.

Alternatives to Zero Tolerance DON’T:

• Erase the need for traditional discipline strategies (suspension, expulsion) in some situations that pose a safety threat.

• Replace the need for legislative advocacy and policy solutions at the state level.

“Alternatives” Can Refer to Multiple Strategies, Including:

• • • • Ongoing, prevention-focused approaches put in place to support students BEFORE behavioral incidents occur.

Alternative methods of remediating inappropriate behavior AFTER behavioral incidents occur. Strategies that combine BEFORE and AFTER elements. Progressive discipline approaches that gradually ratchet up disciplinary responses, seeking to avoid disciplinary removal, but resorting to that strategy if other avenues have been exhausted.

Alternatives to Zero Tolerance: Where do they Fit In?

Federal State - Not an optimal level for intervention.

- Focus on policy advocacy.

District School Individua l - Focus on policy advocacy and supporting districts in updating guidelines.

-Focus on implementation reform through facilitating peer-to peer learning.

- Not an optimal level for intervention.

-Not an optimal level for intervention.

1 Educate the public about alternatives 2 -Expand reporting requirements.

- Limit permissible penalties for unassigned offenses. - Require progressive discipline policies.

- Provide guidelines for non-excludable offenses.

- Identify “bright spots” and facilitate peer learning networks.

- Partner with schools to support training efforts. -Not an optimal level for intervention.

District-level: Advocate for inclusion of alternatives in district discipline policies & adoption in school practices 3 School-level: Identify schools that effectively use alternatives; facilitate learning opportunities through conferences, training, and peer to-peer networks.

CPP Public Education Campaign

Alternatives to Zero Tolerance: School-Level Approaches

BEFORE INCIDENTS OCCUR

• • •

Characteristics:

Ongoing approaches promoting positive school climate, support and relationship building Seek to prevent behavioral issues from escalating Examples: TLPI (Trauma and Learning Policy Initiative) , PBIS (Positive Behavioral Intervention and Supports) Prevention-focused Alternatives

Behavioral Incident

AFTER INCIDENTS OCCUR

Yes

Serious Behavioral Incident

Is the incident serious?

• •

Intended Impacts:

Enhance school climate and supportive relationships Decrease occurrence of behavior incidents/ offenses

No

Behavioral Incident

Yes

Does it pose a safety threat?

No

Traditional Discipline Strategies Suspension & expulsion as strategies to address situations that pose a safety threat or cannot be addressed through alternative means Alternative Discipline Strategies • • •

Characteristics:

After-the-fact remediation strategies Promote relationship building and student accountability Examples: peace circles, restorative justice • • •

Intended Impacts:

Keep students in school Reinforce school connection Deter future misbehavior

Implementation Considerations

• • • •

Implementation Considerations

Recognize the need for disciplinary exclusion as a legitimate strategy for schools in situations that pose a safety threat, and communicate this acknowledgement to stakeholders.

Segment offense types into “green light,” “yellow light,” and “red light” offenses.

Capitalize on the combination of policy advocacy and grassroots implementation reform.

Focus on policy reform at the state and district level, and on implementation reform at the school level.