A MultiState Analysis of High School Discipline Policies

1
A Multi-State Analysis of High School Discipline
Policies

• Pam Fenning, Amy Horwitz, and Lauren McArdle
• Loyola University Chicago

2
Why Study Discipline Policies?

• Codes of Conduct Mandated by the No Child Left
  Behind Act
• Found in Virtually Every School
• Are Based Primarily on Punitive Procedures
  (Suspension and Expulsion) (Fenning et al., in
  press)

3
Suspension and Expulsion

• Negatively Associated With
• Academic Achievement (Morrison DIncau, 1997)
• Attendance (Wald Losen, 2003)
• Positive Associated With
• Dropout
• Entry to Prison (School to Prison Pipeline)
  (Wald Losen, 2003)

4
Suspension and Expulsion

• Impacts our Most Vulnerable Students
• Students of Color Primarily African-American
  Males (Skiba Rausch, 2006 Skiba et al., 2000)
• Students with Academic Problems (Morrison
  DIncau)

5
Rationale for Studying Discipline Policies

• Discipline Codes of Conduct are Punitive (Fenning
  et al., 2008 Fenning Bohanon, 2006)
• Punitive Responses have Negative Effects
  Previously Outlined

6
Current Ongoing Work

• Loyola University Discipline Policy Research Team
• Pam Fenning
• Vivian Gordon
• Taylor Morello
• Amy Horwitz
• Rose Maltese
• Sara Golomb
• Lauren McArdle
• Rockeya Wilson
• Rachel Schienfield

7
Series of Studies

• Illinois-Based Study
• Preliminary Multi-State Study
• Current Multi-State Study

8
Illinois Project

• Content Analysis of Discipline Codes of Conduct
• 64 Illinois High School Discipline Codes Gathered
  in 2004
• Created a Coding System (the Analysis of
  Discipline Codes Rating Form)

9
Behaviors Categorization

• Behaviors Categorized as Mild, Moderate and
  Severe, based on
• Researchers Ratings
• Judgmental Validity Based on Ratings of Outside
  Experts
• Deferral to Outside Raters When they Concurred at
  a Rate of 70 or Higher
• Change in Three Behaviors (Derogatory Remarks to
  Students, Misuse of Fire Alarm and Vandalism)

10
Categorization of Behaviors

• MILD BEHAVIORS
• Class Disruption
• Cheating/Plagiarism
• Staff Remarks
• Dress Code Violation
• Electronic Devices
• Forgery
• General Staff Disrespect
• General Student Disrespect
• Loitering
• Misuse of Computer
• Student ID Violation
• Tardies
• Tobacco Offenses (Distribution, Possession,
  Sale, and Use)
• Truancy

11
Categorization of Behaviors

• MODERATE BEHAVIORS
• Bullying
• Fighting
• Intimidation
• Social Exclusion
• Student Remarks
• Vandalism

12
Categorization of Behaviors

• SEVERE BEHAVIORS
• Alcohol Offenses (Distribution, Possession,
  Sale, and Use)
• Arson
• Assault/Threat
• Battery
• Bomb Threat
• Drug Offenses (Distribution, Possession, Sale,
  and Use)
• Gang Behavior
• Hazing
• Misuse of Fire Alarm
• Fireworks/Explosives Offenses
• Racial Slurs
• Sexual Harassment
• Theft/Burglary
• Weapons Offenses (Distribution, Possession,
  Sale, and Use)

13
Responses in Policy

• Proactive Directly taught expected behaviors
  aligned with principles of positive behavior
  support (Sugai et al., 1999)
• Reactive Punitive in nature without any direct
  teaching (e.g. suspension or expulsion)

14
Proactive Consequences

• Two Types Calculated
• Global (general) teacher conference, parent
  conference, natural consequence, community
  service
• Teaching (direct teaching)peer mediation,
  skill building, substance abuse intervention

15
Reactionary Consequences

• Mild Detention, Saturday Detention
• Moderate In-school Suspension, Classroom Removal
• SevereOut-of school Suspension, Expulsion,
  Alternative School Placement, Police Involvement

16
School Consequences IllinoisSelected Behaviors
17
Initial Multi-State Study

• Follow-up Study in Multiple-States
• Sent Mailing in 2006 Asking for Policies as Well
  as Data About Primary, Secondary and Tertiary
  Interventions
• Poor Response Rate
• Usable Data from 16 Schools
• Next Steps

18
Current Multi-State Study

• Approached IRB Seek Publicly Available Data
  Discipline Policies and Schoolwide Academic Data
  
• They said, Yes

19
Sampled from Statewide Data-Base

• SIX STATES
• Illinois
• Georgia
• Texas
• Oregon
• New York
• Iowa

20
Representative Sample

• Sampled 20 Schools From Each State
• Of the 20 Schools
• 10 Urban
• 10 Rural
• Discipline Codes of Conduct Pulled from Each
  Schools Publicly Available Web-Site
• When Available, Schoolwide Behavioral and
  Academic (NCLB data) pulled/will be Pulled

21
Reliability Analysis

• Reliability for Raters New to the Project (.80 or
  higher).
• Previous Reliability Established for One of the
  Raters in previous Ilinois Study

22
Coding of Policies

• Used Analysis of Discipline Codes Rating System
  (ADCR)
• Made Slight Modifications (electronic devices
  collapsed existence of corporal punishment was
  added)

23
Slight Changes to Categorization of Behaviors

• MILD BEHAVIORS
• Class/School Disruption Combined
• Cheating/Plagarism/Forgery added
• Staff Remarks Part of General Staff Disrespect
• General Student Disrespect Eliminated
• Profanity/Swearing/Obscene Language/Student
  Remarks Combined

24
Slight Changes to Categorization of Behaviors

• MODERATE BEHAVIORS
• Intimidation/Hazing/General Harassment/Negative
  Verbalization Combined
• Hazing Moved from Severe Category to Join
  Intimidation

25
Results

• Examined Selected Behaviors and Consequences as
  Previous Illinois Study
• Descriptive Statistics for Entire Sample
• Descriptive Statistics by State
• Descriptive Statistics for Corporal Punishment

26
(No Transcript)
27
(No Transcript)
28
Descriptive Statistics for Each State

• Illinois
• Iowa
• Oregon
• New York
• Georgia
• Texas

29
School Consequences IllinoisMulti-State Study
30
School Consequences IowaMulti-State Study
31
School Consequences OregonMulti-State Study
32
School Consequences New YorkMulti-State Study
33
School Consequences GeorgiaMulti-State Study
34
School Consequences TexasMulti-State Study
35
Corporal Punishment in Policies
36
Implications

• Policies Matter! (Osher, 1996)
• Critical to a schoolwide system of behavioral
  support are written policies that matches a
  proactive stance on the direct teaching of
  behaviors
• Particular critical is differentiating responses
  for behaviors characterized as minor (e.g.
  tardies) and those which are more severe and tied
  to school safety

37
More Work to be Done

• Examining Discipline Policies and Directing
  Alternatives to Punitive Practices that Do not
  Work
• Integrating Evidence-Based Procedures into
  Written Policies (e.g. Schoolwide Positive
  Behavior Support) (Sugai Horner, 2007)
  www.pbis.org

38
Ongoing Works

• Article Based on Study 1
• Fenning, P., Golomb, S., Gordon, V., Kelly, M.,
  Scheinfield, R. Banull, C. et al. (2008) Written
  discipline policies used by administrators Do we
  have sufficient tools of the trade? Journal of
  School Violence.

39
Other Resources

• Fenning, P. Bohanon-Edmonson, H. (2006).
  Schoolwide discipline policies. in Evertson, C.
  Weinstein, C.S. (Eds). Handbook of Behavior
  Management Research, Practice and Contemporary
  Issues. Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Fenning, P., Theodos, J., Benner, C.
  Bohanon-Edmonson (2004). Integrating proactive
  discipline practices into codes of conduct.
  Journal of School Violence 3(1), 45-61.