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

Dismantling the Cradle to Prison Pipeline:Analyzing Zero Tolerance School Discipline Policies and

Identifying Strategic Opportunities for Intervention

Policy Analysis ExerciseJen 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. 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.3. Analyze and draw findings from the 2009-10 Massachusetts school discipline data.4. Identify high-leverage/strategic opportunities for intervention for the coalition.

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

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.

Background

How does school discipline

fit into the Cradle to Prison Pipeline?

Behavioral Incident Drop-outAlienation,

Disconnection

Two Paths to Prison

Serious Behavioral

IncidentDirect

Indirect

Root

Cau

ses

Root

Cau

ses

Suspension

Arrest, Expulsion

DYS/DOC Custody

Absenteeism

Future Incarceration


Incident Outside school

Incident Outside school

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

Serious Behavioral

Incident

Root

Cau

ses

Arrest, Expulsion

DYS/DOC Custody


Possible Intervention Points—Direct Path to Prison

Prevention; efforts to address

root causes

Efforts to re-engage students in

school

Rehabilitationprograms;

services and support

Referral to alternative education

setting/support services

Programs to promote positive climate and

relationships

Student & family

supports Intervention Points Generally

Not Focusedon School Discipline

Possible Intervention Points—Indirect Path to Prison

Behavioral Incident Drop-outAlienation,

Disconnection

Root

Cau

ses

Suspension AbsenteeismFuture

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

Efforts to re-engage students in

school

Dropout recovery;

reintegration into school

Rehabilitationprograms and

servicesIntervention Points Relevant to School Discipline Reform

Research Objective #1:Analyzing School Discipline Policy in Massachusetts


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

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

4. 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?”

• 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 effectgiving up their discretion.

Federal State District School Individual

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

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.

Stat

e of

Pla

yZe

ro

Tole

ranc

e?


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

Federal policy is generally not zero tolerance, except for the Gun Free Schools Act.


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.


- 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.


Opp

ortu

nitie

s fo

r In

terv

entio

n

CPP Public Education Campaign


Zero

To

lera

nce?

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


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

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)

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





Benefits and Costs of Zero Tolerance

Benefits Costs

zero tolerance is a

philosophy; not a

policy.

Research Objective #3:Analyzing School Discipline Data





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

Regular Education Students

Serious Offenses • Violence• Criminal activity• Illegal substances

Non-Serious/Unassigned Offenses• Not involving

violence, criminal activity, or illegal substances

Offenses resulting in: •Referrals to theprincipal’s office •Detentions•Half-day

suspensions

Offense resulting in suspension of > 10 days or expulsion:

File Student Discipline Record

No reporting required No reporting required

Offense resulting in suspension of 1 to 10 days:

No reporting required



For each incident, school must file: 1. An Incident Report 2. A Student Discipline Record for each student offender(s) involved

OR




OR




OR

Special Education Students Regular Education Students

Estimated Numbers:*Number Reported:

Incidents Reported, 2009-10

Special Education Students Regular Education Students

Serious Offenses • Violence• Criminal activity• Illegal substances

Non-Serious/Unassigned Offenses• Not involving

violence, criminal activity, or illegal substances

Number of Serious Offenses:Number of Non-Serious Offenses:

Total # of Incidents:


12



22,599


1,021

Total: 23,620


5,338


166

Total: 5,504

28,665

5,504 incidents

23,151 incidents

Not required.8,323incidents reported—Actual # likely much higher.


23,073


78

Total:21,151

31,995 incidents 145,467incidents*

23,620 incidents 23,620 incidents

8,335 incidents 121,847 incidents*

*See Appendix D for estimates and methodology

Number Reported:

Total:8,335

Number of Disciplinary Removals by Grade Level

As in past year, disciplinary Removal Used at all Grade Levels;Rises through Middle School Years and

Peaks at 9th Grade with 13,072 Disciplinary Removals.

PreK & K

Grade 1

Grade 2

Grade 3

Grade 4

Grade 5

Grade 6

Grade 7

Grade 8

Grade 9

Grade 10

Grade 11

Grade 12

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

510 817 946 13111814

2744

5095

67517255

13072

9022

6445

4784

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

1 Day

2-9 Days

10 Days

11-89 Days

90 or More Days

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000

30,350

26,353

2,629

1,111

161

50%43%

4%

2% 0%

1 Day (n = 30,350)

2-9 Days (n = 26,353)

10 Days (n = 2,629)

11-89 Days (n = 1,111)

90 or More Days (n = 161)

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

Type of Disciplinary Removals

Overall, 76% of incidents resulted in out-of-school suspensions.Referral to alternative settings is used very infrequently.

76%

23%

< 1% 0% 0%

Out-of-School Suspension (n = 46,137)

In-School Suspension (n = 14,167)

Expulsion (n = 219)

Removed by School Personnel (n = 73)

Removed by Hearing Officer (n = 13)

Type of Disciplinary ExclusionMassachusetts (2009-10)

(n = 60,610)

72%

24%

4%

Permanent Expulsion (n = 219)

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)

Magnitude of the Problem: Number and Type of Incidents Reported

• 60,610 disciplinary exclusionsreported in 2009-10; pre-K to 12th

– Together,Massachusetts students missed a total of 199,056 days of schoolas a result of disciplinary exclusions…or 1,076 school years.

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

• Actual disciplinary exclusions likely more than double the number of reported disciplinary exclusions– 120,000+ incidents, not 60,000

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

Type of Punishment, Serious Offenses (n = 29,124)

Type of Punishment, Non-Serious Offenses (n = 31,486)

Out-of-School

Sus-pen-sion86%

In-School

Sus-pen-sion13%

Permanent Expulsion1%

Out-of-School Suspension

67%

In-School Sus-pension

33%

Research Objective #4: Identifying Opportunities for Intervention





Type of Behavior

Serious Offenses - Violence - Criminal activity -

Illegal substances

Threatens

safety/school

environment

Unlikely to

pose a safety threat

Non-Serious Offenses -

Unassigned offenses -

No safety threat

What type of behavior/offense occurred?

Is the offense considered serious or non-serious?

Does the behavior pose a legitimate safety threat?

Framework for Reform: Segmenting Offense TypesThe Coalition can prioritize low-hanging fruit by segmenting different types of offenses.

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.

“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.

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

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 policy is generally not zero tolerance, except for the Gun Free Schools Act.


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.



-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.


Opp

ortu

nitie

s fo

r In

terv

entio

nZe

ro

Tole

ranc

e?



Recommendations:Opportunities for Intervention

State Level:

Policy Advocacy for “Green 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

District Level:

Policy Advocacy for “Green Light” and

“Yellow Light” Offenses

School Level:

Implementation Reform for “Green Light” and

“Yellow Light” Offenses

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 InterventionState Level

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.

State Level: Policy Advocacy for “Green 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.

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

Recommendations: Opportunities for InterventionDistrict Level

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.

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

Recommendations: Opportunities for InterventionSchool Level

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” 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: 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 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 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.


- Focus on policy advocacy.

- 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.

-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.

Opp

ortu

nitie

s fo

r In

terv

entio

nTy

pes

of

Inte

rven

tion



Alternatives to Zero Tolerance: Where do they Fit In?

District-level: Advocate for inclusion of alternatives in district discipline policies & adoption in school practices

Educate the public about alternatives

School-level: Identify schools that effectively use alternatives; facilitate learning opportunities through conferences, training,

and peer-to-peer networks.1 3

2

Behavioral Incident

Alternatives to Zero Tolerance: School-Level Approaches

Serious Behavioral

Incident

Root

Cau

ses

Alternative Discipline Strategies

Traditional Discipline Strategies

Behavioral Incident

Is the incident serious?

Prevention-focused Alternatives

Intended Impacts:• Enhance school climate and supportive relationships • Decrease occurrence of behavior incidents/ offenses

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)

Yes

No

Suspension & expulsionas strategies to addresssituations that pose a safety threat or cannot be addressed through alternative means

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

BEFORE INCIDENTS OCCUR AFTER INCIDENTS OCCUR

Does it pose a safety threat?

Yes

No

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.

Implementation Considerations

Documents

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