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

2. AR Education Reports Policy Briefs Report Cards Newsletters Data Resources www.officeforeducationpolicy.org/ 2

3. Refer to menu bar at the top left of the OEP homepage. http://www.officeforeducationpolicy.org/ 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 Database 3.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 4

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 5

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” 6

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.” 7

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 8

9. Searchable Databases 9

10. Additional Analysis 10

11. Discipline Data Overview 11 Discipline rates (as defined by Act 1329), 3 year average (2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13) N = 257 Incidents per 100 students

12. ISS Rates by Subgroup 12 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 13 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 14

15. Regional Differences 15

16. Regional Differences - ISS 16 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) 17 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 18 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 19 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 20

21. Discipline Rates by District Size 21 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 SmallestLargest Districts

22. Discipline Rates by Racial Composition 22 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

23. Discipline Rates by District % Low- Income 23 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 Higher Poverty

24. Discipline Rates by Academic Performance 24 In general, discipline rates are lower in districts with higher test scores Lower Higher Performance

25. Correlation Between Discipline Rates and Academic Outcomes 25 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

26. What Do These Correlations Look Like? 26 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 27

28. Questions? 28