November 2012 - Review 4 year trend of discipline data (multiple - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

 

November 2012

• Review 4 year trend of discipline data (multiple perspectives)
• Equity in discipline rates
• Discipline type distribution
• Discipline process: Equity and Fidelity of Implementation
• Rate of discipline by race
• Review of identifying factors in high risk student populations
• Discipline by location
• Division resource allocation by location
• Effective strategies to date
• Mapping of strategies to high risk student populations

Suspension Data Compared to Total Membership

Year Afri rican America can White Other er Races Tot

• tal of all OSS

08/09 4,053 1,205 615 5,873 09/10 3,697 1,139 412 5,248 10/11 3,426 1,118 233 4,777 11/12 3,394 1,042 244 4,680 Change from 08/09

• 659 ( 16.3%)
• 163 ( 13.5%)
• 371 ( 60.3%)
• 1,193 ( 20.3%)

Year Afri rican America can White Other er Races Tot

• tal of all OSS

08/09 8,791 2,201 1,188 12,180 09/10 7,583 1,908 670 10,161 10/11 6,727 1,819 365 8,911 11/12 6,998 1,742 425 9,165 Change from 08/09

• 1,793 ( 20.4%)
• 459 ( 20.9%)
• 693 ( 62.0%)
• 3,015 ( 24.8%)

Significantly fewer out of school SUSPENSIONS : Significantly fewer STUDENTS suspended out of school:

Henri rico

• County

nty Public c Schools Number and Percentage of Out of School Suspensions (Duplicated count of students) Total African American White Other Students with Disabilities N % N % N % N % 2008-09 12180 8791 72.18% 2201 18.07% 1188 9.75% 3524 28.93% 2009-10 10161 7583 74.63% 1908 18.78% 670 6.59% 2894 28.48% 2010-11 8911 6727 75.49% 1819 20.41% 365 4.10% 2528 28.37% 2011-12 9165 6998 76.36% 1742 19.01% 425 4.64% 2449 26.72%

All groups appear equally affected by reduction measures.

Number of Days African Amer. White Other Races 1 Day 38.5% 40.6% 41.8% 2 Days 14.7% 16.5% 17.62% 3 Days 22.7% 19.0% 18.9% 5 Days 8.4% 6.1% 6.2% 10 Days 9.4% 11.6% 9.8% Cumulative Percent # of Days African Amer. White Other Races 2 Days or less 53.2% 57.1% 59.4% 3 Days or less 75.9% 76.1% 78.3% 5 Days or less 87.3% 84.5% 86.5%

Data for SY 11/12 shows statistically significant difference by race:

African can American ican White Other er Races es F1T F1T F1T D2C D2C D2C FA2 D5C D5C D5C FA2 FA2 D3C D6C S3V D6C D3C D3C D8C S3V D6C C2M D8C D8C D1C C2M T3C S3V T3C DG8

Top 4 offense ense codes des are the e same me for all students udents

F1T- altercation/confrontation/no injury FA2- fighting/no or minor injury/mutual participation C2M- cellular telephones S3V- other school or code of conduct violation T3C- violation of acceptable use policy DG8- marijuana possession D1C- disrespect/walking away D2C- defiance/refuses request D3C- disruptive demonstrations D5C- classroom/campus disruption D6C- obscene/inappropriate language/gestures D8C- minor insubordination

Most frequent offense for all groups in 2011/2012

• 48.1% of all first time suspensions for African American students
• 41.9% of all first time suspensions for White students
• 41.0% of all first time suspensions for students of other races

D1C- disrespect/walking away D2C- defiance/refuses request D3C- disruptive demonstrations D4C- possession of obscene/disruptive literature D5C- classroom/campus disruption D6C- obscene/inappropriate language/gestures D8C- minor insubordination

Number mber of Days s Suspe pended nded for a Disor

• rderly

erly Conduct duct Offen ense se (first st time e

• ffen

ende ders) s) African American White Other Races 1 Day 52.8% 54.9% 59.0% 3 Days or Less 88.7% 91.8% 93.0% 5 Days or less 96.4% 97.0% 96.0% Analysis shows no statistically significant difference by race.

• Provides updated information for HCPS staff

and families to support HCPS policies and regulations

• Reviewed by HCPS administration, staff, and

students

• Provides the framework for consistency of

disciplinary actions

• Provides discipline information for parents

• Provides a DVD of updated and current information
• n the Code of Student Conduct, SRO updates,

exceptional education updates, nontraditional updates, coding, timelines, and risk assessments.

• Provides templates of discipline letters that have

been updated and reviewed by the legal department to be used by all administrative teams: elementary , middle, and high.

• Provide samples and explanations of discipline terms

to be used by all administrative teams.

• Visits with each middle school administrative team
• Visits with each high school administrative team
• Visit selected elementary schools and meet with

administrative teams per request

• Review procedures and policies for consistent

implementation of discipline

• Review strategies to assist with reduction of

discipline through the habitual offender process

Frequency of Suspensions (11/12 School Year)

Students suspended only 1 time during the school year Number of Students receiving 1 OSS % of Students within race population Combined African Amer. 1822 53.7% 5.5% of all students in the division received OSS only

• ne time

White 693 66.5% Other Races 163 66.8% Students suspended 2 or more times during the school year Number of Students receiving more than 1 OSS % of Students within race population Combined African Amer. 1572 46.3% 4.1% of all students in the division received OSS 2 or more times White 349 33.5% Other Races 81 33.2% Students receiving NO suspension # of Students who did NOT receive OSS % of Students who did NOT receive OSS within race Combined African Amer. 14,502 81.0%

90.3% of all students did

NOT get OSS last year White 20,560 95.2% Other Races 8,624 97.2%

Students receiving NO suspension - 2011/2012

# of Students who did NOT receive OSS % of Students who did NOT receive OSS within race % of Total student population (Division) Combined African Amer. 14,502 81.0% 30.0% 90.3% of all students did NOT get OSS last year White 20,560 95.2% 42.5% Other Races 8,624 97.2% 17.8%

Frequency of Suspensions (4 Year Comparison)

Students receiving NO suspension - 2010/2011

African Amer. 14,473 80.9% 30.1% 90.1% of all students did NOT get OSS in 10/11 White 20,823 94.9% 43.4% Other Races 7,942 97.1% 16.5%

Students receiving NO suspension - 2009/2010

African Amer. 14,358 79.5% 30.0% 89% of all students did NOT get OSS in 09/10 White 21,168 94.9% 44.3% Other Races 7,016 94.5% 14.7%

Students receiving NO suspension - 2008/2009

African Amer. 13,233 76.6% 27.8% 88.5% of all students did NOT get OSS in 08/09 White 21,176 96.6% 44.4% Other Races 7,800 92.7% 16.4%

Students receiving 3 or more suspensions 2.2 .21% 1% of stu tude dents nts = = 50.4% .4% of suspensions spensions

• African American: 5% students = 54% suspensions
• Caucasian: 1% students = 38% suspensions
• Other Races: .5% students = 42% suspensions

Students Receiving 3 or More Suspensions (11/12 School Year)

# of stude udent nts s receivi ving ng OSS 3

• r more time

mes # of OSS inci cidents dents from

• m

these se students udents % of all OSS inci cidents dents for their eir race % of all OSS inci cidents dents (9,165) 5) Combine ned d % of disp spens nsati tions ns African American 5 % (875) 3,782 54.0% 41.3% These students received 4,619 suspensions or 50.4% of all OSS dispensations White 1% (154) 659 37.8% 7.2% Other Races .5% (39) 178 41.9% 1.9% # of stude udent nts s receivi ving ng OSS 3 or more time mes % of all students udents receivi ving ng any OSS (4,680) 80) % of students udents receivi ving ng OSS 3 or more times mes (1, 1,068) 68) % of Tot

• tal

Stude udent nt Population ation (48,366 366) Combine ned d % of student udent popul ulati ation African American 875 18.7% 81.9% 1.81% These students make up 2.21% of the total student population White 154 3.3% 14.4% .32% Other Races 39 .8% 3.7% .08%

# of students receiving OSS 3 or more times % of Race having 3 or more OSS dispensations % of all students (1,068) having 3

• r more OSS

dispensations % of all students receiving OSS (4,860) % of total student population (48,366)

African American F - 226 25.8% 21.2% 4.8% .47% M - 649 74.2% 60.8% 13.9% 1.34% White F - 14 9.1% 1.3% .3% .03% M - 140 90.9% 13.1% 3.0% .29% Other Races F - 10 25.6% .9% .2% .02% M - 29 74.4% 2.7% .6% .06%

Students Receiving 3 or more Suspensions (11/12 School Year)

• Gender within Race

Students with disabilities 13% 13% of popula pulation tion – 24% 4% of al all l stu tudents dents suspende pended

• Black students with disabilities = 17% of students suspended.
• Of Students with disabilities suspended, the 6% who were white

accounted for 48% of all white suspensions.

• Black students with disabilities who were suspended constituted 1.5%
• f the entire black population of HCPS and accounted for 31% of

students with 3 or more suspensions.

Students with 1 or more suspensions Disability within race

Race of HCPS Students with Disabilities

• 47.2% African American
• 40.0% Caucasian
• 12.8% Other Races
• 13% of HCPS population are students

with disabilities

• 24% of all students suspended

2011/12 were students with disabilities

% of Race Population % of Special Education OSS population (1,102) % of race population receiving OSS % of all students (4,680) receiving OSS % of OSS incidents for race % of all OSS incidents (9165) African American 4.3%

(777 of 17,896)

70.5%

(777)

22.9%

(777of 3,394)

16.6% 27.2%

(1901 of 6998)

20.7% White 1.3%

(283 of 21,602)

25.7%

(283)

27.2%

(283 of 1,042)

6.0% 32.9%

(573 of 1742)

6.3% Other Races .5% (42 of 8,868) 3.8%

(42)

17.2%

(42 of 244)

.9% 19.3%

(82 of 425)

.9%

Students with 3 or more suspensions Disability within race

Race of HCPS Students with Disabilities

• 47.2% African American
• 40.0% Caucasian
• 12.8% Other Races
• 13% of HCPS population are students

with disabilities

• 24% of all students suspended

2011/12 were students with disabilities

% of Special Education population receiving any OSS (1,102) % of race population % of OSS for all students having 3 or more OSS incidents (1,068) % of students having 3 or more OSS incidents within race % of OSS incidents for students having 3 or more OSS incidents within race % of OSS incidents (4,619) for students having 3 or more OSS incidents African American

24.5%

(270)

1.5% 25.3% 30.9%

(270 of 875)

32.5%

(1,231 of 3,782)

26.7%

White

6.4%

(70)

.3% 6.6% 45.5%

(70 of 154)

47.6%

(314 of 659)

6.8%

Other Races

.9%

(10)

.1% .9% 25.6%

(10 of 39)

24.2%

(43 of 178)

.9%

Economically Disadvantaged Students (Free and Reduced Lunch) 38% 8% of popul pulation ation – 61% 1% of al all l stu tude dents nts suspended spended

• 56% of the Black population of HCPS qualifies for Free and Reduced

Lunch.

• Economically disadvantaged students receive only 35% of all

suspensions.

• Of all incidents for Black students receiving 3 or more suspensions,

73% were economically disadvantaged.

Relationship Between OSS and Free/Reduced Lunch status

Economically disadvantaged students represent 61.0% (2,857 of 4,680) of all students receiving one or more suspensions in the 11/12 School Year Demogr

• grap

aphics ics FRL Status related to OSS # of student dents withi hin n race % of race population # of FRL receiving OSS % of FRL by Race with OSS % of Race population receiving OSS African American 9,926 55.5% 2,255 (79%) 23% 66.4% White 3,064 14.2% 460 (16%) 15% 44.1% Other Races 3,418 38.5% 142 (5%) 4% 58.2%

% of race population % of Econom. Disadv. population receiving 3

• r more

OSS (738) % of all students having 3

• r more

OSS incidents (1,068) % of incidents for students having 3 or more OSS dispensations within race % of OSS incidents (4,619) for all students having 3

• r more

OSS incidents % of all OSS incidents (9,165) African American

3.5%

(17,896)

84.7%

(625)

58.5% 72.7%

(2,748 of 3,782)

59.5% These receive 35.4% (3,243 of

9,165)

• f all OSS

dispensations

White

.4%

(21,602)

11.8%

(87)

8.1% 56.9%

(375 of 659)

8.1%

Other Races

.3%

(8,868)

3.5% (26) 2.4% 67.4%

(120 of 178)

2.6%

Students receiving 3 or more suspensions Economically Disadvantaged within race

Students Receiving 3 or more Suspensions (11/12 School Year)

• By School (3 schools with highest number of OSS at each level)

High Schoo hool

# of students receiving OSS 3

• r more times

% of total # of students getting OSS at school % (#) of OSS incidents at their school % of all OSS incidents (9,165) in HCPS Combined % of Division dispensations Hermitage 78 22.3% (78 of 349) 46.1% (301 of 653) 3.3% These students received 13.6% of all OSS dispensations in the division Highland Springs 121 27.0% (121 of 448) 55.2% (534 of 967) 5.8% Varina 92 22.5% (92 of 408) 50.1% (411 of 821) 4.5%

Middle dle Schoo hool

# of students receiving OSS 3

• r more times

% of total # of students getting OSS at school % (#) of OSS incidents at their school % of all OSS incidents (9,165) Combined % of dispensations Elko 68 26.6% (68 of 256) 51.6% (255 of 494) 2.8% These students received 10.8% of all OSS dispensations in the division Fairfield 73 28.3% (73 of 258) 56.0% (315 of 562) 3.4% Wilder 100 33.1% (100 of 302) 59.7% (423 of 709) 4.6%

El Element mentary Schoo hool

# of students receiving OSS 3

• r more times

% of total # of students getting OSS at school % (#) of OSS incidents at their school % of all OSS incidents (9,165) Combined % of dispensations Fair Oaks 8 18.6% (8 of 43) 40.8% (31 of 76) .34% These students received 1.9% of all OSS dispensations in the division Harvie 20 22.2% (20 of 90) 48.2% (81 of 168) .88% Highland Springs 16 23.9% (16 of 67) 47.5% (58 of 122) .63%

Elementary School Average w/o Pre-K & Title I

$ 8,579.36 9.36

Elementary School Average w/ Pre-K & Title I

$ 9,105.0 05.01

Magisterial District Average w/ Pre-K & Title I Fair irfiel ield d $9,8 ,812.52 12.52 Var arin ina $9,5 ,521.8 .81 Brookla

• okland $9,0

,083.0 83.07 Tuck uckaho ahoe $8 $8,5 ,571.30 .30 Thr hree ee Chopt Chopt $8,5 ,568.92 68.92

Elementary School Middle School Average $ 9,516. 6.98 98

Magisterial District Average

Fairfield $9,7 ,749. 49.15 Varina $9,741.06 .06 Brookland $9,422.6 ,422.64 Tuckahoe $9,338.73 ,338.73 Three Chopt $9,317.17

Elementary School High School Average $ 9,403.5 403.51

Magisterial District Average

Three Chopt $9,43 437.29 .29 Fairfield $9,428.49 ,428.49 Varina $9,414. 4.25 25 Brookland $9,409.95 ,409.95 Tuckahoe $9,340.08 ,340.08

• Excludes Debt Service
• Cannot compare to the State Average Per Pupil
• Cannot compare to other localities (Special

Revenue is needs based)

• Federal Programs are only offered at

Elementary Levels

• Secondary Schools costs are higher based on

additional programs and course offerings, such as foreign languages, etc.

 Increa

easing sing awarene ness ss of behavior

• r expect

ctat ations

• ns and conseq

sequen ences ces for stude dent nts

• Discipline Video
• Expulsion Posters
• Consistency (especially with Dress Code and Cell Phones)
• Code of Conduct Class Discussions with Administrators

 Trainin

ing g for Ad Admin inistrati istration

• n and Staff
• Site-Based Visits by Discipline Hearing Officer
• Education about Disproportionality
• MANDT Training
• Coalition for Equitable and Inclusive Schools
• Response to Intervention (RTI)
• Classroom Management Training (Fred Jones)

 Educati

ting ng Stude dent nts

• Comprehensive Anti-Bullying Initiative
• Mentoring Programs
• School-Wide Behavior Expectations
• Emphasis on Student-Centered Learning
• Classroom Meetings

 Ac

Academi demic c Suppor

• rt

t for Studen ents ts

• PACE Program
• Elementary Suspension Intervention (New Beginnings)
• Academy at Virginia Randolph
• Credit Recovery
• Tutoring and Remediation Opportunities
• Faith-based supports
• Success Highways

 Pa

Parenta tal Suppor

• rts

ts

• Parent Resource Center
• Behavioral Interventionists
• Communities in Schools (CIS)

 Individ

ividua ualize ized d Supports ts

• Functional Behavioral Assessment
• Behavior Intervention Plan
• Individualized counseling
• Group counseling on specific topics

 Positive Behavioral Intervention and Support (formerly Effective

School-wide Discipline): While PBIS evidences proactive change for students of all races, researchers have proposed that these strategies may have a significant effect on reducing the disproportionate rate of exclusionary discipline in African American males (Fenning & Rose, 2007; Skiba et al., 2006).

 Communities in Schools: After five years of detailed evaluation

underwritten by The Atlantic Philanthropies, the evaluation concluded that Communities In Schools' model resulted in the strongest reduction in dropout rates of any existing fully scaled dropout prevention program that has been evaluated; that Communities In Schools is unique in having an effect on both reducing dropout rates and increasing graduation rates; and that the Communities In Schools model is effective across states, school settings, grade levels and student ethnicities. (February, 2011)

 Educat

cating ing Student ents

• Comprehensive Anti-Bullying Initiative
• School-Wide Behavior Expectations
• Classroom Meetings

 Acad

ademic mic Suppor

• rt

t for r Studen dents ts

• GRAD Program
• Performance Learning Center

 Pa

Parenta rental Suppor

• rts

ts

• Communities in Schools (CIS)
• Parent Involvement Facilitators

 Traini

ining ng for r Admi ministration stration and Staf aff

• Response to Intervention (RTI)
• MANDT Training

 Implemen

lementation tation of Tier r II behavior ior inter erven enti tion

• n strat

rategi gies es develo loped ped by Coalition lition team ams s

 Data

a analysis ysis through

• ugh develo

lopm pment nt and analysis ysis of indiv ividua idual l stude udent nt profiles iles on contribu ributi ting ng factor

• rs

s to suspension. pension.

 Explorat

ploration ion of Tier r III strat rateg egies ies ba based ed on pr n profile ile find nding ings

 Focus

s on stud uden ent t success ess in Pre-K K throug

• ugh grad

ade e two

 Expectat

pectations ions matri trices es consist isten ent t and indiv ividualiz idualized ed

• Comm

mmuni nica cati tion

• n with

h studen udents ts

• Teacher

cher traini ning ng

• Coalition

lition frame mewor

• rk

 Mentoring

• ring program

gram expa pansion nsion

 Disciplin

cipline e data a revie iew frequen ency/int y/inten ensit sity

 Mapping

ing strat rategi egies es to data a review w resu sults lts

 Altern

ernat ativ ives es to out of school

• l suspe

pensi nsion n develo lopm pment nt and expa pansion nsion (BOSS OSS, , Satur urday y det etent ntion ion, , et etc.) .)

 Academi

mic Advisor sor

 Incentiv

ntive program grams s to rewar ard d posit itive e behavior ior

 Expansion

pansion of administ inistrat ativ ive e aide trainin aining g program gram to provid vide e more re sup upervision vision

 Altern

ernat ativ ives es to out of school

• l suspe

pensi nsion n develo lopm pment nt and expa pansion nsion (Sat atur urday y det eten ention, tion, before re and after er, , et etc.) .)

 Preven

enti tion

• n programs

rams (mediat ediation, ion, PAR, , et etc.) .)

 Ant

nti-bu bullying llying efforts s (Be e the Change, nge, Silen lence e Hur urts, ts, mont nthly hly class ss meeti etings gs, , et etc.) .)

 Mentoring

• ring programs

grams expansion pansion

 Disciplin

cipline e data a revie iew frequen ency/int y/inten ensit sity

• Staffed

d suspensio nsion n alternati native program ram for manda datory y suspens ension ion offenses

• Bus aide

des s for supervision vision

• Communit

unity y mentors

• Or

Organize nized d programs ams withi hin n communit unity

• Increas

rease in re recru ruitment itment and d ret retention ion of instruct tructio ional nal staff f who are traine ined d and committ itted ed to work working ing with h at-risk risk youth th

• Training

ining expansio nsion n on Positiv ive Behavioral vioral Suppo port

• Behavio

vioral ral intervent ntionist nist expansio nsion

Top 3 issues identified as barriers to student success 1.

• 1. Self-Effic

icac acy: y: Student udent motivation tivation issues sues and nd learned arned- helplessness.

• plessness. (Nogu

guera era and Boykin, kin, Bandura) ura) 2.

• 2. Inst

struct ructional nal Rigor:

• r: Includ

luding ing teach ching ing only to the test st, , teac aching hing to mini nimum um stand andar ards, ds, inc nconsist nsisten ency y across ss schools.

• ls. (Dagge

agget, , Harper) per) 3.

• 3. Pa

Pare rent nt involv lvem emen ent: t: Lack k of paren enta tal l partner tnership ships s for sup uppor

• rtin

ing g at-risk students. (O’Brien, Epstein)