Examining Commitment to Prevention, Equity, and Meaningful Engagement: A Review of School District Discipline Policies

Abstract

Although there is increasing awareness of policy decisions contributing to disproportionality in exclusionary practices, few studies have empirically examined common elements of discipline policies across the nation. We utilized a methodological review and the Checklist for Analyzing Discipline Policies and Procedures for Equity (CADPPE) to examine the extent to which current policies reflect recommendations from research regarding best practices for encouraging appropriate behaviors and preventing undesired behaviors, as well as correlations between those policies and exclusionary disciplinary outcomes for all students of color and students of color with disabilities. Data came from 147 district discipline policies and disciplinary outcomes (i.e., suspension and expulsion) from all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. The analyses indicated the majority of policies do not include most of the research-based recommendations for preventing the overuse of exclusionary practices. Furthermore, there was no correlation found between CADPPE ratings and the risk ratios for exclusionary discipline for students of color and students of color with disabilities. Implications for policy development and implementation and limitations are provided.

The Dimensions of School Discipline: Toward a Comprehensive Framework for Measuring Discipline Patterns and Outcomes in Schools

“…Although there are generally two types of suspensions (ISS and OSS) and millions of students receive ISS nationwide, only a handful of studies focus on ISS or differentiate between the two suspension types (Anderson et al, 2019;Anyon et al, 2021;Cholewa et al, 2018;Jabbari & Johnson, 2020;Noltemeyer et al, 2015;Smith et al, 2021). Even though a growing number of studies are including both ODRs and suspensions as outcomes in the same study (Anyon et al, 2014(Anyon et al, , 2016Bradshaw et al, 2010;Nishioka et al, 2021;Vincent & Tobin, 2011), within the robust school discipline literature, most studies tend to focus on either ODRs (Cook et al, 2018;Gion et al, 2020;Gregory et al, 2014Gregory et al, , 2019 or suspensions (Green et al, 2021;Gregory et al, 2018;Hashim et al, 2018;Lacoe & Steinberg, 2018).…”

A Gap in Culturally Responsive Classroom Management Coverage? A Critical Policy Analysis of States’ School Discipline Policies

“…One conclusive point found in the report was that each of the states gave the authority to local education agencies to craft the provisions needed to conduct school discipline at the school level; however, the enactment of policies on school discipline alternatives can “enable conditions for effective implementation by providing support and ensuring accountability,” (Rafa, 2019, p. 8). Finally, Green et al (2020) examined the connection between research on affirmative disciplinary practices in school discipline policies for all 50 states and the District of Columbia. In their findings, Green and colleagues found that while states had their distinct policies, the 147 school districts included in their sample did not have explicit policies that included research-based recommendations, such as CRCM, for reducing exclusionary discipline practices.…”

“…In their findings, Green and colleagues found that while states had their distinct policies, the 147 school districts included in their sample did not have explicit policies that included research-based recommendations, such as CRCM, for reducing exclusionary discipline practices. Rafa (2019), Curran (2019, 2020), and Green et al (2020) illuminate the fact that in the absence of explicit governance, school districts can enforce stricter school discipline policies than what is necessary to curtail unwanted student behavior. In light of such strictness, the alternative supposition is plausible: school districts are more likely to follow specific guidance regarding school discipline if such policies are legalized by their state legislators or state board of education.…”

“…In analyzing the gap in policy coverage, the failure to require educators to merge CRCM into their practices highlights a critical disconnect between research, advocacy, policy, and practice (Green et al, 2020). Teachers still need support at the federal level to engage in culturally responsive discipline/ classroom management practices rather than punitive disciplinary approaches.…”

Applying an ecosocial framework to address racial disparities in suicide risk among black youth

“…Policies should be constructed and implemented to create accountability for the continuous application of activities that explicitly uphold and promote racial justice at all levels. These include several strategies such as district discipline policy reform to incorporate proactive evidence‐based strategies (Green et al, 2020); discipline data disaggregation and consultation procedures for school staff that reduce racial disparities in discipline and positive reinforcement (Gion et al, 2020); effective prejudice reduction programs for students (Grapin et al, 2019) and staff (Whitford & Emerson, 2019); and culturally responsive teaching (Larson et al, 2018). Given the apparent impact of microaggressions on suicidality (Madubata et al, 2019), empirically validated methods for addressing microaggressions in educational contexts are greatly needed.…”