Examining Disparities in Student Discipline: Mapping Inequities from Infractions to Consequences

ABSTRACT

Mounting evidence indicates that students of color are more likely than their white peers to receive exclusionary discipline (out-of-school suspensions and expulsions), but alleviating these disparities requires an understanding of what drives them. In this study, we use seven years of student- and infraction-level data from every public school in Arkansas to examine disproportionalities within and across districts and schools. Prior analyses of the same data found that black students are more likely to receive exclusionary discipline than their white peers, even after controlling for the nature and number of disciplinary referrals, but most of the differences occur between schools, rather than within. We build on these findings in two ways: (a) by estimating the racial disparities in the likelihood of referral for particular infraction types and (b) by estimating whether the racial disproportionalities in the use of exclusionary discipline, after controlling for reported behavior, differ according to the types of infractions reported. We find that for common, subjective infractions, black students are at a higher risk of referral and at a higher risk of exclusionary discipline, conditional on referral. In addition, disparities appear to be driven by differences across school districts (rather than within). These findings have important implications for designing and targeting discipline reforms where they are needed most.

Notes

1 An ALE is “an alternate class or program within a public school or school district that affords all students an environment that seeks to eliminate barriers to learning for any student whose academic and social progress is negatively affected by the student's personal characteristics or situation” (AR Code § 6-48-104).

2 The original 13 consequence categories were ISS, OSS (when the incident did not result in physical injury), OSS (when the incident did result in physical injury), expelled, expelled for weapons (as defined by federal, state, and student discipline policy), expelled for drugs (does not include alcohol or tobacco), expelled for dangerousness (the incident did not result in physical injury), expelled for dangerousness (the incident resulted in physical injury), alternative learning environment (full year), alternative learning environment (less than one year), corporal punishment, no action, and other.

3 Conversations with officials from the Arkansas Department of Education indicate that the majority of these other consequences are non-exclusionary consequences such as detentions, bus suspensions, parent/guardian conferences, Saturday school, or warnings.

4 Due to small numbers (or zero incidences) of some of these infraction types within schools, we use district fixed effects rather than school fixed effects.

5 Note that in these models with district fixed effects, only districts that report the infraction type are included. For example, districts that have zero gun infractions are dropped from these district fixed effects models.

6 Due to smaller sample sizes in these models, and a lack of adequate variation within schools, district fixed effects were used rather than school fixed effects.