Disparate Use of Exclusionary Discipline: Evidence on Inequities in School Discipline from a U.S. State

AARN: Race Pub Date : 2016-07-24 DOI:10.14507/EPAA.25.2787
Kaitlin P. Anderson, Gary W. Ritter
{"title":"Disparate Use of Exclusionary Discipline: Evidence on Inequities in School Discipline from a U.S. State","authors":"Kaitlin P. Anderson, Gary W. Ritter","doi":"10.14507/EPAA.25.2787","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There is much discussion in the United States about exclusionary discipline (suspensions and expulsions) in schools. According to a 2014 report from the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, Black students represent 15% of students, but 44% of students suspended more than once and 36% of expelled students. This analysis uses seven years of individual infraction-level data from public schools in Arkansas. We find that marginalized students are more likely to receive exclusionary discipline, even after controlling for the nature and number of disciplinary referrals, but that most of the differences occur across rather than within schools. Across the state, black students are about 2.4 times as likely to receive exclusionary discipline (conditional on reported infractions and other student characteristics) whereas within school, this same conditional disparity is not statistically significant. Within schools, the disproportionalities in exclusionary discipline are driven primarily by non-race factors such as free- and reduced-price lunch (FRL) eligibility and special education status. We find, not surprisingly, that schools with larger proportions of non-White students tend to give out longer punishments, regardless of school income levels, measured by FRL rates. Combined, these results appear to indicate multiple tiers of disadvantage: race drives most of the disparities across schools, whereas within schools, FRL or special education status may matter more.","PeriodicalId":137537,"journal":{"name":"AARN: Race","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"77","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AARN: Race","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14507/EPAA.25.2787","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 77

Abstract

There is much discussion in the United States about exclusionary discipline (suspensions and expulsions) in schools. According to a 2014 report from the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, Black students represent 15% of students, but 44% of students suspended more than once and 36% of expelled students. This analysis uses seven years of individual infraction-level data from public schools in Arkansas. We find that marginalized students are more likely to receive exclusionary discipline, even after controlling for the nature and number of disciplinary referrals, but that most of the differences occur across rather than within schools. Across the state, black students are about 2.4 times as likely to receive exclusionary discipline (conditional on reported infractions and other student characteristics) whereas within school, this same conditional disparity is not statistically significant. Within schools, the disproportionalities in exclusionary discipline are driven primarily by non-race factors such as free- and reduced-price lunch (FRL) eligibility and special education status. We find, not surprisingly, that schools with larger proportions of non-White students tend to give out longer punishments, regardless of school income levels, measured by FRL rates. Combined, these results appear to indicate multiple tiers of disadvantage: race drives most of the disparities across schools, whereas within schools, FRL or special education status may matter more.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
排他性纪律的不同使用:来自美国一个州的学校纪律不公平的证据
在美国有很多关于学校排他性纪律(停学和开除)的讨论。根据美国教育部民权办公室2014年的一份报告,黑人学生占学生总数的15%,但44%的学生被停学一次以上,36%的学生被开除。这项分析使用了阿肯色州公立学校7年来的个人违规水平数据。我们发现,被边缘化的学生更有可能受到排他性的纪律处分,即使在控制了纪律转诊的性质和数量之后,但大多数差异发生在学校之间,而不是在学校内部。在全州范围内,黑人学生受到排他性纪律处分的可能性是其他学生的2.4倍(条件是报告的违规行为和其他学生特征),而在学校内部,同样的条件差异在统计上并不显著。在学校内部,排他性学科的不成比例主要是由非种族因素驱动的,如免费和减价午餐(FRL)资格和特殊教育地位。我们发现,毫不奇怪,非白人学生比例较大的学校往往会给予更长时间的惩罚,无论学校的收入水平如何(以FRL率衡量)。综合起来,这些结果似乎表明了多重劣势:种族导致了学校之间的大部分差异,而在学校内部,FRL或特殊教育地位可能更重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Effect of Affirmative Action on Workers' Outcomes Indigenous Knowledge Management and Humanitarian Supply Chain for Disaster Mitigation and Sustainable Development in the Eco Communities of India: Holistic Systems Modeling Approach Challenges and Opportunities With Native Forestry on Māori Land Tribes, Nations, States: Our Three Commerce Powers Neighborhood Racial and Ethnic Diversity and Residential Segregation in Large Urban Areas in the U.S., 1980-2010
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1