Student Behavior, Discipline, and Disproportionality: Phase 3 Executive Summary
Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019
Background This document describes data-based conclusions about FCPS’ student behavior, discipline, and disproportionality, along with related FCPS policy and practice around prevention, intervention, and building a positive school climate. The study was undertaken by the Office of Research and Strategic Improvement (ORSI) in response to a budget amendment passed by the School Board in May 2018, which directed the Superintendent to “work with the ORSI and the [Chief Equity Officer] to conduct an internal and external review of race and income disproportionality in dis- cipline.” This Phase III report is supplemented by two external reviews of FCPS’ data focused on equity in discipline practic- es (Dr. Edward Fergus, Temple University) and on FCPS’ policy, programs, and practices that support a positive behavior approach (Dr. David Osher, American Institutes for Research). In FCPS, school staff are the decision-makers on consequences for most discipline infractions, while the most se- vere are referred to the Superintendent for adjudication by his designee, the Hearings Office.
Approach To draw conclusions, ORSI designed a study with input from an advisory team of central- and school-based staff that: Reviewed the research around school discipline practices, identifying seven areas of practice that promote the best outcomes for students (positive behavior approach, tiered prevention and intervention supports, clear and appropri- ate consequences, safe and secure environment, data-based continuous improvement, professional development, and stakeholder involvement); Examined trends in student behavior violations, discipline consequences, and disproportionality; Considered why trends are concerning; Undertook an extensive document review of discipline-related FCPS policies, regulations, and program documents; Gathered input from students, parents, teachers, principals, central office staff, and community stakeholders to un- derstand discipline-related supports and expectations in FCPS, implementation of school practices, perceptions of climate, and student and family experiences; Compared FCPS practice, both at the Division-level and in schools, to what research considers best practice; and Investigated linkages of school practices and school climate to student behavior and disproportionality to understand what school practices might be most supportive of positive outcomes for students.
Findings What are the trends in student behavior, discipline, and disproportionality? Student behavior violations are increasing. Discipline consequences increasingly remove students from instruction. Disproportionality is not improving, with Black students, Students with Disabilities (SWD), Economically Disadvan- taged students, and males the most overrepresented in referrals for violations. Disproportionality stems from staff referrals for a behavior violation rather than principal assignment of consequences. Why should FCPS be concerned about these trends? Discipline-involved students in FCPS perform worse academically, a difference that is large enough to explain part of FCPS’ achievement gap. Recidivism is increasing for students who receive the most severe consequences (out-of-school suspension, hearing). Discipline-involved students are unequally distributed across schools, threatening FCPS’ focus on equity.
1
What Explains FCPS’ Student Behavior, Discipline, and Disproportionality? FCPS’ structures and defined practices do not fully address the majority of discipline practices that research identifies as important for an effective discipline system (e.g., the SR&R conveys little about positive behavior). Where FCPS has defined structures and practices, implementation is typically inconsistent, including around the col- lection and use of discipline-related data. FCPS schools typically communicate with parents/guardians when a student is involved in a serious incident but there is minimal partnering with parents and little community input when reviewing discipline data for improvement. School-based staff report feeling unprepared to provide some prevention and intervention supports or establish strong student-teacher relationships to support better behavior outcomes. Principals, staff, students, and parents all indicated that race factors into many discipline decisions and that there is discomfort around talking about race, both generally and in the role it plays in discipline. School climate is perceived by parents, students, and staff as moderately positive, leaving room for improvement. School demographics explain the lower ratings of climate reported by Black students. School demographics also are more strongly associated with student behavior and discipline consequences than any school practice or dimension of school climate. Recommendations Division Expectations 1. Identify a clear vision for FCPS’ discipline approach that reflects the importance of equity, positive school climate, social-emotional learning, and using misbehavior as an opportunity for student learning. 2. Revise SR&R to: a. Reflect this broader, more positively focused view of discipline; b. Tie the philosophy of consequences to a positive behavior approach (will also require professional development for staff to understand the linkages); c. Ensure that SR&R’s continuum of consequences reflects clear consequences that are appropriate for different ages and abilities. 3. Provide guidance on which behaviors teachers should manage and which should be referred to administrators for consequences. 4. Adopt a social-emotional learning framework or curriculum for all schools to implement. School Practices 5. Fully implement MTSS in all FCPS schools. 6. Require inclusion of a school improvement goal for discipline when schools are identified as having many referrals or disproportionality in referrals. 7. Reconsider current FCPS practices for sharing of information among school staff to better understand and serve students. Professional Development 8. Enhance cultural responsiveness training to teach staff to confront implicit and explicit biases in their own and other staff’s thinking and actions. 9. Develop and implement training for school-based staff and bus drivers on establishing strong and supportive relationships with students and placing behaviors within an understanding of the student, especially when handling more subjective behaviors, such as disruptive behaviors. 10. Provide training for all school-based staff on how to de-escalate behavior situations with students, especially among SWD. 11. Provide professional development for all school-based staff on how to provide trauma-informed instruction and best support students who have experienced trauma. Division Infrastructure 12. Systematize recording of discipline-related data across schools, incorporating school-based needs for tracking tiered interventions. 13. Expand the Caring Culture Goal 2 metrics to include all student groups (i.e., racial/ethnic groups plus SWD, Economically Disadvantaged, English Learner, and Gender). 14. Develop an annual monitoring report on discipline disproportionality to track progress on student outcomes and bias. 15. Ensure all schools have an advisory council of staff, parent, community, and (when feasible) student representation to support interpreting and responding to school-level discipline and climate data. 16. Develop a participatory approach for involving students, parents, and community members in the interpretation and response to divisionwide discipline data (especially in relation to Black and SWD disproportionality). 2
STUDENT BEHAVIOR,
DISCIPLINE, AND
DISPROPORTIONALITY
Phase 3 Report
Office of Research and Strategic Improvement
June 2019
FAIRFAX COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Scott Brabrand, Ed.D. Division Superintendent
Marty K. Smith Chief Operating Officer
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STRATEGIC IMPROVEMENT Ludmila Z. Hruda, M.S.Ed., Director Michelle Ferrer, M.Ed., Manager Eva Corcoran, Ph.D., Evaluator Chantal Follett, Ph.D., Evaluator Sammi Karalus, Ph.D., Evaluator Janine Lacina, MA, Evaluator Alisa Pappas, MA, Evaluator SuJin Lee, MA, Educational Data Trainee
Acknowledgements The Office of Research and Strategic Improvement (ORSI) would like to thank the following Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) staff for their support and engagement in the research process for this report.
Staff from the Equity Office: • Francisco Durán, Chief Equity Officer • Kathleen Walts, executive director, Professional Learning and Family Engagement • Lisa Barrow, director, Professional Growth and Career Development • Nina Thomas, coordinator, Professional Learning and Cultural Responsiveness
Staff from the Department of Special Services (DSS): • Teresa Johnson, assistant superintendent, Department of Special Services • Mary Ann Panarelli, director, Intervention and Prevention Services • Jill Hahn, special projects administrator, Department of Special Services
Staff from central office and schools who served on the study advisory team (not already named): • Stefan Mascoll, coordinator, Student Safety and Wellness, Department of Special Services • Dana Scanlan, administrative hearing officer, Chief Equity Officer • John Jacobs, specialist, Equity and Cultural Responsiveness, Chief Equity Officer • Lawrence Bussey, Instructional Services Department • Dan Phillips, principal, Providence Elementary School • Elizabeth Obester, assistant principal, Mountain View Alternative High School • Rohini Tohan, assistant principal, Luther Jackson Middle School • Marsha Manning, principal, South County Middle School • Anthony Terrell, principal, Mount Vernon High School • Jamie Lane, principal, Oakton High School
Additional central office staff who provided insight into their offices’ role in supporting safe schools and discipline and who provided their perspectives: • Tom Vaccarello, director, Safety and Security, Department of Facilities and Transportation Services
In addition, ORSI would like to thank the school-based staff who completed surveys and participated in focus groups, including teachers, principals, and SOSAs. And, a special thanks to schools for distributing student surveys and coordinating ORSI focus groups with students. Participation by school-based staff was critical for ORSI to understand what practices and policies foster a positive school climate, support student behavior, and improve equity.
Most importantly, ORSI would like to send gratitude to the students, parents, and community members who shared their experiences through surveys, focus groups, and interviews. Together, they provided invaluable insight into how FCPS policies and practices are experienced and where FCPS needs to focus its improvement efforts.
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 i Contents
Introduction...... 1 FCPS Concerns about Discipline ...... 1 Study Background and Design ...... 2 Research Base about School Discipline ...... 3 Data Sources ...... 4 Findings ...... 5 What Are the Trends in Student Behavior, Discipline, and Disproportionality in FCPS Schools? ...... 5 Student Behavior Violations are Increasing ...... 5 Discipline Consequences Increasingly Remove Students from Instruction ...... 10 Disproportionality is Not Improving ...... 12 Why Should FCPS be Concerned about These Trends? ...... 17 Discipline Involvement Hinders Student Success ...... 17 Unequal Distribution of Discipline-Involved Students across Schools Threatens Equity ...... 20 What Explains FCPS’ Student Behavior, Discipline, and Disproportionality? ...... 21 Division Expectations and School Practices Are Not as Strong as Needed ...... 21 School Climate is Moderately Positive ...... 27 School Demographics Are Better Predictors of Outcomes than School Practices or Climate .... 30 Summary of Findings ...... 32 Conclusions ...... 33 Strengths ...... 33 Challenges ...... 34 Recommendations ...... 37
Special Note Regarding Disproportionality
The terms “disproportionate” and “disproportionality” as used in this study, refer solely to statistical differences or disparities, which may, depending upon the context, warrant further review of individual situations. In no event should the terms be read to mean that any analysis of individual cases has been undertaken as a part of this study, because such has not occurred. Nor should it be inferred from the study’s use of such terms that any conclusion has been reached concerning unlawful discrimination on any basis, because such cannot be fairly premised on statistical differences or disparities alone.
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 ii Appendixes Appendix A: Study Design
Appendix B: Literature Review
Appendix C: Methodology
Appendix D: Discipline Process
Appendix E: Categorization of Discipline Violations SY2018-19
Appendix F: Additional Information about Trends in Student Behavior, Consequences, and Disproportionality
Appendix G: Additional Information about Student Outcomes
Appendix H: Additional Information about Division Expectations
Appendix I: Additional Information about School Practices
Appendix J: Additional Information about School Climate
Appendix K: Additional Information about the Relation between School Practices, School Climate and Student Outcomes
Appendix L: Additional Analyses of Discipline Data
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 iii
Introduction In May 2018, the School Board passed an amendment to the FY 2019 Approved Budget directing the Superintendent to “work with the Office of Research and Strategic Improvement (ORSI) and the [Chief Equity Officer] to conduct an internal and external review of race and income disproportionality in discipline …and include recommended strategies and measurable outcome goals.” This report responds to that request and is the final in a three-phase study that arose from the amendment. It follows the Phase I Report1 (November 2018) that provided overall trends in suspensions, rates of referrals to the Hearings Office, and disproportionality, and the Phase II Report2 (January 2019) that laid out the design for the current study.
This Phase III report is intended to build upon the findings of past work by ORSI to provide the FCPS School Board and Division leadership with a comprehensive review of FCPS’ discipline approach as well as recommendations for improving its approach to reduce discipline violations and disproportionality in discipline referrals and consequences among student groups. The current report is supplemented with two external reviews. One of the external reviews of FCPS’ data focuses on equity in discipline practices, including the Division’s disproportionality data (Dr. Edward Fergus, Temple University), while the other external review focuses on FCPS’ policy, programs, and practices that support a positive behavior approach [Dr. David Osher, American Institutes for Research (AIR)]. Taken together, these three reports informed the design of the FCPS Equity Plan for Discipline Policy and Practices to be presented by the Chief Equity Officer at the same time as the release of this study and the external reviews.
FCPS Concerns about Discipline In FCPS schools, students become involved in the discipline process when they behave in a manner that violates a school or division regulation or rule. Figure 1 provides an overview of the various options available to staff members in handling student misbehavior. The majority of misbehavior, such as not being on task or arguing with a classmate, is handled by classroom teachers using interventions and consequences, rather than being referred to the principal for discipline consequences. Repeated and more serious behaviors resulting in a discipline referral, should be documented in FCPS’ student information system (SIS). Discipline violations handled by principals range from less severe violations (e.g., being late to class or talking back to a staff member) to more severe behaviors (e.g., fighting or being under the influence of alcohol). In response to referrals, principals must administer a range of potential consequences from a parent phone call or loss of privileges to more serious consequences, such as detention or suspension (in or out of school). For the most severe behaviors (e.g., possession of a weapon or selling drugs), principals refer the student to the Hearings Office for assignment of consequences. Hearings Office consequences can include reassignment to another school site or expulsion. Families may appeal Hearings Office decisions to the School Board, if they so choose. All of the possible consequences administered by principals and through the hearings process are outlined in the FCPS Student Rights and Responsibilities (SR&R) regulation, which both requires certain levels of consequence for severe behaviors but also, generally, provides a wide variety of options about how to respond to most violations.
Since 2011, FCPS has engaged in efforts to improve its handling of student discipline. Initial efforts focused on increasing the orderliness and safety (e.g., prohibiting clothing that promotes violence or could hide weapons). An earlier ORSI (then the Office of Program Evaluation) study,3 released in April 2016, reported
1 Student Behavior and Discipline: Phase I available at: https://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/B6FMZ35D609F/$file/Student%20Behavior%20and%20Discipline% 20Phase%20I%20Report.pdf 2 Study of Student Behavior, Discipline, and Disproportionality: Study Design (Phase II) Report) available at: https://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/B978J7725784/$file/Discipline%20Phase%20II%20SB%20Report% 20v3%20yb.pdf 3 A Study of Changes in Discipline Regulation and Practices: School Years 2004-05 through 2015-16 https://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/AHBN8R5B740D/$file/Study%20of%20Changes%20in%20Disciplin e%202004-2016_April%202016_technical%20rpt.pdf ______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 1 that FCPS revised its policies, regulations, and practices to reduce exclusionary discipline (discipline decisions that remove or exclude a student from their classroom, such as in- or out-of-school suspension) and attempted to reduce inequities in who is disciplined. The earlier ORSI study reported improvements in some areas (e.g., decreases in the number of out-of-school suspensions and Hearings Office referrals between 2011-12 and 2014-2015) but more recently questions have emerged about whether these results have been sustained. In fact, the FY19 budget amendment from May 2018, which served as the impetus for this study, referenced a “63% increase [in the number of hearings] since the 2013-14 school year” and Phase I of the current study uncovered concerning trends in out-of-school suspensions, Hearings Office referrals, and disproportionality.
Figure 1: Discipline Process Overview
Study Background and Design This study was designed to address three broad areas of interest to the School Board: (1) the trends in student violations and consequences, including disproportionality; (2) FCPS’s current discipline practices, especially in relation to school climate and positive behavior approaches; and (3) the effect of FCPS practices on the academic, behavioral, and emotional well-being of discipline-involved students. The objective is to understand what is going well and what can be improved with the aim of ensuring schools are using consistent practices proven to be effective at reducing violations overall and ensuring discipline is applied equitably to all students.
To achieve these aims, ORSI developed an initial set of research questions, which were refined based on feedback from an advisory team composed of representatives from central office, and school- and region- based staff. The design was shared with the School Board for comment in February of this year. This process resulted in a set of four questions to be addressed in this study:
1. How well do FCPS policies and structures reflect research-based practices for creating a supportive discipline climate that promotes positive student behavior and reduces disproportionality? (captured in this report under under the Finding section headed “What explains the student behavior, discipline, and disproportionality trends? – Link from Division Expectations to School Practices”) 2. To what extent does FCPS implement practices to create a supportive discipline climate that promotes positive student behavior and reduces disproportionality? (captured in this report under under the Finding section headed “What explains the student behavior, discipline, and disproportionality trends? – Link from Division Expectations to School Practices”) 3. What results are we seeing? (captured in this report under under the Finding sections headed “What are the trends in student behavior, discipline, and disproportionality in FCPS schools?” and “Why should FCPS be concerned about these trends?”)
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 2 4. What is the relation between what FCPS does and the results it sees? (captured in this report under under the two subsections for “School Climate” and “”School Practices, Climate, and Outcomes” within the Finding section headed “What explains the student behavior, discipline, and disproportionality trends?”)
For details about the study’s design see Appendix A (Study Design).
Research Base About School Discipline
At the heart of any school district’s discipline approach is to maintain an environment conducive to learning. More punitive approaches seek to do this by removing students who are viewed as disruptive to instruction with the intent of improving the learning of the remaining students and to serve as an example to other students of what happens when students misbehave. However, there is little research evidence showing these hypotheses to be true and extensive evidence that removing students from the classroom interrupts their instruction and places them on a negative path both academically and behaviorally.4,5,6 Positive approaches to discipline seek to maintain an environment conducive to learning for all students by focusing on prevention of behavioral incidents, providing supports to correct misbehavior, and targeting enhanced interventions toward more severe behavioral issues.
School divisions have sought to develop and implement student discipline policies and practices that keep students safe and secure, create a positive and supportive school climate, and are fair and equitable to all students. Research indicates that achieving these results requires a coherent approach.7 A coherent approach means that leadership sets clear and consistent expectations and aligns resources to support implementation of its expectations. Schools are responsible for implementing the policies, regulations, and programs in alignment with the divisional expectations set by leadership. Figure 2 lays out the connections a school division’s expectations should have to school-level practices and, subsequently, the connection school practices should have to both school climate and student outcomes. As schools implement, they not only impact the quality of prevention and intervention programs but also, through staff and administrator decisions, equity and disproproportionality.
Research (see Appendix B) indicates that the extent to which divisions expect and schools implement division policies, practices, and programs aligned with a positive approach largely determines positive impacts on students, equity, and school climate. A review of the literature identified seven areas that are critical to design and implement an effective approach to discipline that also reduces disproportionality. All seven areas should be fully reflected both in the Division’s expectations, as well as school practices.
1. Positive Behavior Approach - purposefully create a positive school climate where discipline is approached instructionally, and that both maintains high expectations for behavior, as well as uses restorative practices. 2. Tiered Prevention and Intervention Supports - focus on addressing student needs so that behavior issues do not arise including use of tiered systems of support that provide prevention and intervention supports to students, social-emotional learning, and wrap around services to include mental health, child welfare, and juvenile justice needs. 3. Clear and Appropriate Consequences - ensure consequences are clear, proportional, and developmentally appropriate, minimize exclusion and follow due process, especially for students with disabilities.
4APA Zero Tolerance Task Force. (2006). Are Zero Tolerance Policies Effective in the Schools? An Evidentiary Review and Recommendations. APA Council of Representatives. 5 Skiba, R. J., Horner, R. H., Chung, C.-G., Rausch, M. K., May, S. L., & Tobin, T. (2011). Race is Not Neutral: A National Investigation of African American and Latino Disproportionality in School Discipline. School Psychology Review, 85-107. 6 Steinberg, M. P., & Lacoe, J. (2017, Winter). What Do We Know about School Discipline Reform? Assessing the alternatives to suspensions and expulsions. Retrieved from Education Next: https://www.educationnext.org/what-do-we-know-about- school-discipline-reform-suspensions-expulsions/ 7 Osher, D. Moroney, D. & Williamson, S (2018). Creating Safe, Equitable, Engaging Schools: A Comprehensive, Evidence- Based Approach to Supporting Students. ______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 3 4. Safety and Secure Environment - maintain a safe and secure learning environment through policy and regulation, as well as use of threat protocols and written agreements to clarify the roles and responsibility of school resource officers. 5. Data-based Continuous Improvement – establish structures and procedures that allow for regular review of discipline data at the Division and school level to focus improvement efforts. 6. Professional Development - ensure all staff and school resource officers (SROs) have the professional development necessary to engage students in learning, promote positive behavior, apply discipline policies and practices equitably, manage challenging behaviors, and demonstrate cultural competency while avoiding bias. 7. Stakeholder Involvement - involve parents, students, staff and community members in the development of discipline polices and communicate regularly with families about discipline policies and expectations as well asspecifically when there is an incident.
Figure 2: Linkages between Components of a School Division’s Discipline System
Data Sources
To understand division expectations for discipline for this study, ORSI undertook an extensive document review (including review of FCPS’ policies and regulations, as well as program documents), conducted interviews with central office staff, and asked staff about them in focus groups.
To understand school practices, ORSI gathered information from central office and school-based staff, students, families, and stakeholder groups through interviews, surveys, and focus groups. ORSI also drew on Student information System (SIS) data and Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) about the duration of in- and out-of-school suspensions and disproportionality in discipline consequences.
To understand school climate, including how discipline is implemented and experienced, the study gathered information from school-based staff, students, families, and stakeholder groups through surveys, focus groups, and interviews.
Lastly, student outcome data were collected from student testing data (academic) and SIS and VDOE (behavior). The study did not include data on student wellness. (See Appendix C for a more detailed description of the study’s methodology and data collection).
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 4 Findings The findings section is divided into three parts. First, findings related to trends in student, behavior, discipline, and disproportionality are reviewed. This is followed by an explanation of why the trends should concern FCPS. Lastly, findings that explain why FCPS’ student behavior, discipline, and disproportionality data look the way they do are addressed, including the extent to which FCPS has set the right discipline- related expectations, implements schools practices aligned to Division expectations, has been able to create positive school climates, and influences student outcomes and disproportionality through school practices.
What Are the Trends in Student Behavior, Discipline, and Disproportionality in FCPS Schools? This section of the report describes trends in the number and proportion of students involved in discipline in FCPS. For those students who receive discipline referrals, we show trends in the number and types of violations and consequences. Trend data is based on the full years of data from 2012-13 through 2017-18 plus the first semester of data from 2018-19, the most recent information available at the time of reporting.
Student Behavior Violations are Increasing
Finding 1: Overall, the percentage of FCPS students who are discipline-involved is small.8
As shown in Figure 3, most FCPS students are not discipline-involved (92.3 percent). Of the 7.7 percent of students who do receive a SIS-documented discipline referral, a smaller subset, representing less than half of all SIS-documented violations, are VDOE-reportable violations (3.6 percent of FCPS students). Hearing cases, which are a subset of both SIS-documented and VDOE-reported violations, represent a small proportion of discipline-referred students and approximately two-tenths of one percent of all FCPS students. This study focuses on VDOE-reported data because the documenting practices of FCPS schools for the violations and consequences included in that reporting are more consistent across FCPS schools than for SIS documented discipline data. For details about the discipline process, see Appendix D. For a complete list of violations, see Appendix E. For details about similar trends in SIS data, see Appendix F.
Figure 3: Percent of Discipline-Involved Students during SY 2017-18
8 See Appendix F for a description of changes in VDOE reporting requirements. ______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 5 Source: Student Information System discipline data and VDOE-reported discipline data
Finding 2: FCPS has a lower percentage of individual student offenders than the Region or State.
Over the last three completed school years, VDOE has reported that FCPS has lower percentages of students involved in discipline than the state average. For example, as shown in Figure 4, during the most recently completed school year (2017-18), VDOE reported an overall average for Virginia of 6.10 percent, while FCPS had 2.4 percent of its students involved in discipline. [VDOE uses a subset of all VDOE-reported offenses in creating these comparison values; discussions with VDOE indicate that they will be moving to use all offenses in future comparisons so the VDOE-reported numbers should match those reported above in this study for students involved in VDOE-reported discipline offenses.]
Figure 4. Comparison of Discipline-Involved Students in FCPS and Virginia; 2015-16 through 2017-18
Source: VDOE Safe School Information Resource: https://p1pe.doe.virginia.gov/pti/
Finding 3: Both the number and percentage of students with one or more discipline violations has increased over the last three years.
Over the last three years, the percentage of all students involved in VDOE-reported discipline violations has increased from 2.1 percent in SY 2015-16 to 3.6 percent in SY 2017-18 (Figure 5, left). The percent reported for 2018-19, 2.2 percent, is based on unofficial data from the first semester of the school year to which the VDOE-reporting rules have been applied.9 However, the VDOE data from years prior to SY 2016- 17 differ from that of more recent years because VDOE changed its reporting requirements in SY 2016-17, requiring that all violations committed by general education students that result in a consequence of in- school suspension be included in the reported data. This change effectively added students who had previously been documented in SIS to the VDOE-reported data (growing the mid-orange circle) but did not change the number of discipline-involved students in FCPS (i.e., keeping the light orange circle the same size). In each of the figures below showing trends in violations over time, there is a vertical line to denote the change in VDOE-reporting requirements. When consistent reporting rules are applied across all years, trends still indicate an increase in the number and percent of students with VDOE-reported violations but to a lesser extent (Figure 5, right). To see trends in first semester only data, see Appendix F.
9 The 2018-19 first semester percent of students involved in VDOE-reported violations is similar to data from prior years’ first semester percent. See Figure G-1 in Appendix G for additional information. ______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 6 Figure 5. Percent of Students Involved in VDOE-Reported Violations; 2012-13 through 2018-19 Rules Change in 2016-17 Consistent Rules Throughout
Source: VDOE-reported discipline data
Finding 4: The percentages of FCPS’ Black and Hispanic students who are discipline-involved continue to be much higher than the percentages of FCPS’ Asian and White students.
As has previously been reported, Black and Hispanic students have the largest proportions of students who commit VDOE-reported violations. In the most recent full school year, 8.0 percent of Black students had VDOE-reported violations, 5.5 percent of Hispanic students, 2.4 percent of White students, and 1.6 percent of Asian student had VDOE-reported violations as shown in Figure 6. As with the data in Figure 5, VDOE reporting requirements changed for SY 2016-17, such that additional types of violations (and additional students) are now included in VDOE-reporting. When consistent reporting rules are applied, trends still indicate increases for all student groups but to a lesser extent.
Figure 6. Percent of Students Committing VDOE-Reported Violations by Ethnicity; 2012-13 through 2018-19
Rules Change in 2016-17 Consistent Rules Throughout
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 7
Source: VDOE-reported discipline data
Finding 5: Middle school has the greatest percentage of students who are discipline-involved.
Since SY 2012-13, the percentage of students involved in VDOE-reported violations has increased at all school levels. Similar to Figure 6, the change in VDOE-reporting rules impacted trends observed. When consistent reporting rules are applied (Figure 7, right graph), the percent of students who are discipline- involved shows increases but to a lesser extent. At the high school level, the percent decreased from 4.4 percent 2012-13 to 3.1 percent in 2015-16 and then trended higher to 5.4 percent in 2017-18. The elementary and middle school levels saw the percent of students who were discipline involved slowly increase during the same time period (Figure 7). Middle school has the greatest percent of students who are discipline-involved at 5 percent in 2017-18.
Figure 7. Percent of Students Involved in VDOE-Reported Violations by School Level; 2012-13 through 2018-19
Rules Change in 2016-17 Consistent Rules Throughout
Source: VDOE-reported discipline data
Finding 6: The percentages of Students with Disabilities involved in discipline violations has recently increased after declining for several years, mirroring the overall trend in the Division.
Since SY 2012-13, the percentage of students involved in VDOE-reported violations has decreased at all school levels. The change in VDOE-reporting rules does not impact students with disabilities. The percentage of all Students with Disabilities involved in VDOE-reported discipline violations decreased from 9.2 percent in SY 2012-13 to 7.2 percent in SY 2017-18. At the high school level, the percent decreased
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 8 from 16.1 percent 2012-13 to 10.9 percent in 2015-16 and then trended higher to 11.3 percent in 2017-18. The elementary and middle school levels saw the percent of students who were discipline-involved slowly decrease during the same time period (Figure 8). Middle school has the greatest percent of students who are discipline-involved at 13.2 percent in 2017-18.
Figure 8. Percent of Students With Disabilities Involved in VDOE- Reported Violations Overall and by School Level; 2012-13 through 2018-19
Overall By School Level
Source: VDOE-reported discipline data
Finding 7: Of all violations committed, the proportions due to disruptive behaviors and assaults have been increasing.
Disruptive behaviors are those that disrupt the learning environment, interfere with teachers’ ability to provide instruction, and limit classmates ability to learn. This category of violations includes those such as defiance and disrespect. As shown in Figure 9, since SY 2012-13, the proportion of violations that are due to disruptive behaviors has increased steadily and now constitutes the majority of VDOE-reported violations. Additionally, Figure 9 shows that there has also been a slight increase in the proportion of assault violations from about 4 percent in SY 2012-13 to almost 7 percent in the first half of SY 2018-19. Both alcohol and drug violations and weapons violations have slightly decreased during this time period. Note that the “other” category also makes up a large portion of the violations. This category includes a variety of violations, including tardiness, bullying, cell phone mis-use, theft, and vandalism, to name a few.
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 9 Figure 9. Percent of VDOE-Reported Violations by Type for 2012-13 through 2018-19
Source: VDOE-reported discipline data
Discipline Consequences Increasingly Remove Students from Instruction
Finding 8: Discipline consequences that remove students from regular instruction increased between SY 2012-13 and 2017-18, with the sharpest increases since 2015-16.
Since SY 2012-13, the number of SIS violations that have resulted in an in-school or out-of-school suspension has increased steadily since SY 2012-13. [This analysis relied on SIS data because VDOE data did not include complete in-school suspension data prior to SY 2016-17.] More specifically, in-school suspensions increased from 5,796 to 6,244, and out-of-school suspensions increased from 3,959 to 5,050. Additionally, data from the first half of 2018-19 appear to be on track for similar numbers of consequences as 2017-18. Thus, although teachers reported in focus groups that staff were advised to limit exclusionary discipline in favor of discipline that kept students connected to instruction, students continue to receive discipline referrals and consequences that remove them from instruction (Figure 10).
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 10 Figure 10. Number of SIS Violations by Consequence Type; 2012-13 through 2018-19
Source: SIS discipline data
Finding 9: Parents reported neutral perceptions of fair treatment during the discipline process.
The parent survey asked all respondents whose student had received a suspension or been referred to the Hearings Office to indicate whether they felt the student had been treated fairly during the hearing or suspension process. Responses indicate that parents were, on average, neutral in their perceptions of whether their student had been treated fairly. On a 5-point scale with 4 as “agree”, the average response was 3.5 for suspensions. Average responses for students who were referred to the Hearings Office were lower (3.3) than for those who were suspended but still categorized as neutral (Figure 11).
Figure 11. Average Parent Perception of Fair Treatment During the Discipline Process
Source: ORSI Parent Survey data
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 11 Perceptions of not being treated fairly were raised by parents in the qualitative data, helping to explain the neutral ratings. For example, among parents whose child had been through the hearing process, the vast majority (80 percent, n=20) perceived the process to be unclear and overly focused on punishment rather than support for behavior change. Open-ended survey responses from parents whose child had been discipline-involved frequently described the discipline process or the consequence assigned as unfair. Lastly, a theme that emerged from the focus groups with parents indicated that teachers lacked knowledge to interpret and respond appropriately to student behavior and that this lack of knowledge was a major factor in frequent inequities and lack of fairness.
Disproportionality is Not Improving
Finding 10: FCPS students belonging to certain student groups (Black students, Students with Disabilities, males, and Economically Disadvantaged students) were three or more times as likely to receive a discipline referral as other students.10
Figure 12 shows the relative rate11 (or likelihood) that a student from a specific student group would receive a discipline referral in comparison with other FCPS students. Ideal proportionality would be represented by a value of 1 on these charts. Values above 1 indicate over-representation; for example, the SY 2015-16 value for Black students of 3.1 indicates they were more than three times as likely to receive a discipline referral as other students in FCPS. Values below 1 indicate under-representation; for example, SY 2015- 16 value of 0.5 for the White student groups indicates White students were half as likely to be suspended as other students in FCPS. Guidance on use of the relative risk ratio suggests that values falling more than 0.5 above or below 1 (i.e., outside the range of 0.5 to 1.5) should be viewed as disproportional and actions to fix the imbalance should be considered.12
Like other school systems, FCPS’ Black, Hispanic, English Learners, Students with Disabilities, and Economically Disadvantaged students are referred at higher rates than their White and Asian peers. More specifically, Figure 12 shows that FCPS’ disproportionality data over the last several years indicate relatively steady overrepresentation in the number of Black students (Figure 12a), students with disabilities (Figure 12b), males (Figure 12d), and Economically Disadvantaged students (Figure 12e) who receive a discipline referral. All had relative risk values hovering consistently around 3 or higher. Hispanic students (Figure 12a) and English Learner students (Figure 12c) were also more likely to become discipline-involved, although the risk ratio for these student groups indicates that likelihood is double that of other FCPS students.
10 The terms “disproportionate” and “disproportionality,” as used in this study, refer solely to statistical differences or disparities, which may, depending upon the context, warrant further review of individual situations. In no event should the terms be read to mean that any analysis of individual cases has been undertaken as a part of this study, because such has not occurred. Nor should it be inferred from the study’s use of such terms that any conclusion has been reached concerning unlawful discrimination on any basis, because such cannot be fairly premised on statistical differences or disparities alone. 11 Relative rate or likelihood for each student group is calculated as the percent of the students within the student group receiving a suspension or referral divided by the percent of all other students receiving a suspension or referral. 12 http://www.k12.wa.us/SpecialEd/programreview/Disproportionality.aspx ______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 12 Figure 12. Disproportionality Among Student Groups in Violation Referrals, 2015-16 through 2018-19 a. Racial/Ethnic Group b. Students with Disabilities
c. English Learner Status d. Gender
e. Economically Disadvantaged (FRM)
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 13 Finding 11: Disproportionality stems from staff referrals for a behavior violation rather than principal assignment of consequences.
While FCPS demonstrates considerable disproportionality in violations, data show little to no disproportionality in principals’ use of out-of-school suspension as a consequence for committing a violation. Figure 13 shows the disproportionality by violation type with two graphs. For each violation type, the graph on the left shows the disproportionality in behavior referrals assigned by staff, typically teachers, while the graph on the right shows the disproportionality in consequences assigned by school administrators. While there is disproportionality in staff referrals within each violation type, the disproportionality associated with an administrators decision to suspend the student hover around 1 for each violation type, which indicates no disproportionality. Thus, principals are assigning suspensions equitably across racial/ethnic groups for the same type of violation but the referrals for the violations are disproportionate. Figure 14 shows the same pattern to be true for Students with Disabilities. These patterns are true for other student groups, including by gender, by economic status and by English Learner status (see Appendix F for details).
Figure 13. Disproportionality by Violation Type and Ethnicity, 2015-16 through 2018-19, by Staff Referrals (left) and Administrator Assigned Out-of-School Suspensions (right)
a. Weapons Staff Referrals Administrator Assigned Consequences
b. Drugs and Alcohol Staff Referrals Administrator Assigned Consequences
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 14 Figure 13. Disproportionality by Violation Type and Ethnicity (Continued) c. Assaults Staff Referrals Administrator Assigned Consequences
d. Disruptive Behavior Staff Referrals Administrator Assigned Consequences
e. Other Violations Staff Referrals Administrator Assigned Consequences
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 15 Figure 14. Disproportionality by Violation Type and Disability Status, 2015-16 through 2018-19, by Staff Referrals (left) and Administrator Assigned Out-of-School Suspensions (right)
a. Weapons Staff Referrals Administrator Assigned Consequences
b. Drugs and Alcohol Staff Referrals Administrator Assigned Consequences
c. Assaults Staff Referrals Administrator Assigned Consequences
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 16 Figure 14. Disproportionality by Violation Type and Disability Status (Continued) d. Disruptive Behavior Staff Referrals Administrator Assigned Consequences
e. Other Violations Staff Referrals Administrator Assigned Consequences
Figures 13 and 14 further show a pattern that is discussed in the research regarding greater disproportionality for subjective violations (e.g., disruptive behaviors, assaults) and lesser disproportionality for more objective violations (e.g., weapons, drugs and alcohol). For the more subjective violation types the range of relative risk values for consequences is larger in most years than the range for the more objective violation types (weapons, drugs and alcohol, assault). Nonetheless, all values related to principal assigned consequence of out-of-school suspension remain within the range typically considered acceptable.
Why Should FCPS be Concerned about These Trends? Discipline Involvement Hinders Student Success
The research on discipline-involved students shows that students who have been suspended or expelled earn lower grades and perform worse academically,13 including having higher dropout rates and lower
13 Lacoe, J., & Steinberg, M. (2019). Do Suspensions Affect Student Outcomes? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34-62; Raffaele Mendez, L. (2003). Predictors of Suspension and Negative School Outcomes: A Longitudinal Investigation. Deconstructing the School to Prison Pipeline; New Directions for Youth Development, 24-25; Whisman, A., & Hammer, P. (2014). The Association between School Discipline and Mathematics Performance: A Case for Positive Discipline Approaches. Charleston: West Virginia Department of Education, Division of Teaching and Learning, Office of Research. ______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 17 graduation rates.14 These findings hold even after controlling for student characteristics such as poverty or other demographics.15 Because FCPS is committed to helping every student succeed and eliminate achievement gaps, it is important to understand how discipline involvement impacts FCPS students.
Finding 12: Discipline-involved students in FCPS perform worse academically, which may explain part of FCPS’ achievement gap.
FCPS students who commit a VDOE-reported violation perform worse on SOLs in the year of the violation as compared to otherwise similar non-offending students.16 There is a meaningful difference in the pass rates of those that are discipline-involved and the matched comparison group (Reading: 58 percent vs. 90 percent, Mathematics: 50 percent vs. 91 percent). This means that the 7 percent of discipline-involved FCPS students are at risk for scoring lower on SOLs and potentially failing them. Moreover, of those students who commit a violation, those who receive more severe consequences, such as out-of-school suspensions, have lower cumulative GPA than the matched comparison group (see Appendix G for details).
When the SOL performance data are examined by race/ethnicity for discipline-involved students and their matched comparison group, the impact of discipline on academics is more severe for the student groups already performing at lower levels. Figure 15 shows the SOL pass rates for reading and math for the discipline-involved students (light teal) and their matched comparison (dark teal). The students were matched on several demographic characteristics as well as prior SOL performance. Figure 15 shows differences in pass rates for both reading and mathematics for all student groups. The impact of discipline on SOL pass rates is larger for Black and Hispanic students, approximately 30 percentage points, than for White and Asian students, approximately 20 percentage points.
Figure 15. Performance of Discipline-Involved Students and Matched Comparison Group
Source: Standards of Learning student-level scores
14 Balfanz, R., Byrnes, V., & Fix, J. (2014). Sent Home and Put Off Track: The Antecedents, Disproportionalities, and Consequences of Being Suspended in the 9th Grade. In D. Losen, Closing the School Discipline Gap: Equitable Remedies for Excessive Inclusion (pp. 17-30). New York: Teachers College Press.; Raffaele Mendez, 2003 15 Raffaele Mendez, 2003 16 Students were matched on grade, school, free- and reduced-price meals status, ethnicity, whether the student is identified as a student with a disability, gender, English learning status, and prior achievement. ______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 18
This means that the populations of students who are more likely to be disproportionately involved in discipline are also those whose academic performance suffers more. Therefore, disproportionality in discipline may be contributing to the achievement gap. If 8 percent of all Black students are involved in VDOE-reported discipline and that involvement results in only 51 percent passing the reading SOL instead of 84 percent, that could drop the overall reading pass rate for Black students by 2.6 percentage points. Thus, discipline-involved students from student groups that demonstrate gaps in achievement performance, as well as disproportionally higher levels of discipline involvement (based on the disproportionality data described above) are also showing the biggest negative impact on SOL performance.
Similarly, the pass rate difference of 41 percent for discipline-involved Black students and 78 percent for matched students on the mathematics SOL assessments indicates discipline involvement is contributing approximately 3.0 percentage points to the overall achievement gap in Black student group mathematics performance. Values for Hispanic students account for a smaller amount of the achievement gap (1.2 and 1.7 for reading and mathematics, respectively).
Finding 13: Recidivism is increasing for students who receive the most severe consequences (out- of-school suspension, hearing).
In the past 4 years, recidivism has been increasing for FCPS students who receive out-of-school suspensions or referrals to the Hearings Office (Figure 16). For students who were referred to the Hearings Office in 2017-18, almost one-quarter of those students are referred for further disciplinary violations within the same school year. This is almost twice the percentage from 2015-16, just two years prior. For students who received an out-of-school suspension in 2017-18, a third of those students are referred for further disciplinary violations within the same school year. This is also a small increase from two years prior. Recidivism for students receiving other consequences is approximately one-third and has decreased from two years prior. Research indicates that students who commit multiple violations perform even worse academically than students with a single violation.17
Figure 16. Recidivism Rates by Consequence Type
Source: Student Information System discipline data
17 Arcia, 2006; Fabelo et al, 2011; Skiba, Arrendando, & Rausch, 2014 ______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 19 Finding 14: Parents indicate students are not consistently receiving supports to transition successfully after a suspension or hearing.
On average, parents with children who were suspended or referred to the Hearings Office were neutral to positive in their student’s ability to re-engage with learning after involvement in the discipline process. On a 5-point scale with 4 being “agree”, parents’ responses were consistently below 4 indicating a concern regarding transition after discipline. Parent responses for those with children who received a suspension (either in-school or out-of-school) were higher, and closer to “agree” than those whose children were referred to the Hearings Office (Figure 17).
Figure 17. Average Parent Perception of Transition Following Discipline
Source: ORSI Parent Survey data
Unequal Distribution of Discipline-Involved Students across Schools Threatens Equity
Finding 15: The concentration of many discipline-involved students in a small number of FCPS schools may be negatively impacting non-discipline-involved students at those same schools.
We previously noted that approximately 7 to 8 percent of all FCPS students are discipline-involved each year. However, discipline-involved students are not equally distributed across FCPS schools so some schools have higher percentages of discipline-involved students (up to 14 percent), while others have lower percentages of discipline-involved students (0 percent). In other words, some FCPS schools have a large share of discipline-involved students compared to their share of FCPS students (over-representation), while some schools have a small share of discipline-involved students compared to their share of FCPS students (under-representation). Moreover, the demographics of the schools with the greatest amount of over- representation are different than the demographics of schools with under-representation. More specifically, Table 1 shows that when schools in the top 10 percent (over-represented) were compared to those in the bottom 10 percent (under-represented) of discipline involvement, those in the top 10 percent serve a greater percentage of students in poverty, Black students, and Hispanic students than those in the bottom 10 percent. These schools also serve fewer Asian and White students. Percentages of males, Students with Disabilities, English Learners were similar.
This finding is concerning because not only do we know that being discipline-involved adversely affects the involved student, but research indicates that the achievement of all students at schools with high rates of discipline-involved students is negatively impacted.18 In other words, for students in schools with high rates of discipline-involved students, both discipline-involved and non-discipline-involved students are typically adversely affected by this type of school environment. Thus, this spill over effect may further impact achievement gaps, since these schools have a high concentration of students from students groups that have historically shown lower levels of performance.
18 Perry, B., & Morris, E. (2014). Suspending Progress: Collateral Consequences of Exclusionary Punishment in Public Schools. American Sociological Review, 1067-1087. ______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 20 Table 1. Demographic Comparison of Discipline-Concentrated Schools Demographic Schols with highest Schols with lowest concentration of concentration of discipline discipline % Asian 13 22 % Black 15 5 % Hispanic 42 21 % White 26 45 % Male 53 53 % Students with Disabilities 16 14 % Economically disadvantaged 54 23 % English Learners 24 21 Source: FCPS Student Information System membership data
What Explains FCPS’ Student Behavior, Discipline, and Disproportionality? This section, which considers why the student behavior, discipline and disproportionality data look the way it does, examines five potential explanations stemming from the model described in Figure 1: (a) the link from Division expectations to school practices; (b) school climate; (c) the link between school practices, school climate, and student outcomes.
Division Expectations and School Practices Are Not as Strong as Needed
Earlier in the report we described a variety of structures and practices within seven areas that, if implemented well, support a positive discipline approach, reduce disproportionality, and ultimately improve student outcomes. This section of the report describes the extent to which FCPS has set expectations that reflect these research-based best practices via structures (e.g., policies, regulations, or organizational structures) or practices (e.g., programs, services, frameworks, or guidelines). The section then describes how well the structures and practices are typically implemented by schools. Ratings of Implementation of school practices is based on what is expected by the Division, rather than what should be implemented based on research. In other words, school were only expected to implement practices that reflect what the Division expects will be implemented.
Finding 16: FCPS does not have sufficient structures or defined practices to fully address the majority of discipline practices research identifies as important for an effective discipline system. Where FCPS has defined structures and practices, implementation is inconsistent.
Based both on quantitative and qualitative data summarized in Table 2, one of the seven research-based best practices for effective discipline approaches (Safe and Secure Environment) has, to-date, been fully addressed by FCPS. Two additional best practices (Tiered Prevention/Intervention Supports; Clear and Appropriate Consequences) were rated partially addressed. The remaining four practices (Positive Behavior Approach; Continuous Improvement; Professional Development; Stakeholder Involvement) received ratings of “minimally addressed” based on the data (See Appendix H). In terms of implementation, four of seven research-based best practices have been implemented with moderate alignment to the Division’s expectations (Tiered Prevention/Intervention Supports; Positive Behavior Approach; Safe and Secure Environment; Stakeholder Involvement). The remaining three practices received ratings of weak implementation (Clear and Appropriate Consequences; Continuous Improvement; Professional Development). The rest of this section provides details on the evidence behind these ratings. Additional details on how ratings were established and the evidence that supported each rating of Division expectations and level of implementation are available in Appendixes H and I, respectively.
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 21 Table 2: Ratings of FCPS’ Expectations and Implementation of Research-Based Best Practices for Effective Discipline Approaches Best Practice FCPS’ Level of School Expectations Implementation Positive Behavior Approach Minimally Address Moderate Tiered Prevention/ Intervention Supports Partially Address Moderate Clear and Appropriate Consequences Partially Address Weak Safe and Secure Environment Fully Address Moderate Continuous Improvement Minimally Address Weak Professional Development Minimally Address Weak Stakeholder Involvement Minimally Address Moderate
Positive Behavior Approach
Division Expectations: Minimally Address Best Practices
Policy and interview data indicate that FCPS needs to do more to explicitly emphasize a positive behavior approach, especially in setting a vision for its discipline system and communicating it through its SR&R. While the Student Rights and Responsibilities Guide for Families discusses the use of a positive behavior approach to teach students expected behaviors, most of the SR&R is focused on punitive consequences, lacking communication on positive behavior approaches or discipline as an opportunity for learning and growth for students. In essence, the SR&R establishes minimum expectations for behavior, rather than laying out high expectations of positive behavior. Overtly describing what is desired behavior coupled with statements endorsing positive expectations would support this practice. Furthermore, FCPS’ discipline policy does not lay out a vision of discipline for the school division that addresses positive behavior and restorative practices, the related need to create a positive school climate, or the role of equity in supporting climate.
Implementation: Moderate
Principals report being supportive of an instructional approach to discipline (mean of 3.7 on a four-point scale) and creating a positive climate (mean of 3.5 on a four-point scale), yet not all staff embrace the same belief system. Moreover, teachers do not appear to have received a consistent message from principals. Teachers report that principals do not consistently communicate a clear vision for positive behavior (mean of 3.2 for elementary teachers and 3.0 for middle/high teachers on a five-point scale).
“Is there a vision? I’ve read policies but if I had to guess it would be about a progressive system of discipline.” -FCPS Principal
“Our vision of discipline is SR&R and that is our guidebook.” -FCPS Principal
“Is there a vision statement? I don’t know what FCPS’ vision of discipline is.” -FCPS Teacher
Information collected from teacher focus groups indicates that while some teachers understand that they should take a learning approach to discipline, other teachers have a zero-tolerance policy. Some teachers believe more diverse schools have lower expectations for student behavior. Interviews with central office staff suggest that challenges around the successful implementation of a positive behavior approach are common due to lack of alignment between teachers and administrators understanding of how to apply discipline.
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 22 “Disruptive students are allowed to steal the education time of classmates who want to learn -- and that is unforgivable. When a student shows over and over that he/she is incapable of behaving appropriately in the classroom, that student should be removed.” -FCPS Teacher
“Allowing disadvantaged students to get away with inappropriate behaviors is not doing them a favor - it is discrimination in the worst sense. It sets them up to fail.” - FCPS Teacher
Tiered Prevention and Intervention Supports
Division Expectations: Partially Address Best Practices
Interview and focus group data, as well as document review indicate that FCPS has some prevention and intervention policies and structures in place but needs additional structures to address social-emotional learning (e.g., curriculum, framework, expectations) and a tiered support system that connects academics, behavior, and wellness for students. FCPS intends to fully implement a multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS) in the coming years, leaving this best practice currently somewhat developed. Furthermore, while FCPS regularly works with many service providers including mental health, substance abuse and courts to ensure students have needed support, wrap-around services are not routinely available for students, especially mental health services, to match the level of student need.
Implementation: Moderate
For several years, FCPS has provided professional development in implementing tiered practices for academics. In the past three years, training has shifted to reflect broader MTSS principles, with five schools piloting MTSS and others participating in training related to tiered behavior or wellness practices. Principals report differing endorsements of how well FCPS implements its defined practices for tiered prevention and intervention support compared to teachers and students. Based on survey data, principals reported having a strong focus (mean of 3.2 on a four-point scale) on instilling preventative discipline strategies and social- emotional learning, while students and teachers did not feel these practices were well-embedded in their schools (means of 3.5 and 3.4 on a five-point scale, respectively).
“It would be nice, as a teacher, to get better, more up-to-date resources [around social-emotional learning] that these kids can have proactively, rather than reactively.” -FCPS Teacher
Clear and Appropriate Consequences
Division Expectations: Partially Address Best Practices
Interviews and document review indicate that FCPS provides limited guidance to support principals and teachers in applying consistent consequences to students. FCPS has established clear guidance to ensure due process for students with disabilities through multiple FCPS regulations detailing guidance on the use of behavioral interventions, short-term suspensions, and long-term suspensions designed to ensure students’ due process is protected. FCPS also provides guidance to limit the severity of consequences applied to young children. The same level of clarity needs to be added to the SR&R to ensure guidance about consequences for all students. For example, there is nothing in the regulations explicitly requiring principals to ensure consequences are proportional and developmentally appropriate. Nor does FCPS explicitly state a commitment to avoiding exclusionary consequences. The range of possible consequences for infractions to the code of conduct are clearly spelled out in the FCPS regulations, though principals have wide discretion is choosing consequences and clear guidance is not provided on how to make choices from among options. Moreover, there are not clear definitions of student behaviors and how to decide whether or not the behavior warrants a referral to an administrator. This is especially true of the more subjective disruptive behaviors. However, when students are referred to the Hearings Office, FCPS does provide ______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 23 continued instruction either at a regular instructional site or through its Out-of-School Support program. Lastly, even before the principal becomes involved, there is little guidance for teachers in determining when behavior should result in a discipline referral.
“There is not much time spent as a staff developing norms for behavior in order to create consistency in responding to behaviors across the school. I would not be able to describe the various supports and steps I could take to discipline students that go beyond my classroom” -FCPS Teacher
Implementation: Weak
Multiple focus groups (principals, teachers, students, parents) reported a small number of staff at many FCPS schools are biased (and sometimes openly) against some student groups, leading to inconsistent discipline for students. As described by focus group participants, these staff members may interact with students in ways that lead to confrontations and discipline referrals. Various stakeholder groups through both focus groups and open-ended survey responses also reported inconsistencies in consequences for the same behaviors. For example, all student focus groups noted that it is not always clear what the consequences are for particular actions because different teachers give different consequences for the same behaviors. Furthermore, students, in particular, noted that the same teacher might give different consequences to different students for the same behavior (which likely causes at least some of the disproportionality seen in FCPS’ discipline data).
“I have seen my peers, who are people of color, be so quickly rushed to out-of- school or in-school suspension, when I have seen my white peers do the exact same thing or worse, and get little to no punishment.” -FCPS Student
“There are a few teachers whose practices and language could be called insensitive (or even racist) and they have not been addressed by administration.” -FCPS Teacher
“I get staff reports about Black students hanging in the hallway but no one ever complains about all the White students hanging out in the band hallway.” -FCPS Principal
Safe and Secure Environment
Division Expectations: Fully Address Best Practices
Interviews and document review indicate that FCPS provides strong guidance on the use of threat assessments and the role of SROs. FCPS policy and structures include the use of a well-developed threat assessment protocol. In accordance with Virginia law, FCPS has developed threat assessment teams with the goal of preventing violence on campus by assessing behaviors and intervening with individuals who may pose a threat to themselves or others. In addition, FCPS has developed online training modules for students and parents to help reduce threats and increase safety at schools.
In the fall of 2018, FCPS revised its memorandum of understanding with the Fairfax County Police Department to explicitly address how SROs are to be utilized. The new agreement clearly states the role of the SROs are on safety, not discipline. Multiple sections of the agreement state that discipline is the sole responsibility of school staff and that SROs are only involved if student or staff safety is an issue or when there is a violation of the law. Further, it states a focus on diverting youth from the court system using school-based sanctions or educational programming whenever possible.
Implementation: Moderate
Survey, interview, and focus group data indicate moderate implementation of threat assessments and use of the SRO aligned with best practice. All FCPS schools report implementing practices to support a safe ______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 24 and secure environment by having staff trained on the threat assessment protocol. Schools are mandated by policy to have a threat assessment team and FCPS does have a process to verify the policy is followed. Furthermore, in interviews, staff said that SROs had withdrawn their involvement in discipline and were limiting their role in schools to illegal activities. During their focus group, the systems of support advisors (SOSAs) noted that the SROs served an important role as their eyes and ears notifying them of which students needed intervention. However, parent data indicate a concern about SROs and the extent to which they have completely withdrawn from involvement in discipline issues.
Data-based Continuous Improvement
Division Expectations: Minimally Address Best Practices
Interview and document reviews indicate that FCPS does not yet have an expectation or structure that allows for a systematic way to collect and examine disaggregated discipline data at the district and school levels beyond high-level metrics that are part of Goal 2 Strategic Plan reporting. Existing systems are designed around reporting to the state rather than making data accessible for use by school-based staff. Although FCPS provides and supports use of data at the high school level, there are currently no policies nor divisionwide structures that address the use of discipline data. Nor has the Division set expectations for what data is entered into existing data systems. Taken together, the lack of appropriate structures and expectations, limits the ability of staff at any level to address disproportionality or other issues related to discipline.
Implementation: Weak
Survey and focus group data provide evidence that there is not a consistent approach to the collection and use of discipline data to inform improvement efforts. Schools are not following the same procedures when entering information into SIS, with some schools entering almost everything and other schools entering only the most serious violations. Others have developed their own internal data tracking, especially in support of MTSS.
Although elementary and middle/high school principals agree that they “regularly use discipline data to improve discipline practices and better meet the needs of students” (mean = 3.8 and 3.9, respectively); there was less agreement that they had “strong data systems and collection for discipline data” (for elementary school principals, mean = 3.0 and for middle/high school principals, mean = 3.5). In focus groups, some principals noted that the student information system (SIS) was insufficient and that staff (e.g., SOSAs) had to create their own data systems to have the information they needed.
Also, there is evidence from focus groups and SIS data itself that schools are inconsistently entering discipline data into the SIS with some entering all incidents and others only entering incidents that lead to significant consequence, such as an in- or out-of-school suspension or referral to the Hearings Office. This pattern appears expecially true at the elementary level, where few violations other than the most serious are entered. Such inconsistency hinders the ability to effectively use data for improvement.
Professional Development
Division Expectations: Minimally Address Best Practices
Interview and document review provide evidence that professional development efforts are not designed to support improvement in discipline and disproportionality. Although FCPS provides many options for professional development (e.g., classroom management, Positive Behavior Intervention Supports, Responsive Classroom, Restorative Justice, Trauma-Informed Instruction, Bullying Prevention), there is little that is required related to discipline. Further, professional development tends to be haphazard rather than systematic, making it extremely challenging to address Division-level challenges related to discipline. There are two notable exceptions to this culture: For each of the past three years, FCPS has required all employees in the district, both instructional and operational, to participate in Cultural Proficiency training. ______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 25 In addition, SROs receive extensive professional development specific to their needs, including implicit bias training from the police department. Similar work remains to be done for other audiences and PD topics.
Implementation: Weak
Focus groups revealed that school-based staff felt there were significant unmet needs related to professional development across a variety of areas identified as critical to supporting student behavior (see Appendix J). Multiple focus groups (teachers, principals, students, parents, and stakeholders) described a need for professional development related to handling challenging student behavior, especially for students with emotional or behavioral issues and students with disabilities. While teachers had mixed feelings about the level of responsibility they should have in handling the social-emotional needs of students, many reported feeling ill-equipped to meet those needs. This aligned with interview data from central office personnel who indicated that there is a lack of deep understanding and knowledge of social-emotional learning across the Division. Teachers and principals also indicated varying levels of understanding of how to effectively implement positive behavior approaches. On survey items measuring how well professional development supports positive discipline and managing social-emotional needs of students, principals showed moderate agreement while teachers were more neutral (means of 3.7 and 3.5 on a five-point scale, respectively). Teacher and principal groups also noted that professional development on engaging instruction and improved classroom management could prevent behavior problems from arising in the first place.
A final area of need noted across multiple groups (principal, student, teacher, and stakeholder) was professional development that addresses equity, ensuring that students who commit the same offense receive similar consequences. Students felt teachers punished students differently based on a range of factors, such as student reputation, knowledge of siblings, and academic performance. Teacher, principal and stakeholder focus groups all felt training on implicit bias was needed because current training in cultural proficiency was not sufficient to give them concrete skills that could be applied in schools.
Stakeholder Involvement
Division Expectations: Minimally Address Best Practices
FCPS has developed regulations and procedures detailing the circumstances in which schools must communicate with parents about discipline, including annually about conduct policies and specifically when a student is involved in a serious incident. An area for growth would be for FCPS to make the SR&R more a part of regular communications, rather than just at the beginning of the school year.
Document review and interviews indicate minimal stakeholder input when discipline policy is undergoing development or revision. While some effort is made to include parents on committees at the Division and school levels, FCPS should clearly state the importance of parent involvement and require that students and staff contribute their perspective to the development of discipline policies, the review of discipline data, etc.
Implementation: Moderate
Survey and interview data provide evidence that there is moderate implementation of the practice of stakeholder involvement. Sixty-four percent of principals (118 of 150) report that communicating expectations for student behavior to the school community is a strong focus for them, yet all principals agreed that more communication with parents about discipline is needed. With no expectations and little guidance from FCPS about involving parents in schoolwide discipline policies, it is not surprising that the study found little evidence that the Division or schools routinely engage families and community members around discipline-related practices and data.
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 26 School Climate is Moderately Positive
Research tells us that positive school climate is related to better student outcomes, including increased self-esteem, decreased absenteeism, increased graduation rates, and fewer behavioral problems.19 Research also tells us that implementation of discipline structures and practices, especially those that support a positive discipline approach, can impact school climate. This section examines the school climate in FCPS schools, relying predominantly on what students, parents, and teachers reported experiencing in our schools.
Finding 17: Generally, teachers, students, and parents report moderately positive levels of school climate, with higher ratings at elementary than middle and high school.
On average, teachers, students, and parents felt that their schools are safe, relationships between staff and students and among students are positive, and they feel a sense of belonging to their schools. As shown in Figure 18, teachers reported positive feelings about belonging (mean of 4.0 on a five-point scale, representing “agree”) but were more neutral about school safety (mean of 3.3, approaching neutrality). Students reported positively about physical safety, relationships, and belonging but were neutral about peer safety. Parents were most positive about overall climate and student-student relationships, but more neutral around safety. Thus, overall, teachers, students, and parents viewed student-student relationships and belonging most highly and safety least highly.
Figure 18. Average Ratings of School Climate
Source: ORSI Parent, Student, and Teacher Survey data
19 Espelage, D. L., Polanin, J. R., & Low, S. K. (2014). Teacher and staff perceptions of school environment as predictors of student aggression, victimization, and willingness to intervene in bullying situations. School Psychology Quarterly, 29(3), 287- 305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/spq0000072; Lee, T., Cornell, D., Gregory, A., & Fan, X. (2011). High suspension schools and dropout rates for Black and White students. Education & Treatment of Children, 34(2), 167-192.; Ma, L., Phelps, E., Lerner, J. V., & Lerner, R. M. (2009). The development of academic competence among adolescents who bully and who are bullied. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30(5), 628-644.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2009.07.006; Suldo, S. M., McMahan, M. M., Chappel, A. M. & Loker, T. (2012). Relationships between perceived school climate and adolescent mental health across genders. School Mental Health, 42, 69-80. ______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 27 Figure 19 depicts a consistent pattern of higher elementary ratings when compared to middle and high school ratings across every aspect of school climate and for every type of respondent. In particular, students rated multiple aspects of school climate lower at high school than at elementary school, including belonging, teachers-student relationships, and physical safety. However, in general, parents and teachers at the elementary level rated school climate roughly the same as middle and high school parents and teachers.
Figure 19. Average Ratings of School Climate by School-Level
Elementary Middle/High Parents n=13559 n=14096 Students n=2993 n=5673 Teachers n=1355 n=3699 Source: ORSI Parent, Student, and Teacher Survey data
Finding 18: Parents of students with disabilities and those receiving accommodations reported similar perceptions of school climate as other parents.
Approximately 23 percent of all parent survey responses were provided by those who were parents of a student with disabilities and those receiving accommodations. Parents of students with disabilities and those receiving accommodations reported similar perceptions of school climates than parents of students not receiving these services (Figure 20). As with parents overall, both parents of students with disabilities and without were positive about overall climate and student-student relationships, but more neutral around safety.
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 28 Figure 20. Average Parent Ratings of School Climate for Students with and Without Disabilities and Accomodations
Source: ORSI Parent Survey data
Finding 19: Black students report less positive school climate and Asian students report more positive school climate than other groups. However, the less positive school climate reported by Black students is similar to that of students in other racial groups attending the same schools.
Figure 21 shows that Black students (red bars) reported consistently lower levels of school climate across all dimensions of climate than students in other racial/ethnic groups. In contrast, Asian students (light teal bars) reported the highest levels of school climate across all five dimensions.
Figure 21. Average Student Ratings of School Climate by Racial/Ethnic Student Group
Source: ORSI Student Survey data ______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 29 However, the less positive reports from Black students reflected overall less positive school climate reporting by all students at the schools the majority of FCPS’ Black students attend. More specifically, when we considered the demographics, the differences in perceptions of school climate by race were eliminated. In other words, Black students who attend lower-poverty and lower minority schools do not report lower levels of school climate than their non-minority peers attending the same schools. However, since many of FCPS’ Black students attend high-poverty and high-minority schools, they are in environments with lower ratings of school climate. In contrast, the higher school climate ratings from Asian students could not be explained by the schools they attend. Or stated another way, Asian students felt more positively than peers from other racial/ethnic groups regardless of the school they attend (see Appendix J for detailed information about differences in climate by student group).
School Demographics Are Better Predictors of Outcomes than School Practices or Climate
At the heart of this study was an interest in understanding the connection between the discipline-related practices used in FCPS, school climate, and student outcomes. How administrators and staff approach discipline and the climate in which students learn have the potential to improve academic, behavioral, and social-emotional outcomes. Conversely, they also have the potential to create obstacles. To understand how these three pieces are related, ORSI investigated the connection between FCPS schools’ implementation of practices, school climate, and student outcomes. In all analyses, the intent was to understand whether any best practices were associated with better student behavior so that improvements in implementation could focus on those practices.
Finding 20: School demographics were more strongly associated with student behavior and discipline consequences than any school practice or dimension of school climate.
Some of the findings discussed earlier in this report showed that differences in student perceptions of school climate were related to the demographics of a school. Therefore, when considering the relations between school practices, school climate, and discipline outcomes, it was important to also consider the role of school demographics. Analyses indicated that the demographic makeup of FCPS schools was associated with the percent of students with at least one violation and the percent of students with at least one day out- of-school suspension. These relations were stronger than those uncovered in analyses focused on linking school practices, school climate, and discipline outcomes that are described later in this section (and in greater detail in Appendix K). Moreover, any relations between school practices, school climate, and discipline outcomes became statistically insignificant once differences in school demographics were taken into consideration in the analyses. Or stated another way, discipline outcomes were associated more with differences in a school’s student membership than to school practices or school climate.
At middle and high schools, the percent of Students with Disabilities, percent free- and reduced-price meals, percent Black, percent Hispanic, and percent male were all positively associated with the percent of students with at least one violation. This means, for example, that as the proportion of Students with Disabilities increases, so does the percent of students with a discipline violation. The proportion of White students and Asian students has a negative relation with both discipline outcomes. This means that as the proportion of White or Asian students increases, the percent of students with a discipline violation or out- of-school suspension decreases. At the elementary level, the percentages of Students with Disabilities and of Black students at a school are positively associated with the percent of students with an out-of-school suspension, while the percent Asian and percent of Advanced Academic Placement students are negatively related. These analyses should not be interpreted to mean that school demographics are causing the differences in student behavior or consequences.
Relation of School Practices to Student Behavior (Discipline Violations)
Finding 21: Of all the principal, teacher, and student reports on practices schools implement, only middle and high school principals’ tougher stance on consequences was associated with student behavior (tougher the stance, the fewer discipline referrals).
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 30 Analyses of the survey data in relation to the percent of students with a discipline violation indicated that principals’ implementation of tougher consequences in response to problem behaviors could be consistently tied to discipline. At the middle/high school level, a decrease in the percent of students with a violation as well as the percent of students with at least one day of exclusionary consequences were found to be linked to principals’ reporting that they implement increasingly tougher consequences as a deterrent or solution to discipline problems (β =.492, p<.01). Conversely, those that chose not to implement tougher consequences as a deterrent saw greater discipline referrals. A principal’s implementation of consequences as a deterrent explained approximately one-fifth of differences in the percent of students with a violation.
Relation of School Practices to Discipline Consequences
Finding 22: Middle and high schools that implemented greater support for academic learning issued fewer suspensions (both in- and out-of-school).
Analyses of the middle and high school survey data in relation to the percent of students with at least one suspension indicated that support for academic learning could be tied to discipline consequences. At the middle and high school level, a reduction in the percent of students with at least one suspension was found to be linked to teachers’ perceptions of support for academic learning (β =-.375, p<.01). Support for learning explained approximately one-sixth of differences in the percent of students with an out-of-school suspension.
Relation of School Practices to Disproportionality
Finding 23: Practices implemented by FCPS schools had a small association with FCPS’ racial and ethnic disproportionality for the Hispanic and White student groups and no relation with the disproportionality for the Black and Asian student groups.20
Analyses of the survey data indicated that two best practices schools might implement could be tied to disproportionality. Improvements in Hispanic overrepresentation and White underrepresentation were both found to be linked to schools’ implementation of social-emotional learning (β=-.458, p<.01 and β=.375, p<.01, respectively). Further, improvements in White underrepresentation were also linked to students’ perceptions that staff treated students equitably and fairly (β=.315, p<.05). In both cases, these practices explained approximately one-quarter of differences in the amount of disproportionality across FCPS middle and high schools. Interestingly, neither Asian underrepresentation nor Black overrepresentation could be tied to school implementation of practices, meaning the disproportionality patterns for these two ethnic student groups are unrelated to what schools implemented or at least those practices measured in this study.
Finding 24: School practices associated with disproportionality for other student groups was less consistent and, generally, explained less about disproportionality.
Linkages between implementation of school practices and disproportionality of the other student groups included in the study (English Learners, free- and reduced-price meal students, males, and Students with Disabilities) yielded more mixed results. Similar to the findings for disproportionality of Hispanic students, overrepresentation of English Learners in comparison to non-English learners was less pronounced in schools implementing social-emotional learning at higher levels (β =-.367, p<.05). However, this relation explained a smaller amount (14 percent) of the differences in the amount of disproportionality across FCPS middle and high schools than that found with the racial/ethnic student groups. In contrast, principals’ greater focus on creating an inclusive environment (β =.426, p<.0), as well as implementation of greater supports for academic learning (β=.444, p<.01) were both related to increased disproportionality among males, an unwanted direction for change. No school practices were associated with disproportionality of the Students
20 Disproportionality analyses were only conducted with middle and high school data because the small number of violations in most elementary schools precluded computation of valid disproportionality statistics. ______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 31 with Disabilities or the free- or reduced-price meals student groups, indicating that the overrepresentation of these groups could not be explained by the practices measured for this study.
Relation of School Practices to School Climate
Finding 25: Students’ positive perceptions of climate are most strongly tied to fair and equitable school practices, while teacher perceptions are most strongly tied to a focus on staff providing curriculum supports and consistency.
Literature clearly describes that staff actions at schools impact school climate and that a positive school climate is related to better outcomes for students. ORSI sought to understand the relation between school practices implemented and school climate developed. Analyses indicated that two main relations exist between school practices and climate.
First, students’ perceptions of climate could be traced back to their perceptions of how the school handled equity. For students, implementation of practices that support equity and fairness were those that had the greatest association with student perceptions of belonging (ρ=.9 elementary and .7 middle/high) and perceptions of strong relationships with peers (ρ=.9 elementary and .6 middle/high) and teachers (ρ=.9 elementary and .5 middle/high).
Second, for teachers, their perception of a positive climate was most strongly related to school practices of a focus on supports for learning and consistency. Teachers reported greater safety in environments that focus on academic supports for learning (ρ=.7 elementary and .5 middle/high), support for social emotional learning (ρ=.5 elementary and .5 middle/high), and consistency in application of discipline rules (ρ=.7 elementary and .7 middle/high). Teachers reported higher perceptions of belonging in the presence of those same characteristics in addition to strong school leadership (ρ=.8 elementary and .6 middle/high) and professional development (ρ =.7 elementary and .6 middle/high). For students, their perceptions of schools implementing supports for academic learning was also positively associated with their perceptions of belonging (ρ=.9 elementary and .6 middle/high) and positive relationships with peers (ρ =.9 elementary and .7 middle/high).
Summary of Findings As stated at the beginning of this report, research indicates that school divisions need a coherent approach to develop and implement student discipline policies and practices that keep students safe and secure, create a positive and supportive school climate, and are fair and equitable to all students. Based on this study’s findings, FCPS has not established division expectations nor implemented school practices that should maximize positive discipline outcomes. FCPS has yet to set clear and consistent expectations for all key players involved in the discipline process and in all areas research considers critical for reducing violations and disproportionality. FCPS schools express challenges consistently implementing regulations, practices, and programs that would support better discipline outcomes. School climate, although moderately positive, is not perceived similarly across all stakeholders.
These limitations in division expectations, school practices, and climate are associated with unequal discipline rates and impacts across schools and student groups. While FCPS continues to have relatively low rates of discipline-involvement when compared to the state, over the last six to seven school years violations and exclusionary practices have trended upward, and no progress has been made on reducing disproportionality. Not only are students in some schools more likely to be involved in discipline than in other schools, but some groups of students are also more likely to be involved in discipline than other groups of students. FCPS’ discipline data indicate that Black students, Students with Disabilities, males, and economically disadvantaged students are three or more times as likely to be discipline-involved as other students, and that Hispanic and English learner students are approximately two times as likely. Data also clearly show that disproportionality is occurring when students are referred by staff rather than when principals assign consequences. These patterns of disproportionality are true both historically and for the
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 32 current school year. Students are referred disproportionately by staff at all school levels and for all violation types. Also, disproportionality increases as violation types (weapons, drugs and alcohol, assaults, disruptive behaviors, other violations) become more subjective. Lastly, the discipline rates for Black students and Students with Disabilities were not impacted by practices implemented or by the climate in their schools. In fact, demographics of schools was the best predictor of discipline-involvement, surpassing the influence of school practices or climate.
In contrast to the disproportionality in referrals for violations, administrators generally assign exclusionary consequences consistently (i.e., with little to no disproportionality) across student groups within a specific violation type. Taken together (disproportionality in referrals for violations, but no disproportionality in consequences), these two pieces of information suggest that disproportionality in discipline most often occurs at the teacher-level. This evidence supports the fact that staff are concerned that there is a lack of clarity of expectations and accountability for equitable treatment of students and a lack of open dialogue around race.
Furthermore, the study confirmed that negative impacts for students involved in discipline found in other research are mirrored in the poorer outcomes among FCPS’ discipline-involved students. This also means that overrepresented student groups are exposed to greater negative impacts due to discipline involvement than students from other groups. In particular, the comparison of a matched sample of discipline- and non- discipline-involved students shows meaningfully lower SOL reading and mathematics pass rates, which may explain one to three percentage points of the achievement gaps for the Black and Hispanic student groups.
Conclusions
Strengths FCPS’ discipline referrals are relatively low in comparison to the state. Even though FCPS’ discipline violations are trending upward, the Division continues to demonstrate relatively low levels of discipline- involved students when compared to the rest of Virginia. In fact, as calculated by the state, FCPS’ rate of discipline-involvement by students is less than half that of the state as a whole.
FCPS is moving toward a multi-tiered system of supports that unifies academics, behavior, and wellness. It is important for FCPS to fully implement MTSS across all schools to provide the supports that many students need. Teachers reported great concerns about their own and colleagues’ capacity to handle the many behavior-related needs of five to ten percent of FCPS’ students. Coupled with the growing trends of increased behavior issues at the elementary and middle school levels, these findings require FCPS to integrate academic, behavior, and wellness supports to promote appropriate school behavior by students.
FCPS administrators generally assign exclusionary consequences equitably (i.e., with little to no disproportionality) across student groups within a specific violation type. Once students are referred to a principal for discipline, principals are consistent in their application of exclusionary consequences across student groups. For students, this means that principals are not exposing students from different student groups to increased likelihood of experiencing the negative impacts that typically accompany exclusion from instruction, such as failing the SOLs, lower grades (GPA), and recidivism.
FCPS follows best practices that support safe and secure environments. Both FCPS’ use of threat assessments and defined role of SROs is in keeping with what experts recommend. Additionally, in both cases, FCPS has structures in place to ensure training and accountability in both areas. While FCPS continues to work on improvements, especially in the recently adopted memorandum of understanding around the SROs, it has a very solid foundation that is in keeping with what should be done.
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 33 Challenges Division Expectations
FCPS’ vision of student discipline is not defined sufficiently for school-based staff to understand what it is or use it in guiding their actions in relation to student behavior. Principals referred to the SR&R, which is largely focused on minimal expectations for behavior and the administration of consequences for violations, as FCPS’ vision. Teachers generally were unsure and discussed a push to keep students in instruction. Neither principals nor teachers forwarded positive behavior, restorative practices, or opportunities to support student learning as part of FCPS’ vision.
The SR&R conveys little of FCPS’ desire to create positive school climates or use discipline as an opportunity for learning. Identified by principals as FCPS’ primary means of communication regarding student behavior, the SR&R is focused on punitive consequences, lacking communication on positive behavior approaches or discipline as an opportunity for learning and growth for students. In essence, the SR&R establishes minimum expectations for behavior, rather than laying out high expectations of positive behavior. In having this document pay only minimal attention to positive behavior approaches, the document is out of sync with much of the training and programming provided to schools. Parents whose children were discipline-involved reflected this lack of alignment when they expressed that the discipline process was focused on punishing rather than supporting behavior change in their child. The lack of alignment also forces school-based staff to make their own connections between positive behavior approaches and the regulation they must follow or treat the two areas as separate, rather than interconnected, systems.
FCPS provides limited guidance to support principals and teachers in identifying behaviors that should be referred and in applying consistent and appropriate responses to misbehavior. The SR&R, which is the primary document guiding principal, teacher, and family understanding of behavior expectations focuses primarily on punitive actions in response to behavior. There is little that helps staff distinguish between behaviors that should be acceptable or handled in the classroom versus those that should result in a discipline referral. Neither has guidance been differentiated for different developmental levels or interwoven with FCPS’ developing tiered approach to intervention/prevention. This has left many teachers confused about where to focus and how to respond to student behaviors. While some programs in some schools support a more consistent and better understanding, for schools that are not participating in these more extensive intervention/prevention programs, teachers are left to figure much of it out themselves.
School Practices
Staff (often teacher) interpretations of student behavior drive disproportionality in discipline referrals. Differences in disproportionality ratings between referrals and exclusionary consequences clearly indicate that most of the disproportionality FCPS sees is coming from the initial referral, rather than from the consequence applied for the violation. Further, the increasing disproportionality among student groups when looking at more subjective types of violations (i.e., disruptive behaviors) also indicates that disproportionality is due, at least somewhat, to interpretations staff place on observed student behaviors.
At the heart of these referrals may be the relationship between students and staff members. However, the Division has not established strong student-teacher relationships as a means of intervention and prevention. Focus group data indicate that some teachers leverage their relationships with students to understand what challenges students may be encountering and how these challenges manifest in behavior. Also, principals indicated a strong focus on building positive relationships between staff and students as a part of high-quality Tier 1 instruction. However, while teachers in focus groups highlighted the importance of these relationships in understanding students and their behaviors, they also pointed out the difficulty of doing this (including receiving sufficient information to know what is happening with a student due to family and student privacy issues) and that many teachers have difficulty making this a part of their regular
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 34 practice. This difficulty is reflected in the relatively low ratings of student-teacher relationships given by both students and teachers on the climate surveys administered for this study. If this is central to FCPS’ approach to positive discipline, it should be reflected as a strategy in FCPS’ multi-tiered system of support.
School-based staff feel unprepared to provide prevention and intervention supports that many FCPS students need, such as social-emotional learning, trauma-informed instruction, and support for de- escalating situations. Right now, FCPS is looking at pockets of progress in the implementation of social emotional learning (SEL) where schools are participating in SEL programming. Trauma-informed instruction and de-escalation strategies are even more inconsistent among general education teachers.
Perhaps related to inconsistent prevention and intervention training, buy-in for a positive behavior approach is mixed among FCPS staff. Much of the survey data indicates only mild support for positive behavior approaches. Many teachers cited concerns that the approaches used were not tough enough or were highly ineffective. These findings all threaten FCPS’ ability to implement effective positive behavior approaches aligned with recommended best practices.
Discipline Decisions and Disproportionality
A consistent pattern of evidence across multiple stakeholders and data collection types indicates that FCPS lacks openness to dialogue around race. Principals, staff, students, and parents all indicated that race factors into many discipline decisions. Many described one or more individuals in the school who everyone knows is explicitly biased but no one confronts. Students described established patterns of Black or Hispanic students receiving discipline referrals for gathering in the hallway while White or Asian students did not. Some staff gave biased responses to or demonstrated great discomfort with responding to a question of why disproportionality exists in FCPS. This all exists within an environment where FCPS has been engaged in a three-year course of professional development for all staff around cultural responsiveness. However, the focus of that training has been around expanding staff’s awareness around cultural perspectives and differences, rather than around supporting how to confront racial inequities.
Some discipline-related findings cannot be explained by the evidence. This study was unable to uncover linkages of Black overrepresentation, Asian underrepresentation, or Students with Disabilities overrepresentation with either school implementation of practices or school climate. Furthermore, the demographics of student membership in schools was a better explainer of the number of violations, suspensions, or disproportionality than anything FCPS schools were doing (implementation) or the climate at schools. This leaves open the possibility that these results are either driven by things not measured quantitatively for the study (e.g., implicit bias) or that the measures used here to represent implementation and climate did not do a good job in capturing the information. Either possibility mean theory and expert opinion coupled with input from impacted stakeholders are the best guidance to support FCPS’ continued exploration of potential solutions to challenges in these areas.
Disproportionality in discipline also threatens FCPS’ chances of meeting its Student Success goal to eliminate gaps because involvement in discipline, especially in exclusionary consequences was linked to the achievement gap. Parents reported inconsistent support for discipline-involved when transtioning back to regular instructure following exclusionary discipline. Fourteen percent of all Black students are referred for discipline violations with approximately one-third of them receiving exclusionary discipline. Eleven percent of all Hispanic students are referred with approximately one-fifth receiving exclusionary discipline. This equates to approximately four percent of all Black students and two percent of all Hispanic students receiving exclusionary discipline each year. Removing these students from instruction when they may be most in need of raising their achievement through instruction and academic interventions is counterproductive to closing achievement gaps.
Division Infrastructure
FCPS has not developed a consistent approach to collecting all discipline information to support a multi-tiered system of support and allow for consistent monitoring across the school division. Focus group ______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 35 and interview data indicate that as staff begin implementing MTSS, they have found a need to track the preventions in place and interventions used with students. The existing SIS information system serves to collect violation and consequence information but does not meet the needs of schools monitoring the effectiveness of interventions. An unintended consequence has been that schools maintain separate databases to track violations, consequences, and interventions and it is unclear the extent to which SIS has truly captured all violations across all schools. Furthermore, evidence in this study indicates that schools vary considerably in what they enter into SIS. Without intentional guidance regarding a consistent approach, the utility of SIS data may be limited when comparing across schools, regions, and the Division, keeping the Division and schools from being able to take an objective look at discipline data and make improvements for students.
FCPS also lacks accountability for equitable treatment of students or reducing disproportionality. As noted throughout this report, discipline involvement of students is unequal across the Division and within schools. Not only are students in some schools more likely to be involved in discipline than in other schools, but some groups of students are also more likely to be involved in discipline than other groups of students. FCPS’ Black and Hispanic students, Students with Disabilities, Economically Disadvantaged students, English Learners, and males are all disproportionately referred for their behavior. These patterns of disproportionality are not only true both historically and for the current school year, but students are referred disproportionately at all school levels and for all violation types. Perhaps most troubling is the finding that implementation of best practices by schools and more positive school climate were unrelated to disproportionality of Black students and Students with Disabilities. Understanding and addressing these issues, with staff being accountable for ensuring they are resolved, are critical to the Division in achieving its Caring Culture outcome of a welcoming environment.
FCPS has not established a means for consistent stakeholder involvement in discipline. To-date the majority of stakeholder involvement has been after a behavior incident. Schools make attempts to notify families about the incident and give information about the discipline process as it pertains to the situation. Generally, the evidence gathered in this study indicated that parents do not see these processes as fair to their child or family. Separately, the FCPS School Board has on occasion convened a stakeholder work group to address discipline. However, FCPS has no ongoing, systematic means for stakeholders to have a voice in reviewing data, crafting FCPS’ discipline approach, or being involved in more preventative aspects of student discipline. The current approaches to stakeholder involvement seem to limit the potential benefits to a collaborative relationship between school, home, and the community in setting and supporting a common vision of student discipline. Furthermore, the evidence from parents in this study indicate they are seen as outsiders to, rather than partners with, schools in supporting positive behaviors by students.
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 36 Recommendations Based on the findings and conclusions of this study, the following recommendations are offered to the Superintendent and chief equity officer. The recommendations are organized around four areas: Division Expectations, School Practices, Professional Development, and Division Infrastructure.
Division Expectations 1. Identify a clear vision for FCPS’ discipline approach that reflects the importance of equity, positive school climate, social emotional learning, and using misbehavior as an opportunity for student learning.
2. Revise SR&R to:
a. Reflect this broader, more positively-focused view of discipline b. Tie the philosophy of consequences to a positive behavior approach (will also require professional development for staff to understand the linkages) c. Ensure that SR&R’s continuum of consequences reflects clear consequences that are appropriate for different ages and abilities 3. Provide guidance on which behaviors teachers should manage and which should be referred to administrators for consequences
4. Adopt a social emotional learning framework or curriculum for all schools to implement.
School Practices 5. Fully implement MTSS in all FCPS schools.
6. Require inclusion of a school improvement goal for discipline when schools are identified as having many referrals or disproportionality in referrals.
7. Reconsider current FCPS practices for sharing of information among school staff to better understand and serve students.
Professional Development 8. Enhance cultural responsiveness training to teach staff to confront implicit and explicit biases in their own and other staff’s thinking and actions.
9. Develop and implement training for school-based staff and bus drivers on establishing strong and supportive relationships with students and placing behaviors within an understanding of the student, especially when handling more subjective behaviors, such as disruptive behaviors.
10. Provide training for all school-based staff on how to de-escalate behavior situations with students, especially among Students with Disabilities.
11. Provide professional development for all school-based staff on how to provide trauma-informed instruction and best support students who have experienced trauma.
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 37 Division Infrastructure 12. Systematize recording of discipline-related data across schools, incorporating school-based needs for tracking tiered interventions.
13. Expand the Caring Culture Goal 2 metrics, to include all student groups (i.e., racial/ethnic groups plus Students with Disabilities, Economically Disadvantaged, English Learner, and Gender).
14. Develop an annual monitoring report on discipline disproportionality to track progress on student outcomes and bias.
15. Ensure all schools have an advisory council of staff, parent, community, and (when feasible) student representation to support interpreting and responding to school-level discipline and climate data.
16. Develop a participatory approach for involving students, parents, and community members in the interpretation and response to divisionwide discipline data (especially in relation to Black and Students with Disabilities disproportionality).
Note: ORSI typically invites staff to respond to recommendations presented in study reports so that the level of understanding of, agreement with, and commitment to proposed next steps is articulated by program staff who could implement improvements. For this study, FCPS’ Equity Plan for Discipline Policy and Practices, developed by the Chief Equity Officer, will serve as the staff response.
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 38 APPENDIX A
STUDY DESIGN
DISCIPLINE STUDY I. GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION Project Title: FCPS Study of Student Behavior, Discipline, and Disproportionality Projected Start Date: July 2018 Projected Completion: June 2019 Expected Deliverables: Phase 1 Report delivered by October 2018 Phase 2 Design delivered by January 2019 (rescheduled to February) Phase 3 Report delivered by June 2019 ORSI Evaluator(s): Chantal Follett, specialist; Janine Lacina, specialist; Alisa Pappas, specialist; Eva Corcoran, specialist Study Team Members Francisco Duran, Chief Equity Officer Teresa Johnson, Assistant Superintendent, Department of Special Services Mary Ann Panarelli, Director, Prevention Services, Department of Special Services Jill Hahn, Special Projects Administrator, Department of Special Services Stefan Mascoll, Coordinator, Student Safety and Wellness, Department of Special Services Dana Scanlan, Administrative Hearing Officer, Deputy Superintendent John Jacobs, Specialist, Equity and Cultural Responsiveness, Chief Equity Office Larry Bussey, Instructional Services Department Dan Phillips, Principal, Providence Elementary School Elizabeth Obester, Assistant Principal, Mountain View Alternative High School Rohini Tohan, Assistant Principal, Luther Jackson Middle School Marsha Manning, Principal, South County Middle School Anthony Terrell, Principal, Mount Vernon High School Jamie Lane, Principal, Oakton High School Lidi Hruda, Director, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement Michelle Ferrer, Manager, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement Source of Study Request: School Board (Budget Amendment, May 24, 2018) Background/History: In May 2018, the School Board passed an amendment that: (1) eliminated a requested assistant hearing officer position and held the funds for another use; (2) directed the Superintendent to conduct a study to better understand trends in discipline and disproportionality, and make recommendations for how best to spend the held funds; (3) directed staff to design and implement an in-depth study of discipline and disproportionality. To address the School Board amendment, ORSI designed a three-phase study. Phase 1 (completed in November 2018) resulted in a report on trends and disproportionality in discipline data and Hearings Office staffing needs to support the Superintendent’s decision making about recommendations to the School Board. Phase 2 (presented to the School Board in February) provided the design for the Phase 3 study that is the focus of this report. Purpose of Study: For Phase 3, ORSI implemented the study design presented for comment to the School Board in February 2019. The design was informed by the original request, initial discipline analyses, and additional needs expressed by the School Board following the presentation of the Phase 1 report. This report provides the School Board with information about: (1) the extent to which FCPS practices are aligned to best practices for establishing a positive discipline climate, reducing discipline Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 A-2
violations, negative outcomes for students, and disproportionality; (2) level of implementation of practices; (3) effectiveness of practices; and (4) recommendations for improving FCPS’ discipline practices and reducing disproportionality. This report, along with two independent reviews by external experts in school climate and disproportionality, are intended to inform the design of the FCPS Equity Plan for Discipline Policy and Practices.
II. STUDY DESIGN
Study Questions Data Source Data Collection Method Data Collection Data Analysis Reporti Time Line ng Time Line Phase III: Implement Plan for Studying FCPS Discipline Practices 1. How well do FCPS policies Research articles on Literature Review December 2018 – Analysis of FCPS June and structures reflect fostering positive school February 2019 practices to assess 2019 research-based practices for climate, supporting student alignment with creating a supportive discipline behavior, reducing identified best climate that promotes positive disproportionality in practices student behavior and reduces discipline disproportionality? FCPS’ policies and Document review regulations, ACLU documents, MSAOC reports Central staff (DSS, Interviews about climate OPLFE, Safety & Security, and discipline practices Hearings Office) School-based Surveys/focus groups administrators
Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 A-3
Study Questions Data Source Data Collection Method Data Collection Data Analysis Reporti Time Line ng Time Line 2. To what extent does FCPS Central staff (DSS, Interviews about school December 2018 – Content analysis June implement practices to create OPLFE, Safety & Security, climate and discipline March 2019 of qualitative data 2019 a supportive discipline climate Hearings Office) practices that promotes positive student Descriptive and behavior and reduces inferential statistics disproportionality? of survey data (comparing school levels, student groups, etc.)
School-based staff Surveys/focus groups (principals, teachers, about school climate and SOSAs) discipline practices
Monitoring information on Document review school climate and discipline (if any)
Students, Parents Surveys/focus groups/interviews about school climate and discipline practices
Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 A-4
Study Questions Data Source Data Collection Method Data Collection Data Analysis Reporti Time Line ng Time Line MSAOC, Equity Focus groups about Stakeholder Group school climate and discipline practices 3. What results are we seeing Discipline data, GPA, Data request to DDCT January – Descriptive statistics June (e.g., rates of violations by attendance, and February 2019 and inferential 2019 type, consequences, and Standards of Learning statistics to outcomes for different student (SOL) determine groups)? differences among patterns of discipline outcomes
See additional analyses listed below
4. What is the relation between Discipline data No additional data NA Inferential analyses June what FCPS does and the collection beyond what to determine links 2019 results it sees (questions 2 Survey data was collected for between school and 3)? questions 2 and 3 climate, student characteristics, Which practices promote and discipline violations, which limit the success of consequences, and FCPS’ student behavior student outcomes approach?
Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 A-5
Analysis Data Source Data Collection Method Data Collection Data Analysis Reporting Time Line Time Line Additional Analyses Under RQ3 Distribution of discipline violations Student discipline records VDOE discipline report February 2019 Descriptive statistics June 2019 by month data and graphs
Provide data on student outcomes Student discipline records Hearings Office data February 2019 Descriptive statistics June 2019 based on School Board and request and graphs Hearings Office decisions for SY 2017-18 Number and percent of students Student discipline records Hearings Office data February 2019 Descriptive statistics June 2019 who are removed from their request and graphs schools and assigned to alternate placement
Disorderly conduct data over last Fairfax County Police Data request to the February 2019 Descriptive statistics June 2019 three years (based on police records Fairfax County Police and graphs reports) Any ”red flags” that exist to predict Student discipline records, Data request to DIT February 2019 Inferential analyses June 2019 students who may be in need of attendance, progress to determine Tier 3 behavior intervention reports (elementary only) predictors of discipline violations (controlling for school climate)
Effect of changes to the Hearings Student discipline records Hearings Office data TBD (approximately six Descriptive statistics, TBD Office: a) Managing hearing request months after hourly staff graphs, and (approximately officer caseload; b) Maintaining are hired) content analysis one year after hourly staff are timeliness of decision process; and Hearings Office and Interviews with hearing hired) c) Meeting principal needs? central office staff officer and central office staff NOTE: Question on hold until the hourly position has been staffed Principals Interview with principal for sufficient time to judge its effect association presidents (anticipated Fall 2019).
Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 A-6
APPENDIX B
LITERATURE REVIEW
Appendix Overview
This literature review serves as an extension of the review provided in Phase I of the Discipline Study to now include research related to disproportionality in discipline. While the initial literature review identified several policies and practices that have the potential to reduce overall rates of suspension and expulsion, this review seeks to dig deeper into what it takes to close disparities in discipline outcomes for students of different races and ethnicities as well as other student groups, such as students with disabilities.
Background While there has long been widespread agreement that schools should be safe, nurturing spaces that create an optimal environment for learning, beliefs about how to do this and what to do when that safety is violated have shifted over time. The “zero tolerance” policies popular in the 1990s sought to take a strong stance against school violence by mandating severe consequences for certain behaviors. The Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994 made it federal policy that a student in possession of a firearm on school grounds gets a one- year expulsion. This led to many states and districts expanding what offenses should have mandated consequences to include offenses such as drug use and distribution, assault, and gang-related activity (Skiba & Knesting, 2001).
Zero tolerance policies were built on several assumptions, including beliefs that: such policies would deter negative behaviors, thereby improving discipline overall; removing students who violate discipline policies would result in a positive learning environment for other students; and mandated consequences provided a clear message about what was expected and enforced (APA Zero Tolerance Task Force, 2006). Examining these and other assumptions, the American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force found all to be misguided. Not only did they find that students who were suspended in elementary or middle school were more likely to have future discipline issues, but there was no evidence zero tolerance policies resulted in more consistent discipline practices across schools (APA Zero Tolerance Task Force, 2006). Additionally, schools with higher suspension rates had leadership who was less focused on school climate and student achievement suffered. The findings of the APA Zero Tolerance Task force (2006) were corroborated by a 2015 report by the National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE). NASBE found that punitive discipline measures resulted in poorer school climate, poorer academic achievement, higher dropout rates, and little, if any, deterrence to bad behavior. Punitive measures in schools were associated with more contact with the juvenile justice system (Colombi & Osher, 2015).
One effect of the adoption of zero tolerance policies was an increase in exclusionary discipline practices. The National Clearinghouse on Supportive School Discipline defines exclusionary discipline as “any type of school disciplinary action that removes or excludes a student from his or her usual educational setting. Two of the most common exclusionary discipline practices at schools include suspension and expulsion” (2014). Data indicate that there were significant increases in suspensions nationwide after the adoption of zero tolerance policies, from approximately 1.7 million in 1974 to 3.3 million in 2006. Those numbers represent a jump from 3.7 percent of students to 6.8 percent of students. While the number of suspensions increased, those for serious offenses remained steady, indicating that more students were being punished for minor infractions (Colombi & Osher, 2015).
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 B-1
Of even greater concern is that increases in exclusionary discipline disproportionally affected some students. For example, boys make up 51 percent of the national student population, but account for 70 percent of the suspensions (Skiba, et al., 2014). Students with disabilities, especially those with emotional needs, are twice as likely to be suspended as other students (Steinberg & Lacoe, 2017) (Welsh & Little, 2018) (Fabelo, et al., 2011). Students living in poverty or those who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer are also more likely to receive exclusionary discipline than other students (Skiba, et al., 2014) (Welsh & Little, 2018). However, as one researcher stated, “race trumps other student characteristics in explaining discipline disparities” (Welsh & Little, 2018, p. p. 757). While results for Hispanic students have been mixed, research has consistently found that Black students are more likely to be referred to the office for subjective offenses (such as disrespect, disruption, and defiance), more likely to receive harsher punishment for minor offenses, and two to three times more likely to be suspended than other students. This holds true even when accounting for other factors, such as socio-economic status, gender, special education status, and English language proficiency. (Barrett, McEachin, Mills, & Valant, 2017) (Skiba, et al., 2014) (Skiba, et al., 2011) (Steinberg & Lacoe, 2017) (Welsh & Little, 2018) (Gregory, Huang, Anyon, Greer, & Downing, 2018) (Losen & Skiba, 2010). Evidence of disproportionality in discipline by race and ethnicity led the U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) and Department of Justice in 2014 to issue a joint letter to schools naming the issue and offering guidance on how to identify and avoid discriminatory discipline practices. (U.S Department of Justice & U.S. Department of Education, 2014).1
The impact of disproportionality in exclusionary discipline is significant. Students who are removed from instruction are less likely to be academically engaged, which can lead truancy issues and chronic absenteeism (Skiba, Arredondo, & Rausch, 2014) (Morgan, Salomon, & Cohen, 2014) Multiple suspensions increase the likelihood of a student being held back or dropping out before graduation (Morgan, Salomon, & Cohen, 2014) (Fabelo, et al., 2011). Further, students who are suspended are more likely to have contact with the juvenile justice system ( (Skiba, Arredondo, & Rausch, 2014) (Morgan, Salomon, & Cohen, 2014) (Fabelo, et al., 2011). Looking at the achievement gap through the lens of discipline suggests that schools cannot increase subgroup achievement without addressing discipline disparities.
There are several theories about what factors may contribute to disparate discipline outcomes, but research is just beginning to examine in depth potential root causes. In 2014, Skiba et al. noted that discipline consequences are determined by a mix of infractions, student characteristics, and school characteristics. Predictably, research has found that students get more severe consequences, such as out-of-school suspensions, when the infraction is more egregious, such as fighting (Skiba, et al., 2014). However, there are far more instances in schools of minor misbehavior, such as defiance or disruption, and there is inequality in who gets referred to the office for those offenses, who gets suspended, and the length of the suspension (Skiba, et al., 2011) (Barrett, McEachin, Mills, & Valant, 2017) (Anderson & Ritter, 2017). Although student characteristics (specifically being male, poor, or Black) increase the likelihood of receiving an out-of-school suspension, school-level factors are, in fact, better predictors of suspensions than behavioral or individual factors. Among the school-level factors that impact discipline outcomes are the percentage of Black students enrolled at a school, schoolwide achievement, and the principal’s perspective on discipline (with suspension rates decreasing if the principal favors preventative measures over punitive ones) (Skiba, et al., 2014) (Steinberg & Lacoe, 2017). This research suggests that to reduce disproportionality in discipline, multiple levels of intervention should be considered, not just interventions at the student level.
Seeking to reduce the negative impact of zero tolerance policies, educators and policymakers in the past 10 years have incorporated research that includes a proactive approach to discipline. There is a growing body of evidence centered around policies, structures, and programs that reduce exclusionary practices overall. More recently, an emerging body of theory and empirical research about what works to reduce
1 In December 2018, this guidance and associated resources were removed from the USDOE website. As noted by the Learning Policy Institute (LPI), the rescission was not due to evidence determining the guidance to be harmful or ineffective for schools. The LPI report notes many examples of states and districts applying the guidance and seeing reductions in exclusionary discipline and cites the considerable research base behind the (Cardichon & Darling-Hammond, 2019). ______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 B-2
disproportionality in discipline has come to the fore. Below is a summary of literature on best practices to reduce exclusionary discipline, promote a positive school discipline climate, and close the persistent gaps in discipline outcomes for different groups of students.
What does literature suggest is best practice to reduce suspensions and expulsions overall and for subgroups of students? Summary There is increasing research available examining alternatives to exclusionary discipline. While the impact on disproportionality is not yet fully examined, there is broad consensus that schools can reduce out-of- school suspensions and expulsions through a variety of approaches. These are grouped into seven categories:
• Positive Behavior Approach which includes maintaining high expectations for student behavior, approaching discipline instructionally by explicitly teaching expected behaviors and using infractions as opportunities to reteach and help students develop needed skills, including restorative practices, and purposefully creating a positive school climate. • Tiered Prevention and Intervention Supports which include use of prevention strategies and tired support systems, inclusion of social-emotional learning, and providing multi-departmental wrap-around services for students in need. • Clear and Appropriate Consequences including intentionally avoiding exclusion except for the most serious infractions with continued instruction provided during removal, ensuring consequences are proportional and developmentally appropriate, and guaranteeing due process for all students, including students with disabilities. • Safe and Secure Environment which consists of using a threat assessment protocol and written agreements to be clear SROs are focused on safety, not discipline, as well as a commitment to reduce law enforcement referrals. • Data-Based Continuous Improvement which is the regular collection and use of disaggregated data to assess and address any discipline issues, including disproportionality. • Professional Development for all staff on methods to engage students and promote positive behavior, strategies for dealing with challenging behaviors, cultural competency, and implicit bias as well as specific training for SROs. • Stakeholder Input which includes involving all stakeholders in development of discipline policies as well as communicating regularly with families about discipline expectations and specifically when there is an incident. Positive Behavior Approach With the shift away from zero tolerance policies has come an emphasis on taking a more positive approach to addressing student behavior. This includes maintaining high expectations for behavior, approaching discipline as an opportunity for growth, using restorative practices, and promoting a positive school climate, with strong relationships among staff, students, and parents.
Schools should set high expectations for behavior and clearly define appropriate behavior to ensure students, staff, and families understand the expectations (APA Zero Tolerance Task Force, 2006) (Morgan, Salomon, & Cohen, 2014) (The Education Trust, 2018). Research has found that schools in which teachers and administrators set high academic and behavioral expectations, especially for minority students, tend to have lower disproportionality in discipline (Nishioka, Fitch, & Stepanek, 2012).
The USDOE’s Guiding Principles state that, “schools should adopt an instructional approach to discipline that uses interventions or disciplinary consequences to reteach behavioral expectations and help students develop new behavior skills and positive strategies to avoid conflict, re-direct energy, and re-focus on
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 B-3
learning” (U.S. Department of Education, 2014, p. 12). Other researchers describe this as “behavior is approached from a nonpunitive mind-set, and instruction proactively strengthens student social skills, while providing structured opportunities for behavioral correction within the classroom as necessary” (Gregory, Skiba, & Mediratta, 2017). Additionally, the Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports Guide to Address Discipline Disproportionality includes a key element on adopting a behavior program that has an instructional focus and intentionally teaching expected positive behaviors (Green, et al., 2015). Revising policies to offer students an opportunity to learn from their mistakes is one significant step towards reducing exclusionary discipline practices.
Another commonly cited structure for approaching behavior positively is restorative practices (which include the more specific approach of restorative justice.) While tiered support systems focus on preventing misbehavior and identifying students early, restorative practices focus on repairing damage and healing after an incident has occurred. Some of the practices include restorative circles, community conferencing, mediation, and youth court. All seek to have the offending student understand the impact of their behavior on others, recognize the harm done, and make amends (Colombi & Osher, 2015) (Morgan, Salomon, & Cohen, 2014). While further study is needed, there have been findings that associate restorative practices with lower suspension rates (Skiba, Arredondo, & Rausch, 2014) (Nishioka, Fitch, & Stepanek, 2012) (APA Zero Tolerance Task Force, 2006). Studies of the impact of restorative practices and restorative justice on disproportionality have shown mixed results; some researchers finding schools who implemented restorative practices closed part of the White/Asian and Black/Latino gap, while others found restorative practices did not impact the gap (Augustine, et al., 2018) (Welsh & Little, 2018) (Gregory, Clawson, Davis, & Gerewitz, 2015) (Fronis, Perrson, Guckenburg, Jurley, & Petrosino, 2016) (Gregory, Huang, Anyon, Greer, & Downing, 2018). Although further research is needed on the impact of restorative practices on disproportionality, this practice is recommended as a tool to approach behavior in a positive manner.
Though school climate encompasses many aspects, it can be considered part of a positive behavior approach as few programs or policies can be successfully implemented without a strong and positive school climate. The USDOE describes school climate as, “the extent to which a school community creates and maintains a safe school campus; a supportive academic, disciplinary, and physical environment; and respectful, trusting, and caring relationships throughout the school community” (U.S. Department of Education, 2014, p. 5). Key aspects of climate include interpersonal relations, engaged learning, family and community involvement, behavioral expectations, and physical environment (Morgan, Salomon, & Cohen, 2014). The National School Climate Center identifies six categories of school climate which include safety, teaching and learning, interpersonal relationships, institutional environment, social media, and leadership and professional relationships (NSCC, 2019). Positive school climate has been associated with improved academic achievement, closing achievement gaps, increased graduation rates, increased teacher satisfaction, and lower violence (Colombi & Osher, 2015) (U.S. Department of Education, 2014). Looking at just the quality of student-teacher relationships, researchers found lower suspension rates when students had positive and caring relationships with their teachers (Nishioka, Fitch, & Stepanek, 2012). Leaders in California districts that showed significant decreases in suspensions overall and a narrowing of racial gaps indicated a better school climate among the factors that helped (Losen, Keith, Hodson, Martinez, & Belway, 2015). The symbiotic relationship between positive school climate and positive discipline indicates this is a critical factor in reducing disparate discipline outcomes.
As part of school climate, examining relationships can also mean school staff members considering how issues of race, ethnicity, and culture impact their work with students and families. Cultural competency, cultural responsiveness, and implicit bias have been offered as new lenses with which to approach conversations about discipline, especially the disproportionate impact of exclusionary practices on Black students. “Culture” in this context refers to a broad array of customs, behaviors, beliefs, and values that are integral to identity. When school staff reflect on their own culture, they may develop more awareness of different cultures their students operate within, and thus have a deeper understanding of how to bridge those. Little research has been done on the impact of cultural responsiveness, but it is discussed in literature ______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 B-4
as a possible avenue to develop stronger relationships with students and families (Darensbourg, Perez, & Blake, 2010) (Gregory, Bell, & Pollock, 2014) (Gregory, Skiba, & Mediratta, 2017). Drawing on research from other disciplines, McIntosh et al. (2014) propose a model in which school policies and practices act as moderators to both explicit and implicit bias. For example, an opportunity for disproportionality arises when a teacher sees a student behavior, deems it inappropriate, and then responds to it with a disciplinary action. Within a moment, the teacher decides about whether and how to respond to the behavior. With wide discretion in how to respond, there is ambiguity in what might happen and an unconscious stereotype may influence the decision. However, this effect can be mitigated if there are school practices in place, such as schoolwide agreements about what behaviors constitute an office referral or a brief reflection question for a teacher to ask him/herself before responding to the student. While this approach is not fully developed yet in schools, multiple best practice guides to reducing disproportionality encourage methods of examining and addressing bias (U.S. Department of Education, 2014) (U.S Department of Justice & U.S. Department of Education, 2014) (NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, INC., 2017) (Dee & Gershenson, 2017) (Cook, et al., 2018).
Tiered Prevention and Intervention Supports Three research-based practices fall into this category: using tiered support systems for students, including social-emotional learning as part of the curriculum for students, and coordinating services across departments to provide students integrated support.
There is widespread support for schools implementing a multi-tiered system of support (MTSS) for student behavior, academics and wellness. Examining just the behavioral aspects, such a system includes supports designed to prevent misbehavior as well as a system for intervening when there is an issue. In this way, MTSS can be categorized as both a prevention and an intervention support. MTSS consists of:
• Tier 1 practices which are proactive, preventative supports available to all students, such as caring and supportive relationships with school staff, character education lessons, or rewards for positive behavior. • Tier 2 practices offer interventions which are targeted to students who exhibit warning signs of trouble. Supports might include interventions, such as community conferencing, attendance calls, mentoring, or programs tailored to meet student needs. • Tier 3 practices which provide intensive support and intervention for students most in need. This might include specific programs, such as Coping Power, mental health services, or services from multiple agencies. (Colombi & Osher, 2015) (U.S. Department of Education, 2014) (Darling-Hammond & Cook-Harvey, 2018). Two commonly cited tiered support systems are Positive Behavioral Intervention Support (PBIS) and Safe and Responsive Schools (SRS.) Both systems have been shown to be effective at reducing suspension rates overall and improving academic outcomes for students. (Skiba, Arredondo, & Rausch, 2014) (APA Zero Tolerance Task Force, 2006) (Morgan, Salomon, & Cohen, 2014). Looking at disproportionality, research on SRS indicated decreases in suspensions for students with disabilities while PBIS seems to operate differently with regard to racial disproportionality depending on the setting (Steinberg & Lacoe, 2017) (McIntosh, Girven, Horner, & Smolkoski, 2014). Gregory, Skiba, and Mediratta (2017) suggest integrating PBIS practices with culturally responsive practices may be a way to increase its effectiveness in reducing disproportionality. Nonetheless, PBIS is included in the recommended practices of an NAACP policy paper as a systematic way to address minor misbehavior and promote academic outcomes (NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., 2017).
Another preventative measure is explicit instruction in social-emotional learning (SEL), with some evidence linking this practice to reductions in discipline issues (Darling-Hammond & Cook-Harvey, 2018) (Osher, Poirier, Jarjoura, Brown, & Kendziora, 2013). With a focus on teaching students skills, such as how to
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 B-5
manage their emotions, solve problems, and be resilient, SEL complements academic learning with “life skills” (Nishioka, Fitch, & Stepanek, 2012) (U.S. Department of Education, 2014). For example, an experimental study of Responding in Peaceful and Positive Ways (RiPP), a social-emotional program designed to reduce violence, found that students who participated in the program had fewer referrals and in-school suspensions than those that did not (Nishioka, Fitch, & Stepanek, 2012). A district in Ohio which adopted a program emphasizing SEL found decreases in multiple discipline infraction categories as well as decreases in out-of-school suspension rates across subgroups (Welsh & Little, 2018). Meta-analyses on the impact of universal SEL have found that students who participate in SEL programs have better social skills, more positive social behaviors, fewer conduct issues, and lower levels of emotional distress than students who are not exposed to such programs (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011). Further, these effects held across racial and socio-economic groups and over a period of years (Taylor, Oberle, Durlak, & Weissberg, 2017). Based on this evidence, SEL can be a strong part of tier 1 practices so all students are given opportunities to learn self-management skills to prevent discipline incidents from occurring.
Another source of intervention can come through bringing together multiple agencies to support students. The Zero Tolerance Task Force suggests that a “system of care and wraparound approaches in which education, mental health, juvenile justice, and other community youth-serving agencies collaborate to develop integrated services, offers promise as a way of providing additional resources to schools to address the most serious and challenging behaviors” (APA Zero Tolerance Task Force, 2006, p. 107). Through partnerships, there can be benefits at multiple levels; students can access behavioral health resources and those who have already interacted with the juvenile justice system can have a smoother transition back to school. Schools can have additional perspectives when designing interventions for struggling students and agencies can pool resources so they have a larger impact (Morgan, Salomon, & Cohen, 2014) (Colombi & Osher, 2015) (U.S. Department of Education, 2014) (Darling-Hammond & Cook-Harvey, 2018) (The Education Trust, 2018).
Clear and Appropriate Consequences While violations will occur, research indicates that there are several practices a district can put into place to reduce disproportionality and ensure students miss a minimal amount of instructional time. These include avoiding suspensions except for the most serious violations and providing continued instruction during an absence, making sure consequences are clearly defined and developmentally appropriate, and safeguarding due process procedures for students.
Given that zero tolerance policies have disproportionately impacted Black students, multiple agencies recommend using suspension and expulsion only for the most serious offenses and significantly restricting the use of suspensions for low-level offenses, such as disrespect (U.S Department of Justice & U.S. Department of Education, 2014) (Steinberg & Lacoe, 2017) (NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, INC., 2017) (Darensbourg, Perez, & Blake, 2010) (Green, et al., 2015) (Kostyo, Cardichon, & Darling- Hammond, 2018). Additionally, students who are removed from class should be provided continued instruction to avoid disengagement from school (U.S. Department of Education, 2014) (Darensbourg, Perez, & Blake, 2010) (Dignity in Schools Campaign, 2013). Some districts have revised their codes of conduct to offer a less punitive approach with a graduated menu of consequences so that severe punishment is only reserved for the most serious cases (Skiba, Arredondo, & Rausch, 2014) (Morgan, Salomon, & Cohen, 2014).
Ensuring consequences are clear, proportional, and developmentally appropriate can further reduce disproportionality as it has been found that ambiguity and discretion in assigning consequences to discipline infractions can lead to unequal outcomes (Barrett, McEachin, Mills, & Valant, 2017) (Darensbourg, Perez, & Blake, 2010) (Skiba, et al., 2011). The USDOE suggests that “written discipline policies should define offense categories and base disciplinary penalties on specific and objective criteria whenever possible.” Further, schools should “create a continuum of developmentally appropriate and proportional ______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 B-6
consequences for addressing ongoing and escalating student misbehavior” (U.S. Department of Education, 2014, p. 13). Ensuring consequences are developmentally appropriate means considering that as children develop cognitively, emotionally, and socially, consequences take into account differences in student skill level. Proportional consequences mean that the severity of the response matches the severity of the misbehavior so that students who commit minor offenses are not given the same treatment as those who commit major ones.
Related to ensuring consequences are clear and appropriate is a need to ensure all students are afforded due process, including special requirements for students with disabilities. Parents and guardians of students who are suspended or expelled should be notified of the consequence, have the opportunity to appeal, and have the right to a fair hearing (U.S. Department of Education, 2014) (Dignity in Schools Campaign, 2013). Based on the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and other federal and state laws, schools must ensure that students with disabilities have the supports in place to proactively address behavior issues, including resources such as Functional Behavior Analysis and a Behavior Intervention Plan. When students with disabilities are being considered for exclusionary discipline, a manifestation determination should be done by the IEP team to ensure the behavior is not due to the child’s disability or the school’s failure to implement the IEP. These protections should be in place for students with a disability as defined by IDEA as well as students identified under Section 504 (Dignity in Schools Campaign, 2013).
Safe and Secure Environment Ensuring a safe and secure environment is a primary responsibility of schools. Two practices that specifically support this mission and reduce disproportionality in discipline are clearly defining the role of SROs and using a threat assessment protocol.
Many districts utilize SROs to help make certain schools are safe and secure. While studies looking at the impact of SROs are mixed, there is consensus officers should not be involved in routine disciplinary matters and their role should be clearly defined through a written agreement between the district and the law enforcement office (Morgan, Salomon, & Cohen, 2014) (U.S. Department of Education, 2014) (NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, INC., 2017). This reduces the likelihood that students are arrested for minor behavioral infractions. In addition, a memorandum of understanding (MOU) can clarify if officers are to serve in other roles that promote a positive school climate, such as being an informal counselor or teaching safety classes. SROs should be carefully selected and trained as they need a particular set of skills unique to their role (Morgan, Salomon, & Cohen, 2014) (NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, INC., 2017) (Kostyo, Cardichon, & Darling-Hammond, 2018).
A threat assessment protocol has proven to be an effective method of identifying students who may cause harm to others and intervene before something occurs. The APA Zero Tolerance Task Force (2006) explains, “the goals of threat assessment are to maintain safety at school while at the same time working to assess and resolve the underlying problems in the person or the environment responsible for making the threat. Rather than using zero tolerance to suspend or expel students for what they might do, threat assessment seeks to address issues that have already been revealed by a verbal or physical threat” (APA Zero Tolerance Task Force 2006, p. 90). Virginia has been recognized for its Threat Assessment Guidelines which resulted in an 8 percent reduction in short-term suspensions and 19 percent reduction in long-term suspensions in schools that used them (Skiba, Arredondo, & Rausch, 2014). Furthermore, researchers found this to be one of the few programs that reduced the suspension rate gap between Black and White males. (Cornell, Maeng, Huang, Shukla, & Konold, 2018).
Data-Based Continuous Improvement Common to all strategies for reducing exclusionary practices is the idea of using data to examine current trends at all levels. Thoughtful data collection and reflection is essential to promote transparency, guide improvement efforts, and ensure the practices and policies adopted are effective. It can also point schools and districts to where to start their efforts in order to leverage resources for maximum impact. In their 2014 ______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 B-7
report on strategies to support effective discipline practices, the Council of State Governments offers two policy recommendations:
“Statement I: Data that tracks student offenses, describes the frequency with which students are suspended and expelled, and explains to what extent there is disproportionality in the use of exclusionary discipline is collected and maintained at the campus, district, and state level. This data is easily accessible and annually reported to the public.
“Statement II: School, district, and state leaders collect and analyze school discipline and other related data to diagnose existing needs; inform strategic planning; guide decision making and resource allocation; track progress; and measure the effectiveness of policies and practices” (Morgan, Salomon, & Cohen, 2014, p. 347).
Similar best practices are encouraged by the USDOE (2014) who suggest schools engage in a cycle of data collection, review, analysis (including root cause analysis), and planning for action. This cycle should include conversations with all stakeholders, including students, families, community members, teachers, and school staff and should be an ongoing process.
To combat disproportionality, it is essential that discipline data be collected at multiple levels, from referrals to the school office to consequences administered at the schools to district level exclusion rates. Discipline data should also be disaggregated through multiple lenses (including gender, race, ethnicity, English learner status, disability status, LGBTQ status) to thoroughly examine patterns and explore underlying causes (Welsh & Little, 2018) (Skiba, et al., 2011) (Green, et al., 2015) (Losen, Keith, Hodson, Martinez, & Belway, 2015) (NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, INC., 2017) (U.S Department of Justice & U.S. Department of Education, 2014) (The Education Trust, 2018) (Losen & Skiba, 2010) (Osher, Poirier, Jarjoura, Brown, & Kendziora, 2013). Research has found that collecting and using data is associated with increased program implementation, suggesting the adage “what gets measured, gets done” may be true (Gregory, Skiba, & Mediratta, 2017). Not only does the collection and use of data related to discipline communicate internally the importance of reducing disproportionality, it is also a powerful way to publicly commit to equity. Public accountability in the form of transparent reporting to stakeholders is critical to confronting inequality in discipline practice (Skiba, et al., 2011) (Green, et al., 2015) (NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, INC., 2017) (U.S Department of Justice & U.S. Department of Education, 2014).
Professional Development Central to successful implementation of any reform related to school discipline is a comprehensive and intentional system of professional development (PD). It is not enough to create policy or introduce a program to address exclusionary discipline issues; that policy or program must be accompanied by a system of PD so that all those who support students have the knowledge, skills, and tools to shift their practice. Figure B-1 is a sample of the PD literature suggests different groups should receive with bolded text indicating multiple researchers recommend this topic. (Colombi & Osher, 2015) (Morgan, Salomon, & Cohen, 2014) (APA Zero Tolerance Task Force, 2006) (U.S. Department of Education, 2014) (McIntosh, Girven, Horner, & Smolkoski, 2014) (NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, INC., 2017) (Losen, Keith, Hodson, Martinez, & Belway, 2015) (Darensbourg, Perez, & Blake, 2010) (Dee & Gershenson, 2017) (Bradshaw, et al., 2018) (Gregory, Hafan, Ruzik, & Mikami, 2016) (Gregory, Skiba, & Mediratta, 2017) (Kostyo, Cardichon, & Darling-Hammond, 2018).
Fig. B-1. Professional Development Recommended by Research
All School Staff Understanding the student code of conduct How to promote positive behavior How to reinforce expected behaviors How handle each type of discipline infraction How to respond to challenging behavior ______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 B-8
De-escalating conflict Cultural competency| Implicit bias How to apply policies and practices equitably Roles and responsibilities of SROs Understanding the impact of trauma on learning and behavior
Teachers / Professional Staff Classroom management strategies Behavior management Engagement strategies Child and adolescent development Building connections with students Creating conditions conducive to learning How to use tiered supports Implementing interventions Needs of students with disabilities Recognizing harassment and intervening Family engagement How to access services for students Restorative practices How to collect, analyze, and use discipline data
SROs Roles and responsibilities Child and adolescent development School policies and practices Conflict resolution Student privacy rights Disability issues Bias-free policing How to refer students for services Working with at-risk students
In addition to these general topics, there may also need to be PD in any specific programs a district chooses to adopt. Clearly, with such a long list of possible PD topics, it is important for a district to prioritize and organize a systemic way to ensure staff are well prepared to implement any policies or programs the district adopts.
Stakeholder Input Another important element of reducing exclusionary discipline and promoting positive climate and behavior is involving all stakeholders in discipline conversations. This includes actively inviting parents and community members the table to develop policy and extending outreach to all communities when communicating behavioral expectations.
It has been found that there are lower suspension rates in schools where parents are involved in discipline matters. This includes having a voice in developing the discipline plan through serving on a discipline advisory group or through informal communication with school staff Invalid source specified. (U.S. Department of Education, 2014) (McIntosh, Girven, Horner, & Smolkoski, 2014) (NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, INC., 2017) (The Education Trust, 2018). The Positive Behavior Support Guide to Address Discipline Disproportionality (2015) has a key element labeled, “Family Partnerships in Policy
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 B-9
Development” which includes not just saying parents are welcome to contribute to committees, but specifically describing how they can become involved in developing and reviewing discipline policy.
When schools proactively communicate with parents about behavioral expectations, long before there is a problem, and call parents to discuss discipline concerns before referring students, parents can be partners in discipline matters (U.S. Department of Education, 2014). Schools should go beyond sending home the student conduct handbook at the beginning of the year and include opportunities for parents to be regularly informed of discipline processes and give input on school climate (Green, et al., 2015). More districts are making an effort to give both students and parents a voice in the discipline process, promoting greater trust, which is especially important for marginalized groups (Gregory, Skiba, & Mediratta, Eliminating Dispartities in School Discipline: A Framework for Intervention, 2017).
Conclusion
There is not a single key to unlocking the factors that fuel disproportionality in discipline outcomes for students. Practices that reduce exclusionary discipline overall certainly can help, but more is needed to specifically ensure subgroups, such as Black students, Hispanic students, and students with disabilities are not unfairly receiving harsher or longer punishments.
In addition to tiered intervention and prevention services, a positive and instructional approach to discipline, and a safe and secure environment, schools and districts must guarantee all students receive consequences for misbehavior in ways that are fair and appropriate. This can be accomplished through extensive professional development of staff and through rigorous examination and reflection of a variety of discipline data points. Working in partnership with all stakeholders can build the community necessary to ensure all students, including those with discipline infractions, thrive and grow.
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 B-10
References Anderson, K., & Ritter, G. (2017, April 3). Do School Discipline Policies Treat Students Fairly? A Second Look at School Discipline Rate Disparities. Retrieved from SSSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2700707
APA Zero Tolerance Task Force. (2006). Are Zero Tolerance Policies Effective in the Schools? An Evidentiary Review and Recommendations. APA Council of Representatives.
Barrett, N., McEachin, A., Mills, J. N., & Valant, J. (2017, November 20). What are the Sources of School Discipline Disparities by Student Race and Family Income? Retrieved from Education Research Alliance for New Orleans: https://educationresearchalliancenola.org/publications/what-are-the- sources-of-school-discipline-disparities-by-student-race-and-family-income
Bradshaw, C. P., Pas, E. T., Bottiani, J. H., Debnam, K. J., Reinke, W. M., Herman, K. C., & Rosenberg, M. S. (2018). Promoting Cultural Responsivity and Student Engagement Through Double Check Coaching of Classroom Teachers: An Efficacy Study. School Psychology Review, 118-134.
Cardichon, J., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2019). Protecting Students’ Civil Rights: The Federal Role in School Discipline. Palo Alto: Learning Policy Institute.
Colombi, G., & Osher, D. (2015). Advancing School Discipline Reform. Arlington: National Association of State Boards of Education.
Cook, C. R., Doung, M. T., McIntosh, K., Fiat, A. E., Pullman, M. D., & McGinnis, J. (2018). Addressing Discipline Disparities for Black Male Students: Linking Malleable Root Causes to Feasible and Effective Practices. School Psychology Review, 135-152.
Cornell, D., Maeng, J., Huang, F., Shukla, K., & Konold, T. (2018). Racial/Ethic Parity in Disciplinary Consequences Using Student Threat Assessment. School Psychology Review, 183-195.
Darensbourg, A., Perez, E., & Blake, J. J. (2010). Overrepresentation of African American Males in Exclusionary Discipline: The Role of School-Based Mental Health Professionals in Dismantling the School to Prison Pipeline. Journal of Sfrican American Males in Education, Vol. 1 Issue 3.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Cook-Harvey, C. (2018, September 7). Educating the Whole Child: Improving School Climate to Support Student Success. Retrieved from Learning Policy Institute: https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/sites/default/files/product- files/Educating_Whole_Child_REPORT.pdf
Dee, T., & Gershenson, S. (2017). Google. Retrieved from Unconscious Bias in the Classroom:Evidence and Opportunities: http://services.google.com/fh/files/misc/unconscious-bias-in-the-classroom- report.pdf
Dignity in Schools Campaign. (2013, October). A Model Code on Education and Dignity. Retrieved from Dignity in Schools: https://dignityinschools.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Model_Code_2013- 1.pdf
Durlak, J., Weissberg, R., Dymnicki, A., Taylor, R., & Schellinger, K. (2011). The Impact of Enhancing Students’ Social and Emotional Learning: Meta-Analysis of School-Based Universal Interventions. Child Development, 405-432.
Fabelo, T., Thompson, M., Plotkin, M., Charmichael, D., Marchbanks III, M., & Booth, E. (2011). Breaking Schools' Rules: A Statewide Study of How School Discipline Relates to Students’ Success and ______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 B-11
Juvenile Justice Involvement. The Council of State Governments Justice Center & Public Policy Research Institute.
Fronis, T., Perrson, H., Guckenburg, S., Jurley, N., & Petrosino, A. (2016). Restorative Justice in U.S. Schools: A Research Review. San Francisco: WedstEd.
Green, A., Nese, R., McIntosh, K., Nishoka, V., Eliason, B., & Canizal Delabra, A. (2015, September). Key Elements of Policies to Address Discipline Disproportionality: A Guide for District and School Teams. Retrieved from Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports: http://www.pbis.org/school/equity-pbis
Gregory, A., Bell, J., & Pollock, M. (2014, March). How Educators Can Eradicate Disparities in School Discipline: A Briefing Paper on School-Based Interventions. Retrieved from Discipline Disparities: A Research-to-Practice Collaborative: http://www.indiana.edu/~atlantic/wp- content/uploads/2014/03/Disparity_Interventions_Full_031214.pdf
Gregory, A., Clawson, K., Davis, A., & Gerewitz, J. (2015). The Promise of Restorative Practices to Transform Teacher-Student Relationships and Achieve Equity in School Discipline. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 1-30.
Gregory, A., Hafan, C., Ruzik, E., & Mikami, A. (2016). Closing the Racial Discipline Gap in Classrooms by Changing Teacher Practice. School Psychology Review, 171-191.
Gregory, A., Huang, F. L., Anyon, Y., Greer, E., & Downing, B. (2018). An Examination of Restorative Interventions and Racial Equity in Out-of-School Suspensions. School Psychology Review, 167- 182.
Gregory, A., Skiba, R., & Mediratta, K. (2017). Eliminating Dispartities in School Discipline: A Framework for Intervention. Review of Research in Education, 253-278.
Kostyo, S., Cardichon, J., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2018). Making ESSA’s Equity Promise Real: State Strategies to Close the Opportunity Gap. Palo Alto: Learning Policy Institute.
Losen, D. J., Keith, M. A., Hodson, C. L., Martinez, T. E., & Belway, S. (2015). Closing the School Discipline Gap in California: Signs of Progress. The Center for Civil Rights Remedies.
Losen, D., & Skiba, R. (2010). Suspended Education Urban Middle Schools in Crisis. Los Angeles: The Civil Rights Project.
McIntosh, K., Girven, E. J., Horner, R. H., & Smolkoski. (2014). Education not Incarceration: A Conceptual Model for Reducing Racial and Ethnic Disproportionality in School Discipline. Journal of Applied Research on Children: Imforming Policy for Children at Risk, Vol. 5: Iss. 2, Article 4.
Morgan, E., Salomon, N., & Cohen, R. (2014). The School Discipline Consensus Report: Strategies from the Field to Keep Students Engaged in School and Out of the Juvenile Justice System. New York: The Council of State Governments Justice Center.
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, INC. (2017). Locked Out of the Classroom: How Implicit Bias Contributes to Disparities in School Discipline. New York : NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. .
National Clearinghouse on Supportive School Discipline. (2014). Exclusionary Discipline. Retrieved from Supportive School Discipline: https://supportiveschooldiscipline.org/learn/reference- guides/exclusionary-discipline ______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 B-12
Nishioka, V., Fitch, L., & Stepanek, J. (2012, November). What We Know About Reducing Disproportionate Suspension Rates for Students of Color. Retrieved from Confederation of Oregon School Administrators: https://www.cosa.k12.or.us/downloads/profdev/Safe%20Schools%20Summit/SOC.pdf
NSCC. (2019, May 2). How is School Climate Measured? Retrieved from National School Climate Center: https://www.schoolclimate.org/about/our-approach/how-is-school-climate-measured
Osher, D., Poirier, J., Jarjoura, G. R., Brown, R., & Kendziora, K. (2013, January 2). Avoid Simple Solutions and Quick Fixes. Retrieved from American Institutes for Research: https://www.air.org/sites/default/files/downloads/report/Avoid_Simple_Solutions_and_Quick_Fixe s_Osher_January_2013_0.pdf
Skiba, R. J., & Knesting, K. (2001, Winter). Zero Tolerance, zero evidence: An analysis of school discipline practice. New Directions for Youth Development, pp. 17 - 43.
Skiba, R. J., Arredondo, M. I., & Rausch, M. K. (2014, March). New and Developing Research on Disparities in Discipline. Retrieved from http://www.indiana.edu/~atlantic/wp- content/uploads/2015/01/Disparity_NewResearch_010915.pdf
Skiba, R. J., Horner, R. H., Chung, C.-G., Rausch, M. K., May, S. L., & Tobin, T. (2011). Race is Not Neutral: A National Investigation of African American and Latino Disproportionality in School Discipline. School Psychology Review, 85-107.
Skiba, R., Chung, C.-G., Trachok, M., Baker, T., Sheya, A., & Hughes, R. (2014). Parsing Disciplinary Disproportionality: Contributions of Infraction, Student, and School Characteristics to Out-of School Suspension and Expulsion. American Educational Research Journal, 1-31.
Steinberg, M. P., & Lacoe, J. (2017, Winter). What Do We Know about School Discipline Reform? Assessing the alternatives to suspensions and expulsions. Retrieved from Education Next: https://www.educationnext.org/what-do-we-know-about-school-discipline-reform-suspensions- expulsions/
Taylor, R., Oberle, E., Durlak, J., & Weissberg, R. (2017). Promoting Positive Youth Development Through School-Based Social and Emotional Learning Interventions: A Meta-Analysis of Follow-Up Effects. Child Development, 1156-1171.
The Education Trust. (2018, August 23). Establishing a Safe and Supportive School Climate. Retrieved from The Educaton Trust: https://edtrust.org/wp- content/uploads/2014/09/ESSA_FactSheet__Positive-School-Climate-and-Culture_Hyperlinks- 1.pdf
U.S Department of Justice & U.S. Department of Education. (2014, January 8). Joint Dear Colleague Letter on the Nondiscriminatory Administration of School Discipline. Retrieved from U.S. Department of Education: https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201401-title-vi.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2014). Guiding Principles: A Resource for Improving School Climate and Discipline. Washington, D.C.
Welsh, R., & Little, S. (2018). The School Discipline Dilemma: A Comprehensive Review of Disparities and Alternative Approaches. Review of Educational Research, 752-794.
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 B-13
APPENDIX C
METHODOLOGY
Appendix Overview
The study relied on the research literature, document review, interviews, focus groups, surveys, and analysis of student discipline and achievement data to answer the following questions:
1. What are the trends in student behavior, discipline, and disproportionality in FCPS schools?
2. Why should FCPS be concerned about the trends?
3. What explains the student behavior, discipline, and disproportionality trends?
The remainder of this appendix describes what data was collected, how and from whom it was collected, and how it was used in the report.
Document Review
A variety of data sources were examined to understand how FCPS has designed and structured its discipline system. ORSI conducted a content review of FCPS policies, regulations, memorandum of understanding, guidance documents, and select internet and intranet websites covering guidance for student behavior, discipline procedures, and structures to support student behavior. The following primary documents were used to inform the report:
• Policies and regulations related to Student Rights and Responsibilities, behavior management (use of positive reinforcement, removing students from the classroom, students with aggressive/violent behavior, and procedures for conducting a threat assessment); • Documents describing procedures for discipline involved students (Student Rights and Responsibilities: A Guide for Families, Discipline Procedures Handbook); • External reports from oversight committees and community organizations; • Department of Special Services documents and FCPS inter- and intranet sites for an understanding of programs FCPS currently implements to support student behavior and discipline (e.g., Positive Behavioral Intervention and Supports, Multi-tiered Systems of Support/Responsive Instruction, Responsive Classroom); • FCPS website and MyPLT course offerings related to student behavior, discipline, and equity; • Memorandum of Understanding between the Fairfax County Public Schools and The Fairfax County Police Department.
Interviews
Central Office
ORSI interviewed a variety of staff with responsibility for establishing and supporting FCPS’ approach to discipline, including the assistant superintendent for Special Services, the director of Intervention and Prevention Services, the special projects director who supports System of Support Advisors, and the administrative hearings officer. To understand how professional development activities, support positive student behavior, discipline, and disproportionality, ORSI interviewed the executive director of the Office of Professional Learning and Family Engagement (OPLFE), the director of Professional Growth and Career Development, and the coordinator of Equity and Cultural Responsiveness. Finally, ORSI interviewed the director of Safety and Security to understand the role of safety and security in relation to discipline. The interviews gathered information in the following areas:
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 C-1 • Common understanding of the Division’s approach to discipline; • Understanding of the inter-relationship between school climate, student behavior, educational equity, and discipline; • Required programs and professional development in support of discipline; • The role of central office staff (Department of Special Services, OPLFE, Hearings Office staff) in supporting student behavior and discipline in FCPS; • Beliefs about the root causes of disproportionality and efforts to address it; • The role of various school-based staff (system of support advisors (SOSAs), school resource officers (SROs) and safety and security specialists) in discipline. Each interview was conducted by two ORSI staff, one interviewer and one note taker who also audio recorded the session. The interviews were analyzed to identify common and unique responses across respondents, determine Division expectations, understanding of those expectations, and the extent to which FCPS has developed a coherent and consistent approach to creating a positive discipline climate. Content analysis was conducted to identify evidence related to the seven practices the research literature identifies as important to creating positive discipline climate and reducing disproportionally (tiered prevention and intervention supports; positive behavior approach; clear and appropriate consequences; safe and secure environment; professional development; and stakeholder involvement). Findings were then summarized to understand the extent to which FCPS has a well-designed discipline system and implements it.
Parent-Child Interviews
ORSI conducted phone interviews with 11 parent-student dyads who had a student who received either an in-school suspension (n=4), an out-of-school suspension (n=4), or a referral to the Hearings Office (n=3) during SYs 2017-19. Students were randomly sampled from those with an incident recorded in SIS during SY 2017-18, to represent multiple school levels (elementary and secondary), racial groups, students with disabilities, and English learners whose home language was Spanish (see table below).
Table C-1. Student Characteristics School Level Elementary Middle High 36% (n=4) 9% (n=1) 55% (n=6) Race/Ethnicity Hispanic White Other 36% (n=4) 55% (n=6) 9% (n=1) Gender Male Female 79% (n=8) 27% (n=3) Other Student with Disabilities Economically Disadvantaged English Learner Demographics 64% (n=7) 9% (n=1)1 9% (n=1) Consequences In-School Suspension Out-of-School Suspension Hearings Office 36% (n=4) 36% (n=4) 27% (n=3) 1 Free and reduced-price meal information was not available for all families.
Participants were asked to provide their perspective on how well the school handled the incident (notifying parent, getting all sides of the story, etc.) and their understanding of the consequence (fairness, ability to advocate). They were also asked about negative or positive effects of the experience on the student’s academics, behavior, and social and emotional functioning. Families that went through the hearings process were further asked about their experience with the Hearings Office and perception of the fairness of the consequence, and the effect of going through the process on the student. Responses were summarized and analyzed for themes related to appropriateness of consequence, parent involvement in the process, perceived fairness of process, treatment, and outcomes for students.
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 C-2
Focus Groups
ORSI conducted focus groups with students, parents, school-based staff (teachers, principals, SOSAs), and members of two stakeholder groups. Each focus group had a facilitator who asked the questions and summarized responses, and a scribe who recorded the responses and consensus among group members. All the groups except the student and stakeholders were audiotaped.
School-Based Instructional Staff
A sample of 50 elementary school principals, and all middle, high, and secondary principals were invited to a focus group for their school level. Twenty-one (21 percent) of principals were able to attend their session. ORSI randomly selected 250 teachers from across school levels to attend one of five focus groups. A total of 41 teachers (16 percent) were able to attend. In addition, 18 teachers attended three separate teacher focus groups that ORSI held for the Asian Educators Association, Fairfax Alliance of Black School Educators (FABSE), and the Teacher Association Representatives. Finally, seven of 25 invited SOSAs were able to participate in their session (28 percent).
Before the session, teachers completed an activity sheet that asked about what programs their school had to support positive behavior, what rules they had for their classroom, and who in the school was most helpful for them in managing student behavior and discipline in their classroom. All groups engaged in a conversation to illicit information about the following:
• FCPS’ vision for discipline and whose role it was in the school to translate that vision for staff; • Schools’ approach to discipline as more instructional or punitive; • Beliefs about the need for schools to teach students skills, such as conflict resolution, good listening, stress management skills; • Contributors to disproportionality; • When student behavior requires a referral to the principal (teachers only); • Role of the SOSA in supporting students (SOSAs only).
Together, the questions provided insight into belief systems about student behavior and discipline, consistency within and among schools in how discipline is implemented, and potential sources of disproportionality.
Students
ORSI randomly selected six middle schools (Cooper, Herndon, Jackson, Lanier, Whitman, Robinson) and four high schools (Marshall, Mount Vernon, West Potomac, and Woodson) to represent each region and have schools with both high and low rates of behavior incidents. Then 50 students were randomly selected from each school, and their parents were sent a consent form. Only students whose parents had consented participated in the focus group. Before the focus group started, consent was obtained from students who were given the choice to stay or return to class. A total of 58 middle school students and 19 high school students participated.
Student focus groups began with a warm-up activity designed to get them comfortable with sharing. Throughout the session, students were encouraged to contribute to conversation using structures designed to include all voices in the conversation (e.g., think/pair/share, round-robin share, and think/write/share). Students were encouraged to engage in conversation with each other, not just with the facilitator.
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 C-3
The conversation focused on gaining information about what it was like to be a student at the school, including questions about the following:
• Comfort with expressing beliefs and ideas in class and teacher behaviors that supported or hindered class participation; • Quality of teacher-student relationships and peer-to-peer relationships; • Fairness of discipline practices and consistent application of consequences; • Respectful treatment of all students.
Student responses provided insight into the quality of teacher-student relationships and how students perceive the discipline climate in their school.
Parents
ORSI randomly selected 1,729 parents and invited them to attend one of five evening focus groups (two sessions were added due to low response rate from parents). A total of 19 parents participated. They were asked questions to understand the quality of the school environment, including:
• How welcoming the school is to families; • Quality of student-teacher relationships; • Respectful treatment of all families; • Perceptions of the advantages and challenges of having a diverse student body.
Parent responses provided information about the school environment and perceptions of equity.
Other Stakeholders
ORSI also collected data from two stakeholder groups: Equity Stakeholder Group and Minority Student Achievement Oversight Committee (MSAOC). The meetings were structured to inform attendees about the study ORSI was conducting, review disproportionality data, and gather input from attendees about disproportionality. Through the session and an online survey, information was collected about:
• FCPS’ approach to discipline and responsibility for implementing that vision; • Perceived causes of disproportionality; • Recommendations for addressing disproportionality.
The stakeholder groups provided a unique perspective on disproportionality from the view of groups whose role is to advocate for those students most likely to be affected by inequitable practices.
Analysis of Focus Group Data
Responses were analyzed separately for each type of focus group and summarized. Then ORSI staff looked across the focus groups to understand how structures and practices intended to support positive school climate, student behavior, and discipline were implemented at schools and how they were perceived by students and parents. Findings were then summarized to identify areas of strength and areas for improvement. For a summary of the evidence on implementation, see Appendix J.
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 C-4
School Environment Surveys
ORSI surveyed students, teachers, principals, and parents to better understand school environment. The survey items were designed to represent the five dimensions of school climate identified by the National School Climate Center (NSCC): Safety, Teaching and Learning, Interpersonal Relationships, Institutional Environment (belonging), and Leadership/ Professional Relationships (staff only). Additional items were added to collect information specific to FCPS. The remainder of this section describes data collection procedures, survey items, and analyses in more detail.
Student Survey Sampling
Elementary Schools. Fifth grade classrooms in 46 elementary schools were selected to complete the survey. In general, two elementary schools were selected per pyramid, with the first one having the highest rate of discipline referrals for the pyramid and the second selected randomly. Fifth grade teachers at the selected elementary schools were sent directions for administering the survey including an assent form for each student to sign that included a link to the electronic survey.
Middle and High Schools. Three English classrooms were randomly selected from each middle, high, and secondary school, and three classes each from the alternative high schools. Classes were selected to reflect the range of course offerings available at the school (i.e., standard, honors, Advanced Placement/International Baccalaureate). As with elementary schools, teachers received the directions and were responsible for distributing the assent form with the link to the survey to students. It was anticipated that the survey would be completed during school hours, but some teachers assigned it to students as homework. A total of 2,993 elementary students and 5,673 middle and high school students completed the survey. 2 (See Table C-2 for demographics of students who took the survey.) Table C-2. Student Demographics
School Asian Black Hispanic White Other Missing Total Level N N N N N N N (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Elementary 707 304 581 890 352 159 2,993 (23.6) (10.2) (19.4) (29.7) (12.4) (5.3) (100) Middle/High 1,418 560 978 2,232 430 55 5,673 (25.0) (9.9) (17.2) (39.3) (7.5) (1.0) (100)
Survey Items
The survey contained 35 items that asked students to what extent they agreed (strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, strongly disagree) with a variety of statements describing school climate along the dimensions outlined by National School Climate Center. Items covered how physically and emotionally safe students felt at school, the clarity of rules and consistency of enforcement, the quality of teacher-student and student-student relationships, the quality of support for academic instruction and for developing social skills, and finally, student sense of belonging to the school. Students also were asked to
2 A response rate was unable to be calculated because schools could choose not to administer the survey to certain classes or make substitutions. Therefore, it is unclear of the exact number of students to whom the survey was distributed. ______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 C-5
choose one word to describe what it was like to be a student at their school. (See Appendix I for details about items and scales.)
Teacher Survey Sampling
The teacher survey was sent via SurveyMonkey to instructional staff at the 46 elementary schools selected for the student survey and all teachers in middle, high, and secondary schools (i.e., classroom teachers, special education teachers, resource teachers, school counselors, coaches, SBTS, and librarians). Of the 11,962 invitations sent, 4,334 teachers completed the survey for a response rate of 36 percent. (See Table C-3 for response rates by school level.) Most respondents were general classroom teachers, 66 percent, followed by special education teachers at 16 percent (see Table C-4). Just over a third of teachers (35 percent) had been working at their school three or fewer years (see Table C-5). The demographics of survey respondents was similar to that of teachers in FCPS: the majority of respondents were White (70.5 percent), followed by Black (6.2 percent), Hispanic (4.3 percent), Asian (3.9 percent). Almost five percent selected other and 10 percent of respondents did not answer the question. Approximately one quarter of respondents who answered the gender question were males (23.6 percent) and three-quarters were females (74.6 percent). Ten percent of participants did not answer this question and 1.6 percent selected “Other.” Table C-3. Teacher Survey Response Rates by School Level School Level Surveys Sent Completed Response Surveys Rate Elementary 2,553 1,146 45% Middle/High 9,409 3,188 34% Total 11,962 4,334 36%
Table C-4. Teacher Demographics
School Asian Black Hispanic White Other Missing Total Level n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) Elementary 46 (4.0) 44 (3.8) 61 (5.3) 850 (74.2) 31 (2.7) 114 (9.9) 1,146 (100%) Middle/ 123 (3.9) 222 (7.0) 122 (3.8) 2,205 178 (5.5) 338 (10.6) 3,188 High (62.7) (100%) Total 169 (3.9) 267 (6.2) 188 (4.3) 3,057 201 (4.6) 452 (10.4) 4,334 (70.5) (100%)
Table C-5. Teacher Position
General Special Resource School Other Other Missing Total Education Education n (%) Counselor Certified School- n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) Instructional Based Employee Staff n (%) Position n (%) 2,660 641 (14.8) 179 (4.1) 125 (2.9) 157 (3.6) 255 (5.9) 317 (7.7) 4,334 (61.4) (100%)
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 C-6
Teachers responded to 48 items that asked to what extent they agreed (strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, strongly disagree) with a variety of statements about the school environment. The survey was designed to gather information about school practices and school climate. The items that asked about school practices addressed school leadership, application of school rules, support for student learning (social emotional and academic), teacher beliefs about student behavior, and opportunities for professional development. The climate questions assessed teachers’ sense of safety, the quality of relationships in the school and teachers’ sense of belonging in their school. The specific items and associated scales are listed in Appendix I. In addition, there were two open-ended items, one asking for one word to describe the school culture/environment and one for teachers to share anything else about their school environment, student behavior, or discipline.
Principal Survey All principals were asked to complete the survey. As seen below, approximately 80 percent of principals completed the survey. Of those, about 40 percent had been a principal at their school for three or fewer years and approximately three-quarters (75.4 percent) were White (see Tables C-6 to C-8).
Table C-6. Principal Survey Response Rates by School Level
School Level Surveys Sent Completed Response Surveys Rate Elementary 139 113 81.3% Middle/High 50 39 78.0% Total 189 152 80.4%
Table C-7. Number of Years as Principal at the School1
Years Less than a 1-3 years 4-6 years More than 6 years Total year n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) Elementary 14 (12.8) 30 (27.5) 26 (23.9) 39 (35.8) 109 (100)
Middle/High 8 (21.6) 9 (24.3) 12 (32.4) 8 (21.6) 37 (100)
Overall 22 (15.1) 39 (26.7) 38 (26.0) 47 (32.2) 146 (100)
1 Missing=6
Table C-8. Principal Demographics
School Level Asian Black White Missing Total n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) Elementary 4 (3.5) 20 (17.7) 78 (69) 11 (9.7) 113 (100) Middle/High 2 (5.1) 8 (20.5) 26 (66.7) 3 (7.7) 39 (100) Total 6 (3.9) 28 (18.4) 104 (68.4) 14 (9.2) 152 (100)
The principal survey gathered information about what programs the school implemented in support of student behavior (e.g., Multi-tiered Systems of Support, Positive Behavior Intervention Supports, and social-emotional learning programs) and how well they were implemented on a five-point scale from no activity to embedded. Two open-ended questions asked principals about what was going well and what challenges they experienced with implementing programs in support of student behavior. The survey also asked principals to report on how much of a focus they placed on creating a positive school climate,
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 C-7
including safety, positive relationships and a sense of belonging; as well as, setting a vision for discipline and aligning professional development to it. Response options ranged from “Not a Focus” to “Very Strong Focus.” Finally, the survey asked about collection and use of discipline data to drive improvement efforts and beliefs about discipline. The questions and scales can be found in Appendix I.
Parent Survey The parent survey was distributed to all parents in the Division in English or in one of the official languages for FCPS based on the correspondence language of record for the parent. A link to the survey was shared with all parents with an email on record with FCPS (n=172,415) and was shared with the community by School Board members, parent liaisons, and principals. A total of 27,775 parents completed surveys. Table C-10 shows the demographic breakdown of parents’ race/ethnicity by school-level and overall. This is generally representative of the percent of White and Black students but likely under represents Hispanic and Asian students (despite the surveys being translated into home languages). Twenty-three percent of parents reported that their child had an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) or 504 plan which is about ten percent more than the population of students with IEPs.
Table C-10. Parent Demographics
School Asian Black Hispanic White Other Missing Total Level n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) Elementary 2,363 762 (5.6) 1,129 5,757 1,083 2,465 13,559 (17.4) (8.3) (42.5) (9.8) (18.2) (100) Middle/High 2,231 960 (6.8) 1,203 6,307 1,140 2,375 14,216 (15.7) (8.5) (44.4) (8.0) (16.7) (100) Total 4,594 1,722 2,332 12,064 2,223 4,840 22,935 (16.5) (6.2) (8.4) (43.4) (8.0) (17.4) (100)
The parent survey included 26 items about to what extent they agreed (strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, strongly disagree) with a variety of statements about the school environment. The survey also gathered information about the discipline process from parents of students who had experienced school-based discipline, in- or out-of-school suspension, or had been referred to the Hearings Office. Items focused on the helpfulness of various individuals and resources in navigating the process, opportunity to share information and advocate, treatment during the process, and successfulness of the students’ transition back to class (see Appendix I).
Description of Survey Scales For each of the five surveys (principal, teacher, secondary student, elementary student, and parent), scales were created from groups of items to measure respondent perspectives around specific topics. This section describes, in detail, the scales for each of the surveys, including the definition and interpretation of the scale as well as the items that form the scale.
In order to determine which items should go together as a single scale, we used a process called factor analysis. A factor analysis is a useful tool to uncover patterns among large sets of variables and understand how those variables relate to each other and which ones measure the same construct. The goal of this analysis was to create a smaller set of constructs (which are the survey scales listed above) from the larger set of survey items. The scales were used to understand what aspects of school environment were most related to the discipline outcomes examined in the study, such as suspensions and number of violations.
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 C-8
After determining which items belonged together, we named each group of items to convey the construct that they measured. These names are the survey scales that are described here and throughout the report.
After the factor analysis was complete, we checked to see how consistently the survey scales measured each of the constructs. This is called reliability. Table I-6 provides numerical values of the strength of the consistency for each survey scale. These values can range from 0 (not reliable at all) to 1 (perfect reliability). Reliability values from 0.00 to 0.69 are considered questionable, from 0.70 to 0.79 are acceptable, 0.80 to 0.89 are good, and 0.90 to 0.99 are excellent. The number of items in a scale generally influences the reliability with smaller item numbers leading to lower values and increasing item numbers leading to higher reliability values.
Principal Survey For the principal survey, items that contributed to survey scales were of two types. One type used the stem, “How much of a focus have you placed on each of these items this school year?” with responses ranging from 1 “Not a Focus” to 4 “Very Strong Focus.” For these items, a scale score of 2.5 was considered to reflect moderate focus with higher scale scores reflecting increasing focus.
The other type of item asked the extent to which principals agreed with statements with responses ranging from 1 “Strongly Disagree” to 5 “Strongly Agree.” For these items, a scale score of 3.5 was considered to reflect some agreement with higher scale score reflecting stronger agreement. In Table C-11 detailing the scales and associated items, the appropriate stem is listed in the items column for each scale.
Table C-11. Principal Survey Scales and Items Scale Definition and Items Interpretation Leadership This scale reflects the How much of a focus have you placed on each of principal’s emphasis on these items this school year? Reliability = 0.79 activities designed to create, communicate, and Communicating a clear vision around the use of implement a common positive discipline practices to support student approach to discipline behavior. among school staff. For example, it includes Ensuring that my staff and I share a common communicating FCPS and philosophy for student behavior and discipline. school policies related to discipline and promoting Ensuring staff are regularly informed about FCPS consistent classroom policies and school procedures for responding to management practices. student behavior.
A scale score at or above Ensuring teachers at my school have consistent 2.5 indicates the principal classroom management practices. focuses on a common approach to discipline in the school.
Safety This scale reflects the How much of a focus have you placed on each of principal’s focus on creating these items this school year? Reliability =0.77 a physically and emotionally safe Maintaining an environment where students and environment for staff and adults feel safe from physical harm. students. It includes communicating Ensuring when students are accused of doing expectations for student something wrong, they get a chance to explain.
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 C-9
Scale Definition and Items Interpretation behavior and showing Making sure my school’s facilities meet the needs of respect for students. the children at this school.
A scale score at or above Maintaining an environment where students feel safe 2.5 indicates the principal from bullying or harassment (including cyberbullying). focuses on creating a physically and emotionally Communicating expectations for student behavior to safe environment. the school community (staff, students, and parents).
Beliefs about This scale captures the Please rate the extent to which you agree or Student extent to which a principal disagree with the following statements. Behavior believes in an instructional approach to discipline to Working with parents, we can successfully resolve Reliability =0.67 improve student behavior. child behavior problems.
A scale score of 3.5 or There are no bad students, just challenging above indicates the behaviors. principal agrees with statements about his/her Part of an educator’s role is to teach students how to ability to improve student behave at school. behavior.
Social This scale describes the How much of a focus have you placed on each of Emotional principal’s focus on offering these items this school year? Support behavioral and mental health supports to students Ensuring my school has supports to help a student Reliability =0.73 to minimize behavior who consistently misbehaves develop positive problems. It includes efforts behavior. to teach conflict resolution. Providing quality counseling or other services to help A scale score at or above students with social or emotional needs. 2.5 indicates a focus on offering behavioral and Making sure staff at this school teach positive conflict mental health supports to resolution strategies to students. students. Making sure staff at this school teach students strategies to manage emotions.
Accountability This scale captures the Please rate the extent to which you agree or for Behavior extent to which the principal disagree with the following statements. holds more positive beliefs Reliability =0.35 about student behavior. The students at this school need to be held more responsible for their own behavior. (Reverse coded) A scale score of 3.5 or above indicates the Parents in the community don't seem to care about principal does not have how their children behave at school. (Reverse coded) negative attributions about the source of student misbehavior.
Creating a This scale indicates the How much of a focus have you placed on each of Positive principal focuses on these items this school year? Environment creating an environment that supports student ______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 C-10
Scale Definition and Items Interpretation Reliability =0.78 learning and positive Ensuring that staff at this school help students see behavior. For example, what the right thing is to do and help them fostering an environment understand it. where both teachers and students feel they get along Emphasizing individualized instructional support for well with each other and students. students feel they belong. Creating an environment where all students feel like A scale score at or above they belong. 2.5 on this item indicates the principal focuses his/her Creating a collaborative environment to support staff efforts on creating a working effectively together. collaborative and supportive environment. Maintaining an environment where students get along well with each other.
Applying This scale captures the Please rate the extent to which you agree or Consequences extent to which the principal disagree with the following statements. for Behavior has a punitive approach to discipline. I believe we should reserve rewards for students Reliability =0.33 exceeding expectations, not simply for meeting them. A scale score of 3.5 or (Reverse coded) above indicates the principal does not believe in When problem behaviors occur, we need to get punitive approaches to tougher. (Reverse coded) discipline.
Relationships This scale indicates the How much of a focus have you placed on each of and Belonging principal’s focus on creating these items this school year? a sense of belonging Reliability =0.77 among adults and making Creating an environment where all adults feel like all students feel respected they belong. and included. It includes showing respect for Ensuring my school emphasizes showing respect for different cultures and all students’ cultural beliefs and practices. treating all students fairly when they misbehave. Making sure school rules are applied equally to all students. A scale score at or above 2.5 on this item indicates Making sure instructional materials reflect different the principal focuses his/her cultural backgrounds, ethnicities, and identities. efforts on creating a sense of belonging and respect for student differences.
Professional This scale represents the Please rate the extent to which you agree or Development training staff receive to disagree with the following statements. implement positive Reliability =0.56 discipline practices. It Follow-up is provided after professional development includes both sufficiency of activities to give staff additional support in training and ongoing implementing positive discipline practices. support for implementation.
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 C-11
Scale Definition and Items Interpretation A scale score of 3.5 or Staff receive sufficient professional development to above indicates sufficient support implementation of positive discipline professional development practices. to support positive practices.
Data-Based This scale rates Please rate the extent to which you agree or Continuous consistency in collection disagree with the following statements. Improvement: and availability of discipline Data Systems data. My school regularly receives reports on student behaviors and violations. Reliability =0.48 A scale score of 3.5 or above indicates agreement Every time a student is referred to the office for a that schools enter data behavioral issue, it is entered into SIS. consistently and receive reports.
Data-Based This scale rates the extent Please rate the extent to which you agree or Continuous to which the school has disagree with the following statements. Improvement: practices for reviewing Data discipline data to monitor My school has a team that regularly reviews data on Applications effectiveness and equity. It student behavior to ensure discipline is administered includes the use of data for fairly to students regardless of race, ethnicity, Reliability =0.87 improvement efforts. gender, or disability status.
A scale score of 3.5 or My school has a team that regularly reviews data on above means the school student behavior to improve discipline practices. reviews its data to make adjustments to improve its My school has a team that regularly reviews data on discipline practices. student behavior to better meet the needs of individual students.
My school uses data to evaluate and, if needed, adjust the school’s student behavior practices.
Teacher Survey For the teacher survey, all items that contributed to survey scales asked the extent to which teachers agreed with certain statements. Responses range from 1 “Strongly Disagree” to 5 “Strongly Agree.” Most of the scales reflect teachers’ perceptions of how well the school implements the practices. Safety and School Belonging (noted with an asterisk) rate school climate.
Table C-12. Teacher Survey Scales and Items Scale Definition Items School This scale rates teachers’ This school emphasizes showing respect for all Leadership perceptions that the principal students’ cultural beliefs and practices. has created a physically and Reliability =0.89 emotionally safe environment The principal at this school communicates a clear that respects students. It vision for positive behavior.
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 C-12
Scale Definition Items includes communicating a The principal at this school makes sure students clear vision for positive feel safe, physically and emotionally. behavior. The principal at this school has created a positive A scale score of 3.5 or above environment for all students. indicates teachers feel there is moderate to strong leadership.
Safety* This scale rates teachers’ At this school, some teachers are regularly hassled perceptions of physical and by other teachers or students. (Reverse coded) Reliability =0.84 emotional safety at the school for both teachers and Students at this school care about one another. students. It includes fights and name calling among Overall, I feel that this school is a safe school. students, as well as teachers being harassed by students The students at this school need to be held more or other teachers. responsible for their own behavior.
A scale score of 3.5 or above Name calling or insults happen regularly at this means teachers generally school. (Reverse coded) perceived the school as safe. Groups of students cause problems or conflicts at this school.
Fights among students are common at this school.
Social- This scale indicates whether Staff at this school teach students strategies to Emotional school staff teach students to manage stress levels. Learning understand and regulate their emotions. It includes Staff at this school teach students strategies to Reliability =0.82 conflict resolution and stress manage emotions. management. Staff at this school teach positive conflict resolution A scale score of 3.5 or above strategies to students. indicates the school teaches students strategies to regulate emotions.
Beliefs This scale captures the All students can learn how to behave well at school. extent to which a teacher Reliability =0.57 believes in an instructional There are no bad students, just challenging rather than a punitive behaviors. approach to discipline. Part of an educator’s role is to teach students how A scale score of 3.5 or above to behave at school. indicates the teacher agrees with statements about his/her Working with parents, we can successfully resolve ability to improve student child behavior problems. behavior.
Support for This scale describes the Staff at this school regularly give students Learning extent to which a teacher individualized attention and help. creates an environment conducive to learning. It
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 C-13
Scale Definition Items Reliability =0.73 includes building strong Teachers at this school are available when students relationships with students, need to talk to them. providing help when needed, and having high academic Teachers care about the students at this school. expectations for all students. This school encourages students to take A scale score of 3.5 or above challenging classes no matter their race, ethnicity, indicates that a teacher has nationality, and/or cultural background (e.g., honor created an environment level courses, advanced academics, AP or IB conducive to learning. courses).
School This scale describes how Teachers and other adults at this school have Belonging* much a teacher feels taught me things that have helped me do my job accepted, supported, and a better. Reliability =0.90 part of the school. Teachers and other adults at this school trust one A scale score of 3.5 or above another. indicates the teacher feels she/he belongs. I feel a sense of belonging to the school in which I work.
I feel that I am a member of the school in which I work.
I see myself as part of the school in which I work.
Consistency of This scale includes a My colleagues and I share a common philosophy Applying Rules common understanding and for behavior and discipline. application of the school’s Reliability =0.70 approach to discipline. It also I feel that my colleagues are not consistently addresses students’ implementing the agreed upon schoolwide behavior knowledge of school rules. plan. (Reverse coded)
A scale score of 3.5 or above Teachers and other adults at this school indicates teachers at the consistently enforce rules for student behavior. school understand and apply the school’s discipline Students know there are consequences for approach. breaking school rules.
Professional This scale reflects teachers’ I have received sufficient professional development Development perceptions that they receive to support my implementation of positive discipline enough training to implement practices. Reliability =0.85 positive discipline practices. It includes both sufficiency of I have received follow-up professional development training and ongoing support at this school to implement positive discipline for implementation. practices.
A scale score of 3.5 or above I have received sufficient professional development indicates sufficient at this school to support my ability to manage the professional development to behavior in my classroom. support positive discipline practices.
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 C-14
Student Surveys For the secondary and elementary student surveys, all items that contributed to survey scales asked the extent to which students agreed with certain statements. Responses range from 1 “Strongly Disagree” to 5 “Strongly Agree.” Five of the scales reflect students’ perceptions of how well the school implements the practices and four represent school climate (noted with an asterisk). In general, individual items aligned the same way on both student surveys, with exceptions noted below.
Table C-13. Secondary Student Survey Scales and Items Scale Definition Items Safety: Physical The scale reflects Overall, I feel that my school is safe. Environment* perceptions that the school is generally safe and free of My school is clean and pleasant. Reliability =0.66 hazards. Elementary A scale score of 3.5 or Reliability =0.67 above indicates the physical Middle/High environment of the school is safe.
Safety: Peers* This scale indicates the Name calling or insults happen regularly at my extent to which students feel school. (Reverse coded) Reliability =0.78 safe from physical or Elementary emotional harm at school. It Fights among students are common at my school. includes fights and bullying- (Reverse coded) Reliability =0.38 type behaviors. Middle/High Groups of students cause problems or conflicts at A scale score of 3.5 or my school. (Reverse coded) above indicates students feel physically and emotionally Some students are regularly hassled by other safe at the school. students at my school. (Reverse coded) Threats by one student against another are common at my school. (Reverse coded)
Safety: Rules and This scale indicates I know the consequences if I break a school rule. Norms knowledge of consequences for breaking school rules. This scale is made up of one A scale score of 3.5 or item; therefore a above indicates knowledge measure of of rules and consequences. reliability cannot be calculated.
Equity and This scale captures whether Teachers at my school treat all students Fairness all students are treated fairly, respectfully. regardless of gender or Reliability =0.73 background. It includes Boys and girls are treated equally well at my Elementary showing respect for students school. with different backgrounds. Reliability =0.68 Middle/High A scale score of 3.5 or above indicates the school ______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 C-15
Scale Definition Items respects students of various My school provides books and handouts that backgrounds and treats reflect different cultural backgrounds, ethnicities, them equitably. and identities.
Teachers at my school treat students of different cultural backgrounds, races, or ethnicities the same.
The rules at my school are fair. (Elementary students only)
What happens when a student breaks a school rule is the same for all students. (Elementary students only)
Social-Emotional This scale indicates whether Teachers and other adults at my school teach Learning students receive instruction students strategies to manage stress. that helps them understand Reliability =0.74 and regulate their emotions. Teachers and other adults at my school teach Elementary It includes help with conflict students to pay attention to the feelings of others. resolution and stress Reliability =0.80 management. Teachers and other adults at my school help me Middle/High think about different ways to work out problems A scale score of 3.5 or with my classmates. above indicates students learn strategies to regulate Teachers and other adults at my school teach emotions. students strategies to manage emotions.
Teacher-Student This scale captures the Teachers at my school understand my problems. Relationships* quality of student-teacher relationships at the school. It It is easy to talk with teachers at my school. Reliability =0.75 includes having teachers to Elementary talk to about problems and My teachers care about me. receiving support to do well Reliability =0.84 in school. Teachers and other adults at my school give me Middle/High the support I need to succeed. (Secondary A scale score of 3.5 or students only) above indicates students feel that teachers care about and help them.
Student-Student This scale indicates the I care about other students at my school. Relationships* quality of relationships between students at the I get along well with other students at my school. Reliability =0.79 school. It includes how much Elementary students care about each Other students at my school care about me. other and get along well Reliability =0.84 together. Other students at my school get along well with Middle/High me. A scale score of 3.5 or above indicates students get along well at the school.
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 C-16
Scale Definition Items School This scale captures how I feel like a part of my school. Belonging* much a student feels a part of the school. I feel proud of belonging to my school. Reliability =0.87 Elementary A scale score of 3.5 or I feel that I am a member of my school. above indicates a sense of Reliability =0.86 belonging. Middle/High
Support for This scale indicates whether Teachers and other adults at my school challenge Learning students feel teachers set me academically. high expectations for them. It Reliability =0.56 also includes whether there Teachers and other adults at my school expect me Elementary is an adult in the school the to succeed. student can turn to for help Reliability =0.70 when needed. Teachers and other adults at my school expect me Middle/High to continue to learn new things after high school. A scale score of 3.5 or (High school students only) above means students feel academically challenged and At my school, there is a teacher or some other supported. adult who students can go to if they need help. Teachers and other adults at my school give me the support I need to succeed. (Elementary students only)
Parent Survey For the parent survey, all items that contributed to survey scales asked the extent to which parents agreed with certain statements. Responses range from 1 “Strongly Disagree” to 5 “Strongly Agree.” The first scale reflects implementation of various practices and the second two scales address different aspects of climate (noted with an asterisk).
Table C-14. Parent Survey Scales and Items Scale Definition Items Implementation This scale reflects parents’ My child’s school provides instructional materials perspectives on how well the (e.g., textbooks, handouts) that reflect students’ Reliability =0.95 school implements practices cultural backgrounds, ethnicities, and identities. associated with school safety and discipline. It includes Overall, I feel that my child’s school is safe. clarity and fairness of the discipline system, respect for This school’s facilities meet my child’s needs. all students, and quality of student-teacher relationships Teachers and other adults at my child’s school and support for academic encourage students to take challenging classes achievement. It also includes no matter their race, ethnicity, nationality, and/or parents’ perspectives on cultural background (e.g., honors level courses, whether the school makes advanced academics, AP or IB courses). them feel included in their I know what the consequences are if my child child’s education. breaks school rules.
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 C-17
Scale Definition Items A scale score of 3.5 or above My child’s school emphasizes showing respect indicates the parent generally for all students’ cultural beliefs and practices. feels the school implements practices related to school I know what my child’s school defines as climate. appropriate and inappropriate behavior.
The rules for student behavior at my child’s school are effective.
The rules for student behavior at my child’s school are fair.
I feel welcome at my child’s school.
Teachers and other adults at my child’s school acknowledge students for positive behavior.
Teachers and other adults at my child’s school consistently enforce rules for student behavior.
The principal at my child’s school makes sure students feel safe, physically and emotionally.
The principal at my child’s school has created a positive environment for all students.
My child’s school does a good job of encouraging family involvement.
Teachers and other adults at this school do a good job helping parents to support their children’s social and emotional learning at home.
The principal at my child’s school communicates a clear vision for positive behavior.
Teachers and other adults at my child’s school provide students the support they need to succeed.
Teachers and other adults at my child’s school feel responsible to help all students achieve their full potential.
My child’s school maintains clear, two-way communication with parents and guardians.
Safety* This item reports on parents’ Name calling or insults happen regularly at my belief that there are few fights child’s school. (Reverse coded) Reliability =0.67 or verbal insults at school. Fights among students are common at my child’s A scale score of 3.5 or above school. (Reverse coded) means parents view the school as a safe environment.
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 C-18
Scale Definition Items Student-Student This item reports on the Other students at my child’s school get along well Relationships* quality of relationships among with my child. students. Reliability =0.84 My child gets along well with other students at A scale score of 3.5 or above this school. indicates parents feel students have positive relationships.
Discipline Data
Discipline data in this report come from two primary datasets, discipline data from the Student Information System (SIS) and a subset of those SIS data prepared by the Department of Information Technology for required annual reporting on discipline to the Virginia Department of Education (VDOE). In addition, the Fairfax County Police Department provided data on disorderly conduct complaints.
Additions to Violations The Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) added two offense codes in 2016-17. These did not change the code of conduct but simply provided a more specific violation code for these types of violations starting in 2016-17.
• BA6 Assault with No Injury • TB2 Electronic Cigarettes (Use/Possession/Sale/Distribution)
The first is categorized under Assaults by Fairfax County Public Schools and the second is categorized under All Other Offenses.
Additions to Reporting Requirements Beginning in 2016-17, VDOE required school divisions to report in-school suspensions for all students, not just students with Individualized Learning Plans (IEPs) as it had before. This led to a large increase in the number of records reported to VDOE, from 6,816 prior to the change to 11,021 records after the change. This large increase is reflective of the policy reporting change and not an increase in behavioral issues in the Division. VDOE saw a tripling in the number of violations with in-school suspension consequences in 2016-17 after the rule change.
Disproportionality The disproportionality analyses rely on the relative rate or likelihood of receiving a discipline referral or consequence in comparison to all other subgroups. The current study used this statistic because it has been used in prior discipline reporting and is an accepted approach to measuring disproportionality. It also results in a ratio that is easy to understand. A ratio of one indicates that the groups are equally likely to receive the consequence (no disproportionality). A ratio greater than one indicates the focal group is more likely to receive the consequence (over-representation), while a ratio of less than one means the focal group is less likely to receive the consequence (under-representation).
Student Outcome Data
Analyses were conducted to compare the average cumulative high school GPAs, Standards of Learning (SOL) scores, attendance rates, and recidivism rates.
For SOL performance, students were matched to a comparison group with similar achievement and discipline involvement in the previous year. Attendance and GPA analyses were based on students having ______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 C-19
data from both school years; thus, the number of students for these analyses was smaller than the entire sample of students with discipline violations during the year under review. Recidivism is based on students committing more than one offense within the same school year.
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 C-20
APPENDIX D
FCPS DISCIPLINE PROCESS OVERVIEW
FCPS Discipline Process In FCPS schools, students become involved in the discipline process when they behave in a manner that violates a school or division policy or rule. The vast majority of violations are for minor misbehavior, such as not being on task, being late to class or arguing with a classmate. These everyday occurrences are handled by classroom teachers using interventions and consequences such as redirecting students, reteaching expectations, or a short conference with the student. When this is not effective and a minor behavior escalates, teachers might call or conference with a parent, confiscate a distracting item, or ask the student to engage in peer mediation. Sometimes, a student’s behavior is very disruptive or breaks a more serious rule such as yelling in class using inappropriate language, refusing to follow a teacher’s directions, or cheating. These behaviors often result in more serious consequences and interventions such as detention, losing privileges such as parking or attending activities, or a referral for additional support through the school psychologist. All of the possible consequences are outlined in the FCPS Student Rights and Responsibilities handbook, and there is a wide variety of options available to school staff about how to respond to such violations.
One option when a student’s behavior is a more serious violation of rules is to refer the student to the school office. While some students’ behaviors rise to the level of an office referral because of escalation from a minor offense to a more major one, there are other violations that result in immediate office referral. Fighting, drug or alcohol possession, or stealing are examples of such behavior.
Often, this office referral is where a trail of documentation about a student’s behavior begins. For this study, we define a “discipline-involved” student as one who has been referred to the office for a violation and/or has received a subsequent consequence or intervention. Like teachers, administrators have a wide range of consequences and interventions that can be applied when a student a referred to the office. In addition to the options already mentioned, an administrator also can suspend a student (in-school or our-of-school) up to five days or refer a student for an Alcohol and Other Drugs Seminar. While schools track office referrals in different ways, one common method is to enter the offense or violation as well as any consequence or intervention into the Student Information System (SIS). Though office referrals that result in less severe consequences may or may not be captured in SIS, referrals that result in out-of-school suspensions are always captured there.
For extremely serious violations of the student code of conduct such as use of drugs, sexual assault or weapons possession, administrators can (and in some cases are required to) refer a student to the Hearings Office. The FCPS Hearings Office, as the Superintendent’s designee, determines consequences at this level which include suspensions beyond 10 days, reassignment to another school, or expulsion.
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 D-1
APPENDIX E
CATEGORIZATION OF DISCIPLINE VIOLATIONS SY 2018-19
Categorization of Discipline Violations SY 2018-19 The Department of Information Technology and the Hearings Office have grouped Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) violations into four types of offense categories as described in the chart below.
VDOE Offense Offense Description Categories Code Bringing Knife <3" to School/School Event W8P Bringing Razor Blades/Box Cutters to School/School Event WP0 Possession of Pneumatic Gun WP1 Bringing a Handgun or Pistol to School/School Event WP2 Bringing a Rifle/Shotgun to School/School Event Bringing Any Other Weapon Which is Designed or May Be Converted to Expel a WP4 Projectile by the Action of Any Explosive, to include Live Ammunition WP5 Bringing a Knife to School/School Event (blade more than 3 inches) Weapons Possession or Representation of Weapon that explodes, or is designed to, or may WP6 readily be converted to explode, includes ammunition Use of Any Weapon that is designed to explode with the use of a triggering device WP7 and is used as a destructive bomb Other Firearms (loaded or unloaded, operable or inoperable) such as, but not WP8 limited to, zip or starter gun Possession of any weapon, instrument , or object that is designed to, or may WP9 readily be converted to inflict harm on another person WS1 Possession of Stun Gun WT1 Possession of Taser Gun BA1 Assault Against Staff with Firearm or Other Weapon BA2 Assault Against Staff with No Weapon BA3 Assault Against Student with Firearm or Other Weapon BA4 Assault Against Student with No Weapon Malicious Wounding (intent to maim, disfigure, disable or kill) Against Staff or BA5 Student with No Weapon BA6 Assault with No Injury HO1 Against Staff with Firearm HO2 Against Student with Firearm Assaults HO3 Against Staff with Other Weapon HO4 Against Student with Other Weapon SB1 Sexual Battery Against Staff SB2 Sexual Battery Against Student SX3 Forcible Rape Against Staff SX4 Forcible Rape Against Student SX5 Attempted Rape Against Staff SX6 Attempted Rape Against Student SX8 Aggravated Sexual Battery (against a student <13 years old)
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 E-1
VDOE Offense Offense Description Categories Code AL1 Alcohol Use, Alcohol Possession, Alcohol Sales/Distribution D15 Inhalants Possession D16 Inhalants Use D4G Over-the-Counter Medication Use D5G Over-the-Counter Medication Possession Drugs D6G Over-the-Counter Medication Sale/Distribution and Alcohol Schedule I and II Drug Use or Possession (e.g., Heroin, Cocaine, Opium,
DR1 Morphine, LSD, Hallucinogenic), Marijuana Use or Possession, Anabolic Steroid Use or Possession, Synthetic Marijuana Use or Possession DR2 Substances Represented as Drugs ("look-alikes") Schedule I and II Drug Sale/Distribution, Marijuana Sale/Distribution, Anabolic DR4 Steroid Sale/Distribution, Synthetic Marijuana Sale/Distribution Drug Paraphernalia Possession, Other Drug Use, Other Drug Possession, Other DR5 Drug Sale/Distribution, Drug Overdose (any kind) Tardiness, Class Cutting, Truancy, Brought to School by Police, A1T Leaving School Grounds without Permission AR1/ Arson: Actual, Arson: Attempted, Arson: Lit Explosives, Stink Bombs (that AS1 contribute to a damaging fire) BB1/ Bomb Threat, Chemical/Biological Threat, Terrorist Threat, BO4 Setting Off False Fire Alarm BR1/2 Burglary: Actual, Burglary: Attempted BU1/2 Bullying, Cyber Bullying C1M Beepers C2M Cellular Telephones C3M Electronic Devices (radios, tape players, etc.) D1C Disrespect (walking away, talking back, etc.) All Other Offenses D2C Defiance of Authority/Insubordination (refuses reasonable requests)
D3C Disruptive Demonstrations D4C Possession of Obscene or Disruptive Literature or Illustrations D5C Classroom or Campus Disruption D6C Using Obscene or Inappropriate Language or Gestures D8C Minor Insubordination DR3 Theft or Attempted Theft of Student Prescription Medications EX1 Extortion: Actual, Extortion: Attempted F1T Minor Physical Altercation FA2 Mutual Participation involving Physical Violence - No/Minor Injuries G1B Gambling GA1 Gang Activity
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 E-2
VDOE Offense Offense Description Categories Code H1Z Hazing Harassment (e.g., repeated harassment offenses lead to bullying, physical HR1 harassment, verbal harassment, racial harassment) KI1 Kidnapping/Hostage-Taking RO1 Actual Robbery, Attempted Robbery RT1 Inciting a Riot, Attempting to Incite a Riot S1V Inappropriate Personal Property (food/beverage, clothing, toys, etc.) Misrepresentation (altering notes, false information, cheating, etc.), Plagiarism, S2V Cheating S3V Other School Code of Conduct Violation Not Otherwise Included ST1 Stalking SX0 Sexual Harassment SX1 Offensive Sexual Contact Against Staff SX2 Offensive Sexual Contact Against Student SX7 Sexual Offenses Without Force (includes indecent exposure, lewd behavior) T1C Unauthorized Use of Technology and/or Information All Other Offenses T2C Causing/Attempting to Cause Damage to Computer Hardware, Software, or Files (Continued) T3C Violations of Acceptable Usage Policy T4B Tobacco Paraphernalia Brought to School or School Events T4C Violations of Internet Policy TB1 Tobacco Use, Tobacco Possession, Tobacco Sales/Distribution TB2 Electronic Cigarettes (use/possession/sale/distribution) Theft of School Property, Theft of Staff Property, Theft of Student Property, TH1 Possession of Stolen Property TH2 Theft of Motor Vehicle, Attempted Theft of Motor Vehicle TI1 Threatening Staff Member (physical or verbal) TI2 Threatening Student (physical or verbal) TR1 Trespassing VA1 Vandalism of School Property, Vandalism of Private Property, Graffiti W1P Bringing Ammunition to School W2P Possession of Chemical Substance W3P Bringing a Toy/Look-alike Gun to School/School Event W9P Bringing Fireworks, Firecrackers, or Stink Bombs to School/School Event
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 E-3
APPENDIX F
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT TRENDS IN STUDENT BEHAVIOR, CONSEQUENCES, AND DISPROPORTIONALITY
Appendix Overview This appendix provides more detailed findings and data related to trends in violations and consequences. Two main sources of data were considered for reporting: VDOE-reported (Virginia Department of Education) data and SIS (Student Information System) data. VDOE-reported data is a subset of the data collected in SIS and includes only violations and consequences that are required to be reported by the state. SIS data includes a larger universe of violations and consequences and can be considered a more comprehensive account of discipline in the division. However, it is important to note that outside of the requirements set forth by VDOE, the division does not have clear policies around additional requirements for discipline reporting. Therefore, it is possible that school-level reporting of incidents not required by VDOE is inconsistent and may vary from school to school with some schools reporting all other (non-VDOE) incidents and other schools only reporting a small sample of non-VDOE incidents. Due to these inconsistencies, VDOE-reported data is the focus of this appendix.
What are the trends in student behavior, discipline, and disproportionality? The findings in this appendix are organized under the following topics.
• Trends in Student Behavior (Violations) • Trends in Discipline Consequences • Trends in Disproportionality
For each topic, evidence is provided in two ways.
• VDOE-reported full years 2012-13 through 2017-18 plus 2018-19 first semester only. These data show the most comprehensive pictures of trends across years. Data for the first half of the 2018- 19 school year are represented by a data point and are not connected to full-year trend data in all figures. For some topics, the full year data was presented in the main report and will be noted in the appropriate section of this appendix. • VDOE-reported first semester (half year) data for SYs 2012-13 through 2018-19 to show ‘apples to apples’ comparisons for the most recent data, 2018-19 first semester data.
Additionally, each figure in the section has a table underneath, which shows the percent value on top and the number of students underneath that value.
The figures in this appendix are organized as follows:
Trends in Student Behavior (Violations) Figures F-1 through F-10 Trends in Discipline Consequences Figures F-11 through F-13 Trends in Disproportionality • Disproportionality in Violations Figures F-14 through F-19 • Disproportionality in Consequences Figures F-20 through F-31 (Out-of-school suspension, in-school suspension, and hearings office referrals)
• Disproportionality by Violation Type for Race/Ethnicity with Other Subgroups Figures F-32 through F-70
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-1
Discipline Trends Trends in Student Behavior (Violations) SIS Incident data (Full Year Data)
Approximately eight percent of students in FCPS committed violations that were captured in SIS in SY 2017-18, which is up one percentage point from the prior two years (SYs 2015-16 and 2016-17).
Table F-1. Percent of Students Involved in Discipline Violations, 2015- 16 Through 2017-18 (Full Years) 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 Percent 92.8 93.0 92.3 Students with no violations n 179,465 181,684 180,803 Students with one or more Percent 7.2 7.0 7.7 violations in SIS n 13981 13764 15091 Students with a VDOE-reported Percent 2.1 3.2 3.6 violation n 4066 6259 6957 Students with a referral to the Percent .3 .3 .3 Hearings Office n 499 511 607
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-2
Figure F-1. Percent of Students Involved in Discipline Violations, 2015- 16 Through 2017-18 (Full Years)
2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 Division percent 7.2 7.0 7.7
n 13,981 13,764 15,091 Elementary percent 2.0 2.2 2.3 School n 2,118 2,264 2,414
Middle percent 11.6 11.4 12.0 School n 3,412 3,398 3,628 High percent 13.9 13.1 14.6
School n 8,451 8,090 9,041
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-3
Over half of the discipline violations in FCPS are committed by high school students, just under one-third committed by middle school students, and about 15 percent committed by elementary school students.
Figure F-2. Percent of Violations by School Level, 2015-16 Through 2017-18 (Full Years)
2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 Division percent 17.1 16.1 17.7
n 33,129 31,424 34,498 Elementary percent 12.9 14.8 14.4 School n 4,265 4,641 4,952 Middle percent 30.3 28.5 28.6 School n 10,049 8,967 9,868 High percent 56.8 56.7 57.0 School n 18,815 17,803 19,670
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-4
Around 40 percent of students committing violations are Hispanic. The percentage of White students committing violations has increased since SY 2015-16, whereas for Black students, it has decreased by the same percentage.
Figure F-3. Percent of Students Involved in Discipline Incidents by Ethnicity, 2015-16 Through 2017-18 (Full Years)
2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 Asian percent 7.1 7.0 7.5
n 2,364 2,206 2,604 Black percent 23.7 24.0 22.1 n 7,848 7,536 7,632 Hispanic/ percent 41.0 40.6 40.3 Latino n 13,595 12,753 13,915
White percent 23.4 23.5 24.6 n 7,756 7,385 8,475
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-5
Most of the violations committed in FCPS fall into a category called “Other,” which typically includes offenses that are less serious in nature. The next most frequent violation is disruptive behavior. Other violations have increased in SY 2015-16 whereas disruptive behaviors have decreased over that same time.
Figure F-4. Percent of Violations by Offense Type, 2015-16 Through 2017-18 (Full Years)
2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 Weapons percent 0.4 0.7 0.4 n 116 210 154 Drugs & percent 1.3 1.4 1.5 Alcohol n 422 435 526 Assaults percent 1.3 2.0 2.2
n 445 630 766 Disruptive percent 45.7 46.6 41.5 Behavior n 15,147 14,659 14,316 Other percent 50.9 48.7 53.8 Violations n 16,865 15,301 18,575
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-6
VDOE-Reported Data (Full Year Data Plus First Half of 2018-19) Trends in violations for full years are presented in Figures 1-7 in the main report.
VDOE-Reported Data (First Half Year Data Trends)
The number and percent of students committing VDOE-reported violations has been rising overall and at all school levels since SY 2016-17 (Figure F-1). For a picture of what the trend has been since SY 2012-13, see Figure F-2, which applies reporting rules that match those used prior to SY 2016- 17. This is consistent with the full year data presented in the full report.
Starting in SY 2016-17, VDOE began to include in reporting the violations for general education students who received in-school suspension (for sanction dependent offenses). Therefore, any increases from SY 2015-16 and later must be considered with respect to that reporting change. For Figure F-5 below, it is helpful to consider only SY 2016-17 and later to understand changes in trends for FCPS. However, for readers interested in understanding what SY 2016-17 and later would look like if the old reporting rules were applied, see Figure F-6.
Figure F-5. Percent of Students Involved in VDOE-Reported Violations, 2012-13 through 2018-19 (First Half Years)
2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 Division percent 1.5 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.7 2.0 2.2 n 2,777 2,156 2,288 2,038 3,314 3,851 4,094 Elementary percent 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.8 0.9 School n 467 386 489 404 741 795 844 Middle percent 2.7 1.9 2.2 1.9 3.0 3.7 4.1 School n 751 561 628 554 876 1,106 1,211 High percent 2.8 2.0 2.0 1.9 2.9 3.3 3.5 School n 1,559 1,209 1,171 1,080 1,697 1,950 2,039
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-7
Figure F-6. Percent of Students Involved in VDOE-Reported Violations, 2012-13 through 2018-19; Consistent Rules (First Half Years)
2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 Division percent 1.5 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.5 1.7 n 2,777 2,156 2,288 2,038 2,370 2,792 3,075 Elementary percent 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.7 School n 467 386 489 404 626 661 722 Middle percent 2.7 1.9 2.2 1.9 2.2 2.9 3.1 School n 751 561 628 554 637 855 923 High percent 2.8 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.9 2.1 2.5 School n 1,559 1,209 1,171 1,080 1,107 1,276 1,430
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-8
Black and Hispanic students continue to make up the largest percentages of students who commit VDOE-reported offenses. The biggest increase since SY 2016-17 in violations has been for Hispanic students. For a picture of what the trend has been since SY 2012-13, see Figure F-8, which applies reporting rules that match those used prior to SY 2016-17. These half-year trends are consistent with the full year trends presented in the full report.
Figure F-7. Percent of Students Committing VDOE-Reported Violations by Ethnicity, 2012-13 Through 2018-19 (First Half Years)
2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 Asian percent 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.9 0.9 n 200 130 136 146 223 331 329 Black percent 4.3 3.1 3.0 2.6 4.4 4.6 4.7 n 805 616 609 502 849 875 882 Hispanic/ percent 2.1 1.6 1.8 1.6 2.7 3.1 3.5 Latino n 877 732 848 766 1,315 1,520 1,707 White percent 1.0 0.7 0.8 0.7 1.0 1.2 1.4 n 766 588 582 524 765 912 972
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-9
Figure F-8. Percent of Students Committing VDOE-Reported Violations by Ethnicity, 2012-13 Through 2018-19; Consistent Rules (First Half Years)
2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 Asian percent 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6
n 200 130 136 146 148 215 233 Black percent 4.3 3.1 3.0 2.6 3.4 3.6 3.7 n 805 616 609 502 658 692 695
Hispanic/ percent 2.1 1.6 1.8 1.6 1.8 2.1 2.5 Latino n 877 732 848 766 857 1,029 1,202 White percent 1.0 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.1
n 766 588 582 524 574 697 785
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-10
Of all VDOE-reported violations committed, the percent has been rising for elementary and middle school students and decreasing for high school students since SY 2012-13.
Figure F-9. Percent of VDOE-Reported Discipline Violations by School Level; 2012-13 Through 2018-19 (First Half Years)
2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 High percent 59.2 57.4 53.7 53.0 52.1 50.1 47.2
School n 2,548 1,944 1,914 1,541 2,638 2,826 2,850 Middle percent 25.5 25.8 26.3 27.5 26.5 29.6 31.5 School n 1,098 873 938 800 1,340 1,672 1,901
Elementary percent 15.3 16.9 19.9 19.5 21.4 20.3 21.4 School n 658 571 710 566 1,084 1,144 1,292
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-11
Of all VDOE-reported violations committed, the percent has been rising for disruptive behavior since SY 2012-13 and decreasing for Other Violations. Assaults have also been on the rise since SY 2012-13, consistent with the full year trends presented in the full report.
Figure F-10. Percent of VDOE-Reported Discipline Violations by School Level; 2012-13 Through 2018-19 (First Half Years)
2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 Weapons percent 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.0 n 57 46 46 38 72 65 62 Drugs & percent 6.9 7.8 7.7 9.1 3.3 4.6 4.9 Alcohol n 298 264 273 264 167 260 294 Assaults percent 3.8 4.3 4.0 6.3 6.0 6.8 6.9 n 165 146 143 184 303 383 419 Disruptive percent 36.4 40.9 42.9 43.9 50.2 54.3 51.0 Behavior n 1,565 1,384 1,527 1,275 2,542 3,062 3,082 Other percent 51.6 45.7 44.2 39.4 39.1 33.2 36.2 Violations n 2,219 1,548 1,573 1,146 1,978 1,872 2,186
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-12
Trends in Consequences VDOE-Reported Data (Full Year Data Plus First Half of 2018-19) Trends in in-school and out-of-school suspensions from 2013-14 through 2017-18 full year data plus the first half of 2018-19 are presented in Figure 8 of the main report.
VDOE-Reported Data (First Half Year Data Trends)
Disruptive behavior violations and Other violations are the most common violations that receive Out-of-School Suspensions (Figure F-11). Drugs and alcohol violations are the most common violations to be referred to the Hearings Office (Figure F-12). Disruptive behavior violations are the most common violation to receive In-School Suspension (Figure F-13).
Figure F-11. Percent of Offense Types Resulting in Out-of-School Suspensions, 2012-13 Through 2018-19 (First Half Years)
2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 Weapons percent 0.8 1.0 2.0 1.8 3.0 2.0 2.1 n 18 17 37 31 63 44 49 Drugs & percent 4.2 2.9 7.7 6.5 3.4 5.6 5.3 Alcohol n 93 50 145 110 72 126 126 Assaults percent 5.0 5.1 5.4 8.2 10.3 11.7 11.4 n 110 87 102 138 216 262 271 Disruptive percent 46.4 48.4 45.2 45.8 46.2 40.8 40.7 Behavior n 1,027 821 855 771 970 915 966 Other percent 43.6 42.6 39.8 37.6 37.1 39.9 40.6 Violations n 964 723 754 633 778 893 964
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-13
Figure F-12. Percent of Offense Types Resulting in Referral to the Hearings Office, SYs 2012-13 Through 2018-19 (First Half Years)
2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 Weapons percent 13.8 13.1 12.6 9.9 10.1 10.9 7.4 n 37 27 29 24 26 35 29 Drugs & percent 47.4 47.1 58.7 56.4 36.6 42.2 49.5 Alcohol n 127 97 135 137 94 135 195 Assaults percent 14.9 14.1 14.8 14.4 28.0 26.9 19.3 n 40 29 34 35 72 86 76 Disruptive percent 4.9 8.7 1.3 2.5 3.9 3.4 3.8 Behavior n 13 18 3 6 10 11 15 Other percent 19.0 17.0 12.6 16.9 21.4 16.6 20.1 Violations n 51 35 29 41 55 53 79
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-14
Figure F-13. Percent of Offense Types Resulting in an In-School Suspension, SYs 2012-13 Through 2018-19 (First Half Years)
2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 Weapons percent 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.7 0.4 n 2 2 9 5 8 20 12 Drugs & percent 0.2 0.3 4.5 9.8 2.5 3.5 4.5 Alcohol n 3 3 59 96 67 102 140 Assaults percent 0.6 1.0 1.4 2.9 1.5 1.4 1.6 n 8 11 19 28 40 41 49 Disruptive percent 40.8 48.6 51.0 51.3 57.6 72.7 68.3 Behavior n 526 547 672 504 1,572 2,147 2,116 Other percent 58.2 50.0 42.4 35.5 38.2 21.8 25.2 Violations n 751 563 559 349 1,044 645 781
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-15
Disproportionality
The following section covers rates of disproportionality in the discipline process. The terms “dispropor- tionate” and “disproportionality,” as used in this study, refer solely to statistical differences or disparities, which may, depending upon the context, warrant further review of individual situations. In no event should the terms be read to mean that any analysis of individual cases has been undertaken as a part of this study, because such analyses has not occurred. Nor should it be inferred from the study’s use of such terms that any conclusion has been reached concerning unlawful discrimination on any basis, be-cause any discrimination cannot be fairly premised on statistical differences or disparities alone.
Technical Notes for This Section • The disproportionality rates provided in this report refer to the relative rate3 or likelihood for each subgroup to receive a referral or be suspended in comparison to students in all other subgroups. The relative rate index is considered an unbiased measure of disproportionality and has been recommended by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in the U.S. Department of Justice. Relative rates of 1.5 and above or .5 and below are interpreted to mean that inequities exist, with rates at 1.5 or above reflecting overrepresentation and rates at .5 or below reflecting underrepresentation. • Disproportionality rates when sample size for either the consequence overall (out-of-school suspension) or within a subgroup is less than 10 are considered unreliable and, therefore, not reported. • ‘TS’ appears in data tables indicate years when disproportionality rates could not be reliably reported due to a too small sample size.
Disproportionality in Violations VDOE-Reported Data (Full Year Data Plus First Half of 2018-19) Disproportionality for all student groups based on full year data 2015-16 through 2017-18 plus the first half of 2018-19 is presented in Figure 10 of the main report.
VDOE-Reported Data (First Half Year Data Trends)
Black and Hispanic students, students with disabilities, economically disadvantaged students, English learners and males are all disproportionately referred for committing violations as shown in half year of data from SYs 2015-16 to 2018-19. This is true within violation categories (Assaults, Weapons, Drugs and Alcohol, Disruptive Behaviors, Other), as well as violations overall. This follows the same pattern observed in full year data presented in the full report.
3 Relative rate is calculated as the percent of the students within the subgroup receiving a suspension or referral divided by the percent of all other students receiving a suspension or referral. An example of this calculation would be that 2 percent of Hispanic students participating in the free and reduced-price meal program received a suspension, while 1 percent of all other students participating in the free and reduced-price meal program received a suspension; dividing those results yields a ratio of 2, so in the Division, the relative rate for Hispanic students participating in the free and reduced-price meal program would be 2, indicating students in this group are twice as likely to be suspended as other students in the Division. ______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-16
Overall Violations by Subgroup
Figure F-14. Disproportionality Among Subgroups in Overall Violation Referrals, Half SYs 2015-16 Through 2018-19 Racial/Ethnic Group Students with Disabilities
English Learner Status Gender
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-17
Figure F-14. Disproportionality Among Subgroups in Overall Violation Referrals, Half SYs 2015-16 Through 2018-19 (Continued) Free and Reduced-Price Meal (FRM) Status
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-18
Assault Violations by Subgroup
Figure F-15. Disproportionality Among Subgroups in Assault Violation Referrals, Half SYs 2015-16 Through 2018-19 Racial/Ethnic Group Students with Disabilities
English Learner Status Gender
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-19
Figure F-15. Disproportionality Among Subgroups in Assault Violation Referrals, Half SYs 2015-16 Through 2018-19 (Continued) Free and Reduced-Price Meal (FRM) Status
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-20
Weapons Violations by Subgroup
Figure F-16. Disproportionality Among Subgroups in Weapon Violation Referrals, Half SYs 2015-16 Through 2018-19 Racial/Ethnic Group Students with Disabilities
English Learner Status Gender
*Note the different left axis is different than for the other charts in this figure. This was necessary to reflect the high disproportionality rate for males.
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-21
Figure F-16. Disproportionality Among Subgroups in Weapon Violation Referrals, Half SYs 2015-16 Through 2018-19 (Continued) Free and Reduced-Price Meal (FRM) Status
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-22
Drug and Alcohol Violations by Subgroup
Figure F-17. Disproportionality Among Subgroups in Drug and Alcohol Violation Referrals, Half SYs 2015-16 Through 2018-19 Racial/Ethnic Group Students with Disabilities
English Learner Status Gender
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-23
Figure F-17. Disproportionality Among Subgroups in Drug and Alcohol Violation Referrals, Half SYs 2015-16 Through 2018-19 (Continued) Free and Reduced-Price Meal (FRM) Status
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-24
Disruptive Behavior Violations by Subgroup
Figure F-18. Disproportionality Among Subgroups in Disruptive Behavior Violation Referrals, Half SYs 2015-16 Through 2018-19 Racial/Ethnic Group Students with Disabilities
*Note the different left axis is different than for the other charts in this figure. This was necessary to reflect the high disproportionality rate for students with disabilities. English Learner Status Gender
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-25
Figure F-18. Disproportionality Among Subgroups in Disruptive Behavior Violation Referrals, Half SYs 2015-16 Through 2018-19 (Continued) Free and Reduced-Price Meal (FRM) Status
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-26
Other Violations by Subgroup
Figure F-19. Disproportionality Among Subgroups in Other Violation Referrals, Half SYs 2015-16 Through 2018-19 Racial/Ethnic Group Students with Disabilities
English Learner Status Gender
Free and Reduced-Price Meal (FRM) Status
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-27
Disproportionality in Consequences The following charts are organized differently than the previous set of disproportionality charts. Rather than by violation type, the following charts are organized by consequence and subgroup. For example, the first set of charts show disproportionality in out of school suspensions by ethnicity for all five violation types. The next set shows disproportionality in out of school suspensions by disability status for all five violation types.
Note that for Hearing’s Office cases, students may have been given another consequence prior to the referral. As such, students receiving in or out of school suspension may also be represented in the referral to HO figures presented in the VDOE section.
VDOE-Reported Data (Full Year Data)
There is little to no disproportionality in administrator-assigned out-of-school suspension for more serious violations (assaults, weapons). This finding applies to in-school suspension as well, though in-school suspension is rarely given as a consequence for more serious violations.
Disproportionality for out-of-school suspension by race/ethnicity is presented in Figure 11 and by disability status in Figure 12 in main report. The disproportionality figures for English Learners, Free/Reduced Price Meals, and Gender are in Figures F-20-22. Disproportionality for in-school suspension are in Figures F-23- 26. Disproportionality for Hearings Office referrals are in Figures F-27-31.
Figure F-20. Disproportionality by Violation Type and English Learner Status, 2015-16 through 2018-19, by Staff Referrals (left) and Administrator Assigned Out-of-School Suspensions (right) Weapons Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned In-School Suspension
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-28
Figure F-20. Disproportionality by Violation Type and English Learner Status, 2015-16 through 2018-19, by Staff Referrals (left) and Administrator Assigned Out-of-School Suspensions (right) (Continued) Drugs and Alcohol Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned In-School Suspension
Assaults Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned In-School Suspension
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-29
Figure F-20. Disproportionality by Violation Type and English Learner Status, 2015-16 through 2018-19, by Staff Referrals (left) and Administrator Assigned Out-of-School Suspensions (right) (Continued) Disruptive Behavior Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned In-School Suspension
Other Violations Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned In-School Suspension
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-30
Figure F-21. Disproportionality by Violation Type and Free- and Reduced-Meal Status, 2015-16 through 2018-19, by Staff Referrals (left) and Administrator Assigned Out-of-School Suspensions (right)
Weapons Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned In-School Suspension
Drugs and Alcohol Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned In-School Suspension
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-31
Figure F-21. Disproportionality by Violation Type and Free- and Reduced-Meal Status, 2015-16 through 2018-19, by Staff Referrals (left) and Administrator Assigned Out-of- School Suspensions (right) (Continued) Assaults Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned In-School Suspension
Disruptive Behavior Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned In-School Suspension
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-32
Figure F-21. Disproportionality by Violation Type and Free- and Reduced-Meal Status, 2015-16 through 2018-19, by Staff Referrals (left) and Administrator Assigned Out-of-School Suspensions (right)(Continued) Other Violations Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned In-School Suspension
Figure F-22. Disproportionality by Violation Type and Gender, 2015-16 through 2018-19, by Staff Referrals (left) and Administrator Assigned Out-of-School Suspensions (right) Weapons Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned In-School Suspension
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-33
Figure F-22. Disproportionality by Violation Type and Gender, 2015-16 through 2018-19, by Staff Referrals (left) and Administrator Assigned Out-of-School Suspensions (right) (Continued) Drugs and Alcohol Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned In-School Suspension
Assaults Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned In-School Suspension
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-34
Figure F-22. Disproportionality by Violation Type and Gender, 2015-16 through 2018-19, by Staff Referrals (left) and Administrator Assigned Out-of-School Suspensions (right)(Continued) Disruptive Behavior Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned In-School Suspension
Other Violations Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned In-School Suspension
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-35
Figure F-23. Disproportionality by Violation Type and Ethnicity, 2015- 16 through 2018-19, by Staff Referrals (left) and Administrator Assigned In-School Suspensions (right) Weapons Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned In-School Suspension
Drugs and Alcohol Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned In-School Suspension
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-36
Figure F-23. Disproportionality by Violation Type and Ethnicity, 2015-16 through 2018-19, by Staff Referrals (left) and Administrator Assigned In-School Suspensions (right)(Continued) Assaults Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned In-School Suspension
Disruptive Behavior Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned In-School Suspension
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-37
Figure F-23. Disproportionality by Violation Type and Ethnicity, 2015- 16 through 2018-19, by Staff Referrals (left) and Administrator Assigned In-School Suspensions (right)(Continued) Other Violations Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned In-School Suspension
Figure F-24. Disproportionality by Violation Type and Disability Status, 2015-16 through 2018-19, by Staff Referrals (left) and Administrator Assigned In-School Suspensions (right) Weapons Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned In-School Suspension
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-38
Figure F-24. Disproportionality by Violation Type and Disability Status, 2015-16 through 2018-19, by Staff Referrals (left) and Administrator Assigned In-School Suspensions (right)(Continued) Drugs and Alcohol Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned In-School Suspension
Assaults Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned In-School Suspension
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-39
Figure F-24. Disproportionality by Violation Type and Disability Status, 2015-16 through 2018-19, by Staff Referrals (left) and Administrator Assigned In-School Suspensions (right)(Continued) Disruptive Behavior Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned In-School Suspension
Other Violations Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned In-School Suspension
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-40
Figure F-24. Disproportionality by Violation Type and English Learner Status, 2015-16 through 2018-19, by Staff Referrals (left) and Administrator Assigned In-School Suspensions (right) Weapons Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned In-School Suspension
Drugs and Alcohol Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned In-School Suspension
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-41
Figure F-24. Disproportionality by Violation Type and English Learner Status, 2015-16 through 2018-19, by Staff Referrals (left) and Administrator Assigned In-School Suspensions (right)(Continued) Assaults Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned In-School Suspension
Disruptive Behavior Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned In-School Suspension
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-42
Figure F-24. Disproportionality by Violation Type and English Learner Status, 2015-16 through 2018-19, by Staff Referrals (left) and Administrator Assigned In-School Suspensions (right) Other Violations Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned In-School Suspension
Figure F-25. Disproportionality by Violation Type and Free- and Reduced-Meal Status, 2015-16 through 2018-19, by Staff Referrals (left) and Administrator Assigned In-School Suspensions (right) Weapons Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned In-School Suspension
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-43
Figure F-25. Disproportionality by Violation Type and Free- and Reduced-Meal Status, 2015-16 through 2018-19, by Staff Referrals (left) and Administrator Assigned In-School Suspensions (right)(Continued) Drugs and Alcohol Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned In-School Suspension
Assaults Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned In-School Suspension
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-44
Figure F-25. Disproportionality by Violation Type and Free- and Reduced-Meal Status, 2015-16 through 2018-19, by Staff Referrals (left) and Administrator Assigned In-School Suspensions (right)(Continued) Disruptive Behavior Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned In-School Suspension
Other Violations Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned In-School Suspension
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-45
Figure F-26. Disproportionality by Violation Type and Gender, 2015-16 through 2018-19, by Staff Referrals (left) and Administrator Assigned In-School Suspensions (right) Weapons Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned In-School Suspension
Drugs and Alcohol Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned In-School Suspension
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-46
Figure F-26. Disproportionality by Violation Type and Gender, 2015-16 through 2018-19, by Staff Referrals (left) and Administrator Assigned In-School Suspensions (right)(Continued) Assaults Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned In-School Suspension
Disruptive Behavior Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned In-School Suspension
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-47
Figure F-26. Disproportionality by Violation Type and Gender, 2015-16 through 2018-19, by Staff Referrals (left) and Administrator Assigned In-School Suspensions (right)(Continued) Other Violations Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned In-School Suspension
Figure F-27. Disproportionality by Violation Type and Ethnicity, 2015- 16 through 2018-19, by Staff Referrals (left) and Administrator Assigned Referral to the Hearings Office (right) Weapons Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned Referral to Hearings Office
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-48
Figure F-27. Disproportionality by Violation Type and Ethnicity, 2015-16 through 2018-19, by Staff Referrals (left) and Administrator Assigned Referral to the Hearings Office (right)(Continued) Drugs and Alcohol Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned Referral to Hearings Office
Assaults Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned Referral to Hearings Office
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-49
Figure F-27. Disproportionality by Violation Type and Ethnicity, 2015- 16 through 2018-19, by Staff Referrals (left) and Administrator Assigned Referral to the Hearings Office (right)(Continued) Disruptive Behavior Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned Referral to Hearings Office
Other Violations Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned Referral to Hearings Office
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-50
Figure F-28. Disproportionality by Violation Type and Disability Status, 2015-16 through 2018-19, by Staff Referrals (left) and Administrator Assigned Referral to the Hearings Office (right) Weapons Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned In-School Suspension
Drugs and Alcohol Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned In-School Suspension
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-51
Figure F-28. Disproportionality by Violation Type and Disability Status, 2015-16 through 2018-19, by Staff Referrals (left) and Administrator Assigned Referral to the Hearings Office (right)(Continued) Assaults Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned In-School Suspension
Disruptive Behavior Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned In-School Suspension
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-52
Figure F-28. Disproportionality by Violation Type and Disability Status, 2015-16 through 2018-19, by Staff Referrals (left) and Administrator Assigned Referral to the Hearings Office (right)(Continued) Other Violations Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned In-School Suspension
Figure F-29. Disproportionality by Violation Type and English Learner Status, 2015-16 through 2018-19, by Staff Referrals (left) and Administrator Assigned Referral to the Hearings Office (right) Weapons Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned In-School Suspension
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-53
Figure F-29. Disproportionality by Violation Type and English Learner Status, 2015-16 through 2018-19, by Staff Referrals (left) and Administrator Assigned Referral to the Hearings Office (right)(Continued) Drugs and Alcohol Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned In-School Suspension
Assaults Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned In-School Suspension
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-54
Figure F-29. Disproportionality by Violation Type and English Learner Status, 2015-16 through 2018-19, by Staff Referrals (left) and Administrator Assigned Referral to the Hearings Office (right)(Continued) Disruptive Behavior Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned In-School Suspension
Other Violations Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned In-School Suspension
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-55
Figure F-30. Disproportionality by Violation Type and Free- and Reduced-Meal Status, 2015-16 through 2018-19, by Staff Referrals (left) and Administrator Assigned Referral to the Hearings Office (right) Weapons Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned In-School Suspension
Drugs and Alcohol Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned In-School Suspension
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-56
Figure F-30. Disproportionality by Violation Type and Free- and Reduced-Meal Status, 2015-16 through 2018-19, by Staff Referrals (left) and Administrator Assigned Referral to the Hearings Office (right)(Continued) Assaults Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned In-School Suspension
Disruptive Behavior Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned In-School Suspension
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-57
Figure F-30. Disproportionality by Violation Type and Free- and Reduced-Meal Status, 2015-16 through 2018-19, by Staff Referrals (left) and Administrator Assigned Referral to the Hearings Office (right)(Continued) Other Violations Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned In-School Suspension
Figure F-31. Disproportionality by Violation Type and Gender, 2015-16 through 2018-19, by Staff Referrals (left) and Administrator Assigned Referral to the Hearings Office (right) Weapons Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned In-School Suspension
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-58
Figure F-31. Disproportionality by Violation Type and Gender, 2015-16 through 2018-19, by Staff Referrals (left) and Administrator Assigned Referral to the Hearings Office (right)(Continued) Drugs and Alcohol Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned In-School Suspension
Assaults Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned In-School Suspension
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-59
Figure F-31. Disproportionality by Violation Type and Gender, 2015-16 through 2018-19, by Staff Referrals (left) and Administrator Assigned Referral to the Hearings Office (right)(Continued) Disruptive Behavior Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned In-School Suspension
Other Violations Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned In-School Suspension
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-60
VDOE-Reported Data (First Half Year Data Trends)
There is little to no disproportionality in administrator-assigned out-of-school suspension for more serious violations (assaults, weapons). This finding applies to in-school suspension as well, though in-school suspension is rarely given as a consequence for more serious violations.
Disproportionality in Referrals to the Hearings Office approaches disproportional rates for offenses considered more objective (i.e., see “Other” violations figures) when students are Hispanic, economically disadvantaged, and/or English learners. Referrals are assigned disproportionately for offenses that are more severe and have clear consequence expectations for students.
Out-of-School Suspensions by Offense Type - Ethnicity
Figure F-32. Disproportionality in Out-of-School Suspensions by Offense Type and Ethnicity, Half SYs 2015-16 Through 2018-19 Weapons Drugs and Alcohol
Assaults Disruptive Behavior
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-61
Figure F-32. Disproportionality in Out-of-School Suspensions by Offense Type and Ethnicity, Half SYs 2015-16 Through 2018-19 (Continued) Other Violations
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-62
Out-of-School Suspensions by Offense Type – Student with Disability Status
Figure F-33. Disproportionality in Out-of-School Suspensions by Offense Type and Disability Status, Half SYs 2015-16 Through 2018-19 Weapons Drugs and Alcohol
Assaults Disruptive Behavior
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-63
Figure F-33. Disproportionality in Out-of-School Suspensions by Offense Type and Disability Status, Half SYs 2015-16 Through 2018-19 (Continued) Other Violations
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-64
Out-of-School Suspensions by Offense Type – Free and Reduced-Price Meal (FRM) Status
Figure F-34. Disproportionality in Out-of-School Suspensions by Offense Type and Free and Reduced-Priced Meal Status, Half SYs 2015-16 through 2018-19 Weapons Drugs and Alcohol
Assaults Disruptive Behavior
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-65
Figure F-34. Disproportionality in Out-of-School Suspensions by Offense Type and Free and Reduced-Priced Meal Status, Half SYs 2015-16 through 2018-19 (Continued) Other Violations
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-66
Out-of-School Suspensions by Offense Type – English Learner Status
Figure F-35. Disproportionality in Out-of-School Suspensions by Offense Type and English Learner Status, Half SYs 2015-16 Through 2018-19 Weapons Drugs and Alcohol
Assaults Disruptive Behavior
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-67
Figure F-35. Disproportionality in Out-of-School Suspensions by Offense Type and English Learner Status, Half SYs 2015-16 Through 2018-19 (Continued) Other Violations
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-68
Out-of-School Suspensions by Offense Type – Gender
Figure F-36. Disproportionality in Out-of-School Suspensions by Offense Type and Gender, Half SYs 2015-16 through 2018-19 Weapons Drugs and Alcohol
Assaults Disruptive Behavior
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-69
Figure F-36. Disproportionality in Out-of-School Suspensions by Offense Type and Gender, Half SYs 2015-16 through 2018-19 (Continued) Other Violations
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-70
In-School Suspensions by Offense Type – Ethnicity
Figure F-37. Disproportionality in In-School Suspensions by Offense Type and Ethnicity, Half SYs 2015-16 Through 2018-19 Weapons Drugs and Alcohol
Assaults Disruptive Behavior
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-71
Figure F-37. Disproportionality in In-School Suspensions by Offense Type and Ethnicity, Half SYs 2015-16 Through 2018-19 Other Violations
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-72
In-School Suspensions by Offense Type – Student with Disability Status
Figure F-38. Disproportionality in In-School Suspensions by Offense Type and Disability Status, Half SYs 2015-16 Through 2018-19 Weapons Drugs and Alcohol
Assaults Disruptive Behavior
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-73
Figure F-38. Disproportionality in In-School Suspensions by Offense Type and Disability Status, Half SYs 2015-16 Through 2018-19 (Continued) Other Violations
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-74
In-School Suspensions by Offense Type – Free and Reduced-Price Meal (FRM) Status
Figure F-39. Disproportionality in In-School Suspensions by Offense Type and Free and Reduced-Priced Meal Status, Half SYs 2015-16 Through 2018-19 Weapons Drugs and Alcohol
Assaults Disruptive Behavior
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-75
Figure F-39. Disproportionality in In-School Suspensions by Offense Type and Free and Reduced-Priced Meal Status, Half SYs 2015-16 Through 2018-19 (Continued) Other Violations
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-76
In-School Suspensions by Offense Type – English Learner Status
Figure F-40. Disproportionality in In-School Suspensions by Offense Type and English Learner Status, Half SYs 2015-16 Through 2018-19 Weapons Drugs and Alcohol
Assaults Disruptive Behavior
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-77
Figure F-40. Disproportionality in In-School Suspensions by Offense Type and English Learner Status, Half SYs 2015-16 Through 2018-19 (Continued) Other Violations
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-78
In-School Suspensions by Offense Type – Gender
Figure F-41. Disproportionality in In-School Suspensions by Offense Type and Gender, Half SYs 2015-16 Through 2018-19 Weapons Drugs and Alcohol
Assaults Disruptive Behavior
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-79
Figure F-41. Disproportionality in In-School Suspensions by Offense Type and Gender, Half SYs 2015-16 Through 2018-19 (Continued) Other Violations
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-80
Referral to the Hearings Office by Offense Type – Ethnicity
Figure F-42. Disproportionality in Referral to the Hearings Office by Offense Type and Ethnicity, Half SYs 2015-16 Through 2018-19 Weapons Drugs and Alcohol
Assaults Disruptive Behavior
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-81
Figure F-42. Disproportionality in Referral to the Hearings Office by Offense Type and Ethnicity, Half SYs 2015-16 Through 2018-19 (Continued) Other Violations
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-82
Referral to the Hearings Office by Offense Type – Student with Disability Status
Figure F-43. Disproportionality in Referral to the Hearings Office by Offense Type and Disability Status, Half SYs 2015-16 Through 2018-19 Weapons Drugs and Alcohol
Assaults Disruptive Behavior
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-83
Figure F-43. Disproportionality in Referral to the Hearings Office by Offense Type and Disability Status, Half SYs 2015-16 Through 2018-19 (Continued) Other Violations
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-84
Referral to the Hearings Office by Offense Type – Free and Reduced-Price Meal (FRM) Status
Figure F-44. Disproportionality in Referral to the Hearings Office by Offense Type and Free and Reduced-Priced Meal Status, Half SYs 2015-16 Through 2018-19 Weapons Drugs and Alcohol
Assaults Disruptive Behavior
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-85
Figure F-44. Disproportionality in Referral to the Hearings Office by Offense Type and Free and Reduced-Priced Meal Status, Half SYs 2015-16 Through 2018-19 (Continued) Other Violations
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-86
Referral to the Hearings Office by Offense Type – English Learner Status
Figure F-45. Disproportionality in Referral to the Hearings Office by Offense Type and English Learner Status, Half SYs 2015-16 Through 2018-19 Weapons Drugs and Alcohol
Assaults Disruptive Behavior
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-87
Figure F-45. Disproportionality in Referral to the Hearings Office by Offense Type and English Learner Status, Half SYs 2015-16 Through 2018-19 (Continued) Other Violations
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-88
Referral to the Hearings Office by Offense Type – Gender
Figure F-46. Disproportionality in Referral to the Hearings Office by Offense Type and Gender, Half SYs 2015-16 Through 2018-19 Weapons Drugs and Alcohol
Assaults Disruptive Behavior
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-89
Figure F-46. Disproportionality in Referral to the Hearings Office by Offense Type and Gender, Half SYs 2015-16 Through 2018-19 (Continued) Other Violations
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-90
Disproportionality by Violation Type and Subgroup This section of the appendix is a response to School Board next step #263 from the work session on February 11, 2019.
Weapons Race/Ethnicity with Free and Reduced-Price Meals
Figure F-47. Disproportionality in Referrals and Consequences for Weapons Violations Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned Out-of-School Suspension
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-91
Weapons (Continued) Race/Ethnicity without Free and Reduced-Price Meals
Figure F-48. Disproportionality in Referrals and Consequences for Weapons Violations Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned Out-of-School Suspension
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-92
Weapons (Continued) Race/Ethnicity by Students with Disabilities
Figure F-49. Disproportionality in Referrals and Consequences for Weapons Violations Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned Out-of-School Suspension
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-93
Weapons (Continued)
Race/Ethnicity by Students without Disabilities
Figure F-50. Disproportionality in Referrals and Consequences for Weapons Violations Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned Out-of-School Suspension
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-94
Weapons (Continued) Race/Ethnicity by Gender (Female)
Figure F-51. Disproportionality in Referrals and Consequences for Weapons Violations Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned Out-of-School Suspension
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-95
Weapons (Continued) Race/Ethnicity by Gender (Male)
Figure F-52. Disproportionality in Referrals and Consequences for Weapons Violations Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned Out-of-School Suspension
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-96
Drugs and Alcohol Race/Ethnicity with Free- and- Reduced-Price Meals
Figure F-53. Disproportionality in Referrals and Consequences for Drugs and Alcohol Violations Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned Out-of-School Suspension
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-97
Drugs and Alcohol (Continued) Race/Ethnicity without Free and Reduced-Price Meals
Figure F-54. Disproportionality in Referrals and Consequences for Drugs and Alcohol Violations Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned Out-of-School Suspension
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-98
Drugs and Alcohol (Continued) Race/Ethnicity by Students with Disabilities
Figure F-55. Disproportionality in Referrals and Consequences for Drugs and Alcohol Violations Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned Out-of-School Suspension
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-99
Drugs and Alcohol (Continued) Race/Ethnicity by Students without Disabilities
Figure F-56. Disproportionality in Referrals and Consequences for Drugs and Alcohol Violations Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned Out-of-School Suspension
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-100
Drugs and Alcohol (Continued) Race/Ethnicity by Gender (Female)
Figure F-57. Disproportionality in Referrals and Consequences for Drugs and Alcohol Violations Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned Out-of-School Suspension
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-101
Drugs and Alcohol (Continued) Race/Ethnicity by Gender (Male)
Figure F-58. Disproportionality in Referrals and Consequences for Drugs and Alcohol Violations Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned Out-of-School Suspension
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-102
Assaults Race/Ethnicity with Free- and- Reduced-Price Meals
Figure F-59. Disproportionality in Referrals and Consequences for Assault Violations Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned Out-of-School Suspension
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-103
Assaults (Continued) Race/Ethnicity without Free and Reduced-Price Meals
Figure F-60. Disproportionality in Referrals and Consequences for Assault Violations Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned Out-of-School Suspension
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-104
Assaults (Continued) Race/Ethnicity by Students with Disabilities
Figure F-61. Disproportionality in Referrals and Consequences for Assault Violations Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned Out-of-School Suspension
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-105
Assaults (Continued) Race/Ethnicity by Students without Disabilities
Figure F-62. Disproportionality in Referrals and Consequences for Assault Violations Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned Out-of-School Suspension
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-106
Assaults (Continued) Race/Ethnicity by Gender (Female)
Figure F-63. Disproportionality in Referrals and Consequences for Assault Violations Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned Out-of-School Suspension
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-107
Assaults (Continued) Race/Ethnicity by Gender (Male)
Figure F-64. Disproportionality in Referrals and Consequences for Assault Violations Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned Out-of-School Suspension
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-108
Disruptive Behaviors Race/Ethnicity with Free- and- Reduced-Price Meals
Figure F-65. Disproportionality in Referrals and Consequences for Disruptive Behavior Violations Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned Out-of-School Suspension
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-109
Disruptive Behaviors (Continued) Race/Ethnicity without Free and Reduced-Priced Meal Status
Figure F-66. Disproportionality in Referrals and Consequences for Disruptive Behavior Violations Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned Out-of-School Suspension
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-110
Disruptive Behaviors (Continued) Race/Ethnicity by Students with Disabilities
Figure F-67. Disproportionality in Referrals and Consequences for Disruptive Behavior Violations Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned Out-of-School Suspension
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-111
Disruptive Behaviors (Continued) Race/Ethnicity by Students without Disabilities
Figure F-68. Disproportionality in Referrals and Consequences for Disruptive Behavior Violations Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned Out-of-School Suspension
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-112
Disruptive Behaviors (Continued) Race/Ethnicity by Gender (Female)
Figure F-69. Disproportionality in Referrals and Consequences for Disruptive Behavior Violations Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned Out-of-School Suspension
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-113
Disruptive Behaviors (Continued) Race/Ethnicity by Gender (Male)
Figure F-70. Disproportionality in Referrals and Consequences for Disruptive Behavior Violations Staff Referral for Violation Administrator-Assigned Out-of-School Suspension
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 F-114
APPENDIX G
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON STUDENT OUTCOMES
Appendix Overview This appendix provides more detailed findings and data related to how students involved in discipline incidents perform behaviorally and academically after involvement in the discipline process. The data sources used for these analyses include FCPS attendance data captured in the Student Information System and Standards of Learning academic performance data from the Office of Student Testing.
Behavioral Outcomes
Attendance is lower the year following the VDOE-reported incident than the year before.
Figure G-1. Attendance Rates the Year Prior To and After Year Student Committed An Offense, SYs 2014-15 Through 2016-17
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 G-1
Academic Outcomes
GPA is lower the year following the VDOE-reported incident than the year before, though the differences were not meaningful in SY 2015-16.
Figure G-2. Cumulative GPA in the Year Prior To and After Year Student Committed An Offense, SYs 2014-15 Through 2015-16
SOL performance in the same year as the VDOE-reported violation is lower than a matched sample of non-offending students; often a difference large enough that discipline-involved students are failing the tests compared to their matched peers.
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 G-2
Figure G-3. Standards of Learning (SOL) Pass Rates for Students Involved in Discipline and Matched Non-Offending Peers, SYs 2015-16 Through 2017-18 Reading Mathematics
2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 Discipline- percent 46.8 55.4 57.6 Discipline- percent 44.8 55.1 50.3 Involved n 778 1,011 1,829 Involved n 977 1,269 2,129 Comparison percent 80.9 76.8 90.1 Comparison percent 83.2 82.7 90.8 n 1,449 291 2,815 n 1,816 1,817 3,699
Science History
2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 Discipline- percent 47.3 56.3 55.6 Discipline- percent 55.4 66.6 65.3 Involved n 939 780 1,468 Involved n 657 808 1,724 Comparison percent 84.3 85.3 92.4 Comparison percent 88.3 85.2 94.5 n 616 1,886 2,464 n 929 1,564 2,555
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 G-3
APPENDIX H
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON DIVISION EXPECTATIONS
Appendix Overview This appendix provides details about the each of the findings regarding division expectations. The findings are organized around the seven constructs identified by the literature review that are critical for developing an effective approach to discipline. Findings pull from a number of different data sources, including document reviews and interviews. Some of the information contained in this appendix repeats what is included in the main report in order to provide a full picture of Division expectations.
How well do FCPS policies and structures reflect research-based practices for creating a supportive discipline climate that promotes positive student behavior and reduces disproportionality? The evidence is drawn from reviews of policies, regulations, program documents, websites, and interviews with central office staff that set the structures and expectations for how FCPS approaches discipline. The findings are organized by the seven constructs identified in the literature review (Appendix C) as critical for supporting an effective discipline system. Each finding is followed by bulleted evidence and contains a rating about the extent to which FCPS has addressed each policy or structure.
The rubric below guided the judgments about the extent to which FCPS addressed the element. An element was considered not addressed or minimally addressed if the document review, central office interviews, and online search did not find evidence of policies or structures that addressed it or only minimally addressed the element. To be rated as partially or fully addressed, there had to be evidence that FCPS had policies or structures to support some or most of the practice divisionwide. Considerations for making judgements included the diversity of evidence (multiple sources provided evidence) that the policy or practice was in place, the preponderance of evidence, and whether there was evidence that FCPS policies or structures contradicted the research-based practice. FCPS was only considered to meet the standard if the practice was partially or fully addressed. Judgements about the extent to which FCPS meets the standard are made on the basis of embedded expectations and structures, and not what is being implemented. Implementation of expectations, structures, and practices are discussed in more detail in Appendix J.
Figure H-1. Rubric
Not Addressed Minimally Addressed Partially Addressed Fully Addressed FCPS policy and/or FCPS policy and/or FCPS policy and/or FCPS policy and/or structure does not structure attempts to structure supports structure completely attend to the best attend to a few aspects some aspects of this supports all aspects of practice. of this best practice. best practice. this best practice.
No developed Barely developed Somewhat developed Fully developed policy/practice policy/practice policy/practice policy/practice
Not Meeting Standard Meeting Standard
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 H-1
Tiered Prevention and Intervention Supports
FCPS has some prevention and intervention policies and structures in place but needs additional structures to address social-emotional learning as a system and to implement a tiered support system that incorporates academics, behavior, and wellness for students.
• Use prevention strategies, including tiered support systems: Partially Addressed
While FCPS had a clear expectation of a positive behavior approach as a prevention strategy a few years ago, the expectation has waned in recent years through changes in administration and turnover in schools. Currently, central office structures provide some support to schools through its Behavior Intervention Services; though data collected for this study suggests that the needs at schools are greater than what staff can meet. There is evidence that FCPS is transitioning toward adopting a tiered support system. The Department of Special Services (DSS) has been working with select schools to implement and refine multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) with the expectation of implementing it divisionwide in the coming years.
• Include social-emotional learning as part of curriculum: Not Addressed
FCPS does not have an explicit expectation that all schools have a social-emotional learning (SEL) program. However, multiple central staff members and principals noted a need for this to be addressed as did some teachers. During interviews, staff recommended that the Division identify one to two SEL programs for schools to implement to allow better support from central office for implementation. In a follow-up email, a staff member said the divisionwide programs should reflect the framework set forth by the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) and address all or most of the five core competencies—self-awareness, self-management, responsible decision making, relationship skills, and social awareness. Currently, the Division is piloting RULER, a CASEL endorsed program, in 30 elementary schools (with 30 more to be added in January 2020).
• Align and provide wrap around services (mental health, child welfare, juvenile justice, etc.): Partially Addressed
FCPS is set up divisionwide with the staffing and resources to support students in various areas (e.g., social work and psychology services, tobacco and smoking interventions). The resources include contracts and relationships with many external service providers, including mental health, substance abuse, and courts, to ensure students have the necessary supports. However, focus group and survey response evidence suggests that there is a need for more services, especially mental health, in order for FCPS to match the full level of student need.
Positive Behavior Approach
FCPS needs to more explicitly emphasize beliefs about the importance of positive discipline, especially in the Student Rights and Responsibilities code of conduct.
• Explicitly teach expected behaviors and use infractions as opportunities to reteach and help students develop needed skills: Minimally Addressed
Regulations 2601 and 2610 state that authorized interventions include reteaching expected behavior. However, while the Student Rights and Responsibilities (SR&R) Guide for Families
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 H-2
discusses the use of a positive behavior approach to teach students expected behaviors, most of Regulation 2601, Student Rights and Responsibilities Booklet, is focused on punitive consequences of violations to the rules. Further, Hearings Office staff stated a belief, based on the discipline monitoring reports4 that the more severe a consequence, the less likely a student was to re-offend. FCPS needs to be more explicit in its policies and regulations that the system is committed to using discipline as an opportunity for learning and growth for students. It also needs to ensure that staff across offices and schools share a positive approach.
• Maintain high expectations for behavior: Minimally Addressed
The Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook (Regulation 2601) focuses on undesirable behaviors and consequences. In essence, the SR&R establishes minimum expectations for acceptable behavior, rather than laying out high expectations of positive behavior. Thus, rather than having divisionwide expectations for student behaviors, it is left to schools who may vary in the degree to which they set high expectations. Overtly describing what is desired behavior coupled with statements endorsing positive expectations would support this practice.
• Purposefully create positive school climate: Partially Addressed
FCPS has stated the importance of a positive approach to discipline, but there is not as much evidence in discipline policy about the importance of a positive school climate and the role of equity in supporting climate. Further, while it is clearly a belief of central office staff that school climate is critical to supporting positive student behavior, the structures are not in place to directly communicate that belief to school staff. For example, in the past FCPS required schools to implement a research-based program that improved school climate (i.e., Positive Behavior Intervention Systems [PBIS]) . While central office still supports the program for the schools that have it, it is not explicitly required. Currently, the main divisionwide example of a definitive statement about climate is the School Resource Officer (SRO) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between FCPS and the Fairfax County Police Department (FCPD.) That document states the importance of fostering a safe and supportive environment and describes a goal of safety and security to build relationships with students. FCPS needs to explicitly state a requirement that schools engage in activities that support positive school climate and monitor results.
• Include the use of restorative practices: Minimally Addressed
While FCPS policies (Regulations 2601 and 2610) about student conduct refer to restorative practices as an option for addressing negative behaviors, it is not explicitly emphasized. An example of how it could be emphasized is the SRO MOU, which commits to “emphasizing Restorative Justice.” Currently, there is a more overt expectation about the use of restorative practices at secondary schools than at elementary schools. Further development of this practice is needed.
4 The Discipline Analysis: Final Report found lower same-year recidivism rates for students referred to the Hearings Office and then returned to their base school than for those students referred to the Hearings Office and sent to an alternative school. The final report is available at https://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/AHBN295B1D65/$file/Discipline%20Monitoring%20- %20Final%20Rpt_May%202015_technical%20rpt.pdf. ______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 H-3
Clear and Appropriate Consequences
FCPS provides limited guidance to support principals in applying consistent consequences to students; though it has established clear guidance to ensure due process for students with disabilities and to limit the severity of consequences applied to young children.
• Ensure consequences are clear, proportional, and developmentally appropriate: Minimally Addressed
The range of possible consequences for infractions to the code of conduct are clearly spelled out in the FCPS regulations. Principals have wide discretion in choosing consequences except when a referral to the Superintendent is required. However, there is little in the regulations explicitly requiring principals to ensure consequences are proportional and developmentally appropriate or consistent across students. The best evidence of this is a requirement that students in Grades K-3 be suspended for no more than three days except under very specific circumstances. The professional development offered annually in August to principals focuses on updates to the SR&R rather than on how to apply discipline fairly and consistently across student groups, especially for violations that do not rise to the level of a referral to the Hearings Office. FCPS over-relies on principal decisions about discipline without providing clear guidance on how to make those decisions.
• Avoid exclusion except for serious infractions and assure continued instruction during removal: Partially Addressed
FCPS policy places restrictions on how long students can be suspended and requires academic support while students are in the discipline process. Returning to their base school can be hampered for some students because the Hearings Office review process occurs once a semester rather than quarterly, which means some students remain out of their base school longer than necessary. Thus, FCPS policy addresses the importance of continued instruction during removal from class, but it’s missing a direct statement about the Division’s commitment to avoiding exclusion. This belief to avoid exclusion was voiced by central office staff yet is not a part of the SR&R and is not consistently supported by practices.
• Ensure appropriate processes and due process for students with disabilities (SWD): Fully Addressed
Multiple FCPS regulations address discipline processes for students with disabilities. In particular, there is guidance detailing the use of positive, behavioral interventions, short-term suspensions, and long-term suspensions designed to ensure students’ due process is protected. Furthermore, in compliance with federal requirements, Regulations 2601 and 2610 require that schools conduct a manifest determination review for any student with a disability that is referred for misconduct. The guidance addresses students with IEPs, those with 504s, and those who assert special education protections.
Safety and Secure Environment
FCPS policy and practice fully address the researched-based best practices for using threat assessment protocols and written agreements to define the role of school resource officers.
• Use a threat assessment protocol: Fully Addressed
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 H-4
FCPS policy and structures include the use of a well-developed threat assessment protocol. In accordance with Virginia law, FCPS has developed threat assessment teams with the goal of preventing violence on campus by assessing behaviors and intervening with individuals who may pose a threat to themselves or others. In addition, FCPS has developed online training modules for students and parents to help reduce threats and increase safety at schools.
• Use written agreements to be clear that school resource officers are focused on safety, not discipline; work to reduce law enforcement referrals: Fully Addressed
The MOU between FCPS and the Fairfax County Police Department explicitly addresses how SROs are to be utilized in multiple sections. Further, it states a focus on diverting youth from the court system using school-based sanctions or educational programming whenever possible.
Data-Based Continuous Improvement
FCPS has not established clear expectations, nor supports, for the systematic collection and examination of disaggregated discipline data at the Division or school levels for decision making.
• Collect and use disaggregated data to continuously assess and address any issues, including disproportionality: Not Addressed
Beyond the high-level metrics that are a part of Goal 2 Strategic Plan reporting, FCPS does not yet have a systematic way to collect and examine disaggregated discipline data at the Division and school levels for use by schools, nor does it have an expectation about what data staff enter. While FCPS has a student data system, SIS, for entering infractions, it does not include all the necessary fields. For example, the “referral filed” is often filled in with the name of the person completing the paperwork rather than the name of the person who referred a student for an infraction. Thus, if most referrals are coming from a few individuals in the building, there is no documentation to guide improvement efforts. In addition, there are no consistent expectations or guidelines for schools about what information must be entered. As a result, some schools have developed their own data systems. Inconsistencies in what schools enter (some enter every infraction while others only those required by VDOE), make it challenging to use SIS data to get a true picture of student behavior and to guide prevention/intervention resources appropriately. There are currently no policies nor divisionwide structures that address the use of discipline data, inhibiting the ability of staff at any level to address disproportionality issues.
Professional Development
There are few required professional development sessions that are intentionally designed to support reducing discipline issues or disproportionality. The exception to this is training for SROs.
• Provide professional development to all staff including:
o Engaging students
o Promoting positive behavior
o How to apply discipline policies and practices in equitable ways
o Strategies to respond to challenging behaviors
o Cultural competency/implicit bias ______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 H-5
o SRO specific training (role, child development, bias-free policing): Minimally Addressed
Although FCPS provides many options for professional development (e.g., classroom management, Positive Behavior Intervention Supports, Responsive Classroom, Restorative Justice, Trauma Informed Instruction, Bullying Prevention) there is little that is required related to discipline and nothing that specifically addresses how to apply discipline policies and practices in equitable ways. Professional development tends to be unfocused or driven by individual choice rather than systematic, making it extremely challenging to address Division-level challenges. The one exception is for SROs who receive extensive professional development specific to their needs, including implicit bias training from the police department. Similar work remains to be done for other audiences and professional development topics that would support research-based best practices for discipline.
Stakeholder Involvement
While communication with families about discipline is partially addressed in FCPS, more needs to be done to actively involve all stakeholders when developing discipline policies.
• Involve all stakeholders in development of discipline policies (parents, students, staff): Minimally Addressed
While some effort is made to include parents on committees at the Division and school levels, there is not an expectation that all stakeholders are part of discipline policy development. In addition to clearly stating parent involvement is essential, FCPS should insist students and staff are part of the development of discipline policies.
• Communicate with families regularly about discipline policies and expectations and specifically when there is an incident: Partially Addressed
Multiple regulations and procedures detail the circumstances in which schools must communicate with parents about discipline, including annually about conduct policies and specifically when a student is involved in a serious incident. An area for growth would be for FCPS to make the SR&R more a part of regular communications, rather than just at the beginning of the school year.
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 H-6
APPENDIX I
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT SCHOOL PRACTICES
Appendix Overview This appendix provides additional details on the findings regarding school practices. The findings are organized around the seven constructs identified by the literature review that are critical for developing an effective approach to discipline. Findings pull from a number of different data sources, including surveys, focus groups, and interviews. Survey data reported in this appendix rely on the survey scales as they relate to each of the constructs. These data were then used for rate the level of divisionwide implementation as weak, moderate, or high. These holistic ratings about the level of implementation of school practices were based on evidence from multiple data sources and represent the extent to which the school practices are consistently implemented divisionwide. For detailed information about the survey scales, including how they were calculated and how to interpret them, please see Appendix C – Methodology.
To what extent does FCPS implement practices to create a supportive discipline climate that promotes positive student behavior and reduces disproportionality?
Tiered Prevention and Intervention Supports
Although principals report having a strong focus on instilling preventative discipline strategies and social-emotional learning, neither students nor teachers feel that these practices are well- embedded in their schools. Rating: Moderate.
Survey data measuring the implementation of social-emotional learning indicates a disconnect between the kinds of practices principals reported focusing on and how students and teachers perceived the implementation of these practices. Principals reported a strong to very strong focus on social-emotional learning and ensuring supports are in place to use preventative discipline strategies. The principal social- emotional scale ranges from 1, “Not a Focus” to 4, “Very Strong Focus.” The average response for principals on this scale was 3.2 on the 4-point scale, indicating that principals place a strong focus on social-emotional learning. The student and teacher social-emotional scale ranges from 1 “Strongly Disagree” to 5 “Strongly Agree.” When an average score on this 5-point scale is below a 3.5, this is an indication that there is not a sense of agreement with the statements for the given scale. Both the student and teacher average responses (3.4 and 3.5, respectively) on scales that address how well social-emotional learning is supported in their schools indicate that students and teachers do not feel these types of supports are well embedded in their schools.
Table I-1. Descriptive Statistics: Social-Emotional Scale N Mean Scale Principal 151 3.2 1 (Not a Focus) to 4 (Very Strong Focus)
Teacher 4,333 3.5 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree)
Students 8,657 3.4 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree)
Focus groups indicated an increased need both for tiered systems of support and social-emotional learning. Specifically, most principals felt that more resources were needed to support tiered systems of support, especially tier 1. Many teachers agreed with the need for more support and noted that all schools had a tiered system of support. They felt FCPS was generally more reactive than proactive with its discipline practices. All stakeholder focus groups also indicated this to be true. ______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 I-1
Across all focus groups (principals, teachers, students, parents, and stakeholders) participants reported students needed to develop their social-emotional skills. Some principals and teachers saw social- emotional learning (SEL) as something that needed to be added to instruction and said there was neither time nor staff to do it, nor a “central way” to address it. While some teacher groups felt instruction could not happen without it, one teacher focus group called it the “silent curriculum” that needed to be part of curriculum for students to access instruction. While there was consensus that SEL is needed, principal, teacher, and parent focus groups thought it was not the sole responsibility of the school and that parents had a role as well.
Positive Behavior Approach
Principals report being supportive of an instructional approach to discipline and maintaining high expectations for behavior, yet not all staff embrace the same belief system. Rating: Moderate.
Across all scales measuring a positive approach to behavior, principals report being supportive of this approach. On scales measuring how much of a focus a particular set of practices is (1 “Not a Focus” to 4 “Very Strong Focus”), on average, principals reported a strong focus on leading with a positive behavioral approach (m = 3.2), creating a positive climate (m = 3.5), and ensuring positive relationships (m = 3.3). Principals also reported maintaining high expectations for behavior and generally agreed with a positive approach to holding students accountable for their behavior (m = 3.7 on a 5-point scale).
Table I-2. Descriptive Statistics: Principal Positive Behavior Approach N Mean Scale Leadership 151 3.2 1 (Not a Focus) to 4 (Very Strong Focus)
Creating a Positive Climate 150 3.5 1 (Not a Focus) to 4 (Very Strong Focus)
Relationships/Belonging 151 3.3 1 (Not a Focus) to 4 (Very Strong Focus)
Accountability for Behavior 150 3.7 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree)
Teachers also had generally favorable reports of a positive behavior approach, with strong leadership and support for learning (m = 3.9 and 4.1, respectively). However, information collected from teacher focus groups indicates that while some teachers understand that they should take a learning approach to discipline, other teachers have a zero-tolerance policy. Some teachers believe more diverse schools have lower expectations for student behavior. Interviews with central office staff suggest that challenges around the successful implementation of a positive behavior approach are commonly due to lack of alignment between teachers and administrators understanding of how to apply discipline.
Table I-3. Descriptive Statistics: Teacher Positive Behavior Approach N Mean Scale Leadership 4,212 3.9 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree)
Support for Learning 4,271 4.1 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree)
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 I-2
Clear and Appropriate Consequences
All stakeholders (principals, teachers, parents, students, other school staff and stakeholder groups) indicate there is a lack of consistency within and across schools in discipline consequences. Rating: Weak.
Principals reported a lack of consistency in expectations for behavior, in how schools handle incidents and how incidents are processed, and in teacher discipline practices. Teachers also reported inconsistency in applying rules. On a survey scale measuring consistency of enforcing and applying rules, teachers did not express agreement with statements, such as “Adults at this school consistently enforce rules for student behavior.” The average response for teachers on the scale measuring consistency of applying rules was 3.2 and only about 45 percent of teachers agreed that rules are consistently enforced. Similarly, only half of elementary students and 59 percent of secondary students reported that what happens when a student breaks a school rule is the same for all students.
Table I-4. Teacher and Student Reports of Clear and Appropriate Consequences N Mean Percent Agree
Teachers 4,333 3.2 45%
Elementary Students 2,899 3.4 50%
Secondary Students 5,561 3.5 59%
Most students reported that some teachers treat students differently for a variety of reasons, including reputation, academic strengths, and past behavior. All stakeholder groups also reported that they felt individual student characteristics played a role in how students were disciplined. System of support advisors (SOSA) focus groups indicated that there are inconsistent consequences for the same infraction for different students, and discipline is inequitable.
Most teachers also expressed concerns that there are not meaningful consequences for student misbehavior in focus groups and open-ended survey responses. Parents in some focus groups and in open- ended survey responses expressed similar concerns. Students also felt that consequences for behavior are not always proportional. While students felt that some consequences are too extreme, they also stated that some consequences are too lenient. For example, consequences for being late to class are not consistent from teacher to teacher and sometimes seem too harsh.
While some teachers expressed concerns that students do not seem to always understand the rules (only about half of teachers believe that students understand the consequences for breaking rules), many students felt that it is sometimes unclear what actions lead to what punishments because teachers have different practices around discipline.
Safe and Secure Environment
Data from some interviews and focus groups indicate moderate implementation of threat assessments and use of the SRO aligned with best practice. Rating: Moderate.
In interviews, staff said that the MOU between FCPS and the Fairfax County Police Department has been effective in limiting SRO involvement in schools to illegal activities and away from discipline. During their
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 I-3
focus group, the SOSAs noted that the SROs served an important role as their “eyes and ears,” notifying them of which students needed intervention.
Data-Based Continuous Improvement
While there are efforts in schools to use data to address discipline issues, including disproportionality, the infrastructure needed to do this in a meaningful way is lacking. Rating: Weak.
Both elementary and secondary principals felt that they regularly use discipline data to improve discipline practices and better meet the needs of students (mean = 3.8 and 3.9, respectively); however, principals did not report strong data systems and collection for discipline data (for elementary principals, mean = 3.0 and for secondary principals, mean = 3.5). Also, there is evidence from focus groups that schools at all levels are inconsistently entering discipline data into the student information system (SIS) with some entering all incidents and others only entering incidents that lead to significant consequence, such as an in- or out-of- school suspension or referral to the Hearings Office. This inconsistency hinders the ability to effectively use data for improvement.
Table I-5. Principal Reports of Data-Based Continuous Improvement N Mean Scale
Elementary Principals
Data-Based Continuous 111 3.8 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 Improvement: Data Application (Strongly Agree)
Data-Based Continuous 111 3.0 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 Improvement: Data Systems (Strongly Agree)
Secondary Principals
Data-Based Continuous 39 3.9 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 Improvement: Data Application (Strongly Agree)
Data-Based Continuous 39 3.5 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 Improvement: Data Systems (Strongly Agree)
Central office interviews and focus groups with SOSAs also indicate that the majority of schools are not monitoring and reflecting on discipline trends on a regular basis. Therefore, data indicate a need for awareness of data, a need for a central data system, and a need to understand how to use data to support positive discipline practices and improve discipline outcomes and disproportionality.
Professional Development
Teachers, principals, and central office staff agree there is a need for additional professional development in the areas of positive discipline and tools for managing the social-emotional needs of students. Rating: Weak.
Central office staff reported that there is a lack of deep understanding and knowledge of social-emotional learning across the Division; furthermore, they indicated there is not enough funding to provide professional development to all schools about positive behavior approaches and social-emotional learning strategies. As a result, schools implement programs that do not fully address all the components needed for effective social-emotional learning. Information collected from teacher focus groups showed that staff feel ill- ______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 I-4
equipped to handle the social-emotional needs of students. Some teachers expressed resistance toward being held responsible for student social-emotional well-being. Some teachers felt this undertaking was not their responsibility while other teachers did feel responsible for addressing student social-emotional needs but did not know how best to do this. Still other teachers felt that parents play an important role in the development of social-emotional learning and schools need to partner with them to address this important area of growth.
Although principals tended to report positively around professional development to support the implementation of positive discipline practices, teachers reported less favorably. On survey items measuring principal and teacher perceptions of how well professional development supports positive discipline and managing social-emotional needs of students, principals reported more positively than teachers. For principals, the mean response was 3.7, which is a relatively positive response. Teachers’ mean response score was 3.5, which is interpreted as approaching a more negative response.
Table I-6. Descriptive Statistics: Professional Development N Mean Scale Principal 148 3.7 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree)
Teacher 4,333 3.5 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree)
While survey data tended to be more positive around professional development, focus group data indicated a need for additional professional development in key areas. Principals, SOSAs, teachers, parents, and stakeholders all agreed that teachers needed more training on how to manage challenging behaviors by students. Central office staff noted that teacher preparation programs no longer include classroom management skills, leaving school systems to fill this deficit. Most focus groups also reported that additional training was needed by school staff around cultural competence to reduce bias. Finally, principal, teacher and stakeholder focus groups said additional professional development was needed on how best to engage students in instruction and build positive student-teacher relationships, a proactive approach to reduce challenging behaviors.
Stakeholder Involvement
Although there is limited evidence that all stakeholders are involved in the development of discipline policy, principals feel that communication around discipline and behavior is an important part of their role. Rating: Moderate.
Although stakeholder involvement is not well addressed in division expectation, sixty-four percent of principals (118/150) report that communicating expectations for student behavior to the school community is a strong focus for them. All principals agreed that more communication with parents about discipline is needed. Although it was not specifically asked in any of the focus groups with principals, teachers, or parents, there was no mention by any group that this was a school-level practice. This may be further evidence that more involvement from parents is needed.
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 I-5
APPENDIX J
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT SCHOOL CLIMATE
Appendix Overview This appendix provides details on the survey data that describes school climate from the teacher, student, and parent surveys. All three groups of respondents were given an opportunity to describe their perceptions of their school’s climate, including questions about school safety, school belonging, and relationships. Respondents were asked on a scale of 1 to 5 the degree to which they agreed with a particular statement, where 1 = “Strongly Disagree” and 5 = “Strongly Agree.” Groups of items were combined to form scales that measure various aspects of school climate. Average scale scores above 3.5 are considered positive. (See Appendix I for details.) The teacher survey has two climate scales, the student survey has five climate scales, and the parent survey has two survey scales.
In addition to reporting average scale scores for each group, this appendix also examines differences between responses for elementary and secondary teachers and students and differences when teacher and student responses are broken down by race. Parent data by school level and race was not collected. When comparing groups, effect sizes are reported which are a way to represent how meaningful the difference between the groups is. When looking at educational research, the recommended cutoff for a small effect size, is 0.1, medium is 0.3, and large is 0.5.5 The larger the effect size, the more likely it is that meaningful differences exist between the groups being compared.
Survey Results Overall School Climate Teachers, students, and parents generally have positive perceptions of school climate. As shown in Table J-1, teacher reports of school safety (mean = 3.3), student reports of peer safety (mean = 3.1), and parent reports of school safety (mean = 3.4) fall below this threshold, suggesting that each group of respondents viewed school safety less positively than the other aspects of climate. Conversely, both parents and students tend to view student-to-student relationships positively (parent mean = 4.1 and student mean = 3.9). Teachers and students tend to agree they feel a sense of belonging to the school (teacher mean = 4.0 and student mean = 3.8).
Table J-1. Mean Responses for Climate Survey Scales N Mean
Teacher: Safety 4,333 3.3
Teacher: School Belonging 4,170 4.0
Student: Safety Physical Environment 8,524 3.7
Student: Safety Peers 8,641 3.1
Student: Teacher-Student Relationships 8,652 3.5
5 The National Center for Special Education Research (NCSER) suggests that when it comes to interpreting effect sizes, Cohen’s (1988) traditional categories of small (0.2), medium (0.5), and large (0.8) are not always appropriate for research on education, particularly education intervention studies. Cohen’s cutoff points were derived from the range of effect sizes found in social and behavioral science research, but average effect sizes specifically in education research tend to be lower than these averages. Across a sample of 181 studies of achievement outcomes in education, NCSER found mean effect sizes of 0.40 for one-on-one interventions (e.g., tutoring), 0.26 for small group interventions, 0.18 for classroom-level interventions, and 0.10 for school-level interventions. Moreover, researchers from the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) at Indiana University Bloomington analyzed effect sizes in the context of empirical data and found that few results fit within Cohen’s traditional cutoff points. Instead, they proposed alternative cutoffs of 0.1 (small effect), 0.3 (medium effect), and 0.5 (large effect). These suggestions are aligned with findings from NCSER regarding the average effect sizes among education research studies, allowing for a more meaningful interpretation of results. ______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 J-1 Student: Student-Student Relationships 8,449 3.9
Student: School Belonging 8,532 3.8
Parent: Safety 27,602 3.4
Parent: Student-Student Relationships 26,267 4.1
School Climate by School Level Examining the same data by elementary and middle/high school (see Tables J-2 and J-3), elementary teachers and students tend to rate climate higher than secondary teachers and students. Elementary teachers report moderately more positive feelings of safety than secondary (effect size = .33), but both elementary and secondary teachers reported a positive sense of belonging (mean=4.0).
Both elementary and middle/high students reported feeling as though they belong in their school, have positive student-to-student relationships, and have a safe physical environment (means above 3.5). They reported less positively about peer safety (means below 3.5). In general, elementary students indicated they were more positive about school climate than secondary students. Particularly large differences included having better teacher-student relationships (effect size = .53) and a stronger sense of belonging (effect size = .51), while there was a moderate difference in the physical safety of the environment (effect size = .43) between elementary and secondary students.
Table K-2. Mean Responses for Teacher Climate Survey Scales by Level Elementary Middle/High School
N Mean N Mean Effect Size6
Teacher: Safety 1,146 3.4 3,187 3.2 .33
Teacher: School Belonging 1,106 4.0 3,064 4.0 na
Table J-3. Mean Responses for Student Climate Survey Scales by Level Elementary Middle/High School
N Mean N Mean Effect Size
Student: Safety Physical 2,936 3.9 5,588 3.5 .43 Environment Student: Safety Peers 2,986 3.2 5,655 3.0 .27
Student: Teacher-Student 2,989 3.8 5,663 3.4 .53 Relationships Student: Student-Student 2,988 4.0 5,461 3.9 .19 Relationships Student: School Belonging 2,938 4.1 5,594 3.7 .51
6 Effect sizes in Tables K2-3 were determined by calculating Cohen’s d for testing the difference between two groups (the mean difference between the two groups divided by the pooled standard deviation). ______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 J-2 School Climate by Race Breaking down the survey participants by race, Table J-4 shows teachers across all racial groups (Asian, Black, Hispanic, White and “Other”) reported positively about school belonging with means falling above 3.5 for every subgroup. Notably, across racial groups, teachers consistently felt less positive about safety, with all means falling below the threshold of 3.5.
Looking at differences among all racial groups, most subgroups did not report meaningful differences on feelings of safety or sense of belonging, but teachers who identified as “Other” felt less positive about safety (mean = 2.9) and school belonging (mean = 3.6).
Table J-4. Mean Responses for Teacher Climate Survey Scales by Race Asian Black Hispanic White Other Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Effect (N) (N) (N) (N) (N) Size Teacher: Safety 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.3 2.9 .02 (169) (267) (188) (3,057) (201) Teacher: School Belonging 4.0 3.9 4.2 4.0 3.6 .02 (169) (267) (187) (3,057) (201)
For students, all racial groups reported feeling more positive about physical safety, peer relationships, and school belonging, with Asian, Black, Hispanic, White, and “Other” subgroup means at 3.5 or higher (see Table J-5). Students feel less positive about peer safety, with means falling below 3.5 for every group. Looking for difference among groups, there were small differences in how subgroups of students responded to each scale.7 Across scales, Black students reported feeling less positive than other racial groups, with meaningfully lower means for safety of physical environment (mean = 3.5), peer safety (mean = 2.9), school belonging (mean = 3.6), but not teacher-student relationships (mean = 3.4). Additionally, Black and Hispanic students reported feeling less positive about peer relationships than Asian and White students (Black/Hispanic means = 3.8 and Asian/White means = 4.0). Collectively, FCPS Black students feel less positive about the climate of their schools than students from other racial groups.
Table J-5. Mean Responses for Student Climate Survey Scales by Race Asian Black Hispanic White Other Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Effect (N) (N) (N) (N) (N) Size Student: Safety Physical 3.8 3.5 3.7 3.6 3.7 .01 Environment (2,096) (847) (1,531) (3,077) (765)
3.2 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.0 Student: Safety Peers .01 (2,121) (862) (1,552) (3,114) (780)
Student: Teacher-Student 3.6 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.5 .00 Relationships (2,123) (861) (1,557) (3,118) (781)
Student: Student-Student 4.0 3.8 3.8 4.0 3.9 .01 Relationships (2,083) (833) (1,512) (3,046) (767)
7 Effect sizes in Tables K4 and K-5 were determined by calculating eta squared to measure meaningful differences among multiple groups (sum of squares between groups divided by total sum of squares). Using this calculation, .01 is a small effect, .06 is a medium effect and .14 is a large effect. ______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 J-3 3.9 3.6 3.8 3.8 3.8 Student: School Belonging .01 (2,094) (850) (1,534) (3,080) (765)
Table J-6. Mean Responses for Parent Climate Survey Scales by Disability Status SWD Non- SWD Mean Mean Effect (N) (N) Size 3.9 3.9 Implementation 0.06 (5237) (17997) 3.3 3.4 Safety 0.14 (5226) (17960) Student-Student 4.0 4.2 Relationships 0.28 (5233) (17990)
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 J-4 APPENDIX K
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE RELATION BETWEEN SCHOOL PRACTICES, SCHOOL CLIMATE, AND STUDENT OUTCOMES
Appendix Overview The research model in the main report outlines how school practices and school climate are linked to student outcomes. Specifically, the research literature outlines seven school practices including a positive behavior approach, tiered prevention and intervention supports, clear and appropriate consequences, safety and secure environment, data-based continuous improvement, professional development, and stakeholder involvement, which are linked to positive discipline outcomes for students. This appendix provides more detailed findings and data around the relation between school practices, climate, and student outcomes. Student outcomes include the percent of students at a school with a) at least one discipline violation, b) at least one out-of-school suspension (OSS), and c) at least one suspension (either OSS or an in-school-suspension). The appendix provides information on the link between school practices and perceptions of climate on disproportionality. In all analyses, the intent was to understand whether and, if so which, best practices were associated with better student behavior so that improvements in implementation could focus on those practices. However, analyses could not fully link school practices through climate to outcomes.
Data Analytic Approach
Data were first analyzed using correlations to determine whether associations existed between the outcome variables (student outcomes and disproportionality) and the following: school demographic makeup, school practices, and school climate. Any variables that were significantly correlated with a particular outcome were further investigated together using a statistical model. Significant correlations were identified as anything with a p-value less than or equal to 0.05 (p≤0.05).Analyses were conducted separately for middle/ high schools and elementary schools.
Relation of School Practices to Student Behavior (Discipline Violations) Analyses of school practices in relation to the average number of discipline violations showed that principal implementation of tougher consequences was most strongly related to the percent of students with a discipline violation at the middle/high level (β=0.492, p<0.01). A decrease in the average number of violations were associated with principals’ reporting that they implement increasingly tougher consequences. This finding is somewhat counter to the research literature that states that policies that reflect these types of beliefs, such as zero tolerance policies, do not work to reduce discipline violations (APA Zero Tolerance Task Force, 2006). However, part of a positive behavior approach is to set and maintain high expectations for behavior, which may be achieved through communication that there are clear expectations for handling negative behavior (Morgan, Salomon, & Cohen, 2014). Therefore, this finding could indicate that when principals communicate that there are negative consequences for misbehavior, they in-turn are setting clear and consistent expectations, which leads to fewer violations.
At the elementary level, models showed that students’ perceptions of peer relationships were most strongly linked to the average number of discipline violations (β=-0.460 p=0.003. This means that when students at a school reported having more positive relationships with peers, the percent of students with a discipline violation was lower. Students’ perceptions of peer relationships accounted for 21 percent of the differences in the percent of students with a discipline violation at the elementary level.
Relation of School Practices to Discipline Consequences At the middle and high school level, models of school practice showed that perceptions of support for academic learning was a consistent predictor of both the percent of students with at least one out-of-school suspension and the percent of students with at least one in- or out-of-school suspension. Specifically, support for academic learning was the strongest predictor of the percent of students with an out-of-school suspension compared to the other school practice variables (β=-0.375 p=0.009), but it only accounted for 14 percent of the differences between schools in the percent of students with an out-of-school suspensions. ______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 K-1 Perceptions of support for learning were associated with a decrease in the percent of students with at least one out-of-school suspension. For all suspensions, principals’ application of consequences (β=0.332 p=0.020), teachers’ perceptions of support for learning (β=-0.290 p=0.042), and students’ perceptions of peer relationships (β=-0.417 p=0.005) were linked to consequences for behavior. Schools with principals that valued tougher consequences for student misbehavior, saw increases in the percent of students with a suspension. However, when there was a strong support for learning and when students reported strong relationships with their peers, the percent of students with at least one suspension decreased. Together, these variables accounted for 44 percent of the differences in the percent of students with either an out-of- school or an in-school suspension.
At the elementary level, two climate variables, teachers’ perception of safety and peer relationships emerged as predictors for both outcomes. This finding indicates that there is an association between positive school climate (teacher safety and strong student peer relationships) and a decrease in the percent of students with at least one OSS and at least one suspension. Together, these variables respectively account for 28 percent and 26 percent of the differences in the percent of students with at least one OSS and the percent of students with at least one suspension.
Relation of Demographic Composition to Student Outcomes and Discipline Consequences Additionally, school demographic characteristics were found to have the strongest associations with discipline outcomes. The demographic composition of schools accounts for roughly 89 percent of the differences in the percent of students with an out-of-school suspension and 82 percent of the differences in the percent of students with an OSS or ISS. When demographic variables were analyzed together with school practices, school practice variables and climate variables explained only an additional 2 percent of the differences in discipline outcomes. This does not mean that the school practices or climate variables are not important, rather, it means that schools may need to focus more on the positive practices in schools with higher concentrations of non-White or non-Asian students.
Analyses were conducted to model the demographic composition of the school in addition to the school practice and climate variables. For middle/high schools, results showed that demographic composition of the school, including the percent of male, Hispanic, English Learner, and Economically Disadvantaged students, accounted for roughly 84 percent of the differences in the percent of discipline violations, leaving the school practice and climate variables with very little contribution. Specifically, higher percentages of Male, Hispanic English Learner, and Economically Disadvantaged students were linked with a higher percentage of students with violations (Note: other demographic variables, including students with disabilities were associated with an increase in discipline violations, but were not found to be strong predictors when modeled with the other demographic variables).
Similar results emerged for the two discipline consequences outcomes. Higher percentages of male students and lower percentages of Asian students were associated with increases in the percent of students with at least one OSS and higher percentages of Male, Hispanic, English Learner, and Economically Disadvantaged students were linked with higher percentage of students with at least one suspension. Therefore, at the middle/high level, demographic composition of the school is more meaningful than the implementation of school practices and climate. This does not mean that the school practices or climate variables are not important, rather, it means that schools may need to first focus on the underlying cause of this finding. For example, given the large percent of the differences that are explained by demographics, addressing issues of implicit bias may be an effective way to decrease discipline violations and increase positive perceptions of school climate (Gregory, Bell, & Pollock, 2014).
At the elementary level, racial composition was not a meaningful predictor in the percent of students with discipline violations, but the percent of students with disabilities did contribute similarly to the school practice and climate variables. That is, there was a strong link between a high percentage of students with disabilities and an increase in the percent of students with a discipline violation, which was an equally meaningful ______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 K-2 predictor as school climate. There was a link between lower percentages of Asian students and higher percentages of students with disabilities and an increase in the percentage of students with at least one suspension, however, school climate remained the strongest predictor. This suggests that school climate makes a meaningful difference at elementary schools. Finally, results showed an association between a lower percentage of Asian students and a higher percentage of students with disabilities and an increase in the percent of students with at least one out-of-school suspension.
Relation of School Practices to Disproportionality in Discipline Students with Disabilities, Black, and Asian (underrepresentation) disproportionality Neither school practices nor school climate variables were associated with overrepresentation of students with disabilities and Black students nor the underrepresentation of Asian students. These findings suggest that the variables that the study measured are not contributing to disproportionality for students with disabilities or Black students. This does not mean that schools do not have the ability to change disproportionality for these student groups, rather that there may be something unique, like implicit bias, that are contributing to these findings. White disproportionality (underrepresentation) When the school practices and climate variables were placed together in a model, teacher perceptions of social-emotional learning (β=0.375 p=0.008) and student perceptions of equity and fairness (β=0.315 p=0.024) were the two variables that showed meaningful relations with White underrepresentation and accounted for 24 percent of the differences between schools. This finding shows that there was an association between positive perceptions of implementation of school practices and a decrease in White underrepresentation. When the percent of Black students were included in the model, the school practice variables no longer showed those strong relations, although they were still present in the equation with borderline significant results. The percent of Black students accounted for 24 percent of the differences between schools and social-emotional learning and equity and fairness accounted for an additional 9 percent. Hispanic and English Learner disproportionality Hispanic and English Learner overrepresentation showed patterns that were very similar. When modeled, the school practices and climate variable that showed the most meaningful contribution to the differences between school in Hispanic (β=-0.458 p=0.003) and English Learner (β=-0.367 p=0.030) overrepresentation was principals’ focus on SEL, accounting for 21 percent and 14 percent of the respective differences. In other words, decreases in Hispanic and English Learner overrepresentation in discipline violations was linked with a stronger principal focus on SEL. Furthermore, controlling for demographic composition of the school showed little meaning for Hispanic overrepresentation, but the percent of White students accounted for 23 percent of the differences for English Learner overrepresentation, with an additional 7 percent accounted for by principal focus on SEL (i.e. an increase in the percentage of White students was associated with greater overrepresentation for English Learner students). Economically Disadvantaged disproportionality
Overrepresentation of economically disadvantaged students was positively associated with students’ perceptions of peer relationships (β=0.371 p=0.009). This means that the stronger perceptions of peer relationships, the more overrepresentation of Economically Disadvantaged students. This finding is different than what is expected from the literature, that a climate that fosters strong peer relationships should reduce overrepresentation of student groups (Losen et al., 2015). When modeled with the demographic composition variables (percent of White, Hispanic, English Learner, and economically disadvantaged students), the peer relationship variable does not provide meaningful contribution to understanding the differences in overrepresentation of economically disadvantage students. Demographic composition accounted for 22 percent of the differences and peer relationships not only became non-significant, but also only accounted for an additional 1 percent of the differences.
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 K-3 Male disproportionality Models showed that principals’ focus on school belonging (β=0.386 p=0.008) and teacher (β=0.292 p=0.046) and student (β=0.377 p=0.011) perceptions of support for academic learning were meaningful predictors of overrepresentation of Males in discipline violations. This suggests that the more schools foster school belonging and focus on academic learning, the worse overrepresentation is for Males. This could mean that while school practices such as support for academic learning are important for reducing other negative aspects of discipline that it is actually contributing in a way that is harmful to many FCPS students. This finding does not mean that schools should stop supporting students’ academic learning rather that they need to further investigate why this relation is occurring and evaluate whether their perception of support for academic learning hinders male students’ learning. Summary In sum, very few of the measured variables accounted for disproportionality for students with disabilities, Black and Asian students (underrepresentation), which means that more investigation should try to uncover why disproportionality for these student groups occurs. Improvements in White (underrepresentation), Hispanic, and English Learner disproportionality was associated with positive school practices and climate that are consistent in the literature, particularly practices involving SEL. Disproportionality for both economically disadvantaged and male students showed initial correlations with school practices and climate variables that are inconsistent with the literature. These relations were not maintained when controlling for demographic composition of the school for disproportionality for economically disadvantaged students. Unfortunately, they were maintained for Male overrepresentation, suggesting that FCPS needs to further investigate why these relations occurred.
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 K-4 APPENDIX L
ADDITIONAL ANALYSES OF DISCIPLINE DATA
Trends in discipline violations by month The following figure shows the number of violations by month for school years 2013-14 through the first half of 2018-19. While there is no clear trend to the data, you can see that the number of violations are increasing over time with the higher values shown in the most recent years (2016-17 through 2018-19).
Starting in SY 2016-17, general education students who received in-school suspension (for sanction dependent offenses) started getting reported to VDOE for violations the state had not previously required. Therefore, any increases from SY 2015-16 and later must be considered with respect to that reporting change. For Figure L-1 below, it is helpful to consider only SY 2016-17 and later to understand changes in trends for FCPS. However, for readers interested in understanding what SY 2016-17 and later would look like if the old reporting rules were applied, please see Figure L-2, directly below that.
Figure L-1. Trends in Violations by Month (Current Reporting Rules)
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 L-1
Figure L-2. Trends in Violations by Month (Pre SY 2016-17 Reporting Rules Applied)
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 L-2
Student outcomes based on School Board and Hearings Office decisions for SY 2017-18 The figure below shows the percent of Hearings Office appeals by their outcome. In SY 2017-18, 683 cases were referred to the Hearings Office and 45 of those cases (7 percent) were appealed to the School Board. In the majority of cases appealed (80 percent), the School Board denies the appeal and upholds the Hearings Office’s original decision.
Figure L-3. Percent of SY 2017-18 Hearings Office Appeals by Outcome
Of the 45 cases that were appealed, 36 were denied and 7 were granted in full or in part. Recidivism rates for those whose appeal was granted were lower than those whose appeals were denied both within the same year as the appeal and in the first semester of the next school year (Figure L-4).
Figure L-4. Recidivism Rates by Appeal Status.
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 L-3
Academic outcomes as measured by the Standards of Learning tests were also studied. The pass rates for students granted an appeal were higher for math and lower for reading. Percentages should be interpreted carefully due to the small number of students who participated in SOL testing.
Figure L-5. Within Year (2017-18) SOL Performance by Appeal Status.
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 L-4
Percent of Students Removed from Their Enrolled School and Assigned to Alternate Placement The following figure shows the status of Hearings Office cases that were referred from school year 2013- 14 to 2017-18. Specifically, the data show the number and percent of Hearings Office cases where students were returned to their school, sent to an alternative school, or were withdrawn after an incident occurred during those school years. As shown in Figure L-6, about two-thirds of cases result in students being reassigned to an alternative setting, which includes not being returned to their school for the remainder of that school year (though they may return to their enrolled school the following year), and that the percent of those cases was at its highest percent last school year (70 percent).
Figure L-6. Number and Percent of Cases Receiving Various Outcomes from a Hearing Decision
Figure L-7, shows similar data but by student, whereas Figure L-4 looked at cases. The slight differences in numbers and percentages in Figure L-5 is because students who had multiple cases referred to the Hearing’s Office in a single school year were counted once per Hearing Decision outcome.
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 L-5
Figure L-7. Number and Percent of Students Receiving Various Outcomes from a Hearing Decision
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 L-6
Disorderly Conduct Data As a Next Step from the November 12, 2018 work session, the School Board requested data on disorderly conduct for the past three years. The state defines disorderly conduct as “a criminal act that:
• Takes place in a public place, whether intoxicated or not, • Has direct tendency to cause violence at the person at whom such conduct is directed, and • The accused intended to cause a public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly created a risk for one of those. 8,9”
As can be seen in Figure L-8 below, the total number of disorderly conduct referrals have steadily declined from SY 2015-16 to SY 2017-18 (green bar). Only a half year of data is available for SY 2017-18; so, it is too early to know if the trend will continue. The trend appears to be driven by a decrease in the number of complaints filed by school resource officers (SROs). Complaints filed by “Others” may include other school staff, police officers, or community members.
Figure L-8. Total Number of Disorderly Conduct Complaints Filed School Year 2015-16 through December 2018-19
8 Summary adopted from https://medvinlaw.com/virginia-disorderly-conduct-laws-penalties-defense- lawyer/. 9 Va Code 18.2-415 available at https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter9/section18.2-415/.
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 L-7
Prediction of Tier 3 Behavior Intervention Needs Currently, FCPS does not collect data centrally or uniformly on Tier 3 behavior interventions, which limited ORSI’s ability to fully respond to Next Step 192. Therefore, analyses focused on students who had received a suspension as a substitute for those needing Tier 3 behavior intervention. Based on the data available, ORSI could not identify variables or patterns of variables that would accurately predict those students likely to need significant behavior interventions. If SIS or another data system is modified to gather student-level MTSS intervention data in the future, additional analyses can be conducted to seek to identify red flags.
Diversion of Hearings Office Referral through Region Records review In response to Next Step 262, staff sought to understand how Region records reviews were used to divert students from Hearings Office referrals. Based on the small number of documented reviews conducted during the last three school years (SY 2015-16: 6 reviews; SY 2016-17: 5 reviews; SY 2017-18: 7 reviews), it was not possible to determine if Region records reviews had a meaningful impact on diverting students from a referral to the Hearings Office.
Comparison of Length of Time Between Violation and Reassignment In response to Next Step 254, staff determined the average number of days between a violation and the final decision date by special education status (SWD or non-SWD) for students reassigned as a result of a hearing. As can be seen in Figure L-9, the average number of days between violation and decision date was approximately 20 school days, or approximately 4 weeks of school, for both groups. During the past four school years, the average number of days for Students with Disabilities was higher for three of the four years.
Figure L-9. Average Number of Days Between Violation and Decision Date.
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 Students with Disabilities n=84 n=114 n=118 n=152 Students without Disabilities n=170 n=249 n=228 n=297
______Fairfax County Public Schools, Office of Research and Strategic Improvement June 2019 L-8