Fall ODE/COSA Special Education Administrator's Conference Session
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
9/22/2015 Fall ODE/COSA Special Education Administrator’s Conference School Discipline: Leading for Equity Through Policy and Practice October 2, 2015 John Inglish, JD Education Specialist, Oregon Department of Education Session Objectives • Review Federal & State Guidance: – Legal & Regulatory – Policy & Practice • Dialogue on best practices, with particular focus on issues unique to charter schools – Data tools – Building/classroom practices Disclaimer‐The content in this presentation is for informational purposes only. Nothing in this presentation constitutes legal advice. You should contact designated district/school legal counsel for legal advice specific to any factual situation 1 9/22/2015 Legal Overview State law Board Federal Policy Law Why? Why change the way we do behavior management in schools? 2 9/22/2015 History of disciplinary inequity A national view Source: U.S. Department of Education‐Office for Civil Rights; 1972‐3 data is OCR data, but taken from Children’s Defense Fund, School Suspensions; Are They Helping Children? Cambridge, MA: Washington Research Project, 1975. Figure 2. Impact by race and disability of the use of out‐of‐school suspensions, 2009‐2010 Source: Losen & Gillespie, Opportunities Suspended: The Disparate Impact of Disciplinary Exclusion from School (2012). (Data from CRDC 09/10 SY). 6 3 9/22/2015 Discipline Gap: Framing the Issue “One of the most consistent findings of modern education research is the strong positive relationship between time engaged in academic learning and student achievement (Brophy, 1988; Fisher et al., 1981; Greenwood,Horton, & Utley, 2002). The school disciplinary practices used most widely throughout the United States may be contributing to lowered academic performance among the group of students in greatest need of improvement.” Source: The Achievement Gap and the Discipline Gap : Two Sides of the Same Coin? Anne Gregory, Russell J. Skiba and Pedro A. Noguera EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER 2010 39: 59DOI: 10.3102/0013189X09357621 “Research on the frequent use of school suspension has indicated that, after controlling for race and poverty, higher rates of out‐of‐school suspension correlate with lower achievement scores, or showed no academic benefits as measured by test scores and were predictors of higher dropout rates.” Source: Losen, J (2012)‐Sound Discipline Policy for Successful Schools, citing Skiba & Rausch (2006); and Fabelo et al., (2011) 4 9/22/2015 Emerging studies suggest that being suspended even once in ninth grade is associated with a twofold increase in the likelihood of dropping out, from 16% for those not suspended to 32% for those suspended just once. Balfanz (2013) What are the long term consequences of school pushout? 5 9/22/2015 JUVENILE INCARCERATION: AN INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON Source: Hazel, Neal, Cross‐National Comparison of Youth Justice, London: Youth Justice Board, 2008. Juv. Incarceration Rate per 100,000 336 68 69 46.8 51.3 33 24.9 3.6 18.623.111.3 0.1 4.1 How do we look in Oregon? 6 9/22/2015 First, the good news…. Oregon Statewide Data Expulsions 2009‐2014 Expulsions 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 Expulsions 800 600 400 200 0 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 7 9/22/2015 Oregon Statewide Data Suspension/Expulsion 2009‐2014 Out of School Suspensions 60000 50000 40000 30000 Out of School Suspensions 20000 10000 0 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 But much work remains … 8 9/22/2015 9 9/22/2015 http://educationnorthwest.org/north west‐matters/discipline‐and‐ achievement‐state‐assessments‐ english‐learner‐students‐oregon OSS‐SY 11‐12 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% % of subgroup suspended 30.00% % of SPED subgroup suspended % of nonSPED suspended 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% Asian Black Nat Amer Hispanic Multi‐Racial Pac Island White 10 9/22/2015 OSS‐SY 12/13 50.00% 45.00% 40.00% 35.00% 30.00% 25.00% % of subgroup suspended 20.00% % of SPED subgroup suspended 15.00% % of nonSPEd subgroup suspended 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% OSS‐SY 13/14 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% % OSS‐All 15.00% % OSS‐SPED % OSS‐Non‐SPED 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% Asian Black Nat Amer Hispanic Multi‐Racial Pac Island White 11 9/22/2015 Why are students being pushed out of school? How is suspension/expulsion being used? 12 9/22/2015 Oregon SY 13/14 All Offense Types Oregon SY 13/14 OSS 13 9/22/2015 Oregon SY 13/14 Expulsion Statutory Scavenger Hunt 14 9/22/2015 True or False: School boards have discretion as to whether they adopt written policies for student discipline? False. The law states that “each district school board shall adopt written policies for the discipline, suspension, or expulsion of any refractory student. ORS 339.250(2) School discipline policies must limit expulsion to the following 3 circumstances: • For conduct that poses a threat to the health or safety of students or school employees • When other strategies to change student conduct have been ineffective • When the expulsion is required by law ORS 339.250(2)(b)(A‐C) 15 9/22/2015 T/F: Under Oregon and federal law, students who are found in possession of weapons must be automatically expelled from school FALSE HB 2192 removed mandatory expulsion (zero tolerance) language regarding “weapons,” replacing instead with “firearms” to be consistent with Gun Free Schools Act (GFSA). 18 USC § 921 • Note‐both GFSA and 2192 provide the superintendent of a district discretion to “modify the expulsion requirement for a student on a case by case basis.” 20 USC 7151(b)(1); ORS 339.250(7)(c)(A). Identify the eight core tenets that school discipline policies must address in Oregon: • Protect students & staff from harm • Provide opportunities to learn from mistakes • Foster positive learning communities • Keep students in school and attending class • Impose discipline without bias against students from a protected class 16 9/22/2015 • Implement graduated, age‐appropriate responses that are fair, nondiscriminatory, and proportionate • Employ a range of strategies for prevention, intervention, and discipline that consider developmental capacities and that are proportionate to the degree and severity of the behavior • Propose alternative programs of instruction for students who are expelled or leaving school • Use evidence based approaches to the extent practicable • Ensure compliance with federal and state law concerning students with disabilities ORS 339.250(5)(a‐j) Recent additions to Oregon’s school discipline law The Oregon legislature passed SB 553 & SB 556 in the 2015 regular session. Both bills took effect 7/1/15. SB 553‐For students fifth grade or lower, out‐of‐school suspension limited to the following circumstances: – For nonaccidental conduct causing serious physical harm to a student or school employee; – When a school administrator determines, based upon the administrator’s observation or upon a report from a school employee, that the student’s conduct poses a direct threat to the health or safety of students or school employees; or – When the suspension or expulsion is required by law Enrolled Senate Bill 553: https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB553/ Enrolled 17 9/22/2015 SB 556‐ Expulsion may not be used to address truancy Enrolled Senate Bill 556: https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB556/Enrolled What about charter school students who qualify for special education? 18 9/22/2015 Students with qualifying disabilities under IDEA CHARTER SCHOOLS AND STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES WHO RECEIVE IDEA SERVICES Neither a principal, superintendent, or a charter school board has authority to expel a student with a disability who qualifies for services under the IDEA if the behavior is determined to be related to the disability. This is one of the bedrock principles of IDEA. See generally: (Honig v. Doe, 559 IDELR 353; S‐1 v Turlington, 552 IDELR 267; 34 CFR 300.530; OARs 581‐015‐2400—2445. If a Manifestation Determination Review concludes that a student’s behavior was related to their disability, the IEP team must; 1) conduct a functional behavioral assessment and implement a behavior intervention plan (BIP); or 2) review the BIP and modify it in order to address the behavior. 34 CFR 300.530(f)(1)(i‐ii); AND 3) return the student to the placement from which they were removed, unless the parent and district agree to a change of placement as part of a modification to the BIP. 34 CFR 530(f)(2); OAR 581‐015‐2415(4). ODE Discipline Guidance on students who receive services under IDEA http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?id=42 87 19 9/22/2015 Are statutes alone enough to solve social problems such as disproportionality in discipline? Law/Regulation Practice •HB 2192 •Superintendent •Principal •Teacher/Practitioner Policy Research •OEIB/OSB •SWPBIS •School Boards •Restorative Justice •Formal •Integration of practices •Informal Students, Families, Communities 20 9/22/2015 What are some policy resources to guide districts in this work? http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?id=4287 CONTENTS 1. Background 2. Questions Local Policymakers Should Ask 3. 10 Action Steps to Prevent the Use of Out‐Of‐School Suspensions 4. Game‐Changing Community Strategies 5. Research 6. Resources 21 9/22/2015 CONTENTS 1. Introduction 2. Using Disciplinary Interventions 3. Description of Inappropriate and Disruptive Behaviors and Consequences 4. Procedures 5. Data Collection & Monitoring 6. Glossary of Disciplinary Interventions or Responses 10 Key Components INTRODUCTION 1. Emphasize Prevention KEY COMPONENTS OF A MODEL 2. Limit Suspensions & Expulsions DISCIPLINE POLICY 3. Limit Reliance on Law Enforcement Across the country, school systems are shutting the doors of academic opportunity on students and funneling them into the juvenile and criminal justice systems. The 4. Focus on Eliminating Racial Disparities combination of overly harsh school policies and an increased role of law enforcement in schools has created a “schoolhouse-to-jailhouse track,” in which punitive measures such 5.