K-12 Education: Discipline Disparities for Black Students, Boys, and Students with Disabilities

Research has shown that students who experience discipline that removes them from the classroom are more likely to repeat a grade, drop out of school, and become involved in the juvenile justice system. Studies have shown this can result in decreased earning potential and added costs to society, such as incarceration and lost tax revenue. Education and Justice are responsible for enforcing federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in the administration of discipline in public schools.

GAO was asked to review the use of discipline in schools. To provide insight into these issues, this report examines (1) patterns in disciplinary actions among public schools, (2) challenges selected school districts reported with student behavior and how they are approaching school discipline, and (3) actions Education and Justice have taken to identify and address disparities or discrimination in school discipline. GAO analyzed discipline data from nearly all public schools for school year 2013-14 from Education's Civil Rights Data Collection; interviewed federal and state officials, as well as officials from a total of 5 districts and 19 schools in California, Georgia, Massachusetts, North Dakota, and Texas. We selected these districts based on disparities in suspensions for Black students, boys, or students with disabilities, and diversity in size and location. We also reviewed federal laws and a non-generalizable sample of seven recently resolved federal school discipline investigations (selected in part based on the type of alleged discrimination). We incorporated technical comments from the agencies as appropriate.

Black students, boys, and students with disabilities were disproportionately disciplined (e.g., suspensions and expulsions) in K-12 public schools, according to GAO's analysis of Department of Education (Education) national civil rights data for school year 2013-14, the most recent available. These disparities were widespread and persisted regardless of the type of disciplinary action, level of school poverty, or type of public school attended. For example, Black students accounted for 15.5 percent of all public school students, but represented about 39 percent of students suspended from school—an overrepresentation of about 23 percentage points (see figure).

Officials GAO interviewed in all five school districts in the five states GAO visited reported various challenges with addressing student behavior, and said they were considering new approaches to school discipline. They described a range of issues, some complex—such as the effects of poverty and mental health issues. For example, officials in four school districts described a growing trend of behavioral challenges related to mental health and trauma. While there is no one-size-fits-all solution for the issues that influence student behavior, officials from all five school districts GAO visited were implementing alternatives to disciplinary actions that remove children from the classroom, such as initiatives that promote positive behavioral expectations for students.

Education and the Department of Justice (Justice) documented several actions taken to identify and address school discipline issues. For example, both agencies investigated cases alleging discrimination. Further, to help identify persistent disparities among the nation's schools, Education collects comprehensive data on school discipline every other year through its Civil Rights Data Collection effort.

Students who face certain types of discipline in school may be affected in  profound ways that influence their lives as adults. Starting in pre-school,  children as young as 3 and 4 have been suspended and expelled from  school, a pattern that can continue throughout a child’s education.  Research has shown that students who are suspended from school lose  important instructional time, are less likely to graduate on time, and are  more likely to repeat a grade, drop out of school, and become involved in  the juvenile justice system. The effects of certain discipline events, such  as dropping out, can linger throughout an individual’s lifetime and lead to  individual and societal costs. For example, one study of California youth  estimated that students who dropped out of high school due to  suspensions would result in about $2.7 billion in costs for the state,  stemming from lost wages and tax revenue, increased crime, and higher  welfare and health costs. Another study estimated that Florida high  school students who drop out earn about $200,000 less over their  lifetimes than high school graduates.

We were asked to report on the issue of discipline in schools. This report  examines (1) the patterns in disciplinary actions among public schools,  (2) the challenges selected school districts reported with student behavior  and how they are approaching school discipline, and (3) the actions the  Department of Education (Education) and the Department of Justice  (Justice) have taken to identify and address any disparities or  discrimination in school discipline.

To obtain information on the patterns in disciplinary actions among public  schools, we analyzed Education’s Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) for  2013-14 (the most recent available). CRDC collects a range of  information, including discipline data, from nearly every public school by  student demographics (e.g., race, sex, disability) and school type (e.g.,  magnet or charter). The CRDC captures data on six broad categories of  discipline: (1) out-of-school suspensions, (2) in-school suspensions, (3)  referrals to law enforcement, (4) expulsions, (5) corporal punishment, and  (6) school-related arrests. It does not capture data on less severe  disciplinary actions, such as detentions. Using the CRDC, we also  developed a regression model to explore whether certain school  characteristics, such as the poverty level of the school, were associated  with higher rates of certain disciplinary actions. Our analyses of these  data, taken alone, do not establish whether unlawful discrimination has  occurred. We determined these data were sufficiently reliable for the  purposes of this report by reviewing documentation, conducting electronic  testing, and interviewing Education officials.

To obtain information on how selected school districts are addressing  discipline issues, we interviewed state education, school district, and  school officials in five states (California, Georgia, Massachusetts, North  Dakota, and Texas). We selected one district in each state, and 19  schools within those districts, to serve as illustrative (non-generalizable)  examples based on several criteria, including the presence of disparities  in suspensions from school for Black students, boys, or students with  disabilities, as reported in Education’s CRDC data, size of the district,  and geographic diversity.

To determine how Education and Justice are identifying and addressing  discipline disparities and discrimination, we interviewed agency officials  and reviewed agency documentation, administrative data, federal laws  and regulations, and a non-generalizable selection of resolved school  discipline investigations undertaken by Education and Justice (which we  refer to as cases). We selected four school discipline cases from  Education and three from Justice that covered pre-kindergarten through  grade 12 students, included a mix of types of alleged discrimination (e.g.,  based on race or disability status) and types of discipline (e.g.,  suspension, expulsion, arrest, etc.), and were resolved between 2014 and  May 2017. Regarding administrative data, Education provided information  from its internal database on the number of complaints received and cases investigated that were categorized as being related to school  discipline. We assessed the reliability of this source through discussion  with knowledgeable officials and reviewing key documents and  determined the data to be reliable for our purposes. See appendix I for  detailed information about our scope and methodology.

We conducted this performance audit from November 2016 to March  2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Research on Student Behavior and School Discipline

The issue of who gets disciplined and why is complex. Studies we  reviewed suggest that implicit bias—stereotypes or unconscious  associations about people—on the part of teachers and staff may cause  them to judge students’ behaviors differently based on the students’ race  and sex. Teachers and staff sometimes have discretion to make case- by-case decisions about whether to discipline, and the form of discipline  to impose in response to student behaviors, such as disobedience,  defiance, and classroom disruption. Studies show that these decisions  can result in certain groups of students being more harshly disciplined  than others. Further, the studies found that the types of offenses that  Black children were disciplined for were largely based on school officials’  interpretations of behavior. For example, one study found that Black girls  were disproportionately disciplined for subjective interpretations of  behaviors, such as disobedience and disruptive behavior. A separate  study used eye-tracking technology to show that, among other things,  teachers gazed longer at Black boys than other children when asked to  look for challenging behavior based on video clips. The Department of  Health and Human Services (HHS) reported that this research has  highlighted implicit bias as a contributing factor in school discipline and  may shed some light on the persistent disparities in expulsion and  suspension practices, even though the study did not find that teacher  gazes were indicative of how they would discipline students.

Children’s behavior in school may be affected by health and social  challenges outside the classroom that tend to be more acute for poor  children, including minority children who experience higher rates of  poverty. Research shows that experiencing trauma in childhood may  lead to educational challenges, such as lower grades and more  suspensions and expulsions; increased use of mental health services;  and increased involvement with the child welfare and juvenile justice  systems, according to HHS’s Substance Abuse and Mental Health  Services Administration (SAMHSA). Further, a substantial share of  children nationwide are estimated to have experienced at least one  trauma, referred to as an adverse childhood experience (ACE), according  to the National Survey of Children’s Health. Additionally, as we recently  reported, there has been an increase in certain mental health issues  within the school age population. For example, from 2005 to 2014, the  suicide rate of youth ages 15 to 19 rose slightly, with older youth having a  much higher rate of suicide than younger youth, and since 2007, the  percentage of youth ages 12-17 experiencing a major depressive episode  increased.

About 50 million students were enrolled in K-12 public schools during the  2013-14 school year, according to the CRDC. About 90 percent of  students attended traditional public schools; the remainder were enrolled  at public charters, magnets, and other types of schools (see table 1).

About half of all public school students were White and the other half fell  into one of several minority groups, with Hispanic and Black students  being the largest minority groups (see fig. 1). The number of boys and  girls in public schools was almost evenly split. A larger percentage of  boys were students with disabilities.

Nearly half of all public school students went to schools where 50 percent  or more of the students were low-income, and about a quarter went to  schools where 75 percent or more of the students were low-income (see  table 2).

Discipline of students dropped between 2011-12 and 2013-14 over the six  broad categories of discipline reported in Education’s CRDC, which were  (1) out-of-school suspensions, (2) in-school suspensions, (3) referrals to  law enforcement, (4) expulsions, (5) corporal punishment, and (6) school- related arrests. For example, in school year 2011-12 about 3.4 million (or  6.9 percent) of K-12 public school students were suspended out-of-school  at least once, and in school year 2013-14 these suspensions fell to about  2.8 million (or 5.7 percent). Other disciplinary actions affected a much  smaller portion of the student body—specifically, less than 0.5 percent of  all K-12 public school students were expelled, referred to law  enforcement, had a school-related arrest, or experienced corporal  punishment in 2013-14, according to Education’s reported data.

Education and Justice Enforcement Responsibilities

Education’s Office for Civil Rights and Justice’s Civil Rights Division are  responsible for enforcing a number of civil rights laws, which protect  students from discrimination on the basis of certain characteristics (see  table 3). As part of their enforcement responsibilities, both agencies  conduct investigations in response to complaints or reports of possible  discrimination. Education also carries out agency-initiated investigations,  which are called compliance reviews and which target problems that  Education has determined are particularly acute. Education may also  withhold federal funds if a recipient is determined to be in violation of the  civil rights laws and the agency is unable to reach agreement with the  parties involved. In addition, Justice has the authority to file suit in  federal court to enforce the civil rights of students in public education.

Education and Justice have also issued guidance to assist public schools  in meeting their obligations under federal law to administer school  discipline without unlawfully discriminating against students on the basis  of race, color, or national origin. According to the guidance, public  schools are prohibited by federal law from discriminating in the  administration of student discipline based on protected characteristics.  Further, Education and Justice have noted in their guidance that  disciplinary policies and practices can result in unlawful discrimination  based on race, for example, in two ways: first, if students are intentionally  subject to different treatment on account of their race; and second, if a  policy is neutral on its face but has a disproportionate and unjustified  effect on students of a particular race, referred to as disparate impact.

According to Education and Justice guidance, significant and unexplained  racial disparities in student discipline give rise to concerns that schools  may be engaging in racial discrimination that violates federal civil rights  laws; however, data showing such disparities, taken alone, do not  establish whether unlawful discrimination has occurred.

Selected Recently Enacted Federal Laws with Provisions Related to School Discipline

Two significant, recently enacted laws include provisions related to school  discipline: the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) and the Child Care  and Development Block Grant Act of 2014 (CCDBG Act of 2014).  ESSA, enacted in December 2015, amended Title I program  requirements to allow states’ accountability systems to use multiple  indicators of success, which can include measures of school climate and  safety. As we previously reported in 2017, some states were  considering measures related to suspension rates or school attendance.  Additionally, ESSA amended the Elementary and Secondary Education  Act of 1965 to authorize the Student Support and Academic Enrichment  Program, under which school districts may use grant funding to, among  other things, design and implement a locally-tailored plan to reduce  exclusionary discipline practices in elementary and secondary schools.  These grants also allow the use of funding to expand access to school- based mental health services, including counseling.

In addition, the CCDBG Act of 2014 allows states to use certain funds to  support the training and professional development of child care workers  through activities such as behavior management strategies and training  that promote positive social and emotional development and reduce  challenging behaviors, including reducing expulsions of young children for  those behaviors.

Black Students, Boys, and Those with Disabilities Were Disproportionately Disciplined Regardless of Type of Discipline, Level of School Poverty, or Type of School

Black students, boys, and students with disabilities were  disproportionately disciplined in K-12 public schools, according to our  analysis of Education’s most recent CRDC data. This pattern of  disproportionate discipline persisted regardless of the type of disciplinary  action, level of school poverty, or type of public school these students  attended.

Across each disciplinary action, Black students, boys, and students with  disabilities experienced disproportionate levels of discipline. Black  students were particularly overrepresented among students who were  suspended from school, received corporal punishment, or had a school- related arrest (see fig. 2). For example, Black students represented 15.5  percent of all public school students and accounted for 39 percent of  students suspended from school, an overrepresentation of about 23  percentage points. Differences in discipline were particularly large  between Black and White students. Although there were approximately  17.4 million more White students than Black students attending K-12  public schools in 2013-14, nearly 176,000 more Black students than  White students were suspended from school that school year. See  appendix IV, table 12 for additional data on the disciplinary experiences of  different racial or ethnic groups. For example, American Indian and  Alaska Native students had higher than average rates of receiving each  of the six disciplinary actions.

This pattern of disproportionate discipline affected both Black boys and  Black girls—the only racial group for which both sexes were  disproportionately disciplined across all six actions. For example, Black  girls were suspended from school at higher rates than boys of multiple  racial groups and every other racial group of girls (see fig. 3).

Further, boys as a group were overrepresented, while girls were  underrepresented among students disciplined across each action.  Specifically, boys accounted for just over half of all public school  students, but were at least two-thirds of students disciplined across each  of the six actions, according to our analysis of Education’s school year  2013-14 data. Boys were particularly overrepresented among students  who received corporal punishment, by about 27 percentage points (see  fig. 4). These kinds of disparities presented as early as pre-school (see  sidebar). Additional information about discipline for pre-school students is  in appendix IV, table 17.

Regardless of the level of school poverty, Black students, boys, and  students with disabilities were suspended from school at  disproportionately higher rates than their peers (see fig. 6). This was  particularly acute for Black students in high-poverty schools, where they  were overrepresented by nearly 25 percentage points in suspensions  from school. This pattern persisted across all six disciplinary actions, as well. A similar pattern emerged for boys and students with disabilities.  However, unlike Black students, boys and students with disabilities were  particularly overrepresented among students suspended from low-poverty  public schools (poverty less than 25 percent).

Effect of School Poverty on Discipline  GAO used a regression model to examine the  independent effect of school poverty on  discipline in school year 2013-14. The model  showed that increases in the percentage of  low-income students in a school were  generally associated with significantly higher  rates for each of the six disciplinary actions  GAO reviewed (in-school and out-of-school  suspensions, referrals to law enforcement,  expulsions, corporal punishment, and school- related arrests).

In these schools, boys and students with disabilities were  overrepresented by approximately 24 and 20 percentage points,  respectively. See appendix IV, table 14 for more information on discipline  by the poverty level of the school. In addition, see sidebar for regression  results that were relevant to poverty and school discipline. Full results  from our regression model are in appendix I, table 10.

Regardless of the type of public school a student attended—traditional,  magnet, charter, alternative, or special education—Black students, boys,  and students with disabilities were disciplined at disproportionately higher  rates than their peers, with few exceptions (see fig. 7). For example,  Black students were disproportionately suspended from all types of public  schools, and this was particularly acute in charter schools. That is,  although they represented about 29 percent of all students in charter  schools, Black students accounted for more than 60 percent of the  students suspended from charter schools (about 32 percentage points  higher than their representation in those schools). Boys and students with  disabilities were particularly overrepresented among students suspended  from traditional public schools (roughly 19 and 14 percentage points,  respectively, above their representation in traditional public schools).

Effect of School Type on Discipline  GAO used a regression model to examine the  independent effect of attending different types  of public schools on disciplinary outcomes.  The model showed several significant  associations between school type and the  likelihood of receiving discipline. For example,  attending an alternative school was  associated with a significantly higher  likelihood of being suspended (in-school or  out-of-school), expelled, referred to law  enforcement, or arrested for a school-related  incident, compared to attending a traditional  public school. The model also showed that  students were significantly less likely to be  suspended (in-school or out-of-school) if they  attended a magnet, charter, or special  education school as compared to a traditional  public school.

We found a few exceptions to the general pattern of Black students, boys,  and students with disabilities receiving disproportionately high rates of  discipline by school type. For example, Black students attending special  education schools did not receive corporal punishment at disproportionate  levels. See appendix IV, table 15 for additional information on discipline  by the type of public school. In addition, see sidebar for regression results  that were relevant to school type and school discipline. Full results from  our regression model are in appendix I, table 10. We also found a  regional component to discipline in public schools. For example, corporal  punishment generally occurred in southern states. See appendix II for  maps showing the rates of disciplinary actions by public school district.

Five Selected Districts Reported Changing Their Approach to Discipline in Order to Address Student Behavior Challenges

Selected School District and School Officials Said Complex Issues Confronting Students Make It Challenging to Address Student Behavior

We spoke with school officials at five school districts about how they are  addressing discipline, including challenges they face in responding to  student conduct given the complex issues influencing student behavior.  Several school officials noted a range of issues, including complex issues  such as the effects of poverty, mental health issues, and family  dysfunction, that they said contributed to behavior that leads to discipline  (see fig. 8). For example, officials at a high-poverty Georgia high school  said that their students have additional responsibilities, such as raising or  watching siblings or working to support their family, which may cause  students to be late to, or skip, class. This observation is consistent with  our recent report on child well-being, which cited research showing that  children in poverty are more likely to face academic and social challenges  than their peers, and with our analysis of CRDC data, which showed that  rates of chronic absenteeism (being absent 15 or more days in a school  year), were higher in high-poverty schools. See appendix IV, table 19  for detailed data on chronic absenteeism. At one high school in Georgia,  officials said that attendance issues were the reason for a majority of  disciplinary actions at their school. They said that if students were repeatedly late to school or did not get to their next class within the set  amount of time, students could amass enough infractions to warrant  suspension from school. In contrast, an official at an elementary school in  Georgia said that they usually do not discipline their students for being  late to school, as they have found that it was often due to circumstances  beyond the child’s control. According to several school officials, some  groups such as homeless youth, American Indian, or Lesbian, Gay,  Bisexual, Transgender, or Questioning (LGBTQ) students have had  greater attendance problems than others. For example, education officials  in California said that homeless and foster youth frequently miss school  because of all the transitions and instability in their lives. In a school in  Texas, officials also reported attendance issues with students who are  homeless or in foster care because they lack transportation and clothing.  Similarly, we previously reported that American Indian students face  school attendance challenges, including access to reliable  transportation. In addition, American Indian and Alaska Native students  had the highest rates of chronic absenteeism in school year 2013-14,  compared to students of other races, according to our analysis of CRDC  data (see appendix IV). LGBTQ students are at a high risk of suicide and  other emotional issues during adolescence, and often feel disconnected  from their peers and families, according to county education officials in  California. According to these officials, this can contribute to attendance  problems.

Officials in our five selected school districts also described what they  perceived as a growing trend of behavioral challenges or provided  examples related to mental health and trauma, such as increased  anxieties, thoughts of and attempts at suicide, and depression among  students. For example, state education officials in Georgia said they  viewed a growing number of their students as being “trauma complex.”  Officials at one school in Massachusetts said that they involve the mental  health clinicians or social worker for additional support when students are  dealing with traumatic experiences, depression, or are struggling to self- regulate. Further, officials at another school in Massachusetts said that  many of their students have experienced trauma and this may lead to  more aggressive behaviors at the elementary school level, and to more  self-destructive behaviors at the middle school level. Specifically, these  officials said that children who have experienced trauma may kick, bite,  and punch others when they are younger and cut themselves or become  suicidal when older. Similarly, officials at a school in Texas said that they  have seen a growth in suicidal ideation and self-harm among the  students. Some school officials also said that they felt ill-equipped or that  schools lacked resources to deal with the increase in students with  mental health issues and the associated behaviors.

School officials in all five of the selected states also said that social media  results in conflicts or related behavioral incidents among students, such  as related bullying and arguments. Officials at a school in Georgia said  that social media arguments can cause students who were not part of the  original situation to be pulled in, creating classroom disruptions that end  in discipline for a larger group. Moreover, officials in a North Dakota  middle school said that disagreements on social media last for longer  periods of time. They said that social media has also been used to  facilitate the purchase of illegal drugs, which can result in students being  arrested in school and expelled.

Use of Corporal Punishment in School for  Five Selected States  California, Massachusetts, and North Dakota:  Corporal punishment in schools is prohibited.  Texas: If a school district adopts a policy to  permit corporal punishment, school staff may  use corporal punishment unless the student’s  parent has provided a written, signed  statement prohibiting it. None of the schools  GAO visited used corporal punishment,  according to officials.  Georgia: Boards of education are authorized  to determine policies related to corporal  punishment, including allowing school staff, at  their discretion, to administer corporal  punishment in order to maintain discipline.  However, none of the schools GAO visited  used corporal punishment, according to  officials.

School district officials from three of the five selected districts we visited  stated that officials at individual schools generally have a lot of discretion  in determining what discipline a student receives. In several schools,  officials said they often try other avenues first to address behavior, such  as detention, alerting or having a discussion with the parent, or taking  away certain privileges such as making the student eat lunch with the  teacher instead of with their friends. However, for certain offenses,  officials in most districts said that discipline was automatically more  severe. Gun possession, for example, prompts an automatic expulsion at  most of the school districts we visited. In another example, school  district officials in Texas said drug-related incidents, physical assault of a  teacher or student, or extreme sexual behaviors can result in a student  being placed in an alternative school. School officials at one alternative  school we visited stated that 80 to 90 percent of their students are there  due to drug-related incidents. Officials in several of the school districts  said their districts had School Resource Officers who only become  involved in school disciplinary issues when requested by school  administrators. In a Texas high school with over 3,800 students, a school  official said School Resource Officers patrol school grounds, monitor  gang activity, and may become involved when there are illegal drug  issues. Officials also said that School Resource Officers sometimes  provide trainings for students, parents, or school staff on subjects such as  safety, good decision making, substance abuse, and peer pressure.  Further, although corporal punishment was legal in two of the five states  we visited (see sidebar), the school district officials with whom we spoke  in those states said it was not used anymore in their districts. Our  analysis of schools nationwide using school year 2013-14 data showed  that corporal punishment tended to be most prevalent in southern states  (see maps in appendix II).

All Selected School Districts Described Changing Their Approach to Discipline

While there is no one-size-fits-all solution to addressing challenging  student behavior, or to the evident disparities in discipline for certain  student groups, officials in two school districts we visited told us they  recognize the importance of finding alternatives to discipline that  unnecessarily removes children from the learning environment. Some  school officials said they have begun to specifically address disparities for  certain student groups. Officials in all selected school districts reported  they are implementing efforts to better address student behavior or  reduce the use of exclusionary discipline. For example, officials in all  school districts said that they are implementing alternative discipline  models that emphasize preventing challenging student behavior and  focus on supporting individuals and the school community, such as  positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS), restorative justice  practices, and social emotional learning (SEL) (see sidebar). For  example, officials at a selected school district in Texas said they have  implemented a classroom management model that uses positive behavior  techniques. Texas state law allows schools to develop and implement  positive behavior programs as disciplinary alternatives for very young  students. This was also true in California, where state law specifically  lists suggested alternatives to suspension, including restorative justice, a  positive behavior support approach with tiered interventions, and  enrollment in programs that teach positive social behavior or anger  management.

Examples of Alternatives to Discipline that  Removes Students from the Classroom  Positive Behavioral Interventions and  Supports (PBIS): A school-wide framework  that focuses on positive behavioral  expectations. By teaching students what to do  instead of what not to do, the school can  focus on the preferred behaviors. All of the  selected school districts used some form of  positive behavioral intervention and supports.  One school official told us that PBIS has  significantly reduced their discipline referral  numbers and provided teachers more tools to  get behavior situations under control.  Restorative Justice Practices: This approach  focuses on repairing harm done to  relationships and people. The aim is to teach  students empathy and problem-solving skills  that can help prevent inappropriate behavior  in the future. For example, according to  officials we interviewed at one school, their  restorative practices help students take  ownership of their actions and work  collaboratively to restore relationships that  may have been strained. Officials at another  school said schools use mediation techniques  as alternatives to suspensions.  Social and Emotional Learning (SEL): SEL  enhances students’ abilities to deal effectively  and ethically with daily tasks and challenges.  SEL integrates the following five core  competencies: self-awareness, self- management, social awareness, relationship  skills, and responsible decision making. At a  school implementing this model, officials said  that they are strengthening their SEL program  to improve the whole child instead of treating  discipline and mental and behavioral health  separately.

With regard to directly addressing disparities in school discipline, officials  at one school district in California said they created a new leadership  team for equity, culture, and support services, and developed a district- wide equity plan that includes mandatory training on implicit bias for  principals. Officials from that district also said they had recently changed  a policy to increase the consistency of discipline actions across the  district’s schools. Similarly, officials at a school district in Massachusetts  reported they were working to build awareness among school leadership  to address racial bias and the achievement gap through multiyear  trainings. Officials we spoke with at a school within that district said they  conduct trainings for staff on implicit bias and other related issues to  reduce school discipline disparities. As some of the schools and districts  we visited have begun implementing alternative discipline models and  efforts to reduce the use of exclusionary discipline in recent years, we  heard from officials in two districts that there has been difficulty with  implementation due to limited resources, staffing turnover, and resistance  on the part of some parents.

During our visits to schools, we observed classroom spaces that school  officials used to manage student behavior, including through various  alternative approaches to discipline (see fig. 9). Officials in two school  districts said they are moving away from exclusionary discipline because  it decreases the amount of academic instruction. Officials at one school  district in Georgia said that the district had a history of overusing  exclusionary discipline and they understood that schools cannot “suspend  their way out of behavioral and discipline issues.” Officials at that district  said they are currently rolling out PBIS to their schools, although progress  has been slow. While they said discipline rates have decreased and they  have received fewer parent and staff complaints, change is difficult  because of limited resources, staff turnover, and some resistance to  alternative discipline versus punitive discipline on the part of both some  school staff and parents.

State education officials in all five states said that changes to state law  were made or considered related to school discipline in the past several  years. For example, California officials said that state law now prohibits  suspensions and expulsions for children in grades K-3 for willful  defiance. For all ages suspensions may only be used when other  means of correction fail to bring about proper conduct. Similarly,  Massachusetts law requires that during a student meeting or a hearing to  decide disciplinary consequences for a student, school administrators  consider ways to re-engage students in the learning process and that  expulsion only be used after other remedies and consequences have  failed. Massachusetts also revised its state law effective July 2014 to  require that schools provide educational services for expelled students.  Georgia state law includes a preference for reassignment of disruptive  students to alternative educational settings in lieu of suspending or  expelling such students. In addition, most of the selected states plan to  include school discipline or absenteeism as measures of school quality in  their state ESSA Title I plans (see sidebar).

Education and Justice Identify and Address School Discipline Issues by Investigating Cases, Analyzing Data, and Providing Guidance and Support

Education Has Investigated and Found Instances of Discrimination and Disparities in School Discipline

According to administrative data from Education, the Office for Civil  Rights (OCR) resolved over 2,500 K-12 school discipline cases between  2011 and summer 2017 through several means, including voluntary  resolution (leading to agreed-upon actions and subsequent monitoring),  dismissal, or closure due to insufficient evidence. These cases  stemmed both from external complaints and reviews self-initiated by  Education. When we analyzed a non-generalizable sample of resolved  cases, we found that most of them focused on alleged racial  discrimination or disability status. In the four cases we selected for more  in-depth review, the school districts agreed to address discipline issues  by, for example, designating a discipline supervisor, training staff, revising  district policies, holding student listening sessions, and regularly  reviewing data to identify disparities (see case descriptions below).  Some of these remedies are designed to reduce exclusionary discipline  or improve overall school climate, and others are more directly focused  on addressing disparities in school discipline. For example, having school  leadership regularly review data, particularly when disaggregated by race  and other student characteristics, would increase awareness of  disparities.

Education Case 1: Race and Exclusionary Discipline in a Mississippi  School District. OCR’s 2014 investigation of the Tupelo Public School  District found that Black students were disproportionately disciplined in  nearly all categories of offenses. These commonly included subjective  behaviors like disruption, defiance, disobedience, and “other misbehavior  as determined by the administration.” The consequences for “other  misbehavior” in high school could be severe, ranging from detention to  referral to an alternative school. Once at the alternative school, students  were searched thoroughly each day upon entry, escorted by security  officers when changing classes, and not allowed to carry purses or book  bags. OCR concluded that the district’s discipline codes afforded  administrators broad discretion, and found different treatment of Black  students when looking at specific disciplinary records. For example,  among several students who were disciplined for the first offense of using  profanity, Black students were the only ones who were suspended from  school, while White students received warnings and detention for  substantially similar behavior. To address these issues, the district entered into a voluntary resolution agreement whereby it committed to  taking specific actions to ensure that all students have an equal  opportunity to learn in school. It agreed, among other things, to revise its  student discipline policies, practices, and procedures to include clear and  objective definitions of misconduct, eliminate vague and subjective  offense categories, and describe criteria for selection within the range of  possible penalties when imposing sanctions. The district also agreed to  require that alternatives to suspension and other forms of exclusionary  discipline be considered in all cases except where immediate safety of  students or staff is threatened, and where the behavior in question is such  that the disruption to the educational environment can only be remedied  by removal, or where the student’s removal is a result of the district’s  progressive discipline policy.

Education Case 2: Disability and Restraint & Seclusion in a Non- Public California School. This 2016 OCR investigation focused on  restraint and seclusion of a student with disabilities who was placed at the  non-public school with which Oakland Unified School District contracted  to provide the student with certain services, including developing and  implementing behavior intervention plans. OCR found the use of prone  restraint on this student to be severe, persistent, and pervasive: staff held  the student face-down 92 times over a period of 11 months, with the  longest duration of a single face-down restraint being 93 minutes.  Examples of behaviors that led to the use of restraint included disruptive  behavior, not following directions, pushing desks, and ripping up  assignments. Staff said that the student wanted to be disciplined and  understood prone restraint to be disciplinary. OCR determined that the  district allowed the student to be treated differently for non-dangerous  behavior on the basis of disability. The district entered into a resolution  agreement, committing to resolve these issues by offering individual relief  to the student—arranging for an evaluation of the student for adverse  effects of the restraint and seclusion, with recommendations for  addressing areas of harm—and implementing district-wide policy changes  related to restraint and seclusion. The latter included establishing a  protocol for responding to any contracted non-public schools’ reports of restraining or secluding district students, and providing training on  positive interventions.

Excerpt from Christian County, KY Case  An African American 10th grader was  assigned 1-day out-of-school suspension for  skipping school. In comparison, a white 12th  grader was assigned a conference with the  principal for skipping school. The African  American student had 19 previous disciplinary  referrals, while the white student had 28  previous disciplinary referrals. Education  reported that it would be difficult for the district  to demonstrate how excluding a student from  attending school in response to the student’s  efforts to avoid school meets an important  educational goal.

Education Case 3: Race and Exclusionary Discipline in a Kentucky  School District. In this 2014 case, OCR found that Christian County  School District disciplined Black students more frequently or harshly than  similarly situated White students. Specifically, Black students were more  than 10 times more likely than White students to receive out-of-school  suspension for disorderly conduct, and Black students were more likely to  be assigned to an “Isolated Classroom Environment” when discipline was  for a violation that afforded discretion. OCR also found that the district’s  discipline code did not define 61 types of violations, including ones that  involve interpretation, such as disorderly conduct, failure to follow  directions, deliberate classroom disruption, and profanity. OCR found that  administrators had wide discretion in determining the consequences for  such actions, and noted that the discipline code allowed for virtually every  type of sanction, including expulsion, for each type of violation. OCR also  found inconsistencies in treatment of students in different racial groups  when looking at individual records (see sidebar). Although district officials  said they were aware of the higher rates of discipline for Black students,  OCR found that there were no safeguards to ensure that discretion would  be exercised in a nondiscriminatory manner. To resolve these issues, the  district agreed to ensure as much as possible that misbehavior is  addressed in a way that avoids exclusionary discipline, collaborate with  experts on research-based strategies to prevent discrimination in  discipline, and provide support services to decrease behavioral  difficulties, among other things.

Education Case 4: Race and Informal Removals in a California  Charter School. In this 2015 case, OCR investigated whether Black  students were disproportionately disciplined at a charter school which  emphasizes Hmong culture and language. The complaint noted that the  student’s parents had been asked to take him home on a few occasions  because he was disruptive in class. School administrators confirmed the  practice of “early dismissal” in response to misbehavior, but said they did  not consider the dismissal to be disciplinary. Because the school did not  maintain records of these removals, OCR was unable to determine if the  student was subjected to discriminatory discipline. However, OCR noted  that the practice of removing students from school for disciplinary reasons  without appropriate recordkeeping and due process makes it almost  impossible for the school to assess whether it is fully meeting its duty of  ensuring nondiscrimination with respect to discipline. To resolve these  issues, the school agreed, among other things, to revise its discipline  policies, provide due process and alternatives to exclusionary discipline,  and clearly prohibit the kinds of informal suspensions that OCR observed.

Justice Has Investigated Discrimination in School Discipline Based on Long- standing Desegregation Orders and Public Complaints

Justice also investigates discrimination in school discipline based on  complaints filed under federal civil rights statutes and as part of  monitoring desegregation orders. Three recently-resolved cases  investigated exclusionary discipline or restraint and seclusion for students  of color and those with disabilities (see case descriptions below).

Justice Case 1: Race and Exclusionary Discipline in an Arkansas  School District. This Justice case, originally stemming from a  desegregation order, focused on whether the Watson Chapel School  District was discriminating against Black students in its administration of  school discipline. Justice found that the district suspended and expelled  Black students at significantly higher rates than White students, and that  district policies and procedures were responsible for this difference. The  parties signed a Consent Order in 2016, under which the school district  agreed to implement positive interventions and supports, transition away  from exclusionary discipline, revise the code of conduct to list specific  levels of disciplinary infractions and consequences, prohibit corporal  punishment, establish a memorandum of agreement with any law  enforcement agency that supplies school resource officers, and provide  training to staff. In addition, the district agreed to provide due process  before students receive out-of-school suspensions, expulsions, or  referrals to the alternative education program because of disruptive  behavior.

Justice Case 2: Race and Disability in a Maryland School District.  Justice investigated complaints that discipline policies in the Wicomico  County Public School District resulted in the discriminatory suspension of  Black and Latino students and students with disabilities. After the  investigation, Justice and the district negotiated and entered into a  voluntary out-of-court settlement agreement in January 2017. The district  agreed to hire a consultant to implement positive behavioral interventions  and supports and restorative practices, revise the code of conduct to  include objective definitions of behavioral infractions and incorporate  alternatives to exclusionary discipline, establish clear guidelines for when  law enforcement intervention is appropriate, and provide appropriate due  process procedures.

Justice Case 3: Race and Restraint & Seclusion in a Kentucky  School District. This 2017 Justice case investigated whether  Covington Independent Schools’ disciplinary practices, including the use  of exclusionary discipline, restraint, and seclusion, discriminated on the  basis of race, national origin, or disability. The parties agreed to  negotiate a settlement agreement under which the district agreed to  develop a process to regularly identify students who disproportionately  had disciplinary referrals, with a focus on offenses that may be the result  of unaddressed behavioral needs such as disruptive behavior or  aggression, defiance, and being “beyond control.” The district also agreed  to discontinue the use of “calm rooms” (where students are isolated  during an episode of misbehavior) and prohibit the use of physical  restraint except in the case of imminent danger that could not be  addressed through de-escalation techniques. The district agreed to adopt  an intervention procedure to meet the needs of students with disabilities  who may need support beyond the standard discipline policies. In  addition, if parents of students with disabilities were asked to come to the  school to become involved in an ongoing instance of misbehavior, the  district could no longer require the parent to take the student home unless  the student had been assigned an out-of-school suspension or expulsion.

Education and Justice Provide Guidance and Resources on School Discipline and Related Issues, Including How to Identify and Address Disparities

Education and Justice collaborated on a “Rethink Discipline” campaign in  2014 to address what they viewed as widespread overuse of suspensions  and expulsions. This awareness campaign included comprehensive  guidance to help states and schools implement alternatives to  exclusionary discipline, reduce discrimination, and identify root causes of  disparities (see sidebar). The agencies have also collaborated to  provide guidance encouraging school districts that use school resource  officers to formalize partnerships with local law enforcement agencies and  clarify that school resource officers should not administer discipline in  schools.

Education has also issued special guidance related to the discipline of  students with disabilities, including an explanation of the requirement to  provide appropriate strategies to address behavior in students’  individualized education programs (IEPs). This guidance stated that  when a student with a disability is regularly sent home early from school  for behavior reasons, it is likely that the child’s opportunity to make  progress in the general education curriculum is significantly impeded (see  sidebar). The guidance states that being sent home regularly in this way  constitutes a disciplinary removal, which comes with statutory reporting  obligations and other considerations. For further information on available  federal guidance related to discipline in public schools, see appendix III. available could result in an inappropriately  restrictive placement.  demonstrates that disciplinary measures  such as short-term removals from the  current placement (e.g., suspension), or  other exclusionary disciplinary measures  that significantly impede the  implementation of the individualized  education program (IEP), generally do not  help to reduce or eliminate reoccurrence  of the misbehavior.

Education and other federal entities have also awarded grants and  established special initiatives related to student behavior and school  discipline, many of which started around the same time as the federal  Rethink Discipline campaign and were designed to be complementary.  For example, Education awarded about $130 million from 2014-2016 to  states and school districts through the School Climate Transformation  Grant, which was established in 2014 to support districts taking steps to  improve behavioral outcomes. According to Education, nearly 3,000  schools have worked to implement these behavioral support systems  through the grant, and preliminary outcomes data have shown increased  student attendance and fewer disciplinary referrals. In addition, Education  awarded about $68 million for fiscal years 2015-2019 to over 20 school  districts under Project Prevent—a grant to promote conflict resolution  skills in students, particularly when they have been exposed to pervasive  violence. According to the districts’ grant summary documents, these  districts have experienced nearly 10,000 fewer violent behavioral  incidents and have provided access to mental health services for over  5,000 students. Justice’s research arm, the National Institute of Justice,  also started the Comprehensive School Safety Initiative in 2014 and has  since provided about $84 million to fund nearly 40 research projects and  interventions that address school discipline and safety, such as  implementing restorative practices and studying the root causes of the  school-to-prison pipeline. More recently, Education collaborated with HHS  to fund the Pyramid Equity Project for early learning programs, which is  designed to address implicit bias in school discipline, implement culturally  responsive practices in addressing student behavior, and use data  systems to understand equity issues.

For ongoing technical assistance related to student behavior and school  discipline, Education sponsors centers on supportive learning  environments, improving student engagement and attendance, and  implementing positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS). For  example, the National Center on Safe Supportive Learning Environments  provides information and resources on addressing school discipline,  mental health, substance abuse, physical safety, student engagement,  and other related issues. Justice funds a technical assistance center on  school-justice partnerships that works to enhance collaboration among  schools, mental and behavioral health specialists, and law enforcement  officials. This center recently published a bulletin on the intersection of  exclusionary school discipline and the juvenile justice system, which  offers tips for judges who handle school-related cases and information on  successful efforts to reduce the number of school-based referrals to law  enforcement. For a list of other technical assistance centers related to  student behavior or discipline, see appendix III.

Lastly, to help identify discipline disparities among the nation’s schools,  Education collects comprehensive data on school discipline every other  year through the CRDC. The agency publicly releases highlights from  these data through their “First Look” documents and in annual reports,  which typically focus on a limited number of disciplinary actions (primarily  suspensions) and student demographics (usually race and disability  status). Education’s public analyses of school discipline data have not  included school characteristics like poverty level or type of school.  Education encourages districts and schools to disaggregate their data by  various student demographics and examine it for disparities. In addition,  Education’s Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services  recently examined racial and ethnic disparities for students with  disabilities using data collected under IDEA, Part B. This IDEA report  provides the public with information on whether districts had significant  disproportionality on the basis of race or ethnicity in the discipline of  students with disabilities.

Agency Comments, Third Party Views, and Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of Education and  Justice for review and comment. These agencies provided technical  comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. We also provided  selected draft excerpts relevant to officials we interviewed in state  agencies, school districts, and school officials. We received technical  comments from those officials in four of our five selected states, which we  incorporated as appropriate.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate  congressional committees, the Secretary of Education, the Secretary of  Health and Human Services, the Attorney General, and other interested  parties. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO  website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (617) 788-0580 or nowickij@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices  of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last   page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report  are listed in appendix V.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The objectives of this report were to examine (1) the patterns in  disciplinary actions among public schools, (2) the challenges selected  school districts reported with student behavior and how they are  approaching school discipline, and (3) the actions the Department of  Education (Education) and the Department of Justice (Justice) have taken  to identify and address any disparities or discrimination in school  discipline.

To conduct this work we (1) analyzed federal discipline data by student  demographics and school characteristics; (2) visited five school districts  to provide illustrative examples of approaches to school discipline; and (3)  interviewed federal agency officials and reviewed agency documentation,  federal laws, regulations and policies, selected state laws, and a selection  of resolved school discipline cases. To inform all aspects of our work, we  interviewed representatives from several nonfederal civil rights  organizations and advocacy organizations that represent parents and  families, individuals with disabilities, and people from specific racial or  ethnic backgrounds, such as Hispanic, African-American, and American  Indian communities. We also met with academic subject matter experts to  discuss issues related to school discipline, including disparities in school  discipline and initiatives intended to reduce exclusionary discipline. In  addition, we reviewed two dozen articles containing research that had  been published since 2010 to further understand the context of school  discipline issues and programs. We evaluated the methods used in the  research and eliminated the research if we felt the methods were not  appropriate or rigorous. The following sections contain detailed  information about the scope and methodology for this report.

Analysis of School Discipline National Data

To determine the patterns in disciplinary actions among public schools,  we used Education’s Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) to analyze  discipline data from all public schools by student demographics (e.g.,  race, sex, disability) and school characteristics (e.g., school type, such as  charter or magnet school). Our analyses of this data, taken alone, do not  establish whether unlawful discrimination has occurred. The CRDC is a  biennial survey that is mandatory for every public school and district in the  United States. Conducted by Education’s Office for Civil Rights, the  survey collects data on the nation’s public schools (pre-K through 12th  grade), including disciplinary actions as well as student characteristics  and enrollment, educational and course offerings, and school  environment, such as incidents of bullying. CRDC data are self-reported  by districts and schools, and consequently there is potential for  misreporting of information. In school years 2011-12 and 2013-14, the  CRDC collected data from nearly every public school in the nation  (approximately 17,000 school districts, 96,000 schools, and 50 million  students in school year 2013-14). Using the public-use data file of the  CRDC, we focused our analysis primarily on data for school year 2013- 14, the most recent data available at the time of our analysis. We also  compared disciplinary data from school years 2011-12 and 2013-14 to  analyze how discipline may have changed over that period.

The 2013-14 CRDC collected data on six broad types of disciplinary  actions: (1) out-of-school suspensions, (2) in-school suspensions, (3)  referrals to law enforcement, (4) expulsions, (5) corporal punishment, and  (6) school-related arrests. The CRDC did not collect data on less severe  forms of discipline, such as detentions, Saturday school, or removing  privileges to engage in extracurricular activities, such as athletic teams or  field trips. As shown in table 4, we combined related variables for out-of- school suspension and expulsion; we also provide a crosswalk of  discipline variables used in this report and those captured in the CRDC.

For each of the six disciplinary actions in our review, we examined  discipline counts and rates both overall and disaggregated by student  demographic characteristics. Specifically, we examined counts and rates  for each disciplinary action by student sex (boy or girl), race or ethnicity  (see table 5), disability status (students with or without disabilities), and  English Language Learners. Using the CRDC, we also examined race  and sex intersectionally, for example, disciplinary rates for Black boys or  White girls.

In order to analyze discipline counts and rates by the poverty level of the  school, we pulled in data on free or reduced-price lunch eligibility from the  2013-14 Common Core of Data (CCD), and matched it to schools in the  2013-14 CRDC, which did not collect eligibility data. The CCD is  administered by Education’s National Center for Education Statistics, and  annually collects nonfiscal data about all public schools in the nation. A  student is generally eligible for free or reduced-price lunch based on  federal income eligibility guidelines that are tied to the federal poverty  level and the size of the family. State education agencies supply these  data for their schools and school districts.

We then sorted schools into quartiles based on the percentage of  students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch as follows: 0 to 25  percent, 25.1 to 49.9 percent, 50 to 74.9 percent, and 75 to 100 percent  (see table 6). The poverty thresholds and measure of poverty discussed  here and throughout this report were commonly used in the literature and  also aligned with how Education analyzed its data.

To analyze discipline counts and rates by the type of public school a  student attended, we sorted schools into mutually exclusive categories  and reviewed disciplinary data by student demographic information. The  2013-14 CRDC allowed schools to self-identify as special education,  magnet, charter, and alternative schools (see table 7).

The categories of public schools in the CRDC were not mutually  exclusive; that is, schools could select multiple school types to describe  their school, such as a charter school that was also an alternative school.  To create mutually exclusive categories for analytical purposes, we  applied the following criteria:

Alternative school: all schools that selected “alternative” as the school  type in the CRDC, even if they selected other types as well.

Special education school: schools that selected “special education” as  the school type in the CRDC, except those schools that also selected  the alternative school type.

Charter school: schools that selected “charter” as the school type in  the CRDC, except those schools that also selected the alternative  school type and/or the special education school type.

Magnet school: schools that selected “magnet” as the school type in  the CRDC, except those schools that also selected the alternative  school type, the special education school type, and/or the charter  school type.

Traditional school: schools that did not select any other school type in  the CRDC.

Table 8 provides the breakdown of students and schools captured in the  2013-14 CRDC after applying these criteria.

For each of our school discipline analyses, we also examined disparities  in disciplinary rates by student demographics. Specifically, we compared  each student groups’ representation among students disciplined to their  representation in the overall student population. For example, if boys  accounted for 50 percent of all K-12 public school students, but  represented 75 percent of students that received a given disciplinary  action, then boys would be overrepresented among students that  received that type of discipline by 25 percentage points. We also  compared disciplinary rates across student groups and similarly  examined disparities based on school poverty level and school type for all  students.

We also analyzed CRDC data on discipline of pre-school students. The  disciplinary data for pre-school students that was collected in the CRDC  for school year 2013-14 was different than disciplinary data collected for  K-12 students. Specifically, data on pre-school discipline was limited to  out-of-school suspensions and expulsions. Findings from our analysis of  pre-school discipline data are included where applicable in the report and  additional data are provided in appendix IV, table 17.

In addition to analyzing data on school discipline, we also analyzed data  on chronic absenteeism, which was defined as students who were absent  15 or more days during the school year for any reason, which could  include for suspensions and expulsions. The CRDC also collected data  on instances in which students were restrained—both physically and  mechanically—or secluded at school. Education has provided a resource  document with principles to school districts that indicates restraint and  seclusion should only be used in instances where a student’s “behavior  poses imminent danger of serious physical harm to self or others,” and  should never be used as punishment or discipline. However, multiple  sources, including civil rights complaints filed with Education, news  stories, and other reports have alleged that these practices have been  used in response to student misbehavior, in particular for students with  disabilities. We included data on chronic absenteeism and restraint and  seclusion in our analyses, and present related findings in appendix IV,  tables 18 and 19.

We determined that the data we used from the CRDC and CCD were  sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report by reviewing technical  documentation, conducting electronic testing, and interviewing officials  from Education’s Office for Civil Rights and National Center for Education  Statistics. For our analysis of the 2013-14 CRDC, we used the final data  file that was publicly available as of June 2017 because it corrected errors  in the original data previously submitted by several school districts.

We conducted a generalized linear regression using the 2013-14 CRDC  and CCD data to explore whether and to what extent certain school-level  characteristics were associated with higher rates of each disciplinary  action. Such a model allowed us to test the association between a given  school characteristic and the percentage of students receiving a given  disciplinary action, while holding other school characteristics constant.  We selected different school characteristics (our independent variables)  for the regression based on factors that Education’s Office for Civil Rights  and other researchers have identified as potential drivers of school  discipline rates (our dependent, or outcome variables). Table 9 lists the  variables we included in our regression model. We conducted a  separate regression for each of the six disciplinary actions listed as an  outcome variable.

We excluded some schools from our regression model. Specifically, we  excluded schools that met one or more of the following criteria:

Data were not available in both the CRDC and CCD data sets, and  therefore we were unable to determine the percentage of students  eligible for free or reduced-price lunch in these schools or whether  these schools were located in rural, suburban, or urban areas.

School was listed as “ungraded” in the CRDC because we could not  determine if these schools offered grade 6 or above.

School only offered pre-school because pre-school disciplinary data  were reported separately and differently than K-12 disciplinary data in  the CRDC.

School identified as a juvenile justice facility in the CRDC. In the  2013-14 CRDC, schools could identify as a juvenile justice facility,  and select one of the other school types in our analysis (i.e.,  traditional, magnet, charter, alternative, and special education  schools). Due to this overlap, and because it is reasonable to expect  discipline within a juvenile justice facility could function differently than  discipline in other schools, we excluded these schools from our  regression model.

School had less than 10 students enrolled because in smaller schools  minor fluctuations in the numbers of students receiving a given  disciplinary action could have a large effect on disciplinary rates.

In the 2013-14 data, these exclusions reduced the total number of public  schools in our regression model from a universe of 95,507 public schools  to 86,769 public schools.

All regression models are subject to limitations and for this model the  limitations included:

Data we analyzed were by school rather than student. Consequently,  we were not able to describe the association between our  independent variables and a student’s rate of different disciplinary  actions, while controlling for characteristics of an individual student,  such as sex, race or ethnicity, disability status, or grade level. Instead,  the school-level nature of the CRDC data limited our description of the  associations between school characteristics and disciplinary rates to  whether there was an increase, decrease, or no effect on disciplinary  rates for schools with a given characteristic, controlling for other  characteristics of the entire school’s population, such as percent of  students who are boys or are Black.

Some variables that may be related to student behavior and discipline  are not available in the data. For example, in this context, it could be  that parent education or household type (single- versus multiple- headed household) could be related to student behaviors, such as  those that lead to receiving the six disciplinary actions we analyzed.

Results of our analyses are associational and do not imply a causal  relationship because, for example, CRDC data were not gathered by  a randomized controlled trial, where students would be randomized to  attend schools with certain characteristics.

Typically, a generalized linear regression model provides an estimated  incidence rate ratio, where a value greater than one indicates a higher or  positive association, in this case, between the disciplinary outcome and  the independent variable of interest, such as being a charter school or  having a higher percentage of Black students. An estimated incidence  rate ratio less than one indicates a lower incidence of a given disciplinary  action when a factor is present.

Given the limitations of our model as described above, we present the  results of our regression model in table 10 by describing the direction of  the associations, rather than an estimated rate (incidence) of disciplinary  outcomes. For categorical variables in table 10, we provided the  comparison school characteristic in brackets and italics. For example, the  results in this table should be interpreted as students attending alternative  schools were significantly more likely than students attending traditional  schools to be suspended out of school. For continuous variables (i.e.,  those starting with “Percent”), the results in this table should be  interpreted as the likelihood of receiving a given disciplinary action as the  percentage of students in the school with a given characteristic increased.  For example, as the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced- price lunch increased, we found that the likelihood of receiving each of  the six disciplinary actions also increased.

It should be noted that interactions (i.e., where we combine both race and  sex variables) should be interpreted differently than other variables in  table 10. Though an interaction may be “negative,” it does not necessarily  imply that the group presented in the interaction was significantly less  likely to receive the given disciplinary action because interactions are  interpreted relative to the main effect of each variable in the interaction.  For example, as shown in table 10, the interaction for percentage of Black  boys was negative for out-of-school suspensions; however, the estimated  incidence of out-of-school suspensions for a school with a higher than  average percentage of Black students and a higher than average  percentage of boys was positive. Since the contribution for an interaction  coefficient is relative, in this example the contribution of the main effects  outweighed that of the interaction, resulting in a positive effect altogether,  despite the negative interaction.

To obtain information on how selected school districts are addressing  discipline issues, including any challenges they face in doing so, we  selected five school districts to serve as illustrative examples. To select  school districts, we used CRDC data to sort school districts into  categories based on district size; the presence of disparities in out-of- school suspension rates for boys, Black students, or students with  disabilities; and whether the out-of-school suspension rate was increasing  or decreasing between the two most recent CRDC collections. With  regard to size, we collapsed several categories that Education has  previously used into three groupings, each with roughly one-third of all  students attending public schools in school year 2013-14:

Large School District: 25,000 or more students (34.7% of all  students in 2013-14)

Medium School District: 5,000 to 24,999 students (33.2% of all  students in 2013-14)

Small School District: Less than 5,000 students (32.1% of all  students in 2013-14)

Further, we focused on out-of-school suspensions for selection purposes  because this disciplinary action was one of the most frequently reported  disciplinary actions employed by schools in Education’s two most recent  data collection efforts on the issue (2011-12 and 2013-14 CRDC).  Moreover, out-of-school suspensions are an exclusionary disciplinary  action; that is, they remove or exclude students from the usual  instructional or learning environment. Selecting districts with a range of  out-of-school suspension rate was intended to generate a mix of districts  that commonly use exclusionary discipline, as well as those that may  employ alternatives.

For site selection, we used out-of-school suspension data in two ways.  First, we excluded districts that did not have a disparity in out-of-school  suspension rates for Black students, boys, or students with disabilities.  Prior GAO work and Education’s data showed that these groups were  particularly vulnerable to discipline disparities, and the purpose of this  research objective was to understand district efforts to identify and  address such disparities. Second, we grouped school districts by whether  their out-of-school suspension rate increased or decreased between  2011-12 and 2013-14. Exploring school districts that changed in different  ways over time was intended to help us identify successful efforts to  reduce suspensions as well as challenges districts face in addressing  disparate discipline.

Using the above criteria, we grouped school districts into the following  categories:

Category 1 and 2: Large school district and out-of-school suspension  rate that increased (or decreased) from 2011-12 to 2013-14

Category 3 and 4: Medium school district and out-of-school  suspension rate that increased (or decreased) from 2011-12 to 2013- 14

Category 5 and 6: Small school district and out-of-school suspension  rate that increased (or decreased) from 2011-12 to 2013-14.

After sorting school districts into the above categories, we randomized the  list within each category to improve the methodological rigor of selecting  school districts. In addition, we applied a series of post-checks to our list  of districts in each grouping to ensure we had appropriate variety to  consider other key factors in school discipline. Specifically, we checked  for variety in:  types of public schools in the district, geographic diversity both in terms of region of the country and use of corporal punishment in the district, and use of restraint or seclusion in the district.

To select specific districts, we started with the district in each category  that was at the top of the randomized list and then applied the above  post-checks. We then conducted outreach to district superintendents or  their designees via telephone and email to obtain their agreement to  participate in this review. When school districts were unresponsive to our  outreach or unwilling to participate, we contacted additional districts that  had similar characteristics in order to achieve variety in our final  selections. This resulted in the selection of five schools districts, one each  in California, Georgia, Massachusetts, North Dakota, and Texas (see  table 11).

We visited each district and interviewed district-level officials involved in  school discipline and school climate initiatives. These officials included  superintendents, assistant superintendents, program managers, and  directors of applicable district departments (e.g., student support services  and special education). We also reviewed district-level discipline data,  school district discipline policies, and relevant state laws related to school  discipline to better understand the local context in each selected district.

In the five districts we visited, we also interviewed officials at a total of 19  schools. At each school, we typically met with principals and/or assistant  principals, and in some instances, spoke with other personnel at the  school, such as counselors, attendance coordinators, school resource  officers (i.e., law enforcement officers), and teachers. In each district, we  selected a variety of schools to visit based on grade level, school type,  and disciplinary data.

For each selected district, we also interviewed officials from the state  educational agency that oversees that district to better understand the  statewide context around discipline, such as state laws that may affect  district disciplinary policies, statewide initiatives related to discipline, and  state-level monitoring of district-level disciplinary actions. In California, we  also met with the county office of education that oversees the district we  selected because, in that state, counties have a primary role in the local  school district accountability structure.

Because we selected these school districts judgmentally, we cannot  generalize the findings about these districts’ approaches to discipline, and  the challenges they face, to all school districts and schools nationwide.

To determine the extent to which, and in what ways, Education and  Justice are identifying and addressing discipline disparities and  discrimination, we interviewed agency officials at headquarters and  regional offices, reviewed agency documentation and administrative data,  reviewed federal laws and regulations, and reviewed a non-generalizable  sample of seven recently resolved school discipline investigations  undertaken by Education and Justice (which we refer to as cases). With  both agencies, we interviewed officials about each agency’s  responsibilities with respect to federal civil rights laws and regulations, as  well as the actions the agencies took to enforce them. We also discussed  each agency’s guidance, support to school districts on these issues (e.g.,  grants and technical assistance), and data collection activities. In  addition, we collected and reviewed relevant agency procedures and  guidance documents. We also requested and reviewed Education’s data  on the number of civil rights complaints received and cases related to  school discipline investigated from 2011 to August 2017 to better  understand the scope of the agency’s efforts. Education provided these  data from their internal database, where investigators categorized cases  as being related to school discipline. We assessed the reliability of this  source through discussion with knowledgeable officials and reviewing key  documents and determined the data to be reliable for our purposes.

To select resolved school discipline cases to review, we searched  Education’s and Justice’s respective online repositories of resolved  investigations and compliance reviews, as well as Education’s annual  reports, to create a list of resolved cases related to school discipline. We  then narrowed the list to cases resolved in approximately the past 3 years  (from 2014 to May 2017) and excluded long-standing cases that were  opened several decades ago to help ensure the information in the cases  reflected recent policies and practices in each agency. We also excluded  cases regarding institutions of higher education because they were  outside the scope of this review. This resulted in a list of 12 relevant  resolved cases—9 for Education and 3 for Justice. From this list, we  selected 7 cases to review in depth to better understand Education’s and  Justice’s investigatory processes and resolutions with regard to school  discipline cases in pre-K through 12th grade, and to provide illustrative  examples in our report. We selected 4 cases from Education that  provided a mix of the type of alleged discrimination (e.g., race or  disability) and type of discipline (e.g., suspension, expulsion, arrest, etc.).  We selected all 3 relevant cases from Justice. For each case, we  reviewed the type of investigation (complaint investigation or compliance  review); the reason for the investigation; any applicable findings or  recommendations; and the ultimate resolution of the investigation, such  as a voluntary agreement with the school district or remedies to address  findings. In all instances, we are presenting Education’s and Justice’s  findings and do not reach any independent conclusions regarding the  cases.

We conducted this performance audit from November 2016 to March  2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Appendix II: Maps of Disciplinary Actions by School District

This appendix contains maps showing rates of disciplinary actions by  school district for each of the six disciplinary actions captured in the  Department of Education’s Civil Rights Data Collection for school year  2013-14.

Appendix III: Key Federal Resources Related to Student Behavior and School Discipline

Funded by Department of Education (Education):

National Center on Safe Supportive Learning Environments:  offers information and technical assistance focused on improving  student supports and academic enrichment. This includes resources  on using positive approaches to discipline, as well as promoting  mental health for students and ensuring the safety and effectiveness  of physical learning environments.  https://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/.

National Student Attendance, Engagement, and Success Center:  a center that disseminates evidence-based practices and facilitates  communities of practice to help students attend school every day, be  engaged in school, and succeed academically, so that they graduate  high school prepared for college, career, and civic life. It offers  webinars on identifying the root causes of chronic absence, linking  school climate and exclusionary discipline to absenteeism, and  improving attendance for vulnerable students.  http://new.every1graduates.org/nsaesc/

National Technical Assistance Center for the Education of  Neglected or Delinquent Children and Youth: provides technical  assistance to state agencies with Title I, Part D programs and works  to improve education services for children and youth who are  neglected, delinquent, or at risk. This includes running the Supportive  School Discipline Communities of Practice, which brings together  education and justice leaders for knowledge-sharing events and offers  webinars on discipline initiatives such as restorative practices.  https://www.neglected-delinquent.org/

Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports Technical  Assistance Center: funded by Education’s Office of Special  Education Programs, this center supports implementation of a multi- tiered approach to social, emotional and behavior support. In addition,  it offers resources on cultural responsiveness, addressing discipline  disproportionality, and interconnecting mental health with behavior  support systems, among other issues. https://www.pbis.org/.

Funded by Department of Health and Human Services (HHS):

Center of Excellence for Infant and Early Childhood Mental  Health Consultation: supports states, tribes, and communities in  promoting mental health and school readiness. It provides training to  leaders in early childhood education around mental health and school  readiness issues. https://www.samhsa.gov/iecmhc

Center for School Mental Health: works to strengthen policies and  programs in school mental health to improve learning and promote  success for youth. This center is supported in full by HHS’s Maternal  and Child Health Bureau, Division of Child, Adolescent and Family  Health Adolescent Health Branch in the Health Resources and  Service Administration. http://csmh.umaryland.edu/

National Center for Trauma-Informed Care and Alternatives to  Seclusion and Restraint: works to develop approaches to eliminate  the use of seclusion, restraints, and other coercive practices and to  further advance the knowledge base related to implementation of  trauma-informed approaches. https://www.samhsa.gov/nctic

National Child Traumatic Stress Network: works to improve access  to care, treatment, and services for children and adolescents exposed  to traumatic events. The group provides a comprehensive focus on  childhood trauma by collaborating with the health, mental health,  education, law enforcement, child welfare, juvenile justice, and military  family service systems. http://nctsn.org/

National Resource Center for Mental Health Promotion and Youth  Violence Prevention: offers resources and technical assistance to  states, tribes, territories, and local communities to promote overall  child wellness and prevent youth violence.  http://www.healthysafechildren.org/

Now Is the Time Technical Assistance Center: provides national  training and technical assistance to recipients of the Healthy  Transitions (youth access to mental health) and Project Advancing  Wellness and Resilience Education (AWARE) grants.  https://www.samhsa.gov/nitt-ta/about-us  Funded by Department of Justice (Justice):

School-Justice Partnership National Resource Center: provides  trainings and webinars, and partners with stakeholders in the law  enforcement, juvenile justice, mental health, and public education  arenas. The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges  operates this center. https://schooljusticepartnership.org/

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)

Appendix IV: Additional Discipline and Discipline-Related Data Tables

This appendix contains several tables that show the underlying data used  throughout this report, as well as additional analyses we conducted using  the Department of Education’s Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) and  Common Core of Data (CCD) for school year 2013-14. Our analyses of  Education’s data, as reflected in these tables, taken alone, do not  establish whether unlawful discrimination has occurred. The following  tables and information are included in this appendix:

Table 12: students who received disciplinary actions captured in the  CRDC, disaggregated by student sex, race or ethnicity, and English  Language Learner status.

Table 13: students with or without disabilities who received  disciplinary actions captured in the CRDC, disaggregated by student  sex and race or ethnicity.

Table 14: students who received disciplinary actions captured in the  CRDC, disaggregated by the poverty level of the school and other  student characteristics.

Table 15: students who received disciplinary actions captured in the  CRDC, disaggregated by the type of public school and other student  characteristics.

Table 16: students who received disciplinary actions captured in the  CRDC, disaggregated by the grades offered in the school and other  student characteristics.

Table 17: pre-school students who were suspended from school,  disaggregated by student sex and race or ethnicity, as well as the  poverty level of school and the type of public school.

Table 18: students who were restrained—mechanically or  physically—or secluded, disaggregated by student sex, race or  ethnicity, and disability status as well as the poverty level of school  and the type of public school.

Table 19: students who were chronically absent, disaggregated by  student sex, race or ethnicity, and disability status, as well as the  poverty level of school and the type of public school.

Table 20: schools that reported having access to a school counselor  or sworn law enforcement officer, disaggregated by the poverty level  of school and the type of public school.

Table 21: students disciplined for harassment or bullying,  disaggregated by student sex, race or ethnicity, and disability status.

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Sherri Doughty (Assistant  Director), Amy Moran Lowe (Analyst-in-Charge), James Bennett, Holly  Dye, Aaron Karty, Jean McSween, John Mingus, James Rebbe, Sonya  Vartivarian, and David Watsula made key contributions to this report. Also  contributing were Johana Ayers, Deborah Bland, Irina Carnevale, Caitlin  Croake, Vijay D’Souza, Gretta Goodwin, Gloria Hernandez-Saunders,  Reginald Jones, DuEwa Kamara, John Karikari, Ted Leslie, Sheila R.  McCoy, Brittni Milam, Cady Panetta, Moon Parks, Caroline Prado, Steven  Putansu, Maria Santos, Margie K. Shields, Ruth Solomon, Alexandra  Squitieri, and Barbara Steel-Lowney.