1 / 16

EXCLUSIONARY DISCIPLINE PRACTICES IN KENTUCKY AND TEXAS

EXCLUSIONARY DISCIPLINE PRACTICES IN KENTUCKY AND TEXAS. William Calderhead (wcalderhead@murraystate.edu) Eric Umstead (eumstead@murraystate.edu) C. Michael Nelson (cpdmiken@email.uky.edu). Overrepresentation of minority youths in juvenile justice statistics. African-American

fausto
Télécharger la présentation

EXCLUSIONARY DISCIPLINE PRACTICES IN KENTUCKY AND TEXAS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. EXCLUSIONARY DISCIPLINE PRACTICES IN KENTUCKY AND TEXAS William Calderhead (wcalderhead@murraystate.edu) Eric Umstead (eumstead@murraystate.edu) C. Michael Nelson (cpdmiken@email.uky.edu)

  2. Overrepresentation of minority youths in juvenile justice statistics African-American students more likely to be identified w/ MR or EBD African-American students are 2 – 3 times more likely to be suspended or expelled Overrepresentation of persons of color in correctional system Students of color more likely to drop out of school PBIS changes school culture Nelson, C. M., Leone, P. E., & Rutherford, R. B. (2004). Youth delinquency: Prevention and intervention. In R. B. Rutherford, M. M. Quinn, & S. R. Mathur (Eds.), Handbook of research in emotional and behavioral disorders (pp. 282-301). New York: Guilford.

  3. KY Safe Schools Data Project • Defines exclusionary discipline as consequence of “offending” • Offenders’ violations resulted in one of the following • Suspension • Corporal punishment • Expulsion with services • Expulsion without services

  4. Quantifying the discipline gap • Proportionate representation • (% of students offending) – (% of students enrolled) = 0 • Under-representation: • (% of students offending) – (% of students enrolled) = -X • Over-representation: • (% of students offending) – (% of students enrolled) = +X

  5. Kentucky’s Discipline Gap

  6. How can PBIS change disproportionate exclusionary discipline? • Students are not born with “bad” behaviors • Students do not learn when faced with contingent aversive consequences • Teachers/administrators need to be proactive rather than reactive. • Positively reinforce occurrences of appropriate behavior • Teach appropriate behavior directly, giving positive feedback

  7. Emphasis on Prevention • Primary • Reduce new cases of problem behavior. • Secondary • Reduce current cases of problem behavior. • Tertiary • Reduce complications, intensity, severity of current cases.

  8. Tertiary Prevention: Specialized Individualized Systems for Students with High-Risk Behavior CONTINUUM OF SCHOOL-WIDE INSTRUCTIONAL & POSITIVE BEHAVIOR SUPPORT ~5% Secondary Prevention: Specialized Group Systems for Students with At-Risk Behavior ~15% Primary Prevention: School-/Classroom- Wide Systems for All Students, Staff, & Settings ~80% of Students

  9. PBS shrinks disproportionality • Analyze discipline referral data disaggregated by race • Make teachers more culturally responsive by emphasizing “contextual fit” • Promote social development of pre-adolescent and adolescent youth • Maximize opportunities for academic success • Prevent development and occurrence of problem behavior

  10. KY Safe Schools Data Project (Mike Waford, Kentucky Center for Instructional Discipline)

  11. KY Safe Schools Data Project (Mike Waford, Kentucky Center for Instructional Discipline)

  12. Discipline Gap in Texas • Longitudinal study using data for all students (~ 1 million) beginning 7th grade in 2000, 2001, 2002 • Nearly 6 out of 10 students were suspended or expelled at least once between 7th and 12th grade • Multivariate analyses revealed that African-American students were 31% more likely to undergo school discretionary action (in- or out-of-school suspension or expulsion) compared to otherwise identical white and Hispanic students • Almost 75% of students w/ IEPs were suspended or expelled at least once (especially students coded as EBD)

  13. Exclusion implies juvenile justice involvement • > 1 out of 7 students was in contact w/ juvenile justice system at least once between 7th and 12th grade • Almost 50% of students disciplined 11 or more times were in contact w/ juvenile justice system • Controlling for school and individual factors, a student who was suspended or expelled was 3 times as likely to be in contact w/ juvenile justice system the following year (Fabelo, T., Thompson, M. D., Plotkin, M., Carmichael, D., Marchbanks, M. P., & Booth, E. A. (2011). Breaking schools’ rules: A statewide study of how school discipline relates to students’ success and juvenile justice involvement. New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center.)

  14. Discussion • PBIS appears to have an impact on suspension • But disparities continue to exist • Why? • Nobody looks at the data (at least not often) • No accountability (should there be?) • Political climate in US won’t support addressing needs of marginalized citizens

More Related