School Discipline Consensus Project Survey of School System Leaders /
Executive Summary
AASA surveyed more than 450 school system leaders in February 2013 as part of the School Discipline Consensus Project.
Survey responses shed light on current school discipline policies and practices in districts across the country, and focus on issues related to school climate and culture, behavioral health, and school safety. The results also demonstrate the continued challenges districts face in improving school discipline systems. Some of the main findings include:
  • The most popular alternatives to out-of-school suspensions and expulsionsare in-school suspensions or alternative education programs.
  • School leaders reported that PBIS and consistency management/cooperative discipline are the most effective levers for improving school climate and reducing the need for disciplinary action.
  • The two challenges repeatedly cited to successfully implementing alternatives to out-of-school suspensions and expulsions and comprehensive prevention strategies were staff time demands and limited resources (excluding staff time).
  • Over half of school districts indicated that SROs are present in at least a few of their schools.
  • 58% of districts surveyed use an early warning data system to identify students at-risk of academic failure, dropout, delinquency or behavioral issues.
/

Key Findings from the AASA Survey

STRUCTURAL AND FOUNDATIONAL ELEMENTS OF SCHOOL DISCIPLINE POLICY AND PRACTICE

A. Current Policy

  • The majority of districts (81%) that remove students from school for less than 10 days send work home for students to complete. Thirty percent of districts provide access to online learning and 18% provide students with a tutor.
  • In districts where students are removed for more than 10 days, 51% enroll students in an alternative education program, while the rest provide students with a combination of work sent home, online learning, and tutoring. Thirteen percent of districts have no policies requiring education services for students who are removed from school for more than 10 days.
  • Over forty percent of districts enroll students expelled from school in alternative education programs, while 33% of districts have no policy requiring education services for expelled students. Thirty three percent offer online learning opportunities.
  • Current discipline policies were similar by type of district except that alternative education programs were more commonly employed in urban (73%) and suburban (68%) settings than in rural (43%).

B. Codes of Conduct

  • Fifty six percentof districtsrecently revised their code of conduct. Of these districts:
  • School leaders were nearly unanimously involved in revisions, and teachers were involved in 82% of districts. School support staff and parents/guardians were involved in about 1/2 of districts’ code of conduct revisions.
  • Students, community members, law enforcement, clinicians, and child welfare were involved in less than 1/3 of districts’ revision processes.
  • Changes made to codes of conduct varied. The most common change made was instituting a graduated system of responses to misbehavior and making modifications to the types of offenses that warrant removal. Of the 56% of districts that made changes, other response included:
  • Improved data collection related to disciplinary actions – 42%
  • Increased use of non-punitive responses to student misbehavior – 37%
  • More limited use of suspension and expulsion – 32%
  • Definition of law enforcement role in schools – 29%
  • Education services provided to students removed – 28%
  • Due process (e.g. notifications, appeals, waiting periods) – 23%
  • Referral to mental health counselor – 22%
  • Length of suspension – 21%
  • Measures to address racial/gender/other disparities – 17%
  • More expansive use of suspension and expulsion – 5%

C. School Resource Officers

  • Thirty eight percent of districts reported having school resource officers present in over 50% their schools. Forty four percent of districts report that all of their schools did not have a law enforcement official or SRO present.
  • Of the districts that report law enforcement present in at least some of their schools, 90% reported that their officers are armed, while only half receive training from the district.
  • SRO functions were described primarily as safety planning, patrol, arrests and mentoring.
  • An overwhelming 96% of those that employ SROs reported that they had either a positive or somewhat positive effect on school climate.

CREATING A SAFE AND NURTURING ENVIRONMENT

A. School Climate

  • More than 80% of districts provide professional development related to school climate,with the most common areas of focus being classroom management, engaging instruction, and positive behavioral supports.
  • PBIS and consistency management and cooperative discipline were seen as effective in reducing the need for disciplinary actions and improving school climate.
  • School districts reported their greatest needs in establishing positive school climates and implementing prevention strategies as funding for education support staff (counselors, social workers etc.) and professional development/training.
  • Staff time demands, inadequate resources, and competing priorities were the greatest challenges to implementing prevention strategies with fidelity.

B. Alternatives to Out-of-School Suspension and Expulsion

  • District respondents rated the following alternatives to out-of-school suspension and expulsion as the most effective:
  • Behavior management plans (58%)
  • Mentoring (54%)
  • In-school suspensions (50%)
  • Urban districts found mentoring to be a more effective alternative to improving behavior and school climate (76%) than their suburban and rural counterparts (59% and 50%, respectively). Peer mediation was also more highly rated by urban superintendents; 56% found it to be an effective alternative, compared to 36% of suburban and only 24% of rural superintendents.
  • Urban superintendents rated in-schoolsuspension as less effective (32%) than suburban (54%) and rural (51%) superintendents.
  • The biggest challenges cited to implementing alternative discipline models were staff time demands and inadequate resources (excluding staff time).
  • Inadequate partnerships, competing priorities, inadequate parent buy-in and lack of professional development/training were also seen as challenging.
  • Lack of information on what works, inadequate staff buy-in, inadequate staff skills, insufficient school leadership and incomplete student data were not seen as large implementation challenges.
  • A majority of districts did not have experience with youth courts, restorative circles or community conferencing.

TARGETED AND INTENSIVE SUPPORTS

A. Early Warning Data Systems

  • Fifty eight percent of districts surveyed reported the use of an early warning data system (EWS) to identify students at-risk of academic failure, dropout, delinquency or behavioral issues and most of these systems track all grade levels (elementary to high school).
  • Almost all districts with a EWS used general purpose funding for its development and implementation.
  • Seventy percent of EWS included mechanisms to track and monitor behavior and academic interventions.
  • Virtually all of the EWS tracked course grades and attendance.
  • More than 80% of EWS also tracked in-school and out-of school suspensions and expulsions.
  • Urban districts (78%) were more likely than their suburban and rural counterparts (58% and 55% respectively) to employ an early warning data system to identify students at-risk of academic failure, dropout, delinquency or behavioral issues.

B.Student Support Teams

  • Suburban districts (57%) were most likely to employ student support teams in at least half of their middle and high schools. Urban districts (42%) and rural (30%) were less likely to employ student support teams.
  • The most common support that districts with student support teams provide for these structures are professional development and training (71%), data collection/tracking system (65%), and model tools (51%). provide the following types of support for student support teams:
  • Districts identified staff time demands (78%) and inadequate resources (66%) as the major challenges facing student support teams. Other challenges include:
  • Lack of sufficient professional development/training – 35%
  • Inadequate partnerships with providers/agencies – 36%
  • Federal privacy laws (FERPA, HIPPA) or state privacy mandates – 27%
  • Incomplete or inaccurate student data – 9%

C. Health

  • Just over 2/3 of school districts reported providing professional development on behavioral health.
  • The most common areas of focus were behavioral disorders such as ADHD, alcohol and substance abuse and developmental disabilities.
  • Very few districts provide professional development on trauma and adverse childhood experiences.
  • The most common external agencies with which districts have written agreements to provide behavioral health supports were:
  • 77% partnered with mental health;
  • 58% with child welfare;
  • 48% with alcohol and substance abuse partners; and
  • 45% with juvenile justice.
  • Districts, by and large, (81%) did not sponsor school-based health centers.

AASA Survey ResultsPage 1