Seclusion & Restraint Surges in Madison

In response to an Open Records request, I recently received the 2015-16 school year seclusion and restraint use data from the Madison Metropolitan School District (MMSD). As MMSD has not published this data on its website, contact me at through my website if you want a copy of the data.

The use of these dangerous, aversive techniques rose significantly from the previous year, which had increased from the year before that as the numbers below reveal. Even more troubling is the wide variation of use of seclusion and restraint between schools and particularly high use in elementary and alternative schools, as well as among children with disabilities.

584996

U.S. Senator Tom Harking introduced the “Keeping All Students Safe Act” in 2014

MMSD 2015-16 Seclusion & Restraint Data highlights

Numbers of Students Impacted

  • Elementary School Mean Use on Students with Disabilities: 7.09
  • Elementary School Mean Use on Students without Disabilities: 5.23
  • Elementary School with Highest Use: Orchard Ridge: 16 students with disabilities/33 students without disabilities (lowest numbers were redacted by school district to protect confidentiality)
  • Middle School Mean Use on Students with Disabilities: 5.62
  • Middle School Mean Use on Students without Disabilities: 3.46
  • Middle School with Highest Use: Whitehorse: 7 students with disabilities/ 0 students without disabilities
  • Middle School with Lowest Use: O’Keefe had 0 incidents of seclusion or restraint
  • High School Mean Use on Students with Disabilities: 3
  • High School Mean Use on Students without Disabilities: 1.6
  • High School with Highest Use: East: 18 students with Disabilities/ 19 students without disabilities.
  • High School with Lowest Use: Shabazz had 0 incidents of seclusion or restraint

Numbers of Incidents

  • Elementary School Mean Incidents of Restraint Use Only: 56.29
  • Elementary School Mean Incidents of Seclusion Use Only: 74.6
  • Elementary School Mean Incidents of Seclusion  and Restraint Used in combination: 36.6
  • Elementary Mean total Seclusion & Restraint Incidents: 94.29
  • Elementary School with Highest Use: LEAP (Olson Elementary Alternative Program): 435 total incidents (note as number of students was redacted, this means that 5 or fewer students were secluded and/or restrained a total of 435 times)
  • Middle School Mean Incidents of Restraint Only: 12.38
  • Middle School Mean Incidents of Seclusion Only: 10.38
  • Middle School Mean Incidents of Seclusion and Restraint Used in combination: 6.62
  • Middle School Mean total Seclusion & Restraint Incidents: 16.15
  • Middle School with Highest Use: Sennett: 27 total incidents (note as number of students was redacted, this means that 5 or fewer students were secluded and/or restrained a total of 27 times)
  • High School Mean Incidents of Restraint Use Only: 7.33
  • High School Mean Incidents of Seclusion Use Only: 5.17
  • High School Mean Incidents of Seclusion and Restraint Used in combination: 3.5
  • High School Mean total Seclusion & Restraint Incidents: 9
  • High School with Highest Use: East: 49 total incidents

Districtwide Totals

  • Students with Disabilities Secluded and/or Restrained: 324
  • Students without Disabilities Secluded and/or Restrained: 231
  • Total Incidents of Restraint Use Only: 2,136
  • Total Incidents of Seclusion Use Only: 2,749
  • Total Incidents of Seclusion & Restraint in Combination: 1,369
  • Total Incidents of Seclusion and/or Restraint Use: 3,516

MMSD Analysis

  • 2% of MMSD students experienced seclusion and/or restraint
  • 5.6% of MMSD students with disabilities experienced seclusion and/or restraint
  • Seclusion and restraint use is highest in elementary schools (16.49%)
  • Mean incidents of restraint use in elementary schools was 56.3/building with a range per building of 1 to 436
  • Mean incidents of seclusion use in elementary schools was 74.6/building with a range of 0 to 309
  • There has been a steady increase in use of seclusion in restraint since data was collected for the first time in 2013-14 as follows:
    • 2013-14: 975 incidents of restraint and 1,387 incidents of seclusion
    • 2014-15: 1,266 incidents of restraint and 1,688 incidents of seclusion
    • 2015-16: 1,452 incidents of restraint and 2.064 incidents of seclusion
  • A small number of elementary schools account for the vast number of incidents with 23 elementary schools reported increased use and only 12 elementary schools reporting a decline.
  • MMSD hypothesizes that the increased use is simply due to better data collection
  • MMSD concedes that, “for those elementary schools that have consistently demonstrated increases in the number of incidents of restraint and seclusion, a pattern of over-reliance on restraint/seclusion may be evident.” MMSD plans training and follow up for these schools.

Conclusions

When I helped to pass Act 125 in 2012 to document and regulate the use of seclusion and restraint in Wisconsin schools, one of the chief goals was to reduce the use of these aversive techniques. Sadly, MMSD has gone in the opposite direction, and has failed to:

  1. hold principals of schools with continually increasing rates accountable for these increases;
  2. correlate the increased use of seclusion and restraint with a decreased use of suspension; and
  3. establish clear goals for the reduction and eventual elimination of the use of seclusion and restraint in MMSD schools.

Simply blaming the increasing numbers on better documentation is insufficient in the face of an ever increasing use of dangerously aversive techniques that are well known to traumatize children. In order to reverse this troubling trend, MMSD must insist on better training in the use of Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS) and accountability for its staff and administrators who fail to reduce and eventually eliminate the use of seclusion and restraint.

_________________________________________________________________

For more information on how I can help you accomplish effective, progressive systems change contact Jeff Spitzer-Resnick by visiting his website: Systems Change Consulting.

 

Advertisements

Feds Support Positive Behavioral Supports, not Suspensions

On August 1, 2016, the U.S. Dept. of Education (USDOE), Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services (OSERS) issued an important 16 page guidance letter informing schools that they must do more to provide positive behavioral supports to children with disabilities, instead of suspending them. The letter decries the fact that in the 2013-14 school year, nationwide 10% of all children with disabilities were suspended for 10 days or less, and that rate rises to 19% for children of color with disabilities. The guidance focuses on short term suspensions because the law gives school districts far more flexibility with suspensions of 10 days or less.

USDOE

The guidance letter makes clear that,

Research shows that school-wide, small group, and individual behavioral supports that use proactive and preventative approaches, address the underlying cause of behavior, and reinforce positive behaviors are associated with increases in academic engagement, academic achievement, and fewer suspensions and dropouts.

Moreover,

Research shows that implementing evidence-based, multi-tiered behavioral frameworks can help improve overall school climate, school safety, and academic achievement for all children, including children with disabilities.

Since children who are eligible for special education are legally entitled to a free appropriate public education (FAPE), OSERS makes clear that,

when a child with a disability experiences behavioral challenges, including those that result in suspensions or other exclusionary disciplinary measures, appropriate behavioral supports may be necessary to ensure that the child receives FAPE.

Therefore,

In the same way that an IEP Team would consider a child’s language and communication needs, and include appropriate assistive technology devices or services in the child’s IEP to ensure that the child receives a meaningful educational benefit, so too must the IEP Team consider and, when determined necessary for ensuring FAPE, include or revise behavioral supports in the IEP of a child with a disability exhibiting behavior that impedes his or her learning or that of others.

Of course,

IEPs should contain behavioral supports supported by evidence—IDEA specifically requires that both special education and related services and supplementary aids and services be based on peer-reviewed research to the extent practicable. As a matter of best practice, we strongly encourage schools to consider how the implementation of behavioral supports within the IEP could be facilitated through a school-wide, multi-tiered behavioral framework.

In many cases, it is not simply a matter of changing disciplinary practice. As OSERS states,

Appropriate supplementary aids and services could include those behavioral supports necessary to enable a child with a disability to be educated in regular classes or the setting determined to be the child’s appropriate placement. Such behavioral supports might include meetings with a behavioral coach, social skills instruction, counselor, or other approaches. In general, placement teams may not place a child with a disability in special classes, separate schooling, or other restrictive settings outside of the regular educational environment solely due to the child’s behavior when behavioral supports through the provision of supplementary aids and services could be provided for that child that would be effective in addressing his or her behavior in the regular education setting.

Program modifications and support for personnel may also be necessary to assure that children with disabilities are receiving the FAPE to which they are entitled.

School personnel may need training, coaching, and tools to appropriately address the behavioral needs of a particular child.

Fortunately, the federal guidance also includes resources, such for classroom strategies, Positive Behavioral Intervention and Supports Implementation and Self-Assessmentand a School Discipline Guidance Package.

The guidance identifies seven specific ways which may indicate that there has been either a procedural or substantive failure in the development, review or revision of a child’s IEP, including:

  • The IEP Team did not consider the inclusion of positive behavioral interventions and supports in response to behavior that impeded the child’s learning or that of others;
  • School officials failed to schedule an IEP Team meeting to review the IEP to address behavioral concerns after a reasonable parental request;
  • The IEP Team failed to discuss the parent’s concerns about the child’s behavior, and its effects on the child’s learning, during an IEP Team meeting;
  • There are no behavioral supports in the child’s IEP, even when the IEP Team determines they are necessary for the child;
  • The behavioral supports in the IEP are inappropriate for the child (e.g., the frequency, scope or duration of the behavioral supports is insufficient to prevent behaviors that impede the learning of the child or others; or consistent application of the child’s behavioral supports has not accomplished positive changes in behavior, but instead has resulted in behavior that continues to impede, or further impedes, learning for the child or others);
  • The behavioral supports in the child’s IEP are appropriate, but are not being implemented or not being properly implemented (e.g., teachers are not trained in classroom management responses or de-escalation techniques or those techniques are not being consistently implemented); or
  • School personnel have implemented behavioral supports not included in the IEP that are not appropriate for the child.

A child’s IEP may not be reasonably calculated to provide a meaningful educational benefit if:

  • The child is displaying a pattern of behaviors that impede his or her learning or that of others and is not receiving any behavioral supports;
  • The child experiences a series of disciplinary removals from the current placement of 10 days or fewer (which do not constitute a disciplinary change in placement) for separate incidents of misconduct that impede the child’s learning or that of others, and the need for behavioral supports is not considered or addressed by the IEP Team; or
  • The child experiences a lack of expected progress toward the annual goals that is related to his or her disciplinary removals or the lack of behavioral supports, and the child’s IEP is neither reviewed nor revised.

To avoid confusion, the federal guidance also makes clear that disciplinary removals are not limited to formal suspensions. They also include:

  • A pattern of office referrals, extended time excluded from instruction (e.g., time out), or extended restrictions in privileges;
  • Repeatedly sending children out of school on “administrative leave” or a “day off” or other method of sending the child home from school;
  • Repeatedly sending children out of school with a condition for return, such as a risk assessment or psychological evaluation; or
  • Regularly requiring children to leave the school early and miss instructional time (e.g., via shortened school days).

Inappropriate discipline without behavioral supports can impact the child’s right to be educated in the least restrictive environment (LRE) appropriate for the child, as the guidance points out.

Circumstances that may indicate that the child’s placement in the LRE may not be appropriate include, but are not limited to, a scenario in which a continuum of placements that provides behavioral supports is not made available (e.g., behavioral supports not provided in the regular educational setting), and, as a result, the IEP inappropriately calls for the child to be placed in special classes, separate schooling, or another restrictive placement outside the regular educational environment (e.g., home instruction, home tutoring program, or online learning program).

While harsh disciplinarians may not be pleased with the federal guidance, parents of children with disabilities should be thrilled that the federal government has issued detailed guidance which is designed to ensure that children with disabilities stay in school and receive an appropriate education instead of receiving discipline funneling them into the school to prison pipeline. As an attorney who has represented children with disabilities and their parents in school discipline matters for well over 20 years, this guidance is a welcome tool to correct inappropriately harsh discipline meted out by zero-tolerance educators.

_________________________________________________________________

For more information on how I can help you accomplish effective, progressive systems change contact Jeff Spitzer-Resnick by visiting his website: Systems Change Consulting.

Close the Achievement Gap: Increase Intensive Support

As the Madison Metropolitan School District (MMSD) Board of Education reviews the budget which its administration has prepared for the coming year, it would be wise to take a close look at its continuing problem with the ongoing racial, disability and poverty achievement gap and focus on how appropriate staffing can help to close that gap. While some improvements have been made, persistent gaps remain.

Students simply will not succeed if they are not in school. During the 2014-15 school year 2,477 MMSD students were habitually truant (meaning 5 or more days of unexcused absence from school) representing 9.8% of all MMSD students. But 1,235 of those students (nearly half) were African-American, representing 26.9% of all MMSD African-American students.

During that same year, MMSD suspended 1,713 students. But, 1,069 of them were African-American representing well over half of those suspended students. 402 of MMSD suspended students had disabilities, representing 10.9% of all MMSD students with disabilities, nearly half of all MMSD suspended students. While the data does not reveal how many African-American students with disabilities were suspended, when one adds the African-American suspended students and the suspended students with disabilities, that number almost equals all MMSD suspended students so it is safe to assume that African-American students with disabilities have the highest rate of suspension in the district.

out-of-school-suspensions

That MMSD’s discipline data reveals troubling racial and disability disparities is consistent with national data. But that should come as no solace to anyone, as nobody should admire the data. Instead, we need to apply solutions that we know will work to solve the problem.

While MMSD’s Behavior Education Plan has succeeded in significantly reducing the total number of suspensions, it also reveals another glaring gap for children in poverty. While 48% of MMSD students qualify for free or reduced lunch, a shocking 89% of MMSD suspensions were doled out to low-income students.

Finally, graduation rates also reveal a troubling achievement gap. At the end of the 2014-15 school year, 80.1% of MMSD seniors graduated in 4 years. But only 57.8% of African-American students; 56.8% of students with disabilities; and 62.1% of low-income students graduate in 4 years.

Fortunately, MMSD has a program designed to address the needs of its students with the most intensive needs. The Intensive Support Team (IST) takes requests from MMSD staff to address the needs of students in crisis. As of May 2, 2016, during this school year, there were 455 requests for support to IST. Of these, 411 were served by the team in one of several capacities (consultation, intake/assessment, professional development, short term stabilization), 250 were closed and the rest still active. This means that nearly 10% of referrals were not served and over 1/2 of all referrals are still receiving intensive supports.

Unfortunately, staff cuts were made to this team last year and the administration’s proposed budget does not propose to fill those cuts. The good news is that the budget is still in the discussion stage. School board member Anna Moffit has proposed to increase the IST staff by 3.5 FTE staff to address the unmet need for these students at a cost of approximately $250,000. In an era of tight budgets and state imposed revenue caps, Ms. Moffit recognizes that the money must come from somewhere so she has identified the following reasonable places where this money can be found: reduce spending on Technology Plan; reduce spending on Educational Resource Officers; or utilize funds saved from not filling the position of Special Assistant to the Superintendent ($125,000 dollars).

The school board and our community must recognize that failing to meet the needs of these students has a significant cost both to these students and to society at large. A recent report by the UCLA Civil Rights project from which I extrapolated the high cost of suspensions in Wisconsin, reveals that each suspended student who fails to graduate results in:

  • $19,572 in fiscal costs; and
  • $60,962 in societal costs.

Thus, if the IST is able to help only 5 more students at risk of suspension to graduate, it will have saved our community far more money than the additional cost which Ms. Moffit proposes spending on this worthy program. Thus, her proposal makes senses for educational, equitable, social and economic reasons and should therefore receive the support of the full school board.

Residents of MMSD who support Ms. Moffit’s proposal should e-mail the school board to encourage them to approve her amendment at: board@madison.k12.wi.us.

_________________________________________________________________

For more information on how I can help you accomplish effective, progressive systems change contact Jeff Spitzer-Resnick by visiting his website: Systems Change Consulting.

 

The High Cost of School Suspensions

While many school officials choose to suspend students who misbehave either to teach them a lesson or simply to remove a child who may have caused a disruption in school, they need to understand the long term consequences to both the suspended child and to society as a whole which result from these suspensions.

Today, the UCLA Civil Rights Project released an in-depth report on, The High Cost of Harsh Discipline and its Disparate Impact which takes a comprehensive look at the impact of school suspensions on children and society.

logo-front

This study demonstrates markedly lower graduation rates for students who are suspended even one time. Nationally, the graduation rate drops by 12 percentage points for suspended students!

The report then goes on to calculate the fiscal and social costs of suspensions which lead to high school drop outs.

The consequences are expressed as the lifetime differences between dropouts and graduates in: incomes; taxes paid; government spending on health, crime, and welfare; tax distortions; and productivity gains. Although the fiscal and social costs are related, the social costs include the aggregate losses incurred by dropouts personally such as their lower income, diminished productivity, and higher expenditures on health care due to poorer health. The fiscal costs are a subset of the social costs and cover only the losses experienced by federal, state and local governments due to lower income tax revenues and higher government expenditures on health and social services, and on the criminal justice system.

The report estimates that the national average economic loss per high school non-graduate due to suspension is:

  • fiscal costs to taxpayers: $163,340/suspended non-graduating student
  • social costs to society: $527, 695/suspended non-graduating student

When one multiplies all suspended non-graduates by these economic losses, the national economic impact is tremendous:

  • overall national fiscal cost to taxpayer: $11 billion due to suspended non-graduates
  • overall national social cost to society: $35.7 billion due to suspended non-graduates

On an optimistic note, the report then estimates the nationwide economic benefits achieved by reducing suspensions. For each percentage point of reduction, our nation would save:

  • $691 million saved in fiscal costs/1% reduction in suspension rate
  • $2.2 billion saved in social costs/1% reduction in suspension rates.

The report examines 2 states, Florida and California, but it encourages educators and policymakers to apply this impact to every other state. Thus, in examining Wisconsin’s suspension rate, while the suspension rate has been going down, in 2014-15, Wisconsin school districts nevertheless suspended 31,167 students, or 3.6% of all enrolled students. Using the report’s data, and applying the national average 12% increase in drop-out rate for suspended students, this means that the total economic impact for Wisconsin suspended non-graduates is estimated to be:

  • $610 million fiscal cost to Wisconsin taxpayers due to suspended non-graduates
  • $1.9 billion social cost to Wisconsin society due to suspended non-graduates

The Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction provides suspension data by school district, race/ethnicity, gender and disability. For example, in the Madison area, the Beloit School District has the highest rate of suspension at 10.1% (nearly 3 times the state average). Racial disparities exist throughout the state. Statewide, Wisconsin school districts suspended 15.1% African-American students in 2014-15, nearly 5 times the state average. Beloit once again has troubling racial disparities, having suspended 21.8% of its African-American students that year.

Disparities are also troubling for students with disabilities. Statewide 9.5% of students with disabilities were suspended statewide (nearly 3 times the statewide average). Once again, Beloit exhibits disturbing disparities, having suspended 22.9% of its students with disabilities that year.

Thus, the economic impact on the most disadvantaged groups of students is many times higher than for white non-disabled students.

The report concludes with 3 major recommendations:

  1. When federal and state governments create and implement evaluation and oversight plans for schools and districts they should include suspension rates among the indicators they use to determine whether schools are high performing or in need of assistance.
  2. Use the suspension data as part of an early warning system for schools and districts. Thus, as more districts with high suspension rates explore alternatives, we will need data to help them distinguish between effective and ineffective interventions and policy changes.
  3. State and federal policymakers should provide schools and districts with incentives to improve their school climate, such as grants for substantial teacher and administrator trainings, and resources targeted at improving the collection and use of discipline data at the school level.

These are all excellent ideas, and local school districts need not wait for state and federal policymakers to implement local changes to reduce suspensions, thereby increasing graduation rates, and reducing fiscal and social costs to all of us. This report demonstrates that the investments are well worth the money and effort.

_________________________________________________________________

For more information on how I can help you accomplish effective, progressive systems change contact Jeff Spitzer-Resnick by visiting his website: Systems Change Consulting.

 

 

Seclusion & Restraint in Our Own Backyard

As a leader in the movement to reduce the inappropriate use of seclusion and restraint of our school children, I was pleased to see that Disability Rights Wisconsin, Wisconsin FACETS and Wisconsin Family Ties held a press conference yesterday to release their new report: Seclusion and Restraint in Wisconsin Public School Districts 2013-14: Miles to GoThe report reveals both data and stories about the ongoing use of seclusion and restraint in Wisconsin school, despite the passage of Act 125 in 2012, designed to reduce the inappropriate use of these aversive techniques.

In November of 2012, I posted a summary of the key provisions of Wisconsin’s New Law on the Use of Seclusion and Restraint of School Children on my blog. Tellingly, it has been viewed every single month since then, and is my 3rd most read blog post.

To this day, many of my cases continue to involve the use of seclusion and restraint, including in my local school district, in Madison, Wisconsin. As the new report reveals, the number of children subjected to seclusion and restraint in Madison’s schools is actually increasing. In the 2012-13 school year, 248 students were subjected to seclusion and restraint. While in the 2013-14 school year, that number increased to 264. Sadly, these children are subjected to these aversive measures over and over again, which suggests that staff are not receiving the appropriate support to manage student behavior without using these dangerous techniques. In the 2012-13 school year, there were 2,291 incidents of seclusion and restraint (an average of over 9 incidents/student subjected to seclusion &/or restraint). In the 2013-14 school year, there were 2,362 such incidents (just under 9 incidents/student).

Sadly, when asked to respond to this problem, John Harper, Madison’s Executive Director of Student Services, failed to acknowledge the problem and instead fell back on the long debunked argument that these traumatizing techniques “ensure the safety of our students and staff.

When Act 125 passed, I was proud to be a co-author of this landmark legislation. I worked for 12 years along with many others to ultimately secure unanimous passage and the Governor’s signature on this important piece of legislation. Without this law, we would not have the data that this new report revealed.

S-R bill signing1

Governor Walker signing Act 125

But all advocates know that passage of a law is only a first step, albeit an important one. The law has improved behavioral management practices in many school districts. But, others remained challenged and fall back on punitive and traumatizing techniques. What we need are school superintendents and building principals who declare their schools to be seclusion and restraint free zones and for our legislature and Governor to provide sufficient funding to school districts so staff can receive the appropriate training and support to teach children appropriate behavior rather than traumatize them with the inappropriate use of seclusion and restraint.

______________________________________________________

For more information on how Jeff Spitzer-Resnick can help you accomplish effective, progressive systems change, visit his website: Systems Change Consulting.

Discipline them ’til they drop out

The U.S. Department of Education recently released the latest data which provides a lot of information about students in special education. Unfortunately, in critical areas, including discipline and drop-outs, in addition to overall high rates of excessive discipline and drop-outs, racial disparities persist. The data varies significantly between states, and readers can check their own states’ data, as well as gender disparities and those of other racial or ethnic groups, on the Dept. of Education’s website linked above, but to illustrate the problem, I will use my home state of Wisconsin’s data for Black, Hispanic and White students, and compare that to the national average.

USDOE

The national data for special education eligibility is:

  • White:                                          49.7%
  • Hispanic/Latino:                      24.75%
  • Black or African American : 18.47%

The Wisconsin special education eligibility rates are:

  • White:                                        66.26%
  • Hispanic/Latino:                     11.33%
  • Black or African American: 15.28%

Since we know that school success can only happen if students remain in school, the data for suspensions and drop outs is deeply disturbing:

The percent of students with disabilities suspended or expelled 10 or more days is as follows:

US suspension/expulsions 10+days:

  • White:                                         30.43%
  • Hispanic/Latino:                      16.55%
  • Black or African American : 47.16%

Wisconsin suspension/expulsions 10+days:

  • White:                                         25.53%
  • Hispanic/Latino:                        9.31%
  • Black or African American : 62.14%

That’s right. Despite the fact that Black students make up less than 20% of students with disabilities nationally and in Wisconsin, they comprise nearly half of US students with disabilities suspended or expelled more than 10 days and nearly 2/3 of Wisconsin students with disabilities

If that does not shock you, it is even more disturbing when one examines the actual number of students with disabilities suspended or expelled out of school.

  • US total students with disabilities suspended/expelled 10+ days: 52,848
  • US total students with disabilities suspended/expelled <10 days: 487,847
  • US total Hispanic/Latino students with disabilities suspended/expelled 10+ days: 8,713
  • US total Hispanic/Latino students with disabilities suspended/expelled <10 days: 90,779
  • US total Black or African American students with disabilities suspended/expelled 10+ days: 24,827
  • US total Black or African American students with disabilities suspended/expelled <10 days: 182,116

The Wisconsin numbers are equally disturbing.

  • Wisconsin total students with disabilities suspended/expelled 10+ days: 795
  • Wisconsin total students with disabilities suspended/expelled <10 days: 10,907
  • Wisconsin total Hispanic/Latino students with disabilities suspended/expelled 10+ days: 74
  • Wisconsin total Hispanic/Latino students with disabilities suspended/expelled <10 days: 1,111
  • Wisconsin total Black or African American students with disabilities suspended/expelled 10+ days: 494
  • Wisconsin total Black or African American students with disabilities suspended/expelled <10 days: 4,332

Of course, when students are disciplined out of school, many of them end up dropping out.

US students with disabilities ages 14-21 dropping out in 2013-14

  • White: 9.49%
  • Hispanic/Latino: 14.55%
  • Black or African American: 14.3%

Wisconsin students with disabilities ages 14-21 dropping out in 2013-14

  • White: 7.95%
  • Hispanic/Latino: 16.73%
  • Black: 29.38%

Once again, to make clear that these are not just percentages, but real live children, here are the actual numbers of drop outs in these categories.

US students with disabilities ages 14-21 dropping out in 2013-14

  • White: 29,876
  • Hispanic/Latino: 18,812
  • Black or African American: 19,452

Wisconsin students with disabilities ages 14-21 dropping out in 2013-14

  • White: 536
  • Hispanic/Latino: 164
  • Black: 639

These numbers are a tragic indication of a failed education  system that metes out excessive discipline ultimately driving tens of thousands of our most vulnerable students to drop out of school, many of whom will commit crimes and fuel the school to prison pipeline.

However, we need to stop admiring this problem. It is not a new problem. Rather, it is a persistent problem. It persists because those who are responsible for underfunding our schools and permitting local school officials to remove students from school excessively are not held accountable. The numbers are only evidence of a deeply rooted problem. With tragic and transparent evidence of such widespread failure, who will accept responsibility and solve this ongoing nightmare? Who will we hold accountable for this failure?

___________________________________________________

For more information on how Jeff Spitzer-Resnick can help you accomplish effective, progressive systems change contact him by visiting his web site: Systems Change Consulting.

 

 

 

 

Which Students Overcome Suspensions?

While I have written a lot about the problems with zero tolerance policies in school fueling the school to prison pipeline, a recent analysis provides new insights into which students overcome the burdens imposed upon them when they are suspended from school.

According to the analysis  by the Brooking Institution, high school graduation rates are significantly lower for students who are suspended. This leads to lower income later in life as the “suspension penalty” carries into adulthood.

Reeves 102001

It is well documented that school discipline is disproportionally meted out on students of color, those with disabilities, and those who are low-income, which is a problem in my hometown of Madison, Wisconsin. But, as the Brookings analysis points out, economic success later in life for suspended students is impacted greatly by whether or not the student graduates from high school and obtains further education.

Reeves 102002

Reeves 102003

Not surprisingly, then, family income is directly related to whether or not a child is suspended.

Reeves 102004

The Brookings analysis also examines two other critical factors which help determine whether or not a child can overcome the burden of suspension. First, students who live with both biological parents through age 18 have a much better chance of overcoming the burden of suspension.

Reeves 102005

Finally, whether or not the student’s mother graduated from high school has a strong correlation to whether or not the student graduates. This correlation is particularly profound for students who are suspended.

Reeves 102006

Thus, while school discipline policies must continue to reduce the likelihood of suspension due to the long term problematic outcomes for suspended students, the larger picture of family stability and parental success must also be supported if we hope to stop the generational poverty which burdens our society.

________________________________________________________________
For more information on how I can help you accomplish effective, progressive systems change contact Jeff Spitzer-Resnick by visiting his website: Systems Change Consulting.

Department of Justice Makes Strong Disability Statement in School to Prison Pipeline Case

Last week, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) took the unusual step of submitting a Statement of Interest in a school to prison pipeline case in Kenton County, Kentucky. The case involves a school resource officer (SRO) in the Covington Independent School District, who is accused of handcuffing 2 students: 8 and 9 years old, behind their backs, and above their elbows, at the biceps. Both children have disabilities and the behavior for which they were handcuffed arose out of their disabilities.

Seal_of_the_United_States_Department_of_Justice

Although the federal government is not taking sides in the lawsuit brought by the children’s parents, it took the unusual step of submitting a statement of interest, to make sure that the court understands that in addition to the normal way of analyzing excessive use of police force cases, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)  imposes additional requirements when police deal with people with disabilities.

Specifically, the DOJ informed the court that when encountering people with disabilities, the ADA requires police departments to:

  • “reasonably modify procedures, practices, and policies unless doing so would result in a fundamental alteration,” and
  • “create policies and administer those policies in a way that does not have the effect of discriminating against children with disabilities.”

The DOJ makes clear that,

This litigation implicates the rights of children in schools to be free from unconstitutional police seizures, the rights of children with disabilities to be free from disability-based discrimination, and the rights of children to be free from civil rights violations that lead to the cycle of harsh school discipline and law enforcement involvement known as the “school-to-prison pipeline.”

In a very impressive statement, the DOJ informed the court that,

the United States has a strong interest in eliminating the school-to-prison pipeline, which has a disproportionate effect on students with disabilities and students of color.

As I have written previously, the DOJ has issued strong guidance seeking to eliminate the school to prison pipeline for at least the past 2 years.

In this particular case, these young children both had disabilities that impacted their behavior that the school district was well aware of and provided them with behavior intervention plans. However, the Sheriff’s Office, when asked to supply school resources officers to the school district never

provided training or created policies or procedures for the SROs on the use of physical force, including the use of handcuffs, on children, including children with disabilities.

The plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that

video footage of S.R.’s handcuffing depicts Defendant Sumner saying to the child: “You can do what we ask you to or you can suffer the consequences.” The video also allegedly shows Defendant Sumner pushing on the chain of the handcuffs to place S.R. in a chair and telling him, “Now sit down like I asked you to.”  Defendant Sumner also said to S.R.: “You know you’re . . . going to behave the way you’re supposed to or you suffer the consequences. It’s your decision to behave this way. If you want the handcuffs off, you’re going to have to behave and ask me nicely.” Throughout the interaction, the video depicts S.R. crying in pain, gasping, and squirming in his chair.

The officer’s behavior was similar with the other child and he, in fact, handcuffed her on another occasion. Both children have suffered emotional distress as a result, according to the complaint.

The DOJ correctly points out that

students can suffer lasting harmful consequences after an interaction with law enforcement. Indeed, students who experience coercive force by those in the criminal justice system are more likely to miss critical instructional time, struggle in class, disengage from learning, feel stigmatized or alienated, drop out, become involved in the juvenile justice system, and miss future educational opportunities. They face a greater risk of drug use, emotional difficulties, and low self-esteem. These law enforcement interactions can leave students feeling traumatized, anxious, humiliated, and deeply fearful of school. For children with disabilities, who may experience disproportionate contact with law enforcement in schools, such interactions can exacerbate the disability and the very behaviors that led to the SRO interaction.

As the DOJ goes on to say,

Best practices developed for implementing SRO programs demonstrate that, in efforts designed to help promote a safe learning environment in school, the role of SROs should be carefully circumscribed to ensure they do not become involved in routine disciplinary matters. SROs should use their law enforcement powers judiciously, to focus on safety, to avoid disability-based discrimination, and to avoid unnecessary criminalization of childhood behavior and perpetuation of the school-to-prison pipeline. These practices, if implemented, help ensure that schools and law enforcement agencies effectively protect school safety while avoiding violations of the federal rights of students.

The DOJ has issued guidance on how to deal with people with disabilities which includes:

Some examples of reasonable modifications that might be necessary for law enforcement officers when interacting with individuals with disabilities include:

1. Being aware that the officer’s uniform, gun, or handcuffs may frighten an individual with mental illness, and instead adopting a nonconfrontational stance by removing the officer’s hat, sitting down, and assuring the individual that he or she is heard.

2. Asking an individual with mental illness questions regarding his basic needs such as “What would make you feel safer/calmer, etc.?”

In my own practice, I have seen the devastating impact on children with disabilities when school resource officers aggressively interact with them. My case against the Sun Prairie police settled just prior to trial. But too many children who suffer at the hands of over aggressive school resource officers cannot find legal representation. Hopefully, the DOJ’s involvement in the Kentucky case will result in a strong message from that federal court and convince both school districts and police departments to alter their practices and stop the flow into the school to prison pipeline.

________________________________________________________________

For more information on how I can help you accomplish effective, progressive systems change contact Jeff Spitzer-Resnick by visiting his website: Systems Change Consulting.

Madison’s School Discipline Gets National Attention

UCLA’s Civil Rights Project recently released a comprehensive national report, entitled, Are we Closing the School Discipline Gap?  

logo-front

As the authors state:

The egregious disparities revealed in the pages that follow transform concerns about educational policy that allows frequent disciplinary removal into a profound matter of civil rights and social justice. This implicates the potentially unlawful denial of educational opportunity and resultant disparate impact on students in numerous districts across the country.

The authors go on to draw the connection between excessive discipline and and poor academic performance.  As they mention:

missing three days of school in the month before taking the National Assessment of Educational Progress translated into fourth graders scoring a full grade level lower in reading on this test. New research shows that higher suspension rates are closely correlated with higher dropout and delinquency rates, and that they have tremendous economic costs for the suspended students…

The authors conclude that:

the large racial/ethnic disparities in suspensions that we document in this report likely will have an adverse and disparate impact on the academic achievement and life outcomes of millions of historically disadvantaged children. This supports our assertion that we will close the racial achievement gap only when we also address the school discipline gap.

The report contains an addendum which highlights 20 school districts, including Madison, Wisconsin. It is important to note that the report uses data from 2009-2012, before the inception of Madison’s new Behavior Education Plan at the beginning of the 2014-15 school year.  The authors describe the data from the earlier period as “deeply disturbing.”  They highlight the following:

in 2011-12, over 46% of all Black students with disabilities and over 49% of all Black males with disabilities were suspended at least once at the secondary school level. The district’s overall rates are also above the national average at both the elementary and secondary levels.

Equally troubling is that the Madison Metropolitan School District’s suspension rates increased between 2009-10 and 2011-12:

• Overall suspension rates at the elementary level increased, with roughly 595 students suspended at least once in 2011-12, or 4.2%. This represents an increase of 1.7 percentage points from the 2009-10 rate of 2.5%.

• Overall suspension rates at the secondary level increased, with roughly 1,620 students suspended at least once in 2011-12, or 12.9%. This represents an increase of over one half a percentage point from the 2009-10 rate of 12.3%.

With this national attention in mind, it is worth examining how Madison’s new Behavior Education Plan has impacted this disturbing situation. Coincidentally, on the exact same day that the Civil Rights Project released its report, the Madison Metropolitan School District (MMSD) released its Behavior Education Plan Mid-Year Review.

First, the good news, suspension have dropped significantly from the 2013-14 school year to the current year.  However, the disparities in discipline remain.

  • 35% of all suspensions were of children with disabilities even though they only represent 14% of the total district population (this is somewhat better than the 39% rate in 2013-14);
  • 84% of all suspensions were of children who receive free or reduced lunch due to their low income status, far greater than their 48% of the total student population (and somewhat lower than the 87% rate in 2013-14);
  • 64% of suspensions were of African-American students despite their only being 18% of the total district population (this is worse than the 59% rate in 2013-14); and
  • the best news was that Hispanic student suspensions dropped to 9% from the previous year’s 13%, both of which are lower than their overall 20% of the student population.

The question for Madison is not whether the Behavior Education Plan is having an impact. It clearly is reducing suspensions.  However, given the stark disparities which still remain, as I have repeatedly stated, until MMSD sets measurable goals for the Plan, neither it, nor the public at large will be able to determine whether it is accomplishing what we believe it should, namely more time in school resulting in improved academic performance and closing the achievement gap.

_________________________________________________________________

For more information on how Jeff Spitzer-Resnick can help you accomplish effective, progressive systems change contact him by visiting his web site: Systems Change Consulting.

Madison’s Behavior Education Plan: Can’t Measure Progress without Goals

As I have reported previously, I worked hard to get the Madison Metropolitan School District (MMSD) to adopt its new Behavior Education Plan, which went into effect at the beginning of the current school year.  However, while it was a good step forward towards teaching appropriate behavior instead of removing so many children from education, I expressed concerns about the failure of MMSD to set specific outcome goals and to provide sufficient training and support to assure effective implementation of this ambitious plan.

Recently, local media reported stories of MMSD teachers complaining that implementation of the Behavior Education Plan was not going well and that their schools were more chaotic than ever.  Moreover, while the Behavior Education Plan has indeed resulted in fewer suspensions, racial disparities have actually increasedDespite these glaring problems, the school district’s first quarterly report continues the pattern of failing to identify specific outcome goals so progress can be measured and implementation can be adjusted as needed.

oss ethnicity 1314 oss 1415

In response to these concerns, MMSD Superintendent Jennifer Cheatham wrote an OpEd in which she declared that Madison schools are “aiming for excellence, equity.”  That sounds great, but with equity actually getting worse, it is remarkable that her OpEd follows her pattern of refusing to set specific outcome goals.

Perhaps the biggest concern in failing to set reasonable outcome goals while the Behavior Education Plan is attacked from within is that parents and teachers who want safe schools will demand the repeal of this otherwise excellent plan.  These concerns must be met with clear goals and better training.  The tools are there.  Teachers just need training and support.

In Gainesville, Florida, for example, teachers are using a multi-tiered approach to support behavioral needs because they understand that:

“If a child is not behaving there’s a need not being met, and that’s the premise I always go on.”

MMSD’s new Behavioral Education Plan represents a sea change in how we teach our children. It has the opportunity to keep students in school, teach them appropriate behavior, improve academic performance, and close racial disparities.  However, if MMSD continues to fail to set reasonable outcome goals, and does not provide sufficient training and support for its staff, it will all be for naught.

_________________________________________________________________

For more information on how Jeff Spitzer-Resnick can help you accomplish effective, progressive systems change contact  him by visiting his web site: Systems Change Consulting.