PRINCIPAL ATTITUDES REGARDING ZERO TOLERANCE AND RACIAL DISPARITIES IN SCHOOL SUSPENSIONS

Teachers' racialized anger: Implications for discipline disparities

The contribution of racial bias to teachers' racialized discipline practices is increasingly clear, but the processes by which these biases are activated are less well understood. This study examined teachers' emotional responses to students' misbehaviors by student race as well as whether teachers' emotional responses serve to mediate the association between student race and teachers' discipline practices. Results from a sample of 228 teachers in the United States indicated that teachers were 71% more likely to report feeling anger as compared to concern when they read about a potentially challenging behavior of a Black student as compared to a White student. Additionally, teachers' anger mediated the association between student race and discipline, suggesting teacher anger as a potential point of intervention for change.

Teachers' anti-black biases in disciplinary decisions: The role of mindfulness

Research suggests that disparities in exclusionary discipline can be explained, in part, by teachers' anti-Black biases in disciplinary decision-making. An emerging body of literature also speaks to the benefits of cultivating mindfulness for bias reduction. The present study adds to the literature by assessing whether mindfulness is associated with differences in teachers' responses to student disciplinary infractions as a function of student signaled race, which was manipulated as a between-subjects factor. We predicted that teachers with lower levels of mindfulness, as measured via self-report, would demonstrate greater anti-Black bias in response to students' disciplinary files than teachers with higher levels of mindfulness. Teachers (N = 179) completed the study via an online research participant platform. Consistent with hypothesis, we found that participants' self-reported mindfulness in teaching moderated their responses to a disciplinary file as a function of student signaled race, b = -1.05, F(1, 175) = 4.50, p = 0.035, η_p² = 0.03, 95% CI [-2.03, -0.07]. Specifically, participants with lower levels of mindfulness rated the disciplinary infraction as more severe if it was enacted by a Black boy compared to a White boy. At higher levels of mindfulness, however, the opposite pattern emerged; participants demonstrated more leniency if the infraction was perpetrated by a Black boy, relative to a White boy. Our research adds to the literature and suggests that improving teachers' ability to remain present in the classroom may improve their ability to make more equitable decisions in managing students' misbehavior.

Associations between Parent-Child Communication on Sexual Health and Drug Use and Use of Drugs during Sex among Urban Black Youth

Black youth and their families living in urban settings may experience unique stressors that contribute to underlying issues due to the environmental context. Such factors may exacerbate and promote drug use and engagement in risky sexual behaviors, unknowingly. Little is known about how family factors, peer pressure, condom use, and other related factors are associated with substance use and engaging in sexual behaviors while on drugs among urban African American youth aged 12-22 (N = 638). We used regression models to examine associations between parental bonding, parent-adolescent sexual health communication, condom use, peer pressure on substance use, and having sex while on drugs. Multivariate results indicated that parental bonding was statistically significant and associated with drug use (OR: 1.36, 95%CI: 1.36). Our study highlights that parental bonding plays a critical role in youth using drugs while living in urban environments.

Academic Achievement Among a Sample of Youth in Foster Care: The Role of School Connectedness

Research shows that youth in foster care experience poor academic performance and disciplinary actions in school more frequently than do non-foster care youth. The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to further examine youth in foster care and the relationship between individual/intrapersonal factors (future orientation and school connectedness) and exosystem factors (number of placement and school moves) and academic performance (grades) and disciplinary referrals among 363 youth (9-11 years of age; males=52.9%). Controlling for key variables, hierarchical linear regression analysis was utilized to understand how well students' school connectedness, future outlook, number of placement changes, and number of school moves predicted academic and disciplinary outcomes. Beyond the variance explained by control variables, school connectedness made a significant contribution to this model. Results are discussed in the context of implementing interventions that foster school connectedness among this vulnerable population.

A multilevel analysis of racial discipline disproportionality: A focus on student perceptions of academic engagement and disciplinary environment

Excessive use of exclusionary school discipline with Black students is a persistent, systemic problem in U.S. schools with potential to affect students' perceptions of their school. For example, students may notice racial differences in out-of-school suspensions, which may relate to how academically engaged they feel and the extent to which they view the school's disciplinary environment as positive. The current study investigated school-level racial discipline disproportionality and observed classroom-level, positive behavior supports in relation to student perceptions of academic engagement and school disciplinary environment by fitting a series of three-level models, which included data on students (N = 17,115), classrooms (J = 310), and schools (K = 53). Two metrics of discipline disproportionality were used (i.e., the risk ratio and the risk difference) and moderation was examined through cross-level interactions. Results indicated that, regardless of race, students perceived the disciplinary environment as significantly less favorable in schools with greater racial discipline disproportionality when measured by the risk ratio, but not when measured by the risk difference. Using different disproportionality metrics in education research has important implications for policies and practices to identify and address the issue. How discipline disparities relate to the way that students perceive the disciplinary environment will likely inform intervention efforts for school psychologists.

Predicting School Suspension Risk from Eighth through Tenth Grade Using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire

The current study examined (1) if the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) would yield alternative factor structures related to either symptoms or strengths with early adolescent students when an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) is used; (2) which scales best predicted suspensions of typically developing early adolescents; and (3) what cut-off scores were useful for identifying youth at risk for suspensions. The current study included 321 parent-student dyads, who were followed from the middle of eighth grade until the end of tenth grade. A symptoms-based EFA yielded three factors: Misbehavior, Isolation, and Agitation. A strength-based EFA yielded three factors, as, well: Emotional, Social, and Moral competence. Logistic regression path analyses were used to predict risk of any suspension at the end of eighth, ninth, and tenth grades. The predictor variables were the original SDQ Conduct Problems and Hyperactivity scales in one model, the Misbehavior and Agitation scales in a second model, and the Emotional and Moral competence scales in the third model. Only the Misbehavior scale consistently predicted suspensions across each grade (b = .27, OR = 1.32, p < .001; b = .15, OR = 1.18, p = .029; b = .17, OR = 1.18, p = .029, respectively). For the Misbehavior scale, cut-off scores were established that reflected the 75th and 90th percentile; however, each cut-off demonstrated strengths and weaknesses for identifying at-risk students. The expectation of screening to identify youth at-risk for suspensions, a complex school discipline decision, is discussed.

School-based interventions for reducing disciplinary school exclusion: a systematic review

This Campbell systematic review examines the impact of interventions to reduce exclusion from school. School exclusion, also known as suspension in some countries, is a disciplinary sanction imposed by a responsible school authority, in reaction to students' misbehaviour. Exclusion entails the removal of pupils from regular teaching for a period during which they are not allowed to be present in the classroom (in-school) or on school premises (out-of-school). In some extreme cases the student is not allowed to come back to the same school (expulsion). The review summarises findings from 37 reports covering nine different types of intervention. Most studies were from the USA, and the remainder from the UK. Included studies evaluated school-based interventions or school-supported interventions to reduce the rates of exclusion. Interventions were implemented in mainstream schools and targeted school-aged children from four to 18, irrespective of nationality or social background. Only randomised controlled trials are included. The evidence base covers 37 studies. Thirty-three studies were from the USA, three from the UK, and for one study the country was not clear. School-based interventions cause a small and significant drop in exclusion rates during the first six months after intervention (on average), but this effect is not sustained. Interventions seemed to be more effective at reducing some types of exclusion such as expulsion and in-school exclusion. Four intervention types - enhancement of academic skills, counselling, mentoring/monitoring, and skills training for teachers - had significant desirable effects on exclusion. However, the number of studies in each case is low, so this result needs to be treated with caution. There is no impact of the interventions on antisocial behaviour. Variations in effect sizes are not explained by participants' characteristics, the theoretical basis of the interventions, or the quality of the intervention. Independent evaluator teams reported lower effect sizes than research teams who were also involved in the design and/or delivery of the intervention.

Plain language summary

Interventions can reduce school exclusion but the effect is temporary: Some interventions - enhancement of academic skills, counselling, mentoring/monitoring, and skills training for teachers - appear to have significant effects on exclusion.The review in brief: Interventions to reduce school exclusion are intended to mitigate the adverse effects of this school sanction. Some approaches, namely those involving enhancement of academic skills, counselling, mentoring/monitoring and those targeting skills training for teachers, have a temporary effect in reducing exclusion. More evaluations are needed to identify the most effective types of intervention; and whether similar effects are also found in different countries.What is this review about?: School exclusion is associated with undesirable effects on developmental outcomes. It increases the likelihood of poor academic performance, antisocial behavior, and poor employment prospects. This school sanction disproportionally affects males, ethnic minorities, those who come from disadvantaged economic backgrounds, and those with special educational needs.This review assesses the effectiveness of programmes to reduce the prevalence of exclusion.What are the main findings of this review?: What studies are included? Included studies evaluated school-based interventions or school-supported interventions to reduce the rates of exclusion. Interventions were implemented in mainstream schools and targeted school-aged children from four to 18, irrespective of nationality or social background. Only randomised controlled trials are included.The evidence base covers 37 studies. Thirty-three studies were from the USA, three from the UK, and for one study the country was not clear.School-based interventions cause a small and significant drop in exclusion rates during the first six months after intervention (on average), but this effect is not sustained. Interventions seemed to be more effective at reducing some types of exclusion such as expulsion and in-school exclusion.Four intervention types - enhancement of academic skills, counselling, mentoring/ monitoring, and skills training for teachers - had significant desirable effects on exclusion. However, the number of studies in each case is low, so this result needs to be treated with caution.There is no impact of the interventions on antisocial behaviour.Variations in effect sizes are not explained by participants' characteristics, the theoretical basis of the interventions, or the quality of the intervention. Independent evaluator teams reported lower effect sizes than research teams who were also involved in the design and/or delivery of the intervention.What do the findings of this review mean?: School-based interventions are effective at reducing school exclusion immediately after, and for a few months after, the intervention (6 months on average). Four interventions presented promising and significant results in reducing exclusion, that is, enhancement of academic skills, counselling, mentoring/monitoring, skills training for teachers. However, since the number of studies for each sub-type of intervention was low, we suggest these results should be treated with caution.Most of the studies come from the USA. Evaluations are needed from other countries in which exclusion is common. Further research should take advantage of the possibility of conducting cluster-randomised controlled trials, whilst ensuring that the sample size is sufficiently large.How up-to-date is this review?: The review authors searched for studies published up to December 2015. This Campbell systematic review was published in January 2018.

Executive Summary/Abstract

BACKGROUND: Schools are important institutions of formal social control (Maimon, Antonaccio, & French, 2012). They are, apart from families, the primary social system in which individuals are socialised to follow specific codes of conduct. Violating these codes of conduct may result in some form of punishment. School punishment is normally accepted by families and students as a consequence of transgression, and in that sense school isoften the place where children are first introduced to discipline, justice, or injustice (Whitford & Levine-Donnerstein, 2014).A wide range of punishments may be used in schools, from verbal reprimands to more serious actions such as detention, fixed term exclusion or even permanent exclusion from the mainstream education system. It must be said that in some way, these school sanctions resemble the penal system and its array of alternatives to punish those that break the law.School exclusion, also known as suspension in some countries, is defined as a disciplinary sanction imposed by a responsible school authority, in reaction to students' misbehaviour. Exclusion entails the removal of pupils from regular teaching for a period during which they are not allowed to be present in the classroom or, in more serious cases, on school premises.Based on the previous definition, this review uses school exclusion and school suspension as synonyms, unless the contrary is explicitly stated. Most of the available research has found that exclusion correlates with subsequent negative sequels on developmental outcomes. Exclusion or suspension of students is associated with failure within the academic curriculum, aggravated antisocial behaviour, and an increased likelihood of involvement with punitive social control institutions (i.e., the Juvenile Justice System). In the long-term, opportunities for training and employment seem to be considerably reduced for those who have repeatedly been excluded. In addition to these negative correlated outcomes, previous evidence suggest that the exclusion of students involves a high economic cost for taxpayers and society.Research from the last 20 years has concluded quite consistently that this disciplinary measure disproportionally targets males, ethnic minorities, those who come from disadvantaged economic backgrounds, and those presenting special educational needs. In other words, suspension affects the most vulnerable children in schools.Different programmes have attempted to reduce the prevalence of exclusion. Although some of them have shown promising results, so far, no comprehensive systematic review has examined these programmes' overall effectiveness.OBJECTIVES: The main goal of the present research is to systematically examine the available evidence for the effectiveness of different types of school-based interventions aimed at reducing disciplinary school exclusion. Secondary goals include comparing different approaches and identifying those that could potentially demonstrate larger and more significant effects.The research questions underlying this project are as follows: Do school-based programmes reduce the use of exclusionary sanctions in schools?Are some school-based approaches more effective than others in reducing exclusionary sanctions?Do participants' characteristics (e.g., age, gender, ethnicity) affect the impact of school-based programmes on exclusionary sanctions in schools?Do characteristics of the interventions, implementation, and methodology affect the impact of school-based programmes on exclusionary sanctions in schools? SEARCH METHODS: The authors conducted a comprehensive search to locate relevant studies reporting on the impact of school-based interventions on exclusion from 1980 onwards. Twenty-seven different databases were consulted, including databases that contained both published and unpublished literature. In addition, we contacted researchers in the field of school-exclusion for further recommendations of relevant studies; we also assessed citation lists from previous systematic and narrative reviews and research reports. Searches were conducted from September 1 to December 1, 2015.SELECTION CRITERIA: The inclusion and exclusion criteria for manuscripts were defined before we started our searches. To be eligible, studies needed to have: evaluated school-based interventions or school-supported interventions intended to reduce the rates of suspension; seen the interventions as an alternative to exclusion; targeted school-aged children from four to 18 in mainstream schools irrespective of nationality or social background; and reported results of interventions delivered from 1980 onwards. In terms of methodological design, we included randomised controlled trialsonly, with at least one experimental group and onecontrol or placebo group.DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Initial searches produced a total of 42,749 references from 27 different electronic databases. After screening the title, abstract and key words, we kept 1,474 relevant hits. 22 additional manuscripts were identified through other sources (e.g., assessment of citation lists, contribution of authors). After removing duplicates, we ended up with a total of 517 manuscripts. Two independent coders evaluated each report, to determine inclusion or exclusion.The second round of evaluation excluded 472 papers, with eight papers awaiting classification, and 37 studies kept for inclusion in meta-analysis. Two independent evaluators assessed all the included manuscripts for risk of quality bias by using EPOC tool.Due to the broad scope of our targeted programmes, meta-analysis was conducted under a random-effect model. We report the impact of the intervention using standardised differences of means, 95% confidence intervals along with the respective forest plots. Sub-group analysis and meta-regression were used for examining the impact of the programme. Funnel plots and Duval and Tweedie's trim-and-fill analysis were used to explore the effect of publication bias.RESULTS: Based on our findings, interventions settled in school can produce a small and significant drop in exclusion rates (SMD=.30; 95% CI .20 to .41; p<.001). This means that those participating in interventions are less likely to be suspended than those allocated to control/placebo groups. These results are based on measures of impact collected immediately during the first six months after treatment (on average). When the impact was tested in the long-term (i.e., 12 or more months after treatment), the effects of the interventions were not sustained. In fact, there was a substantive reduction in the impact of school-based programmes (SMD=.15; 95%CI -.06 to .35), and it was no longer statistically significant.We ran analysis testing the impact of school-based interventions on different types of exclusion. Evidence suggests that interventions are more effective at reducing expulsion and in-school exclusion than out-of-school exclusion. In fact, the impact of intervention in out-of-school exclusion was close to zero and not statistically significant.Nine different types of school-based interventions were identified across the 37 studies included in the review. Four of them presented favourable and significant results in reducing exclusion (i.e., enhancement of academic skills, counselling, mentoring/monitoring, skills training for teachers). Since the number of studies for each sub-type of intervention was low, we suggest that results should be treated with caution.A priori defined moderators (i.e., participants' characteristics, the theoretical basis of the interventions, and quality of the intervention)showed not to be effective at explaining the heterogeneity present in our results. Among three post-hoc moderators, the role of the evaluator was found to be significant: independent evaluator teams reported lower effect sizes than research teams who were also involved in the design and/or delivery of the intervention.Two researchers independently evaluated the quality of the evidence involved in this review by using the EPOC tool. Most of the studies did not present enough information for the judgement of quality bias.AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence suggests that school-based interventions are effective at reducing school exclusion immediately after, and for a few months after, the intervention. Some specific types of interventions show more promising and stable results than others, namely those involving mentoring/monitoring and those targeting skills training for teachers. However, based on the number of studies involved in our calculations, we suggest that results must be cautiously interpreted. Implications for policy and practice arising from our results are discussed.