CCSD Discipline Analysis 2010-2011

20
CCSD Discipline Analysis 2010-2011 Daniel Reschly ( [email protected] ) Disciplinary Infractions 58 categories used in CCSD Broad range of severity Analysis by gender and race/ethnicity Middle and High Schools included Limitations in data acknowledged throughout Reschly 1

description

CCSD Discipline Analysis 2010-2011. Daniel Reschly ( [email protected] ) Disciplinary Infractions 58 categories used in CCSD Broad range of severity Analysis by gender and race/ethnicity Middle and High Schools included Limitations in data acknowledged throughout. Analyses. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transcript of CCSD Discipline Analysis 2010-2011

CCSD Discipline Analysis 2010-2011

Daniel Reschly ([email protected])

Disciplinary Infractions 58 categories used in CCSD Broad range of severity

Analysis by gender and race/ethnicityMiddle and High Schools includedLimitations in data acknowledged throughout

Reschly 1

Analyses

Statistics used N=Number Risk=Percent of population Relative Risk=Risk of one group compared

to the combined risk for other groups Composition

Reschly 2

Problems with Interpretation of Composition

Hispanic students are 15% of the district enrollment, but 30 percent of the discipline infractions. What percent of Hispanics are charged with disciplinary infractions

1% 5% 10% 15% 30% 45%

Reschly 3

Reschly 4

173 ÷ 20744 (5+15+180+8+30+186)÷(1367+12290+63125+2051+7007

+52972)

Black AggressiveBehavior

Black Population

Combined Population for 6 groups=138,812

Combined aggressive Behaviors for 6 groups=424

Relative Risk Determination: Comparing the risk for one group to the combined risk for all other groups (See p. 8-9)

173 ÷ 20744 424 ÷ 138812 = 2.7 

Relative Risk=2.7

Reschly 5

Group Pop N

Pop Composition %

AggressiveBeh. N

Risk RelativeRisk

CompositionAggressiveBeh.

AI/AK 1,367 1% 5 NA NA 0.8%

Asian 12,290 8% 15 0.1% 0.3 2.5%

Black 20,744 13% 173 0.8% 2.7 29.0%

Hispanic 63,125 40% 180 0.3% 0.7 30.2%

Haw/PI 2,051 1% 8 NA NA 1.3%

Two or More

7,007 4% 30 0.4% 1.2 5.0%

White 52,972 33% 186 0.4% 0.9 31.2%

Total 159,556 100% 597 0.4%   100%

Infractions Leading to Suspension (note limitation)

Male students overrepresented at >2 in 33 of 58 disciplinary infractions

Females in one (cyber bullying) Black students in 22 of 58 Hispanic in 2 Other groups not overrepresented

Reschly 6

Infractions Leading to Suspension (note limitation, See Table 4 and p. 19)

Likelihood of Suspension by Group (Table 4 with summary on p. 19) Hispanic more likely in 6 infractions White students in 5 infractions American Indian/AK Native in 2 infractions Black in 2 infractions ≥2 Groups in 2 infractions Hawaiian/PI in 1 infraction

Summary: Black students have higher rates of infractions, but are not more likely to be suspended than other groups

Reschly 7

Reschly 8

  Race/Ethnicity AnalysesSevereDisciplinary Infractions

2009-10Race/Eth Disprop

09-10RR

  2010-11Race/EthDisprop

10-11RR

Violence to School Staff

Black 4.2   Black 3.0

Violence to Student

Black 3.2   Black 4.2

Extortion Black 6.2   None NAArson None NA   Black 3.5Possession of Weapon

None NA   None NA

Removal Weapon/ Drug

None NA   None NA

Theft Black 2.7   Black 2.6Battery Black 3.0   Black 4.1Bullying Black 2.1   None NAVandalism None NA   None NAImmoral Conduct

Black 2.5   None NA

School Withdrawal Outcomes

Most serious-involve change of school location and interruption of instruction Mandatory Behavior Program: Moved to alternative

education program for 4-9 weeks, can return to original school

Expulsion Modified to Conditional Enrollment: Expulsion referral modified to placement in a mandatory behavior program-return to comprehensive campus

Expulsion Board Action: Expelled for minimum of 18 weeks, placement in the continuation school, followed by trial enrollment in a comprehensive campus

Reschly 9

Reschly 10

 Discipline Outcome

  10-11Race/EthDisprop

10-11RR

    10-11Gender

10-11RR

Suspension   Black 2.2     None NARequired Parental Conference

  Black 2.1     None NA

Mandatory Behavior Program

  Black 2.3     Male 2.3

Expulsion to Conditional Enrollment

  Black 2.2     Male 2.6

Expulsion by Board Action

  Black 2.7     Male 3.6

SWD-Required Behavior Program

  Black 2.3     Male 4.4

SWD-Expulsion to Conditional Enrollment

  Black 4.1     Male 5.3

SWD-Expulsion Board Action

  Black 5.8     Male 6.2

Summary Disciplinary Outcomes Middle and High Schools 2010-2011

Analyses by Disciplinary Outcomes by School Level and CCSD Area

School Level: Generally, disproportionate at both levels by gender and race/ethnicity

CCSD Areas levels of disproportionality were generally consistent, disproportionality by gender and race/ethnicity found consistently in Areas 1, 2, and 3

Substantial overrepresentation of students with disabilities by gender and race/ethnicity

Reschly 11

Interpretation of Results

Significant Issue Needing Attention!! Analyze carefully potential explanations Avoid extreme conclusions and simple

explanations

Avoid Extremes

Reschly 12

Blame Kids andCommunity

Blame Schools andEducators

Identify Additional Information and Explore Interventions Needed

Change culture and expectations for both schools/educators and parents/students/community

Prevention and Early Intervention Reading Mathematics Behavior

Explore programs like Positive Behavior Supports and Safe and Civil Schools

Reschly 13

Limitations of Discipline Outcome Results

Limited to middle and high schools Do not have reasons for school withdrawal

disciplinary outcomes Desirable to have data by both gender and

race/ethnicity for more precise analysis Summarized only 1 school withdrawal per

student, e. g., in mandatory behavior and expulsion-conditional enrollment counted as 1 case

No equal treatment comparison data Subject to different interpretations

Reschly 14

Systematic Process of Change

Good baseline data Goals, systematic improvement over

time Challenging, realistic, achievable Public reporting by CCSD units

Alliance of community, students, schools, and teachers required

Reschly 15

Reschly 16

PercentProficient

Baseline: Average of Prior 5 years

Goal: Raise Proficiency by 5% per year

Figure 5. Mathematics Proficiency Goal and Progress

17

KTG: Initial Sound Fluency Fall to

January .

Benchmark: Winter KTG25 sounds correct/min.

New KTG Teacher and Traditional Instruction

Results for class are not satisfactoryMust improve curriculum, instruction or both

On all class-wide graphs look at level and progress

WaterLine

Reschly

18

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21

FallJanuary

KTG: Initial Sound Fluency Fall to

January

Benchmark: Winter KTG25 sounds correct/min.

Experienced Teacher Direct Instruction

Results for class are satisfactory. Can

Use results to assess individual student risk

WaterLine

Reschly

19

Phoneme Seg. Fluency: Jan to

May

Benchmark: 35 correct

New KTG Teacher and Traditional

Instruction

Results for class are not satisfactory. Must improve

curriculum, instruction or bothWaterLine

Reschly

Reschly 20

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21

FallJanuary

Phoneme Seg. Fluency: Jan to

May

Benchmark: May 35 per minute

Experienced Teacher Direct Instruction

Results for class are satisfactory. Can

Use results to assess individual student risk

WaterLine