<%BANNER%>

A Florida Public School District's Compliance with Disciplinary Requirements Regarding Unitary Status


PAGE 1

A FLORIDA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS COMPLIANCE WITH DISCIPLINARY REQUIREMENTS REGARDING UNITARY STATUS By DEBORAH CAMILLERI A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2006

PAGE 2

Copyright 2006 by Deborah Camilleri

PAGE 3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The completion of my doctoral course work and the following dissertation could not have been accomplished without the support and encouragement from my friends, family, and colleagues. Special thanks go to my daughter, Nicholina, for her sacrifices, her patience, and for always believing in me. I thank my husband Joe, for the freedom to pursue my dreams. I would also like to thank my mother Rosemarie Zditowsky; my late father Walter Zditowsky; and my sisters Denise and Lisa, whose continuous support for all my pursuits always allowed me to achieve my dreams. The inspiration for this dissertation came from Dr. Anne-Marie Cote, whose guidance and motivation were always appreciated and invaluable. I would also like to thank Dr. Ronald Pinnell and Mr. Raymond Gaines for allowing me to serve on the District Discipline Committee which allowed me to put research into practice and vice versa. I am especially grateful to my friend and colleague, Dr. Michelle Clopton, for her time and support on this project; together we have pushed ourselves to our limits to reach unbelievable goals. Sincere appreciation goes to my committee chairperson, Dr. David Honeyman, who was both flexible and supportive when he needed to be. I would like to extend sincere thanks to my committee members: Dr. Linda Hagedorn, Dr. Dale Campbell, and Dr. Mary Brownell. I especially would like to thank Dr. James Doud for his leadership and guidance throughout the years; I could not have done this without him. iii

PAGE 4

Finally, I would like to thank my entire cohort, especially Donna Weaver, Melanie May, and Dr. Kathy Sciortino, for a memorable and life-changing experience. I thank my friends and colleagues in Seminole County Public Schools (Robin Dehlingher, Patricia Bowman, Tina Johnson and Lois Chavis). Their inspiration and friendship gave me the strength to complete this challenging project. iv

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................iii LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................viii LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................xiii ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................xviii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 Statement of the Problem..............................................................................................8 Purpose of the Study.....................................................................................................9 Research Questions.......................................................................................................9 Methodology.................................................................................................................9 Delimitations of the Study..........................................................................................10 Definition of Terms....................................................................................................10 Organization of the Study...........................................................................................12 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE............................................................................13 Historical Overview of Desegregation.......................................................................13 Unitary Status Court Cases.........................................................................................21 School Discipline........................................................................................................35 Suspensions and Expulsions.......................................................................................37 Causes of Suspension and Expulsions........................................................................39 Frequency of Suspensions..........................................................................................42 Disparity in Discipline................................................................................................45 Studies Controlled for Other Factors..........................................................................58 Race............................................................................................................................59 Gender.........................................................................................................................59 Socioeconomic Status.................................................................................................61 Behavior and Attitudes...............................................................................................63 Social and Cultural Differences..................................................................................63 Parental Support..........................................................................................................64 Teacher Expectation...................................................................................................65 Bias and Stereotyping.................................................................................................66 v

PAGE 6

Effectiveness of Suspension and Expulsion...............................................................67 District........................................................................................................................70 Model for Change.......................................................................................................74 3 METHODS AND PROCEDURES............................................................................78 Research Questions.....................................................................................................78 Participants.................................................................................................................79 Sample Characteristics................................................................................................80 Outcome Measures.....................................................................................................82 Disparity Ratio Calculation........................................................................................82 Percent Black..............................................................................................................83 Free and Reduced Lunch............................................................................................84 Referrals Written........................................................................................................84 School Level...............................................................................................................84 Statistical Analysis......................................................................................................85 Research Question 1............................................................................................85 Research Question 2............................................................................................86 Research Question 3............................................................................................86 Research Question 4............................................................................................87 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.................................................................................88 Participants.................................................................................................................88 Descriptive Information..............................................................................................89 Research Question 1: School Level Elementary, Middle and High School..........100 Research Question 2: Population of Black Students................................................131 Research Question 3: Number of Referrals Written.................................................146 Research Question 4: Free and Reduced Lunch.......................................................157 5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................177 Purpose.....................................................................................................................177 Participants...............................................................................................................177 Research questions....................................................................................................177 Outcome Measures...................................................................................................178 Summary of Research Findings on the Disparity in Discipline for Black Students.178 Summary of Findings...............................................................................................181 School Level......................................................................................................181 Population of Black Students....................................................................................184 Number of Referrals Written....................................................................................186 Free and Reduced Lunch..........................................................................................188 Conclusion................................................................................................................191 District Level Policy Implications............................................................................192 Recommendations for Further Study........................................................................195 vi

PAGE 7

LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................196 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................208 vii

PAGE 8

LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Totals from the Office of Civil Rights Survey of Students Suspended During the 1972-1973 School Year............................................................................................48 2-2 Corporal Punishment and Suspension Likelihood Ratios of African American Students Versus Other Comparison Groups (1995).................................................53 2-3 1996-97 Suspension rate by Race (duplicated)........................................................55 2-4 1996-97 Suspension rate by Race (unduplicated)....................................................56 2-5 1996-97 Disciplinary Actions for Black and White Students..................................56 2-6 Suspension & Expulsion Data by Race....................................................................57 2-7 Suspension & Expulsion Data by Race....................................................................58 3-1 Characteristics of the Florida Public School District for the 1999-2000 School Year School Information and Student Demographics...........................................80 3-2 Characteristics of the Florida Public School District for the 2000-2001 School Year School Information and Student Demographics...........................................81 3-3 Characteristics of the Florida Public School District for the 2001-2002 School Year School Information and Student Demographics...........................................81 3-4 Characteristics of the Florida Public School District for the 2002-2003 School Year School Information and Student Demographics...........................................82 3-5 Characteristics of the Florida Public School District for the 2003-2004 School Year School Information and Student Demographics...........................................82 4-1 Referral Data (unduplicated) for the Florida Public School District for the 1999-2000 School Year.....................................................................................................91 4-2 In-School Suspension Data (unduplicated) for the Florida Public School District for the 1999-2000 School Year................................................................................92 4-3 Out-of School Suspension Data (unduplicated) for the Florida Public School District for the 1999-2000 School Year...................................................................92 viii

PAGE 9

4-4 Referral Data (unduplicated) for the Florida Public School District for the 2000-2001 School Year.....................................................................................................93 4-5 In-School Suspension Data (unduplicated) for the Florida Public School District for the 2000-2001 School Year................................................................................94 4-6 Out-of School Suspension Data (unduplicated) for the Florida Public School District for the 2000-2001 School Year...................................................................94 4-7 Referral Data (unduplicated) for the Florida Public School District for the 2001-2002 School Year.....................................................................................................95 4-8 In-School Suspension Data (unduplicated) for the Florida Public School District for the 2001-2002 School Year................................................................................96 4-9 Out-of School Suspension Data (unduplicated) for the Florida Public School District for the 2001-2002 School Year...................................................................96 4-10 Referral Data (unduplicated) for the Florida Public School District for the 2002-2003 School Year.....................................................................................................97 4-11 In-School Suspension Data (unduplicated) for the Florida Public School District for the 2002-2003 School Year................................................................................98 4-12 Out-of School Suspension Data (unduplicated) for the Florida Public School District for the 2002-2003 School Year...................................................................98 4-13 Referral Data (unduplicated) for the Florida Public School District for the 2003-2004 School Year.....................................................................................................99 4-14 In-School Suspension Data (unduplicated) for the Florida Public School District for the 2003-2004 School Year..............................................................................100 4-15 Out-of School Suspension Data (unduplicated) for the Florida Public School District for the 2003-2004 School Year.................................................................100 4-16 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by School Level...................................................101 4-17 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated) by School Level.............................................................................103 4-18 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for In-School Suspensions (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by School Level...................................................106 ix

PAGE 10

4-19 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for In-School Suspensions (unduplicated) by the School Level.......................................................................108 4-20 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Out-of School Suspensions (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by School Level..............................................110 4-21 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Out-of School Suspensions (unduplicated) by the School Level.......................................................................112 4-22 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Referrals, ISS, and OSS (unduplicated) between Black and Non-Black Students for Elementary Schools.........................115 4-23 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Referrals, ISS, and OSS (unduplicated) between Black and Non-Black Students for Middle Schools................................117 4-24 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Referrals, ISS, and OSS (unduplicated) between Black and Non-Black Students for High Schools....................................119 4-25 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Referrals, ISS, and OSS (unduplicated) between Black and Non-Black Students for the School District...........................121 4-26 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Referrals, ISS, and OSS (unduplicated) between Black and Non-Black Students for the 1999-2000 School Year.............123 4-27 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Referrals, ISS, and OSS (unduplicated) between Black and Non-Black Students for the 2000-2001 School Year.............125 4-28 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Referrals, ISS, and OSS (unduplicated) between Black and Non-Black Students for the 2001-2002 School Year.............127 4-29 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Referrals, ISS, and OSS (unduplicated) between Black and Non-Black Students for the 2002-2003 School Year.............128 4-30 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Referrals, ISS, and OSS (unduplicated) between Black and Non-Black Students for the 2003-2004 School Year.............130 4-31 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by Population of Black Students..........................132 4-32 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated) by Population of Black Students....................................................134 4-33 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for In-School Suspension (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by Population of Black Students..........................137 x

PAGE 11

4-34 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for In-School Suspension (unduplicated) by Population of Black Students....................................................139 4-35 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Out-of School Suspension (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by Population of Black Students....................141 4-36 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Out-of School Suspension (unduplicated) by Population of Black Students....................................................144 4-37 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by the Total Number of Referrals Written at a School (Unduplicated)............................................................................................147 4-38 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated) by the Total Number of Referrals Written at a School (Unduplicated)........................................................................................................150 4-39 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for In-School Suspensions (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by the Total Number of Referrals Written at a School (Unduplicated)............................................................................................152 4-40 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Out-of School Suspensions (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by the Total Number of Referrals Written at a School (Unduplicated)............................................................................................155 4-41 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by Population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch......................................................................................................................157 4-42 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated) by Population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch................161 4-43 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for In-School Suspension (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by Population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch......................................................................................................................164 4-44 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for In-School Suspension (unduplicated) by Population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch................167 4-45 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Out-of School Suspension (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by Population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch.......................................................................................................170 xi

PAGE 12

4-46 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Out-of School Suspension (unduplicated) by Population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch................173 5-1 Comparison of the Average Disparity Ratios for Discipline Referrals, ISS and OSS for Black and Non-Black Students by School Level.....................................182 5-2 Comparison of the Average Disparity Ratio for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated), ISS and OSS for Black and Non-Black Students by Population of Black Students...................................................................................................185 5-3 Comparison of the Average Disparity Ratio for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated), ISS and OSS for Black and Non-Black Students by the Number of Referrals Written at each School.......................................................................188 5-4 Comparison of the Average Disparity Ratio for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated), ISS and OSS for Black and Non-Black Students by Population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch................................................................190 xii

PAGE 13

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 4-1 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by School Level...................................................102 4-2 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated) by the School Level.......................................................................104 4-3 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated) by the School Level.......................................................................105 4-4 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for In-School Suspensions (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by School Level...................................................107 4-5 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for In-School Suspensions (unduplicated) by the School Level.......................................................................109 4-6 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for In-School Suspensions (unduplicated) by the School Level.......................................................................109 4-7 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Out-of School Suspensions (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by School Level..............................................111 4-8 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Out-of School Suspensions (unduplicated) by the School Level.......................................................................114 4-9 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Out-of School Suspensions (unduplicated) by the School Level.......................................................................114 4-10 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Referrals, ISS, and OSS (unduplicated) between Black and Non-Black Students for Elementary Schools.........................116 4-11 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Referrals, ISS, and OSS (unduplicated) between Black and Non-Black Students for Middle Schools................................118 xiii

PAGE 14

4-12 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Referrals, ISS, and OSS (unduplicated) between Black and Non-Black Students for High Schools....................................120 4-13 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Referrals, ISS, and OSS (unduplicated) between Black and Non-Black Students for the School District...........................122 4-14 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Referrals, ISS, and OSS (unduplicated) between Black and Non-Black Students for the 1999-2000 School Year.............124 4-15 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Referrals, ISS, and OSS (unduplicated) between Black and Non-Black Students for the 2000-2001 School Year.............127 4-16 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Referrals, ISS, and OSS (unduplicated) between Black and Non-Black Students for the 2001-2002 School Year.............128 4-17 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Referrals, ISS, and OSS (unduplicated) between Black and Non-Black Students for the 2002-2003 School Year.............130 4-18 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Referrals, ISS, and OSS (unduplicated) between Black and Non-Black Students for the 2003-2004 School Year.............131 4-19 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by Population of Black Students..........................133 4-20 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by Population of Black Students..........................134 4-21 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated) ) by Population of Black Students.................................................136 4-22 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated) ) by Population of Black Students.................................................136 4-23 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for In-School Suspension (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by Population of Black Students..........................137 4-24 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for In-School Suspension (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by Population of Black Students..........................138 4-25 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for In-School Suspension (unduplicated) ) by Population of Black Students.................................................140 4-26 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for In-School Suspension (unduplicated) by Population of Black Students....................................................141 xiv

PAGE 15

4-27 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Out-of School Suspension (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by Population of Black Students....................142 4-28 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Out-of School Suspension (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by Population of Black Students....................143 4-29 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Out-of School Suspension (unduplicated) by Population of Black Students....................................................145 4-30 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Out-of School Suspension (unduplicated) by Population of Black Students....................................................146 4-31 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by the Total Number of Referrals Written at a School (Unduplicated)............................................................................................148 4-32 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by the Total Number of Referrals Written at a School (Unduplicated)............................................................................................149 4-33 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated) by the Total Number of Referrals Written at a School (Unduplicated)........................................................................................................151 4-34 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated) by the Total Number of Referrals Written at a School (Unduplicated)........................................................................................................152 4-35 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for In-School Suspensions (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by the Total Number of Referrals Written at a School (Unduplicated)............................................................................................153 4-36 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for In-School Suspensions (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by the Total Number of Referrals Written at a School (Unduplicated)............................................................................................154 4-37 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Out-of School Suspensions (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by the Total Number of Referrals Written at a School (Unduplicated)............................................................................................156 4-38 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Out-of School Suspensions (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by the Total Number of Referrals Written at a School (Unduplicated)............................................................................................156 xv

PAGE 16

4-39 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by Population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch......................................................................................................................159 4-40 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by Population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch......................................................................................................................160 4-41 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated) by Population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch................162 4-42 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated) ) by Population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch..............163 4-43 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for In-School Suspension (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by Population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch......................................................................................................................165 4-44 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for In-School Suspension (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by Population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch......................................................................................................................166 4-45 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for In-School Suspension (unduplicated) by Population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch................168 4-46 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for In-School Suspension (unduplicated) by Population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch................169 4-47 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Out-of School Suspension (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by Population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch.......................................................................................................172 4-48 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Out-of School Suspension (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by Population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch.......................................................................................................173 4-49 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Out-of School Suspension (unduplicated) by Population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch................175 4-50 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Out-of School Suspension (unduplicated) by Population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch................176 xvi

PAGE 17

5-1 Comparison of the Average Disparity Ratios for Discipline Referrals, ISS and OSS for Black and Non-Black Students by School Level.....................................183 5-2 Comparison of the Average Disparity Ratio for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated), ISS and OSS for Black and Non-Black Students by Population of Black Students...................................................................................................186 5-3 Comparison of the Average Disparity Ratio for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated), ISS and OSS for Black and Non-Black Students by the Number of Referrals Written at each School.......................................................................190 5-4 Comparison of the Average Disparity Ratio for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated), ISS and OSS for Black and Non-Black Students by Population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch................................................................191 xvii

PAGE 18

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy A FLORIDA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS COMPLIANCE WITH DISCIPLINARY REQUIREMENTS REGARDING UNITARY STATUS By Deborah Camilleri May 2006 Chair: David S. Honeyman Major Department: Educational Administration and Policy The purpose of this study was to examine current disciplinary practices of a selected Florida school district to determine if there were racially neutral practices regarding student discipline. Quantitative methodologies were used in the study to investigate the disparity in the number of unduplicated referrals, in-school suspensions and out-of-school suspensions between Black and non-Black students. There were several key findings in this study. First, the disparity in discipline was lowest as measured by the referral ratio. Second, elementary schools had the greatest disparity as measured by all 3 indicators (referral, ISS and OSS ratio), followed by middle and then high schools. Third, there was no difference in the disparity in discipline for Black students between schools with differing populations of Black students as measured by the referral ratio. When ISS ratio was used as the indicator of disparity, schools with a low population of Black students had the highest disparity in discipline. Schools with a medium and high population of Black students yielded similar results. xviii

PAGE 19

When OSS ratio was used as the indicator of disparity, schools with a medium population of Black students had the highest disparity in discipline. For 2 of the 5 years studied, schools with a low population of Black students had no disparity in discipline. Fourth, when schools with a varying number of referrals written was used as the outcome measure the results indicated that the disparity in discipline was greatest for schools with a low number of referrals written. The results were similar for schools with a medium and high number of referrals written when using both the ISS and OSS ratios as the indicators of disparity. Fifth, the results of the study indicated that the disparity was highest in schools with a high number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch and lowest in schools with a low number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch, using all three indicators of disparity. xix

PAGE 20

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Equal educational opportunity for all children, including the least advantaged, is the cornerstone of the American ideal of a free public education system. This concept of equity has resulted in a multitude of legal battles, court settlements, and court-supervised school district plans, all with the same intent of making the ideal of equity a reality in American education. During the past 50 years, the United States Supreme Court has taken an active role in eliminating obstacles that prevent equal access to opportunity within Americas public school system. With the assistance of the courts, public education has made significant strides in providing equal access and opportunity for Black students. The fact that there are still school districts operating under the jurisdiction of the Justice Department which have not yet obtained unitary status is evidence that, as a nation, we are still not where we should be regarding segregation and its long-term effects. Racial discrimination in education is prohibited under both the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States (1787) states that All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 1

PAGE 21

2 Hence, actions or policies in which treatment can be traced to racial hostility of school officials violate The Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution of the United States. Additionally, school disciplinary actions and policies in which student referrals and subsequent disciplinary sanctions have been traced to racial hostility of school officials have been challenged in court using the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States (1787). School programs and activities receiving federal funds must also comply with Title VI in order to continue to be funded. Title VI of The Civil Rights Act of 1964 established that No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. (Pub.L. 88-352, Title VI, 601, July 2, 1964, 78 Stat. 252) Plessy vs. Ferguson 163 U.S. 537 (1896) set the precedent that separate facilities for Blacks were constitutional as long as they were equal. In an 8-1 decision, Justice John Harlan demonstrated extraordinary foresight when he wrote in his dissenting opinion, Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law (Plessy vs. Ferguson 163 U.S. 537 (1896) p. 559). The Plessy decision set the precedent until 1954 when the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) overturned the separate but equal doctrine. Brown included four class action suits filed on behalf of African American students who had been denied admission to schools attended exclusively by White students. In landmark language, the Court ruled We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other

PAGE 22

3 tangible factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does. (Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), p. 493) With this decision, the Supreme Court struck down the separate but equal doctrine for public education and required the desegregation of schools in the United States. The Court concluded that in the field of public education the doctrine of separate but equal has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal (Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), p.495). In Brown II (1955) the Court remanded with orders to require school districts to make a prompt and reasonable start toward full compliance . with all deliberate speed (Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294 (1955), p.301). At the same time, the Court ordered district courts to supervise school boards that practiced de jure segregation in an effort to desegregate their school systems (Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294 (1955), p.299). The Civil Rights Project of Harvard University (2001a) paper opined, With the passage of time since 1954, the ability of school districts to engage in de jure segregation has been severely limited, and perhaps eliminated. The result, however, has not been the integration ideal. Instead, we face a system struggling with de facto segregation and the remaining effects of past discrimination. After the Brown decisions, the Court repeatedly addressed the issue of race-based education. In Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County 377 U.S. 218 (1964) the Court ended the doctrine of all deliberate speed (Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294 (1955), p.301) and declared that [t]he time for mere deliberate speed had run out (Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County 377 U.S. 218 (1964), p.234). Even after the 50 th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education (1954) desegregation remains a controversial issue, with all interested parties debating whether the country has or has not been able to create a unitary public school system.

PAGE 23

4 Unitary is a term courts use to describe a school system that removes all vestiges of race discrimination of the formally dual system (Alexander and Alexander, 1992). According to the courts, a finding of unitary status requires that the district has worked in good faith to ensure that, to the extent practicable, segregation no longer existed in its schools (DeLacy, 1997, p. 23). When there is racial disparity in a school under a desegregation plan, it can be presumed as a matter of law that the disparity is the result of the original illegal desegregation (DeLacy, 1997, p. 23). A significant Supreme Court desegregation ruling was in Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, Virginia, 391 U.S. 430 (1968). Green (1968) both halted the freedom-of-choice plans many school districts developed as a remedy to racial segregation and proposed affirmative action as a viable alternative. The Court also advised that in deciding whether a school district had done everything possible to convert to a unitary system in which racial discrimination would be eliminated root and branch (Green, 1968, p. 438), a lower court should apply six prescribed factors. The six so-called Green (1968) factors are Composition of the student body Faculty and staff assignment Transportation Extracurricular activities Facilities These factors remain a benchmark in school-desegregation litigation. Before Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowel, 498 US 237 (1991), and Freeman et al. v. Pitts et al. 503 U.S. 467 (1992), lower courts expressed divergent opinions about what it means for a school district to be declared unitary and about the processes by which unitary status may be achieved (Sneed and Martin, 1997). In Dowell

PAGE 24

5 (1991) the Supreme Court held that a school district must prove in a formal hearing that the school district had Complied with the desegregation order for a reasonable period of time Eliminated all vestiges of past discrimination to the extent practicable Demonstrated its good faith commitment to the constitutional rights that were the predicate for judicial intervention. (Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowel, 498 US 237 (1991), p. 249-250) Freeman (1992) further defined practicable to mean that a district can be declared unitary before full compliance has been achieved in every area of school operations. Freeman (1992) set forth the following guidelines for lower courts to determine whether to grant partial unitary status. A school district may achieve partial unitary status if it demonstrates that The vestiges of past discrimination [in that area] have been eliminated to the extent practicable; (2) there has been full and satisfactory compliance with the decree in those aspects of the system where supervision is to be withdrawn; (3) retention of judicial control is [not] necessary or practicable to achieve compliance with the decree in other facets of the system; and (4) the defendant has demonstrated, to the public and to the parents and students of the once disfavored race, its good faith commitment to the whole of the courts decree and to those provisions of the law and the constitution that were the predicate for judicial intervention in the first instance. (Freeman v. Pitts at 494) (Quoting Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell at 249-250) The Freeman (1992) decision extended practicable to every area of school operations, including school discipline, as an indication of equity in education. Additionally, according to Green (1968), the courts may consider school discipline as an educational opportunity, when deciding whether to grant unitary status. Jones (1979) defined discipline as the business of enforcing simple classroom rules that facilitate learning and minimize disruption.

PAGE 25

6 Regardless of the size of the school or the grade level taught, student discipline is implicit in the daily operation of the educational process. Although schools were charged with maintaining order, many indicators suggested that schools needed more effective policies and interventions. One such indicator was the annual Gallup poll of the publics attitudes toward the public schools. For the majority of its 25-year history, the poll has identified lack of discipline as one of the most serious problems facing the nations education system (Cotton, 1990). Similarly, the 4 th Phi Delta Kappa (Rose and Gallup, 2002) poll of teachers attitudes toward the public schools revealed that discipline and lack of parental support were the two greatest concerns of high school teachers. These and other indicators would support the estimate that approximately one half of all classroom time is non-instructional as a result of interferences, with discipline being the greatest distraction (Cotton, 1990) While questionable discipline practices have been associated with students across ethnic backgrounds, they were disproportionately high for African American students (Garibaldi, 1992; Harry and Anderson, 1995; Skiba, Peterson & Williams, 1997; Townsend, 2000; U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, 1993). One of the most common indicators of disparity in discipline between African American students and their non-Black counterparts was the rate of suspensions and expulsions. In fact, many studies have confirmed that African American children receive more office referrals and subsequent suspensions than any other ethnic group (Gordon, Della Piana & Keleher, 2000; Skiba, Peterson & Williams, 1997). Likewise, Davis and Jordan (1994), in a 1988 National Educational Longitudinal Study, reported that significantly more suspensions were imposed on African American males than any other group.

PAGE 26

7 The researchers of The Harvard Civil Rights Project (2001b) indicated that although African American children represent only 17% of public school enrollment, they received 33% of out-of-school suspensions. On the other hand, White students, who constitute 63% of public school enrollment, represent only 50% of suspensions (Civil Rights Alert, Zero Tolerance Policies and School Discipline, 2002b). The Office for Civil Rights (1993) reported the findings of a national survey indicating that even though African American males comprised 8.23% of the total student population, they were suspended at a rate of over three times their percentage of the population (U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, 1993). A study by Garibaldi (1992) found that while African American males comprised 43% of the total student population in a New Orleans School District, they received over 65% of the school districts suspensions and 80% of the expulsions (Garibaldi, 1992). Although many studies used the rate of suspensions and expulsions as indicators of the prevalence of discipline problems in schools, a standard was also needed for comparison of racial disparities. Harry and Anderson (1995) suggested a standard of disproportionality whereby African American students would be expected to be suspended or expelled disproportionately if the frequency with which they received punitive consequences was greater than their percentage in the population by 10%. The courts, however, set different standards by which school districts reported discipline data for achieving unitary status. The Consent Decree of the Florida public school district this researcher has selected to examine stated that the District is committed to ensuring that its discipline policies and practices are implemented fairly and consistently so that: all students are disciplined equitably; disciplinary sanctions are imposed on students fairly

PAGE 27

8 and consistently; and a students race is not a factor in any disciplinary action (Consent Decree, 2000, p.51). If the disparity were greater than two, the school district was then charged with acting in good faith to study the problem, analyze the data, and implement any appropriate strategies to improve the situation (Consent Decree, 2000.) Finally, if a court declared a school district unitary, any racial disparity that continued to exist was no longer presumed to be illegal. Rather, the district would then be subject to the same standards and scrutiny as a district that had never illegally segregated its students. It is important to note that even after a district has been declared unitary the district must continue to be vigilant to act in good faith to prevent further discrimination. Statement of the Problem Discipline has been continually identified as one of the highest priorities for parents, teachers, and the public. One of the indicators used by the Justice Department of the Unites States of America to determine eligibility for unitary status for the selected Florida school district was racial disparity in discipline. According to the Consent Decree of the selected Florida public school district, The District is committed to ensuring that its discipline policies and practices are implemented fairly and consistently so that: all students are disciplined equitably; disciplinary sanctions are imposed on students fairly and inconsistently; and a students race is not a factor in any disciplinary action. By order of the Justice Department of the United States, the selected Florida public school district was charged with demonstrating that there was less than a 2 to 1 disparity in discipline referrals between Black and non-Black students (Consent Decree, 2000).

PAGE 28

9 Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to examine current disciplinary practices in the selected Florida school district over the 5-year period from the 1999-2000 to the 2003-2004 school years to determine if there were racially neutral practices regarding student discipline. Research Questions This study was guided by the following research questions: 1. For all schools in the selected Florida school district, during the five-year period ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004, was there a trend in the disparity in discipline for Black students compared to non-Black students attending elementary (grades K-5), middle (grades 6-8) and high (grades 9-12) schools? 2. For all schools in the selected Florida school district, during the five-year period ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004, was there a trend in the disparity in discipline for Black students compared to non-Black students attending schools with a low (0 to 4.4%), medium (4.5% to 23.7%), and high (23.8% and higher) population of Black students? 3. For all schools in the selected Florida school district, during the five-year period ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004, was there a trend in the disparity in discipline for Black students compared to non-Black students attending schools with a low (1-97), medium (97-511), and high (512 or higher) number of referrals (unduplicated) written? 4. For all schools in the selected Florida school district, during the five-year period ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004, was there a trend in the disparity in discipline for Black students compared to non-Black students attending schools with a low (0 to 9.9%), medium (10.0% to 52.8%), and high (52.9% and higher) number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch? Methodology Quantitative methodologies were used in the study to investigate the disparity in the number of unduplicated referrals, in-school suspensions and out-of-school suspensions between Black and non-Black students. The research methodology was used

PAGE 29

10 to obtain a comprehensive account of the disciplinary practices as they pertain to the Consent Decree of the selected Florida school district. The quantitative methodology consisted of an investigation of information recorded in the information system (IS) database of the selected Florida public school district concerning the discipline of students. Statistical analyses were performed on the data to detect differences in the treatment of Black and non-Black students. Delimitations of the Study The scope of this study was limited to a selected Florida public school district during the 5-year period from the 1999-2000 to the 2003-2004 school years. Quantitative data were obtained from reported information in the selected Florida public school districts database. The Information System (IS) database contained reports from all schools in the selected Florida public school district; however, no special center schools were considered in this study. Only one public school district in the State of Florida was considered in this study. The study only considered children from age 3 years to 21 years. Race, sex, religion, or national origin of the teachers and administrators was not investigated. The geographic locations of the schools were also not investigated. These variables may have a relationship to the use of disciplinary procedures and may have implications for future research, but were excluded from the scope of this study. Definition of Terms The primary sources of information for all legal terms used in this study were Blacks Law Dictionary, case law or statute, and the Constitution of the United States. Consent decree: An order or judgment of the United States District Court that adopts an agreement, between the United States of America as represented by the

PAGE 30

11 United States Department of Justice, and the school Board, that resolves an issue or issues involved in the dispute, as the decision of the court on those issues. De jure segregation: Segregation permitted by law. Floridas dual system of public education was a de jure system mandated by state law. De facto segregation: Segregation that occurred without state authority, usually on the basis of socioeconomic factors. (Black, 2000) Desegregation: The assignment of students to public schools and within such schools without regard to their race, color, religion, or national origin, but "desegregation" shall not mean the assignment of students to public schools in order to overcome racial imbalance. (Title IV, SEC. 401 of the Constitution of the United States) Discipline: Punishment intended to correct or instruct. (Black, 2000) Dual system: A system of public education in which White and Black students attend separate schools. Green factors: Declaration of a unitary status that a system achieves by eliminating vestiges of segregation to the extent practicable in the areas of student assignments, faculty and staff assignments, transportation, facilities, resources and staff allocation, and extracurricular activities. (Green v. New Kent County, 1968) In-school suspension: Student placed in in-school suspension for a period not to exceed ten days (Florida State Department of Education, 1995). Jim Crow law: A law enacted or purposely interpreted to discriminate against Black, such as a law requiring separate restrooms for Blacks and Whites. (Black, 2000) Out-of-school suspension: Student removed from the school environment for a period not to exceed ten days (Florida State Department of Education, 1995). Segregation: The act or process of separating or the unconstitutional policy of separating people on the basis of color, nationality, religion, or the like. (Black, 2000) Unitary status: The status a school system achieves when it no longer discriminates between school children on the basis of race or the status of a school system when it affirmatively removes all vestiges of race discrimination of the formerly dual system. (Alexander and Alexander, 1992)

PAGE 31

12 Organization of the Study Chapter 1 presents an introduction to the study, statement of the problem, purpose of the study, research questions, hypothesis, methodology, organization of the study and definition of terms. Chapter 2 provides a review of the literature and court cases associated with school-desegregation in the United States, as well as a review of the literature on school discipline, and a historical overview of the selected Florida school districts pursuit for unitary status. Chapter 3 describes the research design and statistical methodology of the study. Chapter 4 contains a detailed analysis of data findings. Chapter 5 includes a summary and concluding statements of the study with recommendations for future research.

PAGE 32

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The purpose of this chapter is to provide a review of the literature and court cases associated with school-desegregation in the United States. Also included are a review of the literature on school discipline, and a historical overview of the selected Florida public school districts pursuit for unitary status. Historical Overview of Desegregation This review of the literature gives a chronology of events of major judicial cases throughout the history of public school-desegregation and its far-reaching implications to many local cases and school policies. During the past 50 years, the courts have taken an active role in eliminating the obstacles that prevent equal access to opportunity within Americas public school system. Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), set the precedent that separate facilities for Blacks and Whites were constitutional as long as they were equal. Holmes Adolph Plessy, who was 7/8 Caucasian and 1/8 African American was forcibly removed and jailed for taking a first class seat in a railroad car in Louisiana, reserved for Whites only. On May 18, 1896, the United States Supreme Court struck down the argument that the Separate Car Act of 1890 conflicted with the Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery. Further, The objective of the Fourteenth Amendment was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law but in the nature of things it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political equality, or a commingling of the two races 13

PAGE 33

14 upon terms unsatisfactory to either. (Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), p. 544-545) The separate but equal doctrine was quickly extended to cover many areas of public life, including public education. Horton and Moresi (2001) asserted that the Plessy decision was a milestone in American legal history, as well as a pivotal point in Americas constitutional law. The Supreme Court set the constitutional foundation for the separate but equal doctrine and racially discriminatory Jim Crow legislation that became the hallmark of Southern law, as well as northern custom for the next half century. Not until 1954, in the Brown et al. vs. Topeka Board of Education 347 U.S. 483 (1954), Brown I, decision, was the separate but equal doctrine struck down. Brown I, one of the most significant decisions rendered by the Supreme Court during the Twentieth Century, reversed Plessy v. Fergusons (1896) separate but equal doctrine and gave new meaning to the constitutional concepts of equal protection and due process. The case involved four class action suits filed on behalf of African American students denied admission to schools attended by White children. Although each of the four actions brought a different set of facts and local conditions, they were consolidated on appeal in light of their common legal question Segregation of White and Negro children in the public schools of a State solely on the basis of race, pursuant to state laws permitting or requiring such segregation, denies to Negro children the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment even though the physical facilities and other tangible factors of White and Negro schools may be equal. (Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), p. 483) Linda Brown, a Black third grade student in Topeka, Kansas, had to walk one mile to get to her Black elementary school, even though a White elementary school was only seven blocks away. Lindas father, Oliver Brown, tried to enroll his daughter in the White elementary school but was denied by the school board based on its argument that

PAGE 34

15 segregation in Topeka and elsewhere pervaded many other aspects of life and segregated schools simply prepared Black children for the segregation they would face in adulthood. In response, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) requested an injunction on behalf of Linda Brown that would forbid the segregation of Topeka Public Schools. In a unanimous opinion written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, the Supreme Court struck down de jure segregation in public schools stating the separate but equal doctrine adopted in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) had no place in the field of public education. In landmark language, the Court stated, separate educational facilities are inherently unequal (Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), p. 495). The basis for overturning Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) is found in the argument set by the lower court in Kansas Segregation of White and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law; for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the Negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of the child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of the law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of Negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial [ly] integrated school system. (Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), p. 494) On May 17, 1954, Chief Justice Earl Warren read the unanimous decision of the Court We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other tangible factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority groups of equal educational opportunity? We believe it does. (Brown vs. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), p. 493) . We conclude that the field of public education the doctrine of separate but equal has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. (Brown vs. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), p. 495)

PAGE 35

16 In the Brown vs. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court struck down the separate but equal doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson for public education and required the desegregation of schools across America. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka et al., 349 U.S. 294 (1955), also known as Brown II, was brought before the Court based on the argument set forth by the NAACP stating that school districts were not acting fast enough in the desegrative order established in Brown I. The Court in Brown II (1955) declared that racial discrimination in public education was unconstitutional and all provisions of federal, state, or local law requiring or permitting such discrimination must yield to this principle (Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka et al., 349 U.S. 294 (1955), p. 298). Furthermore, school authorities have the primary responsibility for elucidating, assessing, and solving the varied local school problems which may require solution in fully implementing the governing constitutional principles (Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka et al., 349 U.S. 294 (1955), p. 299). Additionally, the court in Brown II (1955) issued an edict that public schools must desegregate on a racially non-discriminatory basis with all deliberate speed (Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka et al., 349 U.S. 294 (1955), p. 301). In light of the decision in Brown II (1955), the court case of Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 U.S. 19 (1969) helped speed the pace of desegregation by declaring it the obligation of every school district to terminate dual systems at once and to operate now and hereafter only unitary schools (Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 U.S. 19 (1969), p. 20). Keyes v. School District No. 1, 413 U.S. 189 (1973), was the first Supreme Court case to address segregation outside the southern states where there were no explicit

PAGE 36

17 statutes requiring racial segregation. In this case, the Court addressed the difference between state-mandated segregation (de jure) and segregation that is the result of private choices (de facto). The petitioners in this case sought desegregation of the Park Hill area schools in Denver and, upon securing an order of the District Court directing that relief, expanded their suit to secure desegregation of the remaining schools of the Denver school district, particularly those in the core city area. The District Court denied the further relief, holding that the deliberate racial segregation of the Park Hill schools did not prove a like segregation policy addressed specifically to the core city schools and requiring petitioners to prove de jure segregation for each area that they sought to have desegregated. Additionally, once a portion of the school district was found to be intentionally segregated, the entire school district was presumed to be illegally segregated. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court held A policy of intentional segregation has been proved with a significant portion of the school system, the burden is on the school authorities (regardless of claims that their neighborhood school policy was racially neutral) to prove that there actions as to other segregated schools in the system were not likewise motivated by a segregative intent. (Keyes v. School District No. 1, 391 U.S. 430, (1973), p. 207) The Supreme Court found that although there was not legal sanctioning of school segregation in this district, the Board of Education, by use of various techniques, such as the manipulation of student attendance zones, school site selection, and a neighborhood school policy, created or maintained racially or ethnically (or both racially and ethnically) segregated schools throughout the school district, thereby enforcing de jure segregation (Keyes v. School District No. 1, 413 U.S. 189 (1973), p. 215). Justice Douglas in concurrence with Justice Powell in this decision said There is, for the purposes of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as applied to the school cases, no

PAGE 37

18 difference between de facto and de jure segregation (Keyes v. School District No. 1, 413 U.S. 189 (1973), p. 215). The Court held 1. The District Court, for purposes of defining a "segregated" core city school, erred in not placing Negroes and Hispanos in the same category, since both groups suffer the same educational inequities when compared with the treatment afforded Anglo students. (Keyes v. School District No. 1, 413 U.S. 189 (1973), p. 195-198) 2. The courts below did not apply the correct legal standard in dealing with petitioners' contention that respondent School Board had the policy of deliberately segregating the core city schools. (Keyes v. School District No. 1, 413 U.S. 189 (1973), p. 198-213) (a) Proof that the school authorities have pursued an intentional segregative policy in a substantial portion of the school district will support a finding by the trial court of the existence of a dual system, absent a showing that the district is divided into clearly unrelated units. (Keyes v. School District No. 1, 413 U.S. 189 (1973), p. 201-203) (b) On remand, the District Court should decide initially whether respondent School Board's deliberately segregative policy [p190] respecting the Park Hill schools constitutes the whole Denver school district a dual school system. (Keyes v. School District No. 1, 413 U.S. 189 (1973), p. 204-205) (c) Where, as in this case, a policy of intentional segregation has been proved with respect to a significant portion of the school system, the burden is on the school authorities (regardless of claims that their "neighborhood school policy" was racially neutral) to prove that their actions as to other segregated schools in the system were not likewise motivated by a segregative intent. (Keyes v. School District No. 1, 413 U.S. 189 (1973), p. 207-213) This decision, for the first time, also recognized the rights of Hispanos to attend desegregated educational settings, in addition to that of Blacks. The Court held that the District Court erred in not considering Hispanos in the same category as Blacks, when it referred to defining segregated school environments. The rationale offered was that both groups suffer from the same educational inequities when compared with the treatment afforded Anglo students (Keyes v. School District No. 1, 413 U.S. 189 (1973), p. 195-198).

PAGE 38

19 Throughout the 1960s and early 1970s, the courts heard a large number of desegregation cases and ordered a variety of remedies including the use of busing, transfer policies, and magnet schools to redress intentional segregation policies. Milliken, Governor of Michigan, et al. v. Bradley et al. 418 U.S. 717 (1974) (Milliken I) effectively exempted suburban districts from the enforced desegregation order that involved adjoining inner city school districts. The respondents sought the implementation of an action plan, which included interdistrict, city-suburban remedies as a means to integrate racially isolated city schools, or to eliminate de jure segregation and establish a unitary school system. The District Court blocked the proposed remedies and ordered the School Board to submit Detroit-only desegregation plans to encompass the three-county metropolitan area, despite the fact that the 85 outlying school districts in these three counties were not parties to the action and no claims of constitutional violations were recorded. Milliken I (1974) marked the culmination of seven years of litigation over de jure school segregation. The 6 th Circuit District Court in Milliken I (1974) determined that interdistrict integration was an improper remedy for single-district de jure desegregation plans limited to the Detroit school system. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Courts order concerning the implementation of and cost sharing for four educational components. The Court held As part of a desegregation decree a district court can, if the record warrants, order compensatory or remedial educational programs for schoolchildren who have been subjected to past acts of de jure segregation. Here the District Court, acting on substantial evidence in the record, did not abuse its discretion in approving a remedial plan going beyond pupil assignments and adopting specific programs that had been proposed by local school authorities. (Milliken, Governor of Michigan, et al. v. Bradley et al. 418 U.S. 717 (1974), p. 279-288)

PAGE 39

20 The requirement that the state defendants pay one-half the additional cost attributable to the four educational components does not violate the Eleventh Amendment, since the District Court was authorized to provide prospective equitable relief, even though such relief required the expenditure of money by the State. Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 668. (Milliken, Governor of Michigan, et al. v. Bradley et al. 418 U.S. 717 (1974), p. 288-290) The Tenth Amendments reservation of non-delegated powers to the States is not implicated by a federal courts judgment enforcing the express prohibitions of unlawful state conduct enacted by the Fourteenth Amendment, nor are principles of federalism abrogated by the decree. (Milliken, Governor of Michigan, et al. v. Bradley et al. 418 U.S. 717 (1974), p. 291) After Milliken I (1974), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, conducted extensive hearings regarding the proper remedies for desegregating the Detroit public school system. The District Court ordered, in addition to pupil assignment, that the Detroit School Board and the state institute several compensatory and remedial programs, with the cost of these programs to be shared by the Board and the State. In Milliken, Governor of Michigan, et al. v. Bradley et al. Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 433 U.S. 267, 1977, (Milliken II) the Court granted certiorari to consider two questions concerning the remedial powers of federal district courts in school-desegregation cases: (1) whether a District Court can, as part of a desegregation decree, order compensatory or remedial educational programs for schoolchildren who have been subjected to past acts of de jure segregation, and (2) whether, consistent with the Eleventh Amendment, a federal court can require state officials found responsible for constitutional violations to bear part of the costs of those programs. Court opinion held the compensatory and remedial programs were proper and did not exceed the scope of the constitutional violation involved, and (2) the mandate that the state pay one-half of the cost of these programs did not violate the Eleventh Amendment, the Tenth Amendment, or the principles of federalism. (Milliken et al. v. Bradley et al.

PAGE 40

21 Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 433 U.S. 267 (1977), p. 288-290) Unitary Status Court Cases The origin of school-desegregation began with the U.S. Supreme Courts 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education. Since the Brown I (1954) decision, federal courts have directed school districts to adopt comprehensive remedies to correct the effects of significant racial imbalances and inequalities. Despite the many remedies implemented by school districts across the United States, such as busing, new school construction, creation of magnet programs, changes in attendance zones, communities continued to find it difficult to achieve racial balance and equity. The struggle with issues related to desegregation has resulted in continued debates among local, state, and national educational agencies and had in turn led to numerous court cases. School-desegregation laws began with the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education (1954), in which the Supreme Court held that state mandated segregation was in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and continued until the late 1960s when the unitary status cases of Green v. Schools Board of New Kent County (1968) and Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg (1971) were decided. Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, Virginia, 391 US 430 (1968), was significant because it halted the freedom-of-choice plans many school districts developed as a remedy to racial segregation, while at the same time proposed affirmative action as a viable alternative. In Green (1968), petitioners sought injunctive relief for continued maintenance of an alleged racially segregated school system. At the time of the court case, New Kent County, a rural county in Eastern Virginia, had a population of about 4,500 residents, about 50% African American. The residential community in New

PAGE 41

22 Kent County was racially segregated and had only two schools, one on the East side of the county (New Kent School) and one on the West (George W. Watkins). The District Court, in a memorandum filed May 17, 1966, stated that the school district served 1,300 students, 740 African American and 550 White. Although there were no attendance zones, the school board operated one White combined elementary and high school (New Kent) and one Black combined elementary and high school (George W. Watkins). The Court acknowledged that this pattern of separate White and African American schools in the New Kent County school system, under compulsion of state laws, is precisely the pattern of segregation which Brown I (1954) addressed and declared unconstitutional. The School Board filed suit for injunctive relief against allegedly maintaining segregated schools and in order to remain eligible for federal funding adopted a freedom-of-choice plan for desegregating the school system (Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, Virginia, 391 US 430 (1968), p. 430). The plan permitted students, except those entering the 1 st and 8 th grades, to choose annually between schools. Although the Court of Appeals approved the freedom-of-choice plan and remanded for a more specific and comprehensive order concerning teachers, during the plans three years of operation, no White students had chosen to attend the all-Black school. Additionally, although 115 Black pupils enrolled in the formally all-White school, 85% of the Black students in the system still attended the all-Negro school (Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, Virginia, 391 US 430 (1968), p. 430). The Court held In 1955 this Court, in Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294 (Brown II), ordered school boards operating dual school systems, part "White" and part "Negro," to "effectuate a transition to a racially nondiscriminatory school system," and it is in light of that command that the effectiveness of the "freedom-of-choice" plan to achieve that end is to be measured. (Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, Virginia, 391 US 430 (1968), p. 430)

PAGE 42

23 The burden is on a school board to provide a plan that promises realistically to work now, and a plan that at this late date fails to provide meaningful assurance of prompt and effective disestablishment of a dual system is intolerable. (Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, Virginia, 391 US 430 (1968), p. 430-431) A district court's obligation is to assess the effectiveness of the plan in light of the facts at hand and any alternatives which may be feasible and more promising, and to retain jurisdiction until it is clear that state-imposed segregation has been completely removed. (Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, Virginia, 391 US 430 (1968), p. 431) Where a "freedom-of-choice" plan offers real promise of achieving a unitary, nonracial system there might be no objection to allowing it to prove itself in operation, but where there are reasonably available other ways, such as zoning, promising speedier and more effective conversion to a unitary school system, "freedom of choice" is not acceptable. (Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, Virginia, 391 US 430 (1968), p. 431) The New Kent "freedom-of-choice" plan is not acceptable; it has not dismantled the dual system, but has operated simply to burden students and their parents with a responsibility, which Brown II placed squarely on the School Board. (Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, Virginia, 391 US 430 (1968), p. 431) The Court also advised that in deciding whether a school district had done everything possible to convert to a unitary system in which racial discrimination would be eliminated root and branch (Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, Virginia, 391 US 430 (1968), p. 438), desegregation must occur among students in each of six designated areas. The Court suggested that a lower court apply six prescribed Green factors when determining if a district can be declared unitary Composition of the student body Faculty and staff assignment Transportation Extracurricular activities Facilities

PAGE 43

24 These factors remain the benchmark in school-desegregation litigation. Further, in Freeman et al. v. Pitts et al. 503 U.S. 467 (1992), the Eleventh Circuit court added a possible seventh factor, the quality of education. Unitary is a term defined by the courts as a school system that has made a transition from a segregated or racially dual system to one that is desegregated or unitary. The first applicable unitary status case was Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education et al., 402 U.S. 1 (1971), which began the battle over urban desegregation (Orfield, Bachmeier, James & Eitle, 1997). Swann (1971) presented a comprehensive set of policies in the South in order to address a massive desegregation movement (Orfield, Bachmeier, James & Eitle, 1997). In 1968-1969, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg school system had over 84,000 students in 107 schools; approximately 29% of the students were Black and 21 schools in the district were at least 99% Black. The District Court approved a desegregation plan in 1965, but by 1968, the 29% Black and 71% White student population remained segregated. The District Court found the school boards further proposals for desegregation inadequate and appointed an expert who provided additional desegregation recommendations. In 1969, the District Court ordered That faculty members be reassigned in such a manner as to result in the ratio of Negro and White faculty members in each school being approximately the same as the ratio of Negro and White faculty members throughout the school system That in accordance with the school boards plan, as modified by the experts plan, new attendance zones be created for secondary schools, and some inner-city Negroes be transported to outlying, predominantly white schools, so that the percentage of Negroes would range from about 17 percent to less than 36 percent in each high school and would range from about 9 percent to about 33 percent in each junior high school; and That in accordance with the experts plan, new attendance zones and pairing and grouping of schools be used for elementary schools, and the about of busing of

PAGE 44

25 elementary school students be substantially increased, so that the percentage of Negroes in each elementary school would range from about 9 percent to about 38 percent. (300 F. Supp. 1358 (W.D.N.C. 1969), p. 2) In February of 1970, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Courts plan as far as faculty desegregation and secondary schools but vacated the order regarding elementary schools on the ground that the additional busing would be cost prohibitive (431 F.2d 138 (4th Cir. 1970)). The case was remanded to the District Court and upon remand, the Court ordered the board to adopt a new plan for elementary schools, but after the school board failed to submit a plan, the District Court adopted the experts plan. The decision was later appealed and in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (1971), on certiorari, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' judgment to the extent that the Court of Appeals had affirmed the District Court's judgment and the Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's order reinstating the expert's plan for elementary school students. In a unanimous opinion given by Burger, Ch J., it was held Today's objective is to eliminate from the public schools all vestiges of state-imposed segregation that was held violative of equal protection guarantees by Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 in 1954. (Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education et al., 402 U.S. 1 (1971), p. 15) In default by the school authorities of their affirmative obligation to proffer acceptable remedies, the district courts have broad power to fashion remedies that will assure unitary school systems. (Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education et al., 402 U.S. 1 (1971), p. 16) Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not restrict or withdraw from the federal courts their historic equitable remedial powers. The proviso in 42 U.S.C. 2000c -6 was designed simply to foreclose any interpretation of the Act as expanding the existing powers of the federal courts to enforce the Equal Protection Clause. (Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education et al., 402 U.S. 1 (1971), p. 16-18) Policy and practice with regard to faculty, staff, transportation, extracurricular activities, and facilities are among the most important indicia of a segregated

PAGE 45

26 system, and the first remedial responsibility of school authorities is to eliminate invidious racial distinctions in those respects. Normal administrative practice should then produce schools of like quality, facilities, and staffs. (Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education et al., 402 U.S. 1 (1971), p. 18-19) The Constitution does not prohibit district courts from using their equity power to order assignment of teachers to achieve a particular degree of faculty desegregation. United States v. Montgomery County Board of Education, 395 U.S. 225 was properly followed by the lower courts in this case (Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education et al., 402 U.S. 1 (1971), p. 19-20) In devising remedies to eliminate legally imposed segregation, local authorities and district courts must see to it that future school construction and abandonment are not used and do not serve to perpetuate or reestablish a dual system. (Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education et al., 402 U.S. 1 (1971), p. 20-21) Four problem areas exist on the issue of student assignment: 1. Racial quotas. The constitutional command to desegregate schools does not mean that every school in the community must always reflect the racial composition of the system as a whole; here the District Court's very limited use of the racial ratio -not as an inflexible requirement, but as a starting point in shaping a remedy -was within its equitable discretion. (Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education et al., 402 U.S. 1 (1971), p. 22-25) 2. One-race schools. While the existence of a small number of one-race, or virtually one-race, schools does not, in itself, denote a system that still practices segregation by law, the court should scrutinize such schools and require the school authorities to satisfy the court that the racial composition does not result from present or past discriminatory action on their part. (Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education et al., 402 U.S. 1 (1971), p. 25-26) An optional majority-to-minority transfer provision has long been recognized as a useful part of a desegregation plan, and to be effective such arrangement must provide the transferring student free transportation and available space in the school to which he desires to move. (Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education et al., 402 U.S. 1 (1971), p. 26-27) 3. Attendance zones. The remedial altering of attendance zones is not, as an interim corrective measure, beyond the remedial powers of a district court. A student assignment plan is not acceptable merely because it appears to be neutral, for such a plan may fail to counteract the continuing effects of past school segregation. The pairing and grouping of noncontiguous zones is a permissible tool; judicial steps going beyond contiguous zones should be examined in light of the objectives to be sought. No rigid rules can be laid down to govern conditions in different localities. (Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education et al., 402 U.S. 1 (1971), p. 27-29) 4. Transportation. The District Court's conclusion that assignment of children to the school nearest their home serving their grade would not effectively dismantle the

PAGE 46

27 dual school system is supported by the record, and the remedial technique of requiring bus transportation as a tool of school desegregation was within that court's power to provide equitable relief. An objection to transportation of students may have validity when the time or distance of travel is so great as to risk either the health of the children or significantly impinge on the educational process; limits on travel time will vary with many factors, but probably with none more than the age of the students. (Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education et al., 402 U.S. 1 (1971), p. 29-31) Neither school authorities nor district courts are constitutionally required to make year-by-year adjustments of the racial composition of student bodies once a unitary system has been achieved. (Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education et al., 402 U.S. 1 (1971), p. 31-32) In Swann (1971), the Supreme Court affirmed a federal judges decision to use racial classifications to determine student assignments in order to accomplish school-desegregation in Charlotte, North Carolina. Additionally, the Court ruled that the federal courts had the power to deny school construction and school closings that perpetuated segregation, to alter school attendance zones, and to make necessary changes to achieve a unitary school system (Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education 402 U.S. 1 (1971), p. 32). Later, in Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell, 498 US 237 (1991), several Black students and their parents brought a suit against the Board of Education of Oklahoma City, seeking an end to alleged, de jure segregation of the citys public schools. In 1972, the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, determined that the city was in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution because it had intentionally segregated both schools and housing in the past, and had been operating a "dual," racially segregated school system. The court held that Previous efforts had not been successful in eliminating such state-imposed segregation; and (2) ordered the adoption of a desegregation plan whose elements

PAGE 47

28 included (a) mandatory student assignments for many specified schools and grades, and (b) school busing. (338 F Supp 1256) Upon appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed (465 F2d 1012) and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari (409 US 1041, 34 L Ed 2d 490, 93 S Ct 526). In 1977, the District Court, issued an "Order Terminating Case," expressing the view that The desegregation plan had worked Substantial compliance with the constitutional requirements had been achieved A "unitary" school system had been accomplished. The school board adopted a student reassignment plan to begin in the 1985-1986 school year; to accommodate allegedly changed conditions. Although the reassignment plan still allowed for some busing, the plan also included provisions for (1) neighborhood school assignments, and (2) a student's voluntary transfer from a school in which the student was in the majority to a school in which the student would be in the minority. As a result of the school boards actions, the Black students and their parents then asserted that the school district had not achieved "unitary" status and that the reassignment plan was a return to segregation. The District Court refused to reopen the case, expressing the view that (1) the 1977 finding of unitariness was res judicata as to the parties, and (2) the school district remained unitary (606 F Supp 1548). On appeal, the Court of Appeals, reversing, expressed the view that while the 1977 order was binding on the parties, nothing in the 1977 order indicated that the 1972 injunction itself was terminated (795 F2d 1516). In 1987, the Supreme Court again denied certiorari (479 US 938, 93 L Ed 2d 370, 107 S Ct 420). On remand, the District Court, concluding that the 1972 decree should be vacated and the school district returned to local control, where, according to the District

PAGE 48

29 Court, (1) demographic changes had made the desegregation plan unworkable; (2) the board had done nothing for 25 years to promote residential segregation; (3) the school district had bused students for more than a decade in good-faith compliance with the District Court's orders; (4) the city's existing residential segregation was the result of private decision making and economics, rather than a vestige of former school segregation; (5) the district had maintained its unitary status; and (6) the reassignment plan was not designed with discriminatory intent (677 F Supp 1503). On appeal, the Court of Appeals, again reversing, expressed the view that (1) a desegregation decree generally remains in effect until a school district can show a "grievous wrong" evoked by new and unforeseen conditions; and (2) the circumstances in the case at hand had not changed enough to justify modification of the 1972 decree, where, according to the Court of Appeals, a number of schools would return to being primarily one-race schools under the reassignment plan (890 F2d 1483). On certiorari, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. In an opinion, by Rehnquist, Ch. J., joined by White, O'Connor, Scalia, and Kennedy, J.J., it was held the District Court's unappealed 1977 order did not bar the Black students and their parents from contesting the District Court's 1987 order dissolving the 1972 injunctive decree, where (a) the 1977 order did not dissolve the 1972 decree, and (b) the 1977 order's unitariness finding was too ambiguous to bar the students and their parents from challenging later action by the school board; but (2) in the case at hand, a finding by the District Court--that the school district was being operated in compliance with the commands of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause and that it was unlikely that the school board would return to its former ways--would be a finding that the purposes of the desegregation litigation had been fully achieved, and would thus be sufficient to justify dissolution of the desegregation decree, without any additional requirement for the school board to show a "grievous wrong" evoked by new and unforeseen conditions; (3) the District

PAGE 49

30 Court, on remand, was to decide, in accordance with the Supreme Court's opinion, whether the school board had made a sufficient showing of constitutional compliance as of 1985, when the school board had adopted the student reassignment plan, so as to allow the injunction to be dissolved; and (4) the District Court ought to address itself as to whether (a) the board had complied in good faith with the desegregation decree since it had been entered, and (b) the vestiges of past discrimination had been eliminated to the extent practicable. Marshall, J., joined by Blackmen and Stevens, J.J., dissenting, expressed the view that (1) the District Court's 1977 order did not contain a sufficiently precise statement to bar review of the District Court's 1987 order expressly dissolving the 1972 decree; and (2) the proper standard for determining whether a school-desegregation decree should be dissolved is whether the purposes of the desegregation litigation, as incorporated in the decree, have been fully achieved; but (3) such a standard must (a) take into account the unique harm associated with a system of racially identifiable schools, and (b) expressly demand the elimination of such schools; and (4) while it was possible that some modification of the 1972 decree might be appropriate, the purposes of the 1972 decree had not yet been achieved, and the Court of Appeals' reinstatement of the decree ought to be affirmed, because the record showed, and the Court of Appeals had found, that feasible steps could be taken to avoid one-race schools. (Board of Ed. of Oklahoma City v. Dowell, 498 US 237 (1991), p. 267) In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that a school system meeting the Green (1968) factors could be declared unitary, and thus freed from any affirmative obligations to end segregation. In addition, the Court held that any government action recreating racially segregated schools would be presumed innocent. Dowell (1991) made it easier for districts to be declared unitary by ruling that a school district may be freed from court supervision once it eliminates the vestiges of desegregation to the extent practical (Education Week, 2002) and the court declared that a school district is not responsible for remedying local conditions such as segregated housing patterns. In Freeman et al. v. Pitts et al. 503 U.S. 467 (1992), Black students and their parents, entered a consent order approving a plan to dismantle the de jure segregation that had existed in the DeKalb County, Georgia, School System (DCSS). In 1986, petitioner DCSS officials filed a motion for final dismissal of the litigation, seeking a declaration

PAGE 50

31 that DCSS had achieved unitary status. Among other things, the court found that DCSS, has traveled the road to unitary status almost to its end, and noted that it had continually been impressed by [DCSS] successes and its dedication to providing a quality education for all, and ruled that DCSS is a unitary system with regard to four of the six factors identified in Green v. School Bd. Of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430 (1968); student assignments, transportation, physical facilities, and extracurricular activities. The Court found, with respect to student assignments, DCSS had briefly achieved unitary status under the court-ordered plan and that subsequent and continuing racial imbalance in this category was a product of independent demographic changes that were unrelated to petitioners actions taken by DCSS. The Court stated that DCSS had achieved maximum practical desegregation from 1969 to 1986. However, the Court ruled that it would order no further relief in the foregoing areas, further, the court refused to dismiss the case because it found that DCSS was not unitary with respect to the remaining Green factors, faculty assignment and resource allocation. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding, inter alia, that a district court should retain full remedial authority over a school system until it achieves unitary status in all Green (1968) categories. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals and held In the course of supervising a desegregation plan, a district court has the authority to relinquish supervision and control of a school district in incremental stages, before full compliance has been achieved in every are of school operations, and may, while retaining jurisdiction over the case, determining that it will not order remedies in areas where the school district is in compliance with the decree. (Freeman et al. v. Pitts et al. 503 U.S. 467 (1992), p. 15-22) The Court of Appeals erred in holding that, as a matter of law, the District Court had no discretion to permit SCSS to regain control over student assignments and three other Green factors, while retaining supervision over faculty assignments and the quality of education. (Freeman et al. v. Pitts et al. 503 U.S. 467 (1992), p. 22-29)

PAGE 51

32 The decision in Freeman v. Pitts (1991) allowed for incremental withdrawal from court supervision by declaring a school district partially unitary. Further, incremental withdrawal of judicial authority may occur once a school district had demonstrated the following: (a) compliance with a minimum of one Green (1968) factor for a period of time; (b) indications that retention of jurisdiction is necessary to ensure compliance with other factors; and (c) demonstration of good faith commitment to the whole of the courts Consent Decree and to the law and constitutional provisions underlying that decree (Williams and De Lacy, 1996). The Court further defined practible to mean that a district can be declared unitary before full compliance has been achieved in every area of school operations. Based on Dowell (1991) and Freeman (1992), a school district must meet three Supreme Court requirements in order to be declared unitary: (1) Has the district complied with the desegregation order for a reasonable period of time? (2) Have the vestiges of segregation been eliminated to the extent practicable? (3) Is the district committed in good faith to its constitutional obligations? (Sneed and Martin, 1997). The court case, Coalition to Save our Children v. State Board of Education of the State of Delaware, 90 F.3d 752 (3d Cir. 1996) brought an end to court supervision and more than four decades of litigation designed to desegregate the public schools of Delaware. In this case, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware had declared that the school districts of Northern New Castle County, Delaware, had achieved unitary status, and the plaintiff organization, Coalition to Save our Children, appealed. The Court of Appeals held that

PAGE 52

33 District court did not clearly err in finding that school districts had satisfied the Green factors of unitary status as well as ancillary measures provided in prior order; There was no error in excluding testimony of expert when plaintiff disregarded two pretrial orders requiring disclosure of specific subject matter as to which expert would testify and provision of expert reports; Plaintiff was properly allocated burden to prove that performance disparities were vestiges of de jure segregation; Record established that such disparities were caused by socioeconomic factors and were not vestiges of de jure segregation. (Coalition to Save our Children v. State Board of Education of the State of Delaware, 90 F.3d 752 (3d Cir. 1996), p. 752-753) In addition to the Green (1968) factors, the court considered eight programs of ancillary remedial relief to determine whether Delaware school districts had achieved unitary status. The eight programs included (1) an in-service training program for teachers; (2) an affirmative reading and communication skills program; (3) new curriculum offerings; (4) a nondiscriminatory counseling and guidance program; (5) a human relations program; (6) codes of conduct providing for nondiscriminatory discipline; (7) the reassignment of faculty and staff; and (8) nondiscriminatory guidelines for construction and maintenance of school buildings. (Coalition to Save our Children v. State Board of Education Of the State of Delaware, 90 F.3d 752 (3d Cir. 1996), p. 757) A 1978 order required the following concerning the disciplining of students develop . a code of rights and responsibilities . provid[ing] for racially nondiscriminatory discipline and . contain[ing] provisions to insure each student in the desegregation area procedural and substantive due process required by existing law. Such a code will help to provide equal educational opportunity to all students by protecting them from unreasonable, discriminatory, and arbitrary rules; and the Board shall not administer the code on a racially selective or otherwise biased basis. (Coalition to Save our Children v. State Board of Education Of the State of Delaware, 90 F.3d 752 (3d Cir. 1996), p. 769) In July 1978, a committee in the New Castle district adopted a code of conduct drafted using similar documents from Delaware and large desegregated school districts. Prior to adoption, citizen groups, student council leaders, the Teachers Association, and

PAGE 53

34 administrators reviewed drafts of the code. The code was revised periodically through a formalized process. The appellant's discipline expert conceded that the districts' codes are not "discriminatory on their face." And the district court found that the codes "are not applied in a discriminatory fashion." Coalition, 901 F. Sup. at 817. Appellant argues, however, that the school districts have failed to reduce racial disparities in discipline rates among students, and that Appellant was denied the opportunity to admit expert testimony in support of this claim. However, on this matter the record supports the district court's findings, as well as its exercise of discretion. The district court's finding that discipline is not administered in a discriminatory fashion is supported by the testimony of Dr. Charles Achilles, the school districts' expert. Dr. Achilles calculated indices by dividing the percentage of black student suspensions by the black enrollment percentage. Based on these data, Dr. Achilles determined that the districts' suspension indices reflected less racial imbalance than indices calculated from national suspension data compiled by the Office of Civil Rights and Delaware arrest data. JA 722-23. Dr. Achilles further illustrated that the indices were essentially consistent across the four districts -"a result difficult to achieve if equitable nondiscriminatory codes were not being used and applied in an equitable, nondiscriminatory manner." Coalition, 901 F. Sup. at 817; see JA 724. And finally, Dr. Achilles demonstrated "consistency in how the codes were applied by administrators, regardless of the administrators' race." Coalition, 901 F. Sup. at 817; see JA 725. In light of this compelling testimony, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in determining that, as to discipline, the school districts have complied with the 1978 Order. See Krasnov, 465 F.2d at 1302 (standard of review) Nor did the district court err in rejecting the testimony of Appellant's discipline expert, Dr. William Gordon. He could cite no study or authoritative literature to support his assumption "that 'undiscipline' or misbehavior is a randomly distributed characteristic among racial groups. . ." JA 1161. And in fact, statistical data demonstrate a comparable or greater racial disproportion for those offenses for which Delaware law mandates suspension, which Gordon called "very objective" offenses, than for those offenses he viewed as less objective. JA 726. Accordingly, we reject Appellant's argument that the schools have failed to reduce racial disparities in discipline rates. (Coalition to Save our Children v. State Board of Education Of the State of Delaware, 90 F.3d 752 (3d Cir. 1996), p. 775) Coalition to Save our Children v. State Board of Education Of the State of Delaware (1996) was just one of many cases where disparity in discipline was named as one of the programs of ancillary remedial relief that a school district had to consider when striving the achieve unitary status.

PAGE 54

35 School Discipline The following is a review of the literature concerning discipline in public schools and how it related to disparity between Black and non-Black students. The fact that schools were becoming increasingly dangerous was well documented in research studies, polls, and the news media. With tragic and publicized events such as the shootings at Columbine High School and September 11 th public safety, including the safety of students in school, was at the forefront of the national agenda. School safety is often perceived as the number one problem facing Americas public schools, and school discipline is a key component of school safety. During most of its existence, the Phi Delta Kappas Annual Gallop Poll of the Publics Attitudes Toward the Public Schools has identified lack of discipline as one of the most serious problem facing the nations public schools (Rose and Gallup, 2002). In support of those findings, the problem of disruptive student conduct in schools continues to be one of the most pressing problems facing educators (Duke and Jones, 1984; Gottfredson, Gottfredson, and Hybl, 1993; Kadel and Follman, 1993). In one study, 27% of school personnel surveyed were concerned about their safety while at school, with 53% to 63% perceiving violence as increasing at all levels of public education (Skiba, Peterson and Williams 1997). Cotton (1990) estimated that about 1/2 of all classroom time was taken up with activities other than instruction, with discipline problems accounting for a large portion of lost instruction time. In a August 25, 1998 Washington Post article, Vincent Schiraldi wrote, communities all over America are considering new ways of combating violence in the schools. Legislation has been proposed at the national and state levels, and local schools continued to formulate new policies and regulations to deal with these serious problems

PAGE 55

36 (Schiraldi, 1998). The realization that public schools needed effective discipline programs prompted legislation such as Goal Number Seven of the National Education Goals, written by the National Educational Goals Panel in 1995. Goal Seven stated "all schools in America will be free of drugs and violence and the unauthorized presence of firearms and alcohol, and offer a disciplined environment that is conducive to learning and prescribed a decrease in the occurrence of violent acts in Americas schools to zero by the year 2000. That goal that fell noticeably short of its intent (National Education Goals Panel, 1999). In response to this goal, the Congress passed the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act of 1994, which provided for support of drug and violence prevention programs. Regardless of the size of the school, grade level taught, location or setting of a school, student discipline has been an integral part of the educational process. Effective schools must be safe schools and administrators were challenged with maintaining order. But, what is discipline? Discipline was defined by Jones (1979) as the business of enforcing simple classroom rules that facilitate learning and minimize disruption. When students violate one or more federal, state, local or school policys they were disciplined. Typically, the first step in disciplining a student is the generation of a student discipline referral. A discipline referral is a form generated whenever a student is accused of violating one or more of a schools pre-determined standards of behavior. The student discipline referral contains all of the pertinent information regarding the violation, including the sanction(s) or consequence(s) the student received. Sanctions or consequences ranged from a relatively minor verbal reprimand to a more serious consequence such as a suspension or expulsion. Discipline referrals are especially

PAGE 56

37 useful in monitoring and analyzing a schools discipline profile. Student discipline referrals can also be used to predict such things as school failure (Walker, Colvin, and Ramsey, 1995), delinquency (Walker, Stieber, Ramsey & ONeill, 1990, 1991, 1993), referral for special education, placement in alternative settings (Tobin and Sugai, 1999), and future incidents of violence at school (Tobin, Sugai, and Colvin, 1996; Tobin and Sugai, 1999). Suspensions and Expulsions Despite the importance placed on school participation with compulsory attendance laws, schools may deny students access to education by suspending students for a period ranging from one to ten days or removing students permanently from public school through an expulsion. An out-of-school suspension was defined as the removal from the school environment for a period not to exceed ten days, whereas, in-school suspension was defined as the removal from the classroom environment for a period from one to ten days (Florida Department of Education, 1995). In 1975, the U.S. Supreme Court, in two separate decisions, mandated that students had both property rights and liberty interests when facing temporary suspension from school. The first decision, Goss vs. Lopez et al., 419 U.S. 565, 95 S.Ct. 729 (1975) mandated due process regarding disciplinary procedures involving the removal of students from school. Due process ensured a students right to be heard, present evidence, witnesses, and have the opportunity to rebut charges. In this case, the Court made the distinction between a minor deprivation of the students right to attend school (a suspension of ten or fewer days) and a serious deprivation (suspension in excess of ten days or an expulsion). The Court did not set out any particular procedures which must be followed in effecting an expulsion or other serious removal from school, noting,

PAGE 57

38 instead, that a student facing such a removal . .must be given some kind of notice and afforded some kind of hearing (95 S.Ct. p. 738). Students facing temporary suspension have interests qualifying for protection of the Due Process Clause, and due process requires, in connection with a suspension of 10 days or less, that the student be given oral or written notice of the charges against him and, if he denies them, an explanation of the evidence the authorities have and an opportunity to present his side of the story. The Clause requires at least these rudimentary precautions against unfair or mistaken findings of misconduct and arbitrary exclusion from school. (Goss vs. Lopez et al., 419 U.S. 565, 95 S.Ct. 729 (1975), p.23) The second case, Wood v. Strickland 95 S. Ct. 992 (1975), made schools boards liable for damages in school suspension cases. In addition to the legal obligations, schools must follow laws and statutes concerning school suspensions and expulsions and schools were also required to fully comply with state regulations mandated by The Federal Drug-Free Schools Act and The Gun-Free-Schools Act, in order to qualify for federal funds. The Fourteenth Amendment (1868) to the Constitution of the United States provided No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Historically, suspensions were considered as disciplinary actions administered as a consequence for a students inappropriate behavior and required that a student be removed from the classroom or school for a specific period of time (Bumbarger, 1999). Suspensions or expulsions were also viewed as a severe punitive consequence meant to alert both the student and the parents about the seriousness of a students misconduct. Additionally, suspensions isolated a student from the classroom setting, and were often used to protect the staff and other students from further verbal or physical abuse (Bumbarger, 1999).

PAGE 58

39 Causes of Suspension and Expulsions Students were suspended for a variety of reasons ranging from minor infractions, such as tardiness and skipping Saturday school, to severe infractions such as fighting and the possession of weapons or drugs; however, the commonest discipline problems involve non-criminal student behavior (Moles, 1989). In support of this statement, Skiba, Peterson and Williams (1997) found that most suspensions were for noncompliance or disrespect, and the fewest number were for behaviors that threaten safety. Further support for these findings can be found in the research studies of Imich (1994) and McFadden, Marsh, Price, and Hwang (1992), whose findings revealed that the most frequent causes of referrals and suspensions were disrespect, noncompliance, defiance, and general school disruption. Morrison and DIncau (1997) also found that students who would not be considered dangerous in the school environment committed the majority of offenses in the sample they studied. The National School Board Association (1994) confirmed these findings reporting that, contrary to popular belief, most out-of-school suspensions across the country were for minor infractions of school rules rather than for dangerous or violent acts. There are a multitude of studies designed to identify the causes for suspensions in public schools. Several studies identified the most common behaviors that lead to internal suspension vary from tardiness (Edelman, Beck and Smith, 1975; McFadden et al., 1992; Pare, 1983), skipping class (Johnson, 1989), truancy (Edelman, Back, and Smith, 1975; McFadden et al. 1992), forging excuses (Pare, 1983), disruptive classroom behaviors (Pare, 1983), insubordination (Williams, 1979), lack of cooperation (Diem, 1988) to smoking and alcohol and drug use (Chobot and Garibaldi, 1982; Williams,

PAGE 59

40 1979), fighting (Costenbader and Markson, 1994), possession of a weapon, extortion, and drug possession (Williams, 1979). Given the recent spate of violent acts in public schools and the subsequent media attention surrounding those events, school violence is at the forefront of issues concerning schools, both for educators and the public alike. But does the hype match the statistics? In response to Goal Number Seven of the National Education Goals Congress passed the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act of 1994. As part of this legislation, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (1997) was required to collect data to determine the "frequency, seriousness, and incidence of violence in elementary and secondary schools." NCES responded to this requirement by commissioning a survey titled The Principal/School Disciplinarian Survey on School Violence, 1996-97 The school violence survey was conducted with a nationally representative sample of 1,234 public elementary, middle, and secondary schools in the 50 states and the District of Columbia during the spring and summer of 1997. The results of this study revealed Less serious or nonviolent crimes were more common than serious violent crimes. In both 1990-91 and 1996-97, the three discipline issues most frequently rated as serious or moderate problems by principals were student tardiness, student absenteeism or class cutting, and physical conflicts among students. More than half of U.S. public schools reported experiencing at least one crime incident in school year 1996-97, and 1 in 10 schools reported at least one serious violent crime during that school year. Crime and violence were more of a problem in middle and high schools than in elementary schools. Middle schools and high schools were more likely to report that they had experienced one or more incidents of any crime and one or more incidents of serious violent crime than elementary schools. Schools that reported serious discipline problems were more likely to have experienced one or more incidents of crime or violence, and were more likely to

PAGE 60

41 experience serious violent crime than those with less serious discipline problems. (Violence and Discipline Problems in U.S. Public Schools: 1996-97 March 1998, NCES) Although violence (including fighting) among students was among the most common infraction leading to both internal and external suspension (Costenbader and Markson, 1994; Skiba, Peterson, and Williams, 1997), the majority of school suspensions were a result of relatively minor incidents that do not threaten school safety. Middle schools reported an average of 25% of all internal suspensions resulting from physical aggression while high schools reported 12% (Costenbader and Markson, 1994). In 1996-1997, NCES published a report titled Violence and Discipline Problems in U.S. Public Schools This report identified what school principals or disciplinarians at the elementary, middle, and high school levels considered to be serious or moderate discipline problems in their schools. The most frequently cited problems at all three levels were non-violent behaviors such as tardiness (40%), absenteeism (25%), physical conflicts among students (21%) and tobacco use (14%). Incidents typically associated with school safety which were reported as occurring relatively infrequently were drug use (9%), gangs (5%), possession of weapons (2%), and physical abuse of teachers (2%). Hillsborough County Public Schools listed 37 different types of offenses for which students were suspended out-of-school during the 1996-97 school year. To facilitate the interpretation of these results, the researcher, Raffaele (1999) grouped these thirty-seven infractions into seven categories. The top three categories of infractions for each grade level were as follows: disobedience, violence against persons, and substance possession for high schools; disobedience, violence against persons, and violence against property for middle schools; and disobedience, violence against persons, and violence against property for elementary schools (Raffaele, 1999). Rosen (1997), in a study of over 100

PAGE 61

42 secondary administrators, found that the most common reasons for out-of-school suspension were defiance of school authority, not reporting to after school detention or Saturday school, and class disruption. In 1997, Skiba, Peterson and Williams published a dual study titled Office Referrals and Suspension: Disciplinary Intervention in Middle Schools Study I examined data from the entire middle school population in a large, urban Midwestern public school district, serving over 50,000 students. The results of the study identified disobedience as the most frequent cause for disciplinary referrals, followed by misconduct, disrespect, and fighting. The study also revealed that African American students received a higher number of referrals on average than students from any other ethnic background except Native Americans. Study II examined detailed descriptive information about one middle school in the same district. Study II also revealed that the most common reasons for referrals were lack of cooperation, and insubordination/verbal abuses, followed by excessive tardiness/absences and inappropriate/profane/abusive language. Both studies indicated that problems with authority, such as of insubordination and noncompliance, were the most frequent reasons for disciplinary referral in middle schools, rather than behaviors that place others in danger. Edelman, Beck, and Smith (1975) reported that almost two thirds of the suspensions reported in The Office of Civil Rights data were for non-serious offenses. The data were also consistent with findings that noncompliance and defiance were among the least well tolerated of student behaviors in the classroom (Cooly, 1995; Landon and Mesinger, 1989; Safran and Safran, 1984). Frequency of Suspensions The reason students were suspended from school were varied and well documented, furthermore, there was a noticeable increase in student violent and

PAGE 62

43 disruptive behaviors in and around schools which had, in turn, resulted in a proportionate increase in the number of suspensions and expulsions (Ingersoll and Boeuf, 1977). The Children's Defense Fund (1975) declared that the suspension of children in schools across all levels had become a problem of national proportion. Other research indicated that the most commonly administered forms of discipline used in public schools were both in-school suspension (ISS) (Costenbader and Markson, 1994) and out-of-school suspension (OSS) (Costenbader and Markson, 1994; Dupper and Bosch, 1996). With the passage of legislation such as the 1994 Federal Gun-Free Schools Act and Zero-Tolerance, Supreme Court decisions, and the lack of viable alternatives, suspensions and expulsions were likely to increase significantly (Bumbarger, 1999). Using national level data from a Safe School Study, Wu, Pink, Crain and Moles (1982) found that about 11% of students surveyed (31,103) had been suspended at least once during their enrollment in public school. The United States Department of Education (1993) estimated that 1.5 million students miss one or more days of school per year because they have been suspended or expelled. Later estimates continued to show a marked rise in the number of suspensions and expulsions. Costenbader and Markson (1998) analyzed the results of 620 surveys from both middle and high school students in public schools. Of the students who responded to the survey, 41% indicated that they had been suspended at least one time in their educational history, 18% had received in-school suspension and 22% had been suspended out-of-school. Recent figures regarding suspensions from the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, 1999, indicated that over 3.1 million students were suspended

PAGE 63

44 during the 1998 school year and another 87,000 were expelled (The Civil Rights Project, 2001b). Individual states reported a marked increase in suspension rates for students in public schools. In the State of Wisconsin, suspensions were reported to have increased 34% from the 1991-92 to the 1997-1998 school years (State of Wisconsin Department of Instruction, 1999). Chicago Public Schools had experienced a similar dramatic increase in the number of expulsions from 14 in 1992-1993 to 737 in 1998-1999 (Chicago Public Schools, 2000). During the 1991-1992 school year, the West Virginia Department of Education collected data regarding the use of suspension and expulsion in West Virginia schools. The analysis of State's data revealed that during the five-month period from September 1991 to January 1992, 18,915 out-of-school suspensions were reported by the county school system. The unduplicated number of students suspended during this time period was 12,997 students across all grade levels or almost 10% of all students attending West Virginia public schools. The actual number of lost instruction days lost due to suspensions totaled 41,538 days; 51% of those suspensions occurred at the secondary level, 7,677 cases at the middle school, and 1,585 at the elementary school level. In Jefferson County, Florida, a small predominantly Black school district, 43% of all high school students and 31% of middle school students were suspended at least once during the 1998-1999 school year (Florida Department of Education, 1999). Researchers Wu et al. (1982) disaggregated suspension data to determine if the school suspension rate varied between school settings (urban, suburban, and rural). Comparing school setting in relation to school suspensions, more students in urban

PAGE 64

45 schools (15% in high schools and middle schools) were suspended then those from suburban schools (13% in high schools and 8% in middle schools), who were suspended more than those in rural schools (9% in high schools and 7% in middle schools). The rate of suspensions has also been disaggregated by school levels (elementary, middle, and high). Within the specific school levels, first suspensions occurred more frequently in the seventh grade of junior high school (having only two grades, seventh and eighth) and the first year in high school (ninth grade) (Wu et al., 1982). The researchers suggested that the first year in a new school may be a difficult period. It has also been reported that out-of-school suspension rates rose steadily from seventh through eighth grades and peak in the ninth grade (The Florida State Department of Education, 1995; Massachusetts State Board of Education, 1991; Safer, 1986). Costenbader and Markson (1994) also found the rates of suspension to be higher in high schools then in middle schools. Disparity in Discipline While suspect discipline practices can be found with students of all ethnic backgrounds, they are especially disproportionate for African American students (Harry and Anderson, 1995). Researchers studying the disciplining of African American students in desegregated public schools found that they were disproportionately represented in disciplinary actions (Bakersville, 1980; Frahm, 1983; Goldsmith, 1979; Larkin, 1982; Mason, 1980; Robinson; 1979; Wu et al., 1982). More recent studies on the disciplining of African American students continued to indicate that African American students received a disproportionate number of disciplinary actions when compared to other ethnic groups (Gregory, 1995; Morgan, 1991; Panko-Stilmock, 1996).

PAGE 65

46 The fact that Black students are disproportionately suspended and expelled from school has been well-established (Bickel and Qualls, 1980; Bullara, 1993; Costenbader and Markson, 1994; Dupper and Bosch, 1996; Edelman, Beck, and Smith, 1975; Florida State Department of Education, 1995; Kaeser, 1979; Massachusetts State Board of Education, 1991; Moody, Williams, and Vergnon, 1978; Neill, 1976; Streitmatter, 1986; Wu et al., 1982). The most common indicator of disparity in discipline used in research studies was the rates of suspensions (Wu et al., 1982). Skiba, Peterson, & Williams (1997), in a study of an urban school district revealed African American children received more office referrals and subsequent suspensions than any other ethnic group. It has also been reported that while African American children only represented 17% of public school enrollment they received 33% of out-of-school suspensions, while White students who represented 63% of public school enrollment only received 50% of suspensions (The Civil Rights Project, 2002a). More specific examples of disproportionality can be found in school districts throughout the United States. In the Chicago Public Schools, African American students represented 73% of those expelled but only 53% of the total enrollment (Chicago Public Schools, 2000). Many researchers compared the rate of suspension for African American students to those of other ethnic groups. Suspension rate indicates the number of times a Black student is more likely to receive a suspension than other ethnic groups, typically White students. Numerous studies have found the rate of suspension for Black students to be two to three times that of White students (Childrens Defense Fund, 1974; Costenbader and Markson, 1994; Massachusetts Advocacy Center, 1986; McFadden et al., 1992; National Coalition of Advocates for Students, 1986; Wu et al., 1982). While some

PAGE 66

47 studies used suspension rate as an indicator of disproportionality, most studies used percentage of students suspended as the key indicator. Research studies using percentage as the indicator for disparity have been conducted at the national, state and local levels and have spanned several decades. This researcher chose to place the findings of these studies in chronological order. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (as cited in Montgomery, 1977) filed a complaint against the Little Rock, Arkansas School System for the alleged discrimination against African American students. During the first semester of the 1974-1975 school year, 546 African American students and 105 White students were suspended. This disparity translated to the alarming fact that African American students received 85% of the suspensions while White students received only 15%. In 1975, the Childrens Defense Fund (CDF) released a national study on discipline in public schools. The CDF obtained and analyzed data collected by the Office of Civil Rights from 2,862 school districts in which 24,188,681 students attended. Findings revealed that over a million students were suspended during the 1972-1973 school year, citing fighting (36%) as the single most frequent reason for suspension. The CDF also found that the percentage of African American students suspended (6%) was greater than the percentage of students suspended from any other ethnic group (Table 2-1). What Table 2-1 shows is that 3.1% of White students were suspended and 6.0% of Black students were suspended. This translates to the fact that two Black students were suspended to every one White student suspended.

PAGE 67

48 Table 2-1 Totals from the Office of Civil Rights Survey of Students Suspended During the 1972-1973 School Year Ethnicity October enrollment Number Average length of sus p ension in da y s Percentage White 15,163,546 471,948 3.55 3.1 Black 6,553,104 392,437 4.46 6.0 Spanish 2,153,923 57,402 3.53 2.7 Indian 141,720 3,955 3.60 2.8 Asian 176,388 1,987 3.13 1.1 Total 24,188,681 1,012,347 4.01 4.2 The Childrens Defense Fund. (1975). School suspensions: Are they helping children? Cambridge, MA. There were two research studies conducted in 1979 that had similar findings concerning the disproportionate suspension rate for African American students. Jencks (1979) conducted a study in an Ohio school district to determine the occurrence of suspensions and expulsions of White and minority students. The data indicated that although the frequency of suspensions varied between schools and districts, there were a disproportionately high number of minorities suspended. Larkin (1979) studied the Milwaukee Public School System for a two-year period following a desegregation order to determine the impact of suspensions on White and non-White students. During the 1976-1977 and the 1977-1978 school years, the suspension rates were 22% and 29% respectively, and the total enrollment was approximately 101,000 students. In order to compare the differential impact of these suspensions on White and non-White students, two different measures of inequality were used. It should be noted that duplicated data was used for this study due to the limitations of the data available; this makes it impossible to know how many students were suspended, only how many suspensions were given. First, a suspension disproportion was determined by calculating the difference between a given race groups proportion of the total suspensions issued and their proportion of the total student enrollment. The

PAGE 68

49 results indicated that White students, comprising 67.7% of the population, received 37.4% of the total suspensions issued. The suspension disproportion was calculated to be .3. Conversely, Black students who compromised only 32.5% of the population received 57% of the suspensions. The suspension disproportion for Black students was +24.5. Other minority groups who were also included in the study had only a very slight disproportion between their suspension rate and their enrollment. The suspension disproportion for individual schools was also calculated and for a number of schools the Black suspension proportion was greater than +40.0, while two integrated schools had Black suspension proportions as low as .8 and .8. In one comparison of two high schools with similar Black enrollments (18%), one school had a Black suspension proportion of +39.8, while the others were only +8.2. The second measure of inequality was a comparison of the rates of suspension for each of the groups, Black and White. Results indicated that for the 1976-1977 school year, White students received 22.4 suspensions per 100 White students, while Black students received 76.6 suspensions per 100 Black students. Hence, Black students were suspended at a rate of about three times the rate of White students. Additionally, at 32 of the 34 secondary schools, Black students received a greater proportion of suspensions then their proportion of the student population. During the second year of integration, 1977-1978, Black students were suspended at a rate of 2.5 that of the rate for White students. Using either of the two methods described above, the researcher came to the same conclusion; Black students were suspended at a greater proportion then their population. A limitation of this study was that no discipline data was collected prior to the desegregation order, so the results could not be related to the desegregation process itself, rather it had to stand on its own.

PAGE 69

50 In this same study, Larkin (1979) also calculated a correlation coefficient to answer several questions related to the findings of the study. First, whether the actual number or percent of Black students enrolled in a school correlated to the schools overall suspension rate, however, the results indicated that it did not. A second correlation was calculated to determine if the actual number or percent of Black students enrolled in a school correlate to the suspension rate for Black students. There was a slightly higher correlation for this relationship. A third correlation was calculated to determine if there was a relationship between the changes from one year to the next in the percentage of Black enrollment, and both the overall suspension rate and the Black suspension rate. These correlations were weak and inconsistent, denoting that schools, which experience larger increases in Black enrollment, were not necessarily the schools, which also had the highest Black suspension rates. The researcher did find a positive moderate correlation between the changes in Black enrollment and the Black suspension rate, that is, schools, which experience a larger increase in Black student enrollment, tend to be the same schools which suspend Black students at a greater proportion (Larkin, 1979). The Florida Department of Education (1983) found that for the 1981-1982 school year, 86,875 students were suspended throughout the state. African American students, who comprised 23% of the school population, received 32,946 or 38% of the suspension, while White students, who comprised 68% of the population, received 49,248 or 57% of the suspensions. The rate of expulsions indicated a disparity as well. Streitmatter (1986) conducted a study of three high schools in a large, urban Southwestern community. In one of the high schools, School A, the population was 93% White, 6% Black, and 4.9% Hispanic, and the suspensions rates reflected the racial/ethnic

PAGE 70

51 percentages of the school. In School B, with a student population of 76% White, 5.7% Black, and 12.9% Hispanic, the suspension rates revealed that White students were slightly underrepresented, Black students were slightly over represented, and Hispanic students were over represented. In school C, with a population of 32.6% White, 7.8% Black, and 53.4% Hispanic, White student suspensions were underrepresented, Black students were suspended at almost double their percentage, and Hispanic student suspensions were slightly over represented. Compiling the data for all three schools, the researcher reported that White students were underrepresented, and Black and Hispanic students were over represented when it came to suspensions. In 1988, the National Coalition of Advocates for Students (NCAS) released an analysis of the data from the 1986 Survey of Elementary and Secondary Schools conducted by the U.S. Department of Educations Office of Civil Rights. The NCAS report denoted an overall suspension rate in the United States of 9.07% for Black students, 4.45% for Hispanic students, and 4.10% for Native American students, all exceeding the rate of 4.05% for White students. The lowest rate of suspensions, 2.29%, was among Asian students. The suspension rate for African American students ranged from a high of 21% in Wisconsin to a low of 1% in North Dakota. Additionally, African American students were suspended at rates well in excess of White students in all but two (North Dakota and Massachusetts) of the fifty states. In the 1990-1991 school year, Oakland, California Public Schools were comprised of 56% African Americans, yet they accounted for 80% of all suspensions (Commission for Positive Change in Oakland Public Schools, 1992). Garibaldi (1992) reported similar findings in a study of a New Orleans school district, where the districts African American

PAGE 71

52 male population of 43% received 65% of the districts suspensions and 80% of the expulsions. A national survey conducted by the Office for Civil Rights (1993) found that while African American males comprised only 8.23% of the total student population, they were suspended at a rate over three times their percentage of the population. Costenbader and Markson (1994) reported African American students to be suspended in numbers significantly disproportionate to their total enrollment. Researcher James F. Gregory conducted a study in 1995, using the data from the summary report of The Office for Civil Rights 1992 Biennial Census Survey on the use of corporal punishment as a disciplinary action for student (Gregory, 1995). The survey was given to 4,692 of the nations public school districts and 43,034 public schools across the country in the 30 states (and the District of Columbia) in which corporal punishment was still legal. Gregory (1995) found that African American students were more likely to receive corporal punishment when compared to White students. In fact, African American males were almost three times more likely to be hit in school by an adult than a White male and sixteen times more likely to be hit than a White female. The researcher also revealed that African American boys were 2.00 times more likely to be suspended then African American females, 2.14 times more likely to be suspended then White males, and 6.29 times more likely to be suspended then White females (Gregory, 1995) (see table 2-2). Costenbader and Markson (1998) reported that 45% of the Black students, 12% of the White students and 18% of the Hispanic students surveyed had been suspended out-of-school. They also reported that this finding was consistent with previous studies (Bickel and Qualls, 1980; Bullara, 1993; Costenbader and Markson, 1994; Edelman et

PAGE 72

53 al., 1975; Kaeser, 1979; McFadden et al., 1992; Moody et al., 1978; Moore, 1987; Ordovensky, 1998; Reed, 1988; Streitmatter, 1986; Wu et al., 1982). The Condition of Education Report (1997) published by the U.S. Department of Education, found that almost 25% of all African American male students were suspended at least once over a four-year period. Table 2-2 Corporal Punishment and Suspension Likelihood Ratios of African American Students Versus Other Comparison Groups (1995) Comparison group Likelihood ratios Corporal punishment African American students to White students 3.26 to 1 African American males to White males 2.81 to 1 African American males to White females 16.00 to 1 Suspension African American males to White males 2.14 to 1 African American males to White females 6.29 to 1 Gregory, J.F. (1995). The crime of punishment: Racial and gender disparities in the use of corporal punishment in U.S. public schools. Journal of Negro Education, 64 (4), 454-462. The 1998 Elementary and Secondary School Civil Rights Compliance Report from the Office of Civil Rights provided data on the disciplinary actions received by students in public schools in the United States. The data from the report revealed that African American students received a disproportionate number of the disciplinary actions in public schools. While African American students comprised 17% of the student population in the United States, they received 37% of the corporal punishment, 33% of the suspensions, and 31% of the expulsions given to students as disciplinary actions in public schools during the 1997-1998 school year (United States Department of Education, 1999). Of the 21 states reporting data on the use of corporal punishment, African American students received a disproportionate amount of corporal punishment in 15 (68%) of the 21 states. The greatest disproportion between the percentages of African

PAGE 73

54 American students enrolled in public schools and in the percentage of African American students receiving corporal punishment occurred in the states of Wyoming and Arizona. In Arizona, African American students comprised 4% of the student population, yet received 19% of the corporal punishments given as a disciplinary action to students. In Wyoming, African American students comprised 1% of the student population, yet received 5% of the corporal punishments (United States Department of Education, 1999). Additionally, data from the 1998 Elementary and Secondary School Civil Rights Compliance Report revealed that African American students were the most frequent recipients of suspensions in public schools. Of the 48 states reporting data on the use of suspensions, African American students received a disproportionate amount of suspensions in public schools. The greatest disproportion between the percentages of African American students enrolled in public schools and in the percentage of African American students suspended occurred in the states of Minnesota and Iowa. In Minnesota, African American students comprised 6% of the student population, yet received 26% of the suspensions given as a disciplinary action to students. In Iowa, African American students comprised 4% of the student population, yet received 15% of the suspensions (United States Department of Education, 1999). Finally, data from the same report revealed that African American students were the most frequent recipients of expulsions in public schools. Of the 40 states reporting data on the use of expulsions, African American students received a disproportionate amount of expulsions in public schools. The greatest disproportion between the percentages of African American students enrolled in public schools and in the percentage of African American students expelled occurred in the states of Rhode Island

PAGE 74

55 and Missouri. In Rhode Island, African American students comprised 7% of the student population, yet received 35% of the expulsions. In Missouri, African American students comprised 17% of the student population, yet received 59% of the expulsions (United States Department of Education, 1999). In 1999, Linda M. Raffaele conducted a study titled An Analysis of Out-of-school Suspensions in Hillsborough County The data used for the study was from the 1996-97 school year. During the 1996-1997 school year, there were a total of 33,620 out-of-school suspensions in the Hillsborough County Public Schools. Table 2-3 shows a breakdown of the duplicated count of out-of-school suspensions for Black and White student, other racial groups are not in the totals. Table 2-3 1996-97 Suspension rate by Race (duplicated) Pop White Percent White Percent White Susp. Pop Black Percent Black Percent Black Susp. Ratio Black/White Susp. Total 80,329 55% 37% 35% 24% 55% 1.2 to 1 Raffaele, L. M. (1999). An analysis of out-of-school suspensions in Hillsborough County. As the numbers in Table 2-3 indicate, Black students were suspended at a rate of 1.2 to every 1 White student suspended out-of-school (duplicated count). Table 2-4 reports a breakdown of the unduplicated count of out-of-school suspensions for Black and White students; other racial groups are not in the totals. As the numbers in Table 2-4 indicate, Black students were suspended at a rate of 2.3 to every 1 White student suspended out-of-school (unduplicated count). In order to determine if the overrepresentation of Black students was found exclusively in out-of-school suspensions or in other types of discipline actions, Black and White students were compared on a number of types of disciplinary-related interventions (see Table 2-5).

PAGE 75

56 Table 2-4 1996-97 Suspension rate by Race (unduplicated) Pop White % White % White Susp. Pop Black % Black % Black Susp. Ratio Black/White Susp. Total 80,329 55% 8.2% 35% 24% 18.7% 2.3 to 1 Raffaele, L. M. (1999). An analysis of out-of-school suspensions in Hillsborough County. Table 2-5 1996-97 Disciplinary Actions for Black and White Students Percentage of White Students Receiving this Type of Disciplinary Action Percentage Difference of White Students Receiving this Type of Disciplinary Action Percentage of White Students Receiving this Type of Disciplinary Action Percentage Difference of White Students Receiving this Type of Disciplinary Action OSS 38.59 -16.71 44.10 +20.1 ISS 43.61 -11.39 40.80 +16.8 Change of Placement 36.86 -18.14 44.60 +20.60 Expulsion 31.34 -23.66 49.25 +25.25 Parent Involvement 38.98 -16.02 44.89 +20.89 In-School Problem-Solving 40.77 -14.23 46.01 +22.01 In-School Punishment 45.88 -9.12 35.01 +11.01 Bus Privileges Suspended 42.54 -12.46 42.3 +18.23 Mediation 40.59 -14.41 43.39 +19.93 Other 44.02 -10.98 43.41 +19.41 Raffaele, L. M. (1999). An analysis of out-of-school suspensions in Hillsborough County. What Table 2-5 reveals is that Black students were not only over-represented in out-of-school suspensions, there were over-represented in all disciplinary actions noted above. At the same time, White students were under-represented in all categories. The key point was that the over-representation of Black students in out-of-school suspensions was not an isolated finding; rather, it paralleled findings of over-representation across disciplinary actions.

PAGE 76

57 The Applied Research Center at Indiana University conducted a study of ten large school districts throughout the United States. Table 2-6 below is a summary of the studys findings (Gordon, Della Piana and Keleher, T., 2000). Table 2-6 Suspension & Expulsion Data by Race City Population Whites Percent Whites suspended/expelled Population Blacks Percent Blacks suspended/expelled Phoenix 74% 18% 4% 21% San Francisco 12% 10% 16% 52% Austin 37% 18% 18% 36% Boston 13% 9% 55% 70% Chicago 10% 8% 53% 63% Denver 24% 15% 21% 42% Durham, N.C. 36% 15% 58% 68% Los Angelos 11% 8% 14% 30% Providence R.I. 21% 13% 23% 39% Columbia S.C. 20% 9% 78% 90% Gordon, R., Della Piana, L., & Keleher, T. (2000). Facing the consequences: An examination of racial discrimination in U.S. public schools. Oakland, CA: Applied Research Center. ERASE. ARC The results were analyzed further to determine the actual suspension rate for each of the school districts. The suspension rate was calculated by dividing the percent Black students suspended by the percent White students suspended. Table 2-7 below reveals the results of that calculation. As the data indicates, the rates of suspension ranged from 10:1 for Columbia, South Carolina which had the highest Black population (78%), to 1.2:1 for Phoenix Arizona which had the lowest Black population (4%). The Department of Education (2000) conducted a compilation of nationwide expulsion rates. The data revealed that the annual suspension rate for all students increased from 3.7% in 1974 to 6.9% in 1998, however, of the approximately 87,000 students expelled in 1997-1998, about 31% were Black and 50% were White. These findings by the Department of Educations Office for Civil Rights were just one of many

PAGE 77

58 similar findings in research studies over the past 20 or more years concerning the disparity in the rates of suspensions and expulsions between White and minority students. Table 2-7 Suspension & Expulsion Data by Race City Ratio of Black students suspended to White students suspended Phoenix 1.2 to 1 San Francisco 5.2 to 1 Austin 2.0 to 1 Boston 7.8 to 1 Chicago 7.9 to 1 Denver 2.8 to 1 Durham, N.C. 4.5 to 1 Los Angelos 3.8 to 1 Providence R.I. 3.0 to 1 Columbia S.C. 10.0 to 1 Gordon, R., Della Piana, L., & Keleher, T. (2000). Facing the consequences: An examination of racial discrimination in U.S. public schools. Oakland, CA: Applied Research Center. ERASE. ARC Studies Controlled for Other Factors There is growing body of research that begins to shed light on some of the factors that may contribute to the increasing number of Black students being suspended. Studies of school discipline have revealed bias due to race, gender and low socioeconomic students (Panko-Stilmock, 1996) and overrepresentation of students possessing one or more of these factors have been among the most consistent finding in studies of school discipline (Brantlinger, 1991; Costenbader and Markson, 1994; Edelman et al., 1975; NCAS, 1986; Panko-Stilmock, 1996; Rose, 1988; Wu et al., 1982, Skiba, Peterson and Williams, 1997). The majority of research studies yielded specific discipline rates, disaggregated by such factors as setting, school population, SES, and other such factors that can be expected to effect rates of suspensions and expulsion. Low socioeconomic status, minority and special education students appear to be at the greatest risk for

PAGE 78

59 receiving harsh disciplinary practices, including suspension, expulsion, and corporal punishment (Skiba, Peterson and Williams, 1997). In a landmark study by Wu et al. (1982), the researchers used national level data gathered for the Congressionally mandated Safe School Study to directly address the question, why are students suspended from school? This study addressed student suspensions from five perspectives: (1) the extent of suspensions, (2) the relationship between student misbehavior at school and suspension from school, (3) the possibility of teachers judgments and attitudes as potential factors in suspensions, (4) whether student suspension is related to the administrative structure of school in handling disciplinary matters, (5) the possibility of academic ability and potential factor in suspensions, and (6) a discussion of the possibility of the interference of racial bias (Wu et al., 1982). The results of this study and others are discussed throughout the remainder of this section. Race The Coalition of Advocates for Students (1988) and Wu et al. (1982) concluded that African American students were disproportionately disciplined due to blatant racism. Larkin (1982) emphasized that given the reality of pervasive discrimination in society, the mere fact that there is a statistical racial disparity in discipline in many public schools was sufficient evidence to conclude that blatant racism is occurring. Larkin also asserted that disproportionate discipline and discriminatory discipline were synonymous concepts. Gender The fact that males were disproportionately suspended and expelled from school has been well established (Bennett and Harris 1982; Bickel, et al. 1980; Harry and Anderson, 1995; Moody, 1978) with males receiving more frequent and harsher

PAGE 79

60 discipline (Panko-Stilmock, 1996). Although the majority of studies regarding disparity in school discipline have been focused on African American students and their non-Black counterparts, most also revealed a disparity in the discipline rate of males versus females. Streitmeyer (1986) determined that the offenses which most often resulted in suspensions (14 out of 15) were considered typically male behaviors, such as, defiance of authority, physical abuse, assault or threat, illegal use or possession of drugs, and repeated interference with the learning process. Streitmeyer further defined typical male behaviors as those involving aggression or drugs; and noted that the only non-male behavior that frequently led to suspensions were what Streitmeyer described as passive-aggressive (Streitmeyer, 1986). The results of a 1982 study by Schmidt on junior high suspension rates revealed that males were suspended at over twice the rate of females. Additionally, in a 1982 study, Wu et al. found that male students, in every school location at every level studied, were more likely to be suspended than females. A later study found that boys (75.4%) were more likely to receive a disciplinary referral then girls (Skiba, Peterson and Williams, 1997). McFadden et al. (1992) examined 4,391 discipline files from nine K-12 schools in Florida. The analysis indicated that males were more frequently disciplined then females in each of the different categories of misbehavior. Additionally, males received 75% of the in-school suspensions and 81% of the corporal punishments. Grant (as cited in Panko-Stilmock, 1996) found that White females received the least number of reprimands in school, while African American males received the most. In a study by Costenbader and Markson (1998) the researchers reported that although the

PAGE 80

61 total population in their study was 48% male and 52% female, 56% of the student receiving in-school suspension and 64% receiving out-of-school suspension, were male, while the never suspended group was 60% female. A study by the New Orleans School Board (as cited in Thrasher, 1997) revealed that African American males made up 43% of the school population yet accounted for 65% of the suspensions and 80% of the expulsions during the 1986-1987 school year. The 1998 Elementary and Secondary Civil Rights Compliance Report showed that African Americans received a disproportionate number of disciplinary actions in public schools and within the African American population of students, males received 73% of the corporal punishments, 64% of the suspensions, and 74% of the expulsions. Raffaele (1999) found that while boys made up about 51% of the total school population, they made up 73% of suspensions, girls, on the other hand, who comprised about 49% of the school population only 27% of suspensions. Socioeconomic Status Green and Brydon (1975) reported that in urban schools, students from low socioeconomic backgrounds were often perceived as intellectually deprived and unlikely to achieve. This stereotypic outlook often influenced the classroom atmosphere and the student-teacher relationship. Green and Brydon (1975) concluded that the racial views and middle class orientation of many teachers had obstructed communication between teachers and low socioeconomic students; consequently students of low socioeconomic status were discipline more frequently. Neill (1976) attributed the higher rate of suspensions of minorities to their low socioeconomic status, not racial bias. When compared to White children, African American children were twice as likely to be poor, lived with a parent who had been

PAGE 81

62 separated, and lived in a female-headed household. Females headed 71% of all Black families living below the poverty line, and 44% of all Black children lived in households where the father was absent. The lack of a middle class orientation for the low socioeconomic minority student increased their chances of encountering problems in school. Ratcliff (1980) conducted a survey of 116 schools in the states of Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia and found that Blacks received a significantly higher proportion of punishment than their White classmates. The data also indicated that if a student were poor, his chance of receiving corporal punishment was about four or five times greater than those of a student who was not poor. Wu et al. (1982), using data from the Safe School Study found that students with fathers who had no full-time job and those who were on free and reduced lunch were the most likely to be suspended. According to Irvine (1990), many educators speculated that low-income Black children bring to school a set of anti-social behaviors and traits that emanated from a culture of poverty. Educators often justified their harsh treatment of these students by claiming students came from an undisciplined and unstructured home life, lacked a positive role model, and disrespected adult authority figures. Irvine further stated that such a view distorted a teachers perception and could realistically lead to subjectivity in dispensing punishment unequally. Skiba, Peterson & Williams (1997) examined issues related to discipline in 19 middle schools and concluded that the number of disciplinary actions received by students were based on race, socioeconomic status, and gender.

PAGE 82

63 Behavior and Attitudes Another cause of the disparity in discipline for Black students was a students resistance. Several research studies reported that the vase majority of student discipline referrals and suspensions were for defiance (Kohl, 1994). Common actions defined as defiant student behavior were talking back, not following directions, and insubordination. Wu et al. (1982), using data from the Safe School Study, performed 21 subsets of analysis and discovered that suspension of students did have a behavioral basis. The data revealed that even when controlled for behavior and attitude differences, the suspension rate was still higher among non-Whites than Whites. A study by McCarthy and Hoge (1987) had similar findings which indicated that minority overrepresentation in school discipline appears to be independent of student behavior. To the extent that this was true, suspension as a disciplinary measure was not considered arbitrary and suspension was therefore considered a function of students antisocial attitudes. Social and Cultural Differences Cultural and social factors have also been studied in regards to their impact on the disproportionality of Black students being disciplined in public schools. African American students often had cultural and social patterns that were different from those found and expected in the middle class educational environment (National Coalition of Advocated for Student, 1988). Larken (1982) asserted that African American students who were unable to adapt to cultural differences while in a school setting were more susceptible to disciplinary actions. Researchers such as Ladson-Billings (1995) suggested that the contrasting teacher and student demographics often lead to a cultural mismatch in which teachers lacked familiaritiy with the cultural values, norms, and belief systems of their students. Most

PAGE 83

64 teachers who worked with African American students did not live in the same community as their students which translated to limited teacher knowledge about their students neighborhood and lifestyle (Hill, 1989). Often, teachers and administrators did not understand that students may dress, walk, and communicate in a different manner when at home or in their communitity then they were expected to do in the school setting. Franklin (1992) suggested that these cultural conflicts often posed a threat to African American students participation and engagement in schools. Gilbert and Gay (1985) offered specific examples of how these cultural differences may have been exibited in the school setting, i.e., African American students may have had a propensity toward stage-setting behaviors, such as pencil sharpening and socializing, before actually beginning tasks. Often the language and behaviors of Black students were misinterpreted and misunderstood by educators. This began the process of African American students being stereotyped as discipline problems in school. Because schools were rooted in what were considered middle class norms and values, the cultural expression of Black students is seen as unacceptable. Consequently, African American students were removed from class and school when that type of behavior was exhibited. These and other such behaviors at school often translated into a higher likelihood for African American students to be disciplined in the classroom setting and students, parents, and educators reported similar incedents of cultural misreads with African American dress, hand-shakes, and dance styles at a Civil Rights hearing (Cantu, 2000, Harvard Civil Rights Project, 2000b). Parental Support Perhaps the greatest single influence on any child is the quality of family life (Campbell, 1991; Edelman, 1997; Holt, 1990; Larkin, 1982). Parental involvement, in

PAGE 84

65 almost any form, produced measurable gains in student achievement (Dixon, 1992) and students with discipline problems often lacked family support. Another factor that was considered was that parent involvement actually declined as students grew older, so that it was less in secondary schools than in elementary, however, schools must understand that lack of participation by parents does not necessarily mean they were neglecting their responsibilities, they simply may not have the time, resources, or know-how to help out (Wanat, 1992). In many cases, parents felt alienated from the school and took no part in the school life of their child because school officials made no effort to reach out to them (Charles, 1981). The problem lied in the fact that children who did not receive adequate social and emotional support toward being successful at school often sought attention in inappropriate ways (Ciminillo, 1980). Teacher Expectation Harvard Universitys Civil Rights Project concluded that as inequity increased, there was also an increase in low teacher expectations for poor students and students of color despite rhetoric about, all children can learn (Orfield and Yun, 1999). A number of researchers attributed the disproportionate number of disciplinary actions received by African American students in public schools to low teacher expectations (Garibaldi, 1991; Hopkins, 1997; Morgan, 1991). In a report to the Committee to Study the Status of Black males in New Orleans public schools, Garibaldi (1992) reported that 40% of Black males believed their teachers had lower expectations for them and 60% of Black males believed that their teachers did not push them enough. Likewise, 60% of the teachers indicated that they did not believe the Black males would go to college, and both Black and non-Black teachers had lower expectations for Black males then for any other subgroup of the population. The results of the study validated the idea that many teachers

PAGE 85

66 had low expectations for African American males (Hopkins, 1997). If African American students perceived that they were not wanted or not valued, they tended to react accordingly. Opotow (1990) found that teachers who held low expectations for African American students pushed them toward misbehavior; in other words, disproportionate disciplining of African American students was due to a self-fulfilling prophecy (Morgan, 1991). Similarly, McCadden (1998) indicated that teachers tried to control Black males with greater eagerness then Whites, perhaps believing that they were not sufficiently disciplined at home. Bias and Stereotyping The stereotyping of African Americans was a problem in America and these negative stereotypes had become prevalent in public schools (Foster, 1995; Goldsmith, 1979; Gottlieb, 1964; Steele, 1997; Woodridge and Richman, 1985). Media portrayals of African Americans have frequently depicted them as over-aggressive, violent, lazy, and dishonest and these persistent negative and fear-inducing media images of African Americans have pervaded U.S. society for a long-time (Schwartz, 2001). In a research study, Bennett and Harris (1982) sought to identify the causes of disproportionality in suspension and expulsion rates for Black and male students. The goals of the study were to identify both explanations for the disproportionality and promising school practices and conditions to help alleviate the problem. The study was conducted in two large urban school districts in the Midwest, both which had been identified by the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1976, as one of the top 100 most problematic school districts concerning minorities and discipline. The study was conducted using interviews, student records, discipline records, questionnaires, and State Department and school statistics on enrollments, withdrawals, suspensions, and

PAGE 86

67 expulsions, all disaggregated by school, sex, and race. The results of the study indicated that there were contrasting feelings between personal and school efficacy among disruptive students. The researchers suggested that conflicting levels of efficacy resulted in continued disturbance or acting out on the part of these students. Further, although admitting that the exact causes of disproportionality were not identified, broad findings indicated that the causes were related to an overall orientation of White predominance, which included institutional and individual racism. Several researchers have documented that institutional racism has continued to impact teaching and learning despite years of integration policies in large urban and rural school districts (Sleeter, 1996, Spring, 1997, Tatum, 1994). Wu et al. (1982) had similar findings and concluded that racial bias did play a role in school suspension. Effectiveness of Suspension and Expulsion Each year millions of our nations public school students miss a day or more of school because they have been suspended or expelled. The facts were also clear that suspensions were generally used for minor infractions of school rules rather than for violent acts or serious misconduct and minority students were disproportionately suspended or expelled. Keeping these facts in mind, the question must be asked whether suspensions were effective in changing behaviors of students who violate school rules. There were three rationales for using suspension and expulsion as disciplinary measures. First is the protection of those who work in and attend schools, by the removal of the student, who misbehaved, from the classroom or school environment. Second, to reinforce the authority of those who were responsible for order and control of schools and classrooms; and third, adherence to federal and state laws and local school board policies.

PAGE 87

68 When addressing the issue of the effectiveness of suspensions in changing behavior, in-school and out-of school suspensions were treated differently. The rationale is that in-school suspension does not disrupt the learning process and out-of-school suspensions were typically unsupervised and out of the hands of school officials. Proponents of school suspension argue that the majority of students who were interested in learning should not have to suffer from the constant disruption of the very few (Wu et al., 1982). In-school suspension was an alternative method of discipline that avoided some of the disadvantages of external suspension by allowing greater continuity of educational experience. Although students who received in-school suspension were excluded from the classroom, they spent a prescribed period of time in alternative in-school suspension classroom (Costenbader and Markson, 1994). Costenbader and Markson (1994) suggested that continuity of the educational experience is often cited as an advantage of in-school suspension. The research regarding out-of school suspension and expulsion were not as favorable as that for in-school suspensions. In fact, a thorough review of research literature produced no studies demonstrating the positive impact of expulsion or out-of-school suspension in reducing school violence (Bumbarger, 1999). There was also little evidence that suspension and expulsion were effective in changing student behavior (Children's Defense Fund, 1985; Comerford and Jacobson, 1987; Diem, 1988; and Johnson, 1989). In 1975, the Childrens Defense Fund published a study investigating the merit of out-of-school suspension. The results of that study indicated that out-of-school suspensions was not beneficial to students and had an adverse impact on the educational

PAGE 88

69 process. Some problems noted with out-of-school suspension were missed instruction, unsupervised minors, failure to provide assistance to deal with problems underlying students misbehavior, and over-representation of minority students among those suspended. The Civil Rights Project of Harvard University revealed that suspending and expelling students had devastating consequences. Students suspended or expelled from schools were: 1) most often, sitting at home, or on the streets, with no educational alternatives; 2) likely to be labeled a trouble-maker; 3) likely to fail academically; 4) likely to dropout; and 5) likely to be sent to the juvenile justice system. Suspensions and expulsions, regardless of length of time, remain on a students academic record and may also negatively affect a students chances of admission to college. (The Civil Rights Project, January 2002a). Other researchers have reported that 31% of students who dropout of schools were previously suspended (Ekstrom, Goertz, Pollack and Rock, 1986). One of the many consequences of being suspended or expelled is the fact that students have a greater likelihood for run-ins with the law (Chobot and Garibaldi, 1982). In 1998-1999, in the State of Florida, 3,831 students were referred to the Juvenile Justice system for misconduct in school (Florida Department of Education, 1999). Costenbader and Markson (1994) reported that schools with fewer than 500 students had a dropout rate that ranged between 16% to 20% for students who had been suspended at least one time, while schools with over 2,000 students reported that from 46% to 50% of students who had been suspended at least once failed to receive a high school diploma. Many educators recognize that external suspension was ineffective and may even have been

PAGE 89

70 counterproductive (Edelman, Beck and Smith, 1975; Mizell, 1978; Radin, 1988; Williams, 1979) and suspensions were effective only if the environment to which the student was removed was more interesting and reinforcing than the environment from which the student was removed (Rutherford, 1978). District Below is a synopsis of pursuit of the unitary status of the selected Florida School District and the policy and laws related to said pursuit. On July 10, 1970, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a suit against the selected Florida public school district for the purpose of ending their dual system of education. According to the court document, the action was brought by the Attorney General, John N. Mitchell, for violation of Section 407 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The United States alleged that the district had traditionally operated and continued to operate a segregated school system a dual system based on race. Prior to 1965, the district assigned students and faculty in accordance with Floridas de jure laws of segregation. From 1965 to 1970, the district continued to assign students to schools based on race, which resulted in the continuance of a dual system for Black and White students. In the 1970 document, the United States proposed that the district use educationally sound alternatives for student assignment and offered the district technical assistance through the Department of Health, Education and Welfare for the preparation, adoption, and implementation of a desegregation plan that would meet with the requirements of Federal Law. The district was ordered to develop and implement a plan for the 1970 1971 school year that would eliminate the dual system of education and help correct the effects of past discrimination based on race. This order initiated the first consent decree

PAGE 90

71 between the Department of Justice and the selected Florida public school district. From August 5, 1996 to July 10, 2000 the selected Florida public school district entered into five Consent Decrees with the Justice Department. In a December 2, 1996 letter to Attorney Michael OConnor of the Civil Rights Division, the Superintendent of the selected school district stated that the mission of the selected Florida Public School system was to ensure that all students received a quality education. On December 13, 1999, the Justice Department sent a letter to the districts school board that outlined areas of concerned. These areas included the following: (a) student assignment, (b) faculty recruitment and hiring, (c) discipline, (d) facilities and equipment at a specific school of choice, and (e) extracurricular activities, specifically, cheerleading. The Supreme Court identified specific standards that a school district must meet to obtain a decree of unitary status as the following: (a) compliance with the courts decrees to the extent practicable for a reasonable period of time; (b) elimination of past vestiges of segregation to the extent practicable; and (c) demonstration of a good faith commitment to all of the courts decrees The selected Florida public school district continued to reach for its goal of unitary status and on July 10, 2000 they entered into a fifth agreement with the Department of Justice. This Consent Decree considered the following: (a) procedural history, (b) profile of the selected Florida public school district, (c) current status of unitary status goals, (d) legal standards, (e) injunctive relief, (f) additional remedial measures (facilities at two specified high schools), (g) good faith commitment (faculty recruiting and hiring, gifted programs, higher level courses at secondary level, special education and discipline), and monitoring and reporting.

PAGE 91

72 In the 2000 Consent Decree, the Department of Justice referenced cases such as Dowell v. Okalahoma (1991), Freeman v. Pitts (1992), and Missouri v. Jenkins (1995) and stated that the selected Florida public school district must not only show past good faith compliance, but must also demonstrate a commitment to the future operation of a unitary school system. Based on the legal standards outlined by the Supreme Court, the district was declared unitary in two areas: (a) faculty assignment and (b) transportation, however, the district was not granted unitary status in the following areas: (a) student assignment, (b) facilities, and (c) extracurricular activities, specifically, cheerleading. Additionally, the Justice Department indicated that the district had met its obligations regarding facilities with the exception of the two specified high schools. The District engaged in remedial measures to address the concerns of the Justice Department and was committed in good faith to implement actions and strategies to remove any remaining vestiges of past de jure segregation. One of the areas of concern for the Justice Department was disparity in discipline. In the July 10, 2000 Consent Decree the District reported that it is committed to ensuring that its discipline policies and practices are implemented fairly and consistently so that: All students are disciplined equitably, disciplinary sanctions are imposed on students fairly and consistently; and a students race is not a factor in any disciplinary action. Therefore, the District will undertake the actions listed below to decrease the current disparity in discipline rates between black and non-black students. 1. Ensure that the Districts discipline policies and practices are implemented fairly and consistently so that all students are treated equitably and that a students race is not a factor in any disciplinary action by undertaking the following actions

PAGE 92

73 (a) Reviewing and recommending for revision, as appropriate, the School Boards Discipline Policy and Student Code of Conduct; (b) Preparing an annual Student Discipline Report that analyzes and provides data for the District and by school, disaggregated by race and ethnicity, the following: the number of students receiving disciplinary sanctions (duplicated and unduplicated); the number of students receiving in-school and out-of-school suspensions (duplicated and unduplicated); the infractions for which the disciplinary sanctions were imposed; the sanctions imposed by infraction; trend lines from year-to-year; the reason or reasons for black students being disproportionately disciplined and recommendations for addressing any disparities in disciplining black students; (c) Submitting the annual Student Discipline Report to the Board by July 23 rd of each school year. (d) Monitoring implementation of the recommendations in the annual Student Discipline Report; (e) Reviewing current student discipline school-based procedures and practices by analyzing the data in the Student Discipline Report; (f) Establishing school-based, racially and ethnically diverse Discipline Teams as part of the School Advisory Council, which will analyze the schools data in the Discipline Report to determine whether any racial or ethnic group is disproportionately disciplined and the reasons for any racial or ethnic group being disproportionately disciplined; (g) Developing discipline objective or objectives in each schools action plan to address any trends or issues raised by the discipline data; (h) Monitoring implementation of each schools action plan discipline objective or objectives for the purpose of ensuring progress toward achieving the objective or objectives; and (i) Basing each principals annual evaluation in part on his or her schools progress toward achieving the discipline objective or objectives in their respective action plan and basing each executive directors annual evaluation on each of their schools progress in achieving the discipline objectives in the action plan. 2. Develop a process for including parent and community input in the development of discipline strategies and procedures, including: (a) Forming a racially and ethnically diverse District Discipline Advisory Committee that includes parents, community members, and school and administrative staff;

PAGE 93

74 (b) Reviewing and discussing the Discipline Policy, the Code of Student Conduct, and the annual Student Discipline Report; and (c) Recommending strategies to the Superintendent based on review of the Discipline Policy, the Code of Student Conduct, and the annual Student Discipline Report to ensure that students are disciplined fairly and consistently. 3. Provide annual discipline training to faculty and staff involved in the discipline process, including; (a) Training regarding discipline strategies for faculty and staff at all schools annually. (b) Training to targeted groups of district employees, such as teachers and bus drivers. Target groups may be identified by an executive director and/or the principal and school discipline team based on analysis of the Student Discipline Report; and (c) Training for new teachers and relevant administrators. Model for Change School administrators faced considerable pressure to improve school discipline programs and to provide greater support for students with behavior problems (Bear, 1998; Butera et al., 1998). The first step in addressing discipline issues, especially those concerning disparity in discipline for Black students was data collection and analysis. The analysis of school discipline data began with an examination of the discipline referral pattern (Tobin, et al. 2000). A discipline referral was a form generated whenever a student was accused of violating one or more of a schools pre-determined standards of behavior. The student discipline referral contained all of the pertinent information regarding the violation including the sanction(s) or consequence(s) the student received for the violation. Williams (1989) proposed that data collection and analysis should include: (1) determining the enrollment figured by ethnicity, (2) determining the number of students

PAGE 94

75 from each ethnic group who were suspended at least one time during the school year, and (3) identifying the number of students form each ethnic group suspended for each category or offenses (Williams, 1989). The data collected should also be unduplicated; the actual number of students suspended rather then the total number of students suspended, which is how the Office of Civil Rights collects its data for their surveys. This method of data collection would prevent the same students from being counted multiple times and would result in a clearer account of what was happening in schools. School and district-wide disciplinary policies and data collection could help address minority overrepresentation in the application of school discipline (Williams, 1989). After collecting and analyzing the data, the researcher asked two research questions. First, did any ethnic groups experience disproportionately high levels of suspension? This question should be answered using two measures: (1) compare the groups enrollment to the groups suspension rate in percentages and if the percentage suspended was greater then the percentage enrolled, a disparity existed, (2) compare the percentage of Black students suspended to the percentage of non-Black students suspended and if the percentage of Black students suspended was greater then the percentage of non-Black students suspended, a disparity existed (Williams, 1989). Second, was there substantial variation in the degree of overrepresentation experienced by minority groups attending specific buildings or at different levels? This question could be answered by disaggregating the data by individual schools and grade levels (Williams, 1989). Finally, the researcher would generate three profiles: a district profile, a grade level profile, and a building profile (Williams, 1989).

PAGE 95

76 School administrators could use the data profiles as a tool for identifying and developing a plan for reducing disparities in discipline for Black students if they were present (Tobin, 2000). Williams (1989) suggested that a school or school district could reduce the disparity that existed between minority and White students could be accomplished by either: (1) reducing the rate of suspensions for minority students, (2) increasing the rate of suspensions for White students, or (3) a combination of the two. Williams (1989) also suggested that option two should be rejected and consequently, reducing disparity in discipline should mean reducing the rate of disciplinary actions against minority students (Williams, 1989). Given the complexity of the lives of students exhibiting disruptive behavior, multi-component instructional interventions would be necessary in order to effectively address school conduct problems (Skiba, Peterson and Williams, 1997). Improving practices to reduce the disproportionate number of African American students being disciplined requires helping students, teachers, and schools develop strategies for managing behavior in the classroom. These strategies cannot ignore the institutional and social realities of the achievement gap and inequity in the lives of low-performing African American students. Developing culturally relevant strategies requires teachers to move beyond their comfort zone in dealing with parents and communities of African-American students. Unfortunately, educators often look for a set of generic practices that they can use with African American students. There is no one set of strategies that teachers can use successfully without having some deep understanding of the social-political reality of how African American communities have been impacted by

PAGE 96

77 racism in society and in our educational system. Addressing disparity in discipline practices is an integral part of closing the achievement gap in the nations schools.

PAGE 97

CHAPTER 3 METHODS AND PROCEDURES The purpose of this study was to examine current disciplinary practices of a selected Florida school district to determine if there were racially neutral practices regarding student discipline. This chapter contains a description of the methods used in the study to determine the extent by which the district exhibited racially neutral practices regarding student discipline. The information gathered was then analyzed to determine whether this Florida public school districts disciplinary practices were racially neutral by answering the following research questions Research Questions This study was guided by the following research questions: 1. For all schools in the selected Florida school district, during the five-year period ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004, was there a trend in the disparity in discipline for Black students compared to non-Black students attending elementary (grades K-5), middle (grades 6-8) and high (grades 9-12) schools? 2. For all schools in the selected Florida school district, during the five-year period ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004, was there a trend in the disparity in discipline for Black students compared to non-Black students attending schools with a low (0 to 4.4%), medium (4.5% to 23.7%), and high (23.8% and higher) population of Black students? 3. For all schools in the selected Florida school district, during the five-year period ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004, was there a trend in the disparity in discipline for Black students compared to non-Black students attending schools with a low (1-96), medium (97-511), and high (512 or higher) number of referrals (unduplicated) written? 4. For all schools in the selected Florida school district, during the five-year period ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004, was there a trend in the disparity in discipline for Black students compared to non-Black students attending schools 78

PAGE 98

79 with a low (0 to 9.9%), medium (10.0% to 52.8%), and high (52.9% and higher) number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch? This study analyzed the data collected from the Information Database of the selected Florida public school district during the 5-year period ranging from the 1999-2000 to the 2003-2004 school years. Participants All schools in the selected Florida public school district participated in this longitudinal study. Each school served as a unit of analysis, in other words, the focus of this study was at the school level. The name of the district was not divulged to insure anonymity. The data reported herein were drawn from the disciplinary records of all students in the selected Florida school district during the 1999-2000 through the 2003-2004 school years. The selected Florida school district is one of 67 school districts in the state of Florida, all of which are organized by county. For the purposes of this study, only the regular education schools (most of which had some self-contained exceptional student education classrooms) were included. Students in special centers and those from schools with incomplete or no reported data were excluded. The district was described by characteristics that were recorded in the data information system from the 1999-2000 through the 2003-2004 school years. The characteristics reported included: total student population, Black student population, non-Black student population, and the number of referrals, in-school suspensions (ISS), and out-of-school suspensions (OSS).

PAGE 99

80 Sample Characteristics Tables 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 3-4, and 3-5 summarize the characteristics of the selected Florida school district for each respective school year. Included in each table are the number of schools at each level (elementary, middle, and high) and the total number of schools in the district, and the number and percent of Black and Non-Black students at each school level and the total population in the district. Table 3-1 provides a summary the characteristics of the selected Florida school district for the 1999-2000 school year. As Table 3-1 indicates, during the 1999-2000 school year, discipline data was reported for a total of 56,582 students in 32 elementary schools, 10 middle schools and 7 high schools. During this school year, 13.3% of students identified themselves as Black, while 86.7% of students identified themselves as non-Black. Table 3-1 Characteristics of the Florida Public School District for the 1999-2000 School Year School Information and Student Demographics School level Number of Schools Student Population Total Non-Black Students Total Black Students Percent Non-Black Percent Black Elem. 32 26875 23015 3860 85.6 14.4 Middle 10 13477 11768 1709 87.7 12.7 High 7 16230 14282 1948 88.0 12.0 Total 49 56582 49065 7517 86.7 13.3 Table 3-2 provides a summary the characteristics of the selected Florida school district for the 2000-2001 school year. As Table 3-2 indicates, during the 2000-2001 school year, discipline data was reported for a total of 55,824 students in 30 elementary schools, 11 middle schools and 7 high schools. During this school year, 13.5% of students identified themselves as Black, while 86.5% of students identified themselves as non-Black.

PAGE 100

81 Table 3-2 Characteristics of the Florida Public School District for the 2000-2001 School Year School Information and Student Demographics. School level Number of Schools Student Population Total Non-Black Students Total Black Students Percent Non-Black Percent Black Elem. 30 24616 20992 3642 85.3 14.7 Middle 11 14258 12381 1877 86.8 13.2 High 7 16950 14940 2010 88.1 11.9 Total 48 55824 48313 7511 86.5 13.5 Table 3-3 provides a summary the characteristics of the selected Florida school district for the 2001-2002 school year. As Table 3-3 indicates, during the 2001-2002 school year, discipline data was reported for a total of 59,972 students in 34 elementary schools, 11 middle schools and 7 high schools. During this school year, 13.2% of students identified themselves as Black, while 86.8% of students identified themselves as non-Black. Table 3-3 Characteristics of the Florida Public School District for the 2001-2002 School Year School Information and Student Demographics. School level Number of Schools Student Population Total Non-Black Students Total Black Students Percent Non-Black Percent Black Elem. 34 27667 23805 3862 86.0 14.0 Middle 11 14771 12823 1948 86.8 13.2 High 7 17534 15442 2092 88.1 11.9 Total 52 59972 52070 7902 86.8 13.2 Table 3-4 provides a summary the characteristics of the selected Florida school district for the 2002-2003 school year. As Table 3-4 indicates, during the 2002-2003 school year, discipline data was reported for a total of 60,797students in 34 elementary schools, 11 middle schools and 7 high schools. During this school year, 13.0% of students identified themselves as Black, while 86.0% of students identified themselves as non-Black.

PAGE 101

82 Table 3-4 Characteristics of the Florida Public School District for the 2002-2003 School Year School Information and Student Demographics. School level Number of Schools Student Population Total Non-Black Students Total Black Students Percent Non-Black Percent Black Elem. 34 27754 23998 3756 86.5 13.5 Middle 11 14937 13008 1929 87.1 12.9 High 7 18106 15895 2211 87.8 12.2 Total 52 60797 52901 7896 87.0 13.0 Table 3-5 provides a summary the characteristics of the selected Florida school district for the 2003-2004 school year. As Table 3-5 indicates, during the 2003-2004 school year, discipline data was reported for a total of 62,465students in 34 elementary schools, 11 middle schools and 7 high schools. During this school year, 12.8% of students identified themselves as Black, while 87.2% of students identified themselves as non-Black. Table 3-5 Characteristics of the Florida Public School District for the 2003-2004 School Year School Information and Student Demographics. School level Number of Schools Student Population Total Non-Black Students Total Black Students Percent Non-Black Percent Black Elem. 34 28648 24648 3806 86.6 13.4 Middle 11 15088 13094 1994 86.8 13.2 High 7 18923 16735 16735 88.4 11.2 Total 52 62465 54477 54477 87.2 12.8 Outcome Measures Because the full population of data was available, descriptive statistics were used in the analysis of this study. Disparity Ratio Calculation The fundamental analysis used in this study was the calculation of a disparity ratio. Three disparity ratios (referral ratio, ISS ratio, and OSS ratio) were calculated for the purpose of this study. Disparity ratio was calculated first by determining the percent of

PAGE 102

83 Black students, and then by dividing that number by the percent of non-Black students. For example, referral ratio is calculated by determining the percent of Black students referred and then by dividing that number by the percent of non-Black students referred. A referral ratio of 1.0 (a ratio of 1:1) indicates that no disparity exists; a disparity ratio above 1.0 indicates that Black students received a higher proportion of referrals. A referral ratio of 2 (a ratio f 2:1) means that for every 2 Black students who received a referral, 1 non-Black student received a referral. The higher the disparity ratio, the greater the disparity between Black and non-Black students. Disparity ratios for referrals, ISS, and OSS were calculated for each elementary, middle, and high school in the school district, for each of the 5-years studied. The disparity ratios were then used to answer each of the four research questions. Each of the four research questions used the same three indicators of disparity (referral ratio, ISS ratio and OSS ratio). Further, each research question used the three indicators to determine if there was a trend in the disparity of discipline for each school level, for schools with varying levels of population of Black students, for schools with varying levels of referrals written and for schools with varying populations of students on Free and Reduced Lunch. Percent Black For the purposes of this study, in accordance with the Consent Decree, the students were categorized as either Black or non-Black by the school districts Information System. The three categories used for the percent Black students attending each school were determined using the mean and the standard deviation. The groups were determined by finding the mean percent Black students attending each school (14.1) and then placing breaks above and below the mean at intervals of 1 standard deviation (+/9.6) until all

PAGE 103

84 the values were contained within the levels of low (0 to 4.4%), medium (4.6% to 23.7%), and high (23.8% and higher) population of Black students. Free and Reduced Lunch Socioeconomic status of student is measured by whether a student pays full price for lunch, receives a reduced price lunch, or receives a lunch for free. The IS data bank identifies the number of students at each school who are on Free and Reduced Lunch. The three categories used for the number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch at a school were determined using the mean and the standard deviation. The groups were determined by finding the mean number of students that are on Free and Reduced Lunch (52.7) and then placing breaks above and below the mean at intervals of 1 standard deviation (+/21.4) until all the values were contained within the levels of low (0 to 9.9%), medium (10.0% to 52.7%), and high (52.9% and higher). Referrals Written The three categories used for the number of referrals written at a school were determined using the mean and the standard deviation. The groups were determined by finding the mean number of referrals written at a school (304) and then placing breaks above and below the mean at intervals of 1 standard deviation (+/207) until all the values were contained within the levels of low (1-97), medium (97-511), and high (511 and higher) number of referrals (unduplicated) written. School Level The schools districts Information System (IS) labeled schools as either elementary, middle or high.

PAGE 104

85 Statistical Analysis Research Question 1 Research question 1 asked whether there was a trend in the disparity in discipline for Black students compared to non-Black students attending elementary (grades K-5), middle (grades 6-8) and high (grades 9-12) schools, for all schools in the selected Florida public school district during the five-year period ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. The schools Information System (IS) labeled the schools as either elementary, middle or high. In order to determine if there was a trend in the disparity in discipline for Black students compared to non-Black students attending elementary (grades K-5), middle (grades 6-8) and high (grades 9-12) schools three independent analysis were performed. The first analysis used the three indicators of disparity to compare the trend in the disparity of discipline, both within and between each school level (elementary, middle, high and the district), for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. Further analysis included a comparison of the percent of schools with a disparity greater than 2 for each of the 3 indicators of disparity. The comparison was made both within and between each school level (elementary, middle, high and the district), for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. The second analysis was designed to determine if there was a difference in the disparity in discipline between each of the three indicators of the disparity in discipline (referral ratio, ISS ratio and OSS ratio) at each school level. In this analysis, each of the three indicators were compared, both within and between each school level (elementary, middle, high and the district), for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004.

PAGE 105

86 In the third analysis each school year was analyzed separately. Here, each of the three indicators of disparity were compared, both within and between each school level, for each school year studied. Research Question 2 Research question 2 asked whether there was a trend in the disparity in discipline for Black students compared to non-Black students attending schools with a low (0 to 4.4%), medium (4.5% to 23.7%), and high (23.8% and higher) population of Black students, for all schools in the selected Florida school district during the five-year period ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. Each of the three indicators of disparity (referral ratio, ISS ratio and OSS ratio) were used to compare the trend in disparity in discipline, both within and between each of the three populations of Black students (low, medium, and high), for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. Further analysis included a comparison of percent of schools with a disparity greater than 2 both within and between each of the three populations of Black students. Research Question 3 Research question 3 asked whether there was a trend in the disparity in discipline for Black students compared to non-Black students attending schools with a low (1-96), medium (97-511), and high (512 and higher) number of referrals (unduplicated) written, for all schools in the selected Florida school district during the five-year period ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. In order to determine if there was a trend in the disparity in discipline for Black students compared to non-Black students attending schools with varying numbers of referrals written, each of the three indicators of disparity (referral ratio, ISS ratio and OSS

PAGE 106

87 ratio) were used to compare the trend, both within and between, each of the three levels of referrals written (low, medium, and high). Further analysis included comparing the percent of schools with a disparity greater than 2, for each of the 3 indicators of disparity, both within and between each of the three levels of referrals written (low, medium, and high). Research Question 4 Research question 4 asked whether there was a trend in the disparity in discipline for Black students compared to non-Black students attending schools with a low (0 to 9.9%), medium (10.0% to 52.8%), and high (52.9% and higher) number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch, for all schools in the selected Florida school district during the five-year period ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. In order to determine if there was a trend in the disparity in discipline for Black students compared to non-Black students attending schools with varying levels of students on Free and Reduced Lunch, each of the three indicators of disparity (referral ratio, ISS ratio and OSS ratio) were used to compare the trend, both within and between, each of the three levels (low, medium, and high), for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. Further analysis included a comparison of the percent of schools with a disparity greater than 2, for each of the 3 indicators of disparity, both within and between each of the three levels of students on Free and Reduced Lunch (low, medium, and high), for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004.

PAGE 107

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The purpose of this study was to examine current disciplinary practices to determine if there were racially neutral practices regarding student discipline. The study was designed to determine if there was a difference in the number of referrals, in-school suspensions and out-of-school suspensions between Black and non-Black students in the selected Florida school district. The factors that were investigated were the grade level division of the schools (i.e., elementary, middle, or high schools), the population of Black students attending a school (low, medium, high or very high), the number of referrals written at a school (low, medium, or high), and the number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch (low, medium, or high). Participants The data reported herein were drawn from the disciplinary records of all students in the selected Florida school district during the 1999-2000 through the 2003-2004 school years. The selected Florida school district is one of 67 school districts in the state of Florida, all of which are organized by county. For the purposes of this study, only the regular education schools (most of which had some self-contained exceptional student education classrooms) were included. Students in special centers and those from schools with incomplete or no reported data were excluded. The district was described by characteristics that were recorded in the data information system from the 1999-2000 through the 2003-2004 school years. The characteristics reported included: total student population, Black student population, non88

PAGE 108

89 Black student population, and the number of referrals, in-school suspensions (ISS), and out-of-school suspensions (OSS). The study was guided by the following research questions: 1. For all schools in the selected Florida school district, during the five-year period ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004, was there a trend in the disparity in discipline for Black students compared to non-Black students attending elementary (grades K-5), middle (grades 6-8) and high (grades 9-12) schools? 2. For all schools in the selected Florida school district, during the five-year period ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004, was there a trend in the disparity in discipline for Black students compared to non-Black students attending schools with a low (0 to 4.4%), medium (4.5% to 23.7%), and high (23.8% and higher) population of Black students? 3. For all schools in the selected Florida school district, during the five-year period ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004, was there a trend in the disparity in discipline for Black students compared to non-Black students attending schools with a low (1-96), medium (97-511), and high (512 or higher) number of referrals (unduplicated) written? 4. For all schools in the selected Florida school district, during the five-year period ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004, was there a trend in the disparity in discipline for Black students compared to non-Black students attending schools with a low (0 to 9.9%), medium (10.0% to 52.8%), and high (52.9% and higher) number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch? This study analyzed the data collected from the Information Database of the selected Florida public school district during the 5-year period ranging from the 1999-2000 to the 2003-2004 school years. Descriptive Information The data reported herein were drawn from the disciplinary records of all students in the selected Florida school district during the 1999-2000 through the 2003-2004 school years. The selected Florida school district is one of 67 school districts in the state of Florida, all of which are organized by county. For the purposes of this study, only the regular education school (most of which had some self-contained exceptional student

PAGE 109

90 education classrooms) were included. Students in special centers and those from school with incomplete or no reported data were excluded. For the purposes of this study in accordance with the Consent Decree, students were categorized as either Black or non-Black. Tables 4-1, 4-4, 4-7, 4-10, and 4-13 provide a summary of referral data at each school level (elementary, middle and high) and in the district for each respective school year. Included in each table are the number and percent of Black and non-Black students referred at each school level and in the district. Tables 4-2, 4-5, 4-8, 4-11, and 4-14 provide a summary of in-school suspension data at each school level (elementary, middle and high) and in the district for each respective school year. Included in each table are the number and percent of Black and non-Black students who received an in-school suspension at each school level and in the district. Tables 4-3, 4-6, 4-9, 4-12, and 4-15 provide a summary of out-of school suspension data at each level (elementary, middle and high) and in the district for each respective school year. Included in each table are the number and percent of Black and non-Black students who received an out-of-school suspension at each school level and in the district. Table 4-1 provides a summary of referral data at each school level (elementary, middle and high) and in the district for the 1999-2000 school year. As Table 4-1 indicates, during the 1999-2000 school year there were a total of 14,737 unduplicated referrals in the selected Florida public school district; 27.6% of Black students and 9.1% of non-Black students received a referral at the elementary level; 61.4% of Black students and 29.9% of non-Black students received a referral at the middle school level; and

PAGE 110

91 64.2% of Black students and 40.4% of non-Black students received a referral at the high school level. For the entire school district, 44.8% of Black students and 23.4% of non-Black students received a referral. Table 4-1 Referral Data (unduplicated) for the Florida Public School District for the 1999-2000 School Year School level # of Non-Black Students Referred # of Black Students Referred Percent Non-Black Students Referred Percent Black Students Referred Elem. 2083 1065 9.1 27.6 Middle 3519 1050 29.9 61.4 High 5769 1251 40.4 64.2 Total 11371 3366 23.4 44.8 Table 4-2 provides a summary of in-school suspension data at each school level (elementary, middle and high) and in the district for the 1999-2000 school year. As Table 4-2 indicates, during the 1999-2000 school year there were a total of 5,197 in-school suspensions in the selected Florida public school district; 6.04% of Black students and 1.1% of non-Black students received an in-school suspension at the elementary level; 33.5% of Black students and 12.1% of non-Black students received an in-school suspension at the middle school level; and 32.7% of Black students and 14.6% of non-Black students received an in-school suspension at the high school level. For the entire school district, 19.2% of Black students and 7.7% of non-Black students an in-school suspension. Table 4-3 provides a summary of out-of school suspension data at each school level (elementary, middle and high) and in the district for the 1999-2000 school year. As Table 4-3 indicates, during the 1999-2000 school year there were a total of 1,128 out-of school suspensions in the selected Florida public school district; 5.10% of Black students and 0.8% of non-Black students received an out-of school suspension at the elementary

PAGE 111

92 level; 22.3% of Black students and 6.4% of non-Black students received an out-of school suspension at the middle school level; and 18.3% of Black students and 7.0% of non-Black students received an out-of school suspension at the high school level. For the entire school district, 12.4% of Black students and 4.0% of non-Black students an out-of school suspension. Table 4-2 In-School Suspension Data (unduplicated) for the Florida Public School District for the 1999-2000 School Year School level # of Non-Black Students Receiving ISS # of Black Students Receiving ISS Percent Non-Black Students Receiving ISS Percent Black Students Receiving ISS Elem. 254 233 1.1 6.04 Middle 1420 572 12.1 33.5 High 2081 637 14.6 32.7 Total 3755 1442 7.7 19.2 Table 4-3 Out-of School Suspension Data (unduplicated) for the Florida Public School District for the 1999-2000 School Year School level # of Non-Black Students Receiving OSS # of Black Students Receiving OSS Percent Non-Black Students Receiving OSS Percent Black Students Receiving OSS Elem. 194 0.8 0.8 5.10 Middle 756 381 6.4 22.3 High 995 356 7.0 18.3 Total 1945 934 4.0 12.4 Table 4-4 provides a summary of referral data at each school level (elementary, middle and high) and in the district for the 2000-2001 school year. As Table 4-4 indicates, during the 2000-2001 school year there were a total of 15,433 unduplicated referrals in the selected Florida public school district; 29.7% of Black students and 9.8% of non-Black students received a referral at the elementary level; 62.5% of Black students and 28.9% of non-Black students received a referral at the middle school level; and

PAGE 112

93 65.0% of Black students and 41.8% of non-Black students received a referral at the high school level. For the entire school district, 47.3% of Black students and 24.6% of non-Black students received a referral. Table 4-4 Referral Data (unduplicated) for the Florida Public School District for the 2000-2001 School Year School level # of Non-Black Students Referred # of Black Students Referred Percent Non-Black Students Referred Percent Black Students Referred Elem. 2049 1076 9.8 29.7 Middle 3583 1173 28.9 62.5 High 6245 1307 41.8 65.0 Total 11877 3556 24.6 47.3 Table 4-5 provides a summary of in-school suspension data at each school level (elementary, middle and high) and in the district for the 2000-2001 school year. As Table 4-5 indicates, during the 2000-2001 school year there were a total of 5,954 in-school suspensions in the selected Florida public school district; 7.8% of Black students and 1.4% of non-Black students received an in-school suspension at the elementary level; 35.7% of Black students and 12.6% of non-Black students received an in-school suspension at the middle school level; and 37.1% of Black students and 16.0% of non-Black students received an in-school suspension at the high school level. For the entire school district, 22.6% of Black students and 8.8% of non-Black students an in-school suspension. Table 4-6 provides a summary of out-of school suspension data at each school level (elementary, middle and high) and in the district for the 2000-2001 school year. As Table 4-6 indicates, during the 2000-2001 school year there were a total of 3032 out-of school suspensions in the selected Florida public school district; 7.0% of Black students and 1.1% of non-Black students received an out-of school suspension at the elementary

PAGE 113

94 level; 22.2% of Black students and 6.1% of non-Black students received an out-of school suspension at the middle school level; and 16.3% of Black students and 7.0% of non-Black students received an out-of school suspension at the high school level. For the entire school district, 13.3% of Black students and 4.2% of non-Black students an out-of school suspension. Table 4-5 In-School Suspension Data (unduplicated) for the Florida Public School District for the 2000-2001 School Year School level # of Non-Black Students Receiving ISS # of Black Students Receiving ISS Percent Non-Black Students Receiving ISS Percent Black Students Receiving ISS Elem. 295 281 1.4 7.8 Middle 1566 670 12.6 35.7 High 2397 745 16.0 37.1 Total 4258 1696 8.8 22.6 Table 4-6 Out-of School Suspension Data (unduplicated) for the Florida Public School District for the 2000-2001 School Year School level # of Non-Black Students Receiving OSS # of Black Students Receiving OSS Percent Non-Black Students Receiving OSS Percent Black Students Receiving OSS Elem. 223 255 1.1 7.0 Middle 760 417 6.1 22.2 High 1049 328 7.0 16.3 Total 2032 1000 4.2 13.3 Table 4-7 provides a summary of referral data at each school level (elementary, middle and high) and in the district for the 2001-2002 school year. As Table 4-7 indicates, during the 2001-2002 school year there were a total of 15,493 unduplicated referrals in the selected Florida public school district; 27.4% of Black students and 8.3% of non-Black students received a referral at the elementary level; 61.4% of Black students and 27.9% of non-Black students received a referral at the middle school level; and

PAGE 114

95 67.6% of Black students and 40.6% of non-Black students received a referral at the high school level. For the entire school district, 46.4% of Black students and 22.7% of non-Black students received a referral. Table 4-7 Referral Data (unduplicated) for the Florida Public School District for the 2001-2002 School Year School level # of Non-Black Students Referred # of Black Students Referred Percent Non-Black Students Referred Percent Black Students Referred Elem. 1974 1057 8.3 27.4 Middle 3575 1196 27.9 61.4 High 6277 1414 40.6 67.6 Total 11826 3667 22.7 46.4 Table 4-8 provides a summary of in-school suspension data at each school level (elementary, middle and high) and in the district for the 2001-2002 school year. As Table 4-8 indicates, during the 2001-2002 school year there were a total of 5,939 in-school suspensions in the selected Florida public school district; 7.4% of Black students and 1.1% of non-Black students received an in-school suspension at the elementary level; 35.4% of Black students and 11.3% of non-Black students received an in-school suspension at the middle school level; and 39.1% of Black students and 15.7% of non-Black students received an in-school suspension at the high school level. For the entire school district, 22.7% of Black students and 8.0% of non-Black students an in-school suspension. Table 4-9 provides a summary of out-of school suspension data at each school level (elementary, middle and high) and in the district for the 2001-2002 school year. As Table 4-9 indicates, during the 2001-2002 school year there were a total of 3,257 out-of school suspensions in the selected Florida public school district; 5.6% of Black students and 0.9% of non-Black students received an out-of school suspension at the elementary

PAGE 115

96 level; 22.5% of Black students and 6.3% of non-Black students received an out-of school suspension at the middle school level; and 21.9% of Black students and 7.3% of non-Black students received an out-of school suspension at the high school level. For the entire school district, 14.1% of Black students and 4.1% of non-Black students an out-of school suspension. Table 4-8 In-School Suspension Data (unduplicated) for the Florida Public School District for the 2001-2002 School Year School level # of Non-Black Students Receiving ISS # of Black Students Receiving ISS Percent Non-Black Students Receiving ISS Percent Black Students Receiving ISS Elem. 273 286 1.1 7.4 Middle 1450 689 11.3 35.4 High 2422 819 15.7 39.1 Total 4145 1794 8.0 22.7 Table 4-9 Out-of School Suspension Data (unduplicated) for the Florida Public School District for the 2001-2002 School Year School level # of Non-Black Students Receiving OSS # of Black Students Receiving OSS Percent Non-Black Students Receiving OSS Percent Black Students Receiving OSS Elem. 204 215 0.9 5.6 Middle 812 438 6.3 22.5 High 1130 458 7.3 21.9 Total 2146 1111 4.1 14.1 Table 4-10 provides a summary of referral data at each school level (elementary, middle and high) and in the district for the 2002-2003 school year. As Table 4-10 indicates, during the 2002-2003 school year there were a total of 15,916 unduplicated referrals in the selected Florida public school district; 26.7% of Black students and 8.1% of non-Black students received a referral at the elementary level; 62.5% of Black students and 28.5% of non-Black students received a referral at the middle school level; and

PAGE 116

97 70.6% of Black students and 40.8% of non-Black students received a referral at the high school level. For the entire school district, 47.7% of Black students and 23.0% of non-Black students received a referral. Table 4-10 Referral Data (unduplicated) for the Florida Public School District for the 2002-2003 School Year School level # of Non-Black Students Referred # of Black Students Referred Percent Non-Black Students Referred Percent Black Students Referred Elem. 1952 1003 8.1 26.7 Middle 3704 1206 28.5 62.5 High 6491 1560 40.8 70.6 Total 12147 3769 23.0 47.7 Table 4-11 provides a summary of in-school suspension data at each school level (elementary, middle and high) and in the district for the 2002-2003 school year. As Table 4-11 indicates, during the 2002-2003 school year there were a total of 6,219 in-school suspensions in the selected Florida public school district; 7.5% of Black students and 1.3% of non-Black students received an in-school suspension at the elementary level; 37.0% of Black students and 12.5% of non-Black students received an in-school suspension at the middle school level; and 37.5% of Black students and 15.5% of non-Black students received an in-school suspension at the high school level. For the entire school district, 23.1% of Black students and 8.3% of non-Black students an in-school suspension. Table 4-12 provides a summary of out-of school suspension data at each school level (elementary, middle and high) and in the district for the 2002-2003 school year. As Table 4-12 indicates, during the 2002-2003 school year there were a total of 3,627 out-of school suspensions in the selected Florida public school district; 4.8% of Black students and 1.0% of non-Black students received an out-of school suspension at the elementary

PAGE 117

98 level; 27.3% of Black students and 7.0% of non-Black students received an out-of school suspension at the middle school level; and 23.1% of Black students and 7.9% of non-Black students received an out-of school suspension at the high school level. For the entire school district, 15.44.6% of Black students and 4.6% of non-Black students an out-of school suspension. Table 4-11 In-School Suspension Data (unduplicated) for the Florida Public School District for the 2002-2003 School Year School level # of Non-Black Students Receiving ISS # of Black Students Receiving ISS Percent Non-Black Students Receiving ISS Percent Black Students Receiving ISS Elem. 305 282 1.3 7.5 Middle 1621 714 12.5 37.0 High 2467 830 15.5 37.5 Total 4393 1826 8.3 23.1 Table 4-12 Out-of School Suspension Data (unduplicated) for the Florida Public School District for the 2002-2003 School Year School level # of Non-Black Students Receiving OSS # of Black Students Receiving OSS Percent Non-Black Students Receiving OSS Percent Black Students Receiving OSS Elem. 241 180 1.0 4.8 Middle 910 526 7.0 27.3 High 1259 511 7.9 23.1 Total 2410 1217 4.6 15.4 Table 4-13 provides a summary of referral data at each school level (elementary, middle and high) and in the district for the 2003-2004 school year. As Table 4-13 indicates, during the 2003-2004 school year there were a total of 15,210 unduplicated referrals in the selected Florida public school district; 20.2% of Black students and 7.6% of non-Black students received a referral at the elementary level; 54.7% of Black students and 26.4% of non-Black students received a referral at the middle school level; and

PAGE 118

99 67.3% of Black students and 39.2% of non-Black students received a referral at the high school level. For the entire school district, 41.7% of Black students and 21.8% of non-Black students received a referral. Table 4-13 Referral Data (unduplicated) for the Florida Public School District for the 2003-2004 School Year School level # of Non-Black Students Referred # of Black Students Referred Percent Non-Black Students Referred Percent Black Students Referred Elem. 1963 767 7.6 20.2 Middle 3461 1090 26.4 54.7 High 6557 1472 39.2 67.3 Total 11881 3329 21.8 41.7 Table 4-14 provides a summary of in-school suspension data at each school level (elementary, middle and high) and in the district for the 2003-2004 school year. As Table 4-14 indicates, during the 2003-2004 school year there were a total of 5,857 in-school suspensions in the selected Florida public school district; 5.7% of Black students and 0.9% of non-Black students received an in-school suspension at the elementary level; 33.3% of Black students and 11.3% of non-Black students received an in-school suspension at the middle school level; and 35.7% of Black students and 14.9% of non-Black students received an in-school suspension at the high school level. For the entire school district, 20.8% of Black students and 7.7% of non-Black students an in-school suspension. Table 4-15 provides a summary of out-of school suspension data at each school level (elementary, middle and high) and in the district for the 2003-2004 school year. As Table 4-15 indicates, during the 2003-2004 school year there were a total of 3,480 out-of school suspensions in the selected Florida public school district; 4.8% of Black students

PAGE 119

100 and 1.1% of non-Black students received an out-of school suspension at the elementary level; 22.7% of Black students and 6.6% of non-Black students received an out-of school suspension at the middle school level; and 20.7% of Black students and 7.4% of non-Black students received an out-of school suspension at the high school level. For the entire school district, 13.6% of Black students and 4.4% of non-Black students an out-of school suspension. Table 4-14 In-School Suspension Data (unduplicated) for the Florida Public School District for the 2003-2004 School Year School level # of Non-Black Students Receiving ISS # of Black Students Receiving ISS Percent Non-Black Students Receiving ISS Percent Black Students Receiving ISS Elem. 224 218 0.9 5.7 Middle 1483 664 11.3 33.3 High 2486 782 14.9 35.7 Total 4193 1664 7.7 20.8 Table 4-15 Out-of School Suspension Data (unduplicated) for the Florida Public School District for the 2003-2004 School Year School level # of Non-Black Students Receiving OSS # of Black Students Receiving OSS Percent Non-Black Students Receiving OSS Percent Black Students Receiving OSS Elem. 280 181 1.1 4.8 Middle 868 453 6.6 22.7 High 1245 453 7.4 20.7 Total 2393 1087 4.4 13.6 Research Question 1: School Level Elementary, Middle and High School Research Question 1 asked whether there was a trend in the disparity in discipline for Black students compared to non-Black students attending elementary (grades K-5), middle (grades 6-8) and high (grades 9-12) schools in the district during the five-year period from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004.

PAGE 120

101 Table 4-16 shows a comparison of disparity ratios for discipline referrals (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black students, by school level (elementary, middle, high and the district), for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. Table 4-16 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by School Level School Year Disparity Ratio Elementary Disparity Ratio Middle Disparity Ratio High Disparity Ratio District 1999-2000 3.0 2.1 1.6 1.9 2000-2001 3.0 2.2 1.6 1.9 2001-2002 3.3 2.2 1.7 2.1 2002-2003 3.3 2.2 1.7 2.1 2003-2004 2.7 2.1 1.7 1.9 As the numbers in Table 4-16 show, the disparity in discipline as measured by referral ratio, was constant for elementary, middle and high school students, however, there was an obvious difference in disparity between each of the three levels. The disparity in referral ratio for elementary school students ranged from 2.7 to 3.3, for middle school students from 2.1 to 2.2, for high school students from 1.6 to 1.7 and for the district from 1.9 to 2.1. The table also shows that the disparity for elementary school students was greater than that of either middle (an average of 1.4 times) or high school students (an average of 1.8 times). Likewise, the disparity for middle school students was greater than that of high school students (an average of 1.3 times).

PAGE 121

102 Figure 4-1 illustrates the comparison of disparity ratios for discipline referrals (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black students, by school level (elementary, middle, high and the district), for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As Figure 4-1 illustrates, the disparity in discipline, as measured by the referral ratio, within each school level (elem., middle, and high) remained relatively stable for each of the five years. There was, however, a consistent difference in the disparity in discipline between each of the school levels over the five years studied. Between school levels, the disparity in referral ratio for elementary schools was greater than that of middle schools, which was greater than that of high schools. 0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.0EMHDSchool LevelDisparity Ratio 99 00 01 02 03 Figure 4-1 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by School Level Table 4-17 shows the percent of schools with a disparity in discipline greater than 2 for Black students as compared to non-Black students for discipline referrals (unduplicated), by school level (elementary, middle, high and the district), for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As the numbers in

PAGE 122

103 Table 4-17 show, the percent of schools with a disparity ratio greater than 2 was consistently greater for elementary schools than for middle schools, which was consistently greater than for high schools. The percent of schools with a disparity ratio greater than 2 for elementary schools ranged from 53.3 to 70.6 (a 5-year average of 61.2%), for middle schools the range was from 20.0 to 63.6 (a 5-year average of 40.0%), for high schools the range was from 0.0 to 14.3 (a 5-year average of 8.6%), and for the district the range was from 41.7 to 61.5 (a 5-year average of 49.4%). The table also shows that percent of schools with a disparity ratio greater than 2 was consistently greater for elementary schools than for either middle (an average of 20.8% greater) or high schools (an average of 52.6% greater). Likewise, the disparity for middle schools was greater than that of high schools (an average of 45.6% greater). Table 4-17 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated) by School Level School Year Disparity Ratio Elementary Disparity Ratio Middle Disparity Ratio High Disparity Ratio District 1999-2000 59.4 20.0 14.3 44.9 2000-2001 53.3 36.4 0.0 41.7 2001-2002 66.7 36.4 0.0 51.0 2002-2003 70.6 63.6 14.3 61.5 2003-2004 55.9 45.5 14.3 48.1 Figure 4-2 illustrates the percent of schools with a disparity in discipline greater than 2 for Black students as compared to non-Black students for discipline referrals

PAGE 123

104 (unduplicated), by school level (elementary, middle, high and the district), for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As Figure 4-2 illustrates, the percent of elementary school with a disparity in discipline greater than 2, as measured by the referral ratio, was consistently greater than for middle schools, which was consistently greater than for high schools. 0102030405060708090100EMHDSchool LevelPercent 99 00 01 02 03 Figure 4-2 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated) by the School Level Figure 4-3 illustrates the percent of schools with a disparity in discipline greater than 2 for Black students as compared to non-Black students for discipline referrals (unduplicated), by school level (elementary, middle, high and the district), for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As Figure 4-3 illustrates, for each of the 5-years studied, the percent of elementary schools with a disparity in discipline greater than 2, as measured by the referral ratio, was greater than that of either middle schools, which was greater than for high schools.

PAGE 124

105 % Schools w/Disparity >2 for Referrals0.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.09900010203YearPercent E M H D Figure 4-3 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated) by the School Level Table 4-18 shows a comparison of disparity ratios for discipline in-school suspensions (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black students, by school level (elementary, middle, high and the district), for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As the numbers in Table 4-18 show, the disparity in discipline as measured by the ISS ratio, was constant for elementary, middle and high school students, however, there was an obvious difference in disparity between each of the three levels. The disparity, as measured by the ISS ratio, for elementary school students ranged from 5.5 to 6.5, for middle school students from 2.8 to 3.1, for high school students from 2.2 to 2.5 and for the district from 2.5 to 2.9. The table also shows that the disparity for elementary school students was greater than for either middle (an average of 2.1 times) or high school students (an average of 2.1times). Likewise, the disparity for middle school students was greater than for high school students (an average of 1.2 times).

PAGE 125

106 Table 4-18 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for In-School Suspensions (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by School Level School Year Disparity Ratio Elementary Disparity Ratio Middle Disparity Ratio High Disparity Ratio District 1999-2000 5.5 2.8 2.2 2.5 2000-2001 5.5 2.8 2.3 2.6 2001-2002 6.5 3.1 2.5 2.9 2002-2003 5.9 3.0 2.4 2.8 2003-2004 6.3 2.9 2.4 2.7 Figure 4-4 illustrates the comparison of disparity ratios for discipline in-school suspensions (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black students, by school level (elementary, middle, high and the district), for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As Figure 4-4 illustrates, the disparity in discipline, as measured by the ISS ratio, was constant for elementary, middle and high school students, however, there was an obvious difference in the disparity between each of the three levels. The figure also illustrates that, for each of the 5-years studied, the disparity for elementary school students was greater than for either middle or high school students. Likewise, the disparity for middle school students was greater than for high school students. Table 4-19 shows the percent of schools with a disparity in discipline greater than 2 for Black students as compared to non-Black students for in-school suspensions (unduplicated), by school level (elementary, middle, high and the district), for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As the numbers in

PAGE 126

107 Table 4-19 show, the percent of schools with an ISS ratio greater than 2 was consistently greater for middle schools than for either elementary or high schools. The percent of schools with a disparity ratio greater than 2 for elementary schools ranged from 45.5 to 58.8 (a 5-year average of 53.2%), for middle schools the range was from 72.7 to 90.9 (a 5-year average of 81.4%), for high schools the range was from 42.9 to 57.1 (a 5-year average of 54.3%), and for the district the range was from 54.9 to 65.4 (a 5-year average of 70.7%). The table also shows that the percent of schools with a disparity ratio greater than 2 was considerably greater for middle schools than for either elementary (an average of 28.2% greater) or high schools (an average of 27.1% greater). 0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.0EMHDSchool LevelDisparity Ratio 99 00 01 02 03 Figure 4-4 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for In-School Suspensions (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by School Level Figure 4-5 illustrates the percent of schools with a disparity in discipline greater than 2 for Black students as compared to non-Black students for in-school suspensions (unduplicated), by school level (elementary, middle, high and the district), for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As Figure 4-5

PAGE 127

108 illustrates, the percent of schools with an ISS ratio greater than 2 was consistently greater for middle schools than for either elementary or high schools. The figure also shows that the percent of schools with a disparity ratio greater than 2 was considerably greater for middle schools than for either elementary or high schools. The percent of schools with a disparity ratio greater than 2 was similar for elementary and high schools. Table 4-19 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for In-School Suspensions (unduplicated) by the School Level School Year Disparity Ratio Elementary Disparity Ratio Middle Disparity Ratio High Disparity Ratio District 1999-2000 50.0 80.0 57.1 57.1 2000-2001 53.3 72.7 42.9 56.3 2001-2002 45.5 81.8 57.1 54.9 2002-2003 58.8 81.8 57.1 63.5 2003-2004 58.8 90.9 57.1 65.4 Figure 4-6 illustrates the percent of schools with a disparity in discipline greater than 2 for Black students as compared to non-Black students for in-school suspensions (unduplicated), by school level (elementary, middle, high and the district), for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As Figure 4-6 illustrates, for each of the 5-years studied, the percent of middle schools with a disparity in discipline greater than 2, as measured by the referral ratio, was greater than for either elementary or high schools. The percent of schools with a disparity ratio greater than 2 were similar for elementary and high schools.

PAGE 128

109 0102030405060708090100EMHDSchool LevelPercent 99 00 01 02 03 Figure 4-5 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for In-School Suspensions (unduplicated) by the School Level 01020304050607080901009900010203YearPercent E M H D Figure 4-6 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for In-School Suspensions (unduplicated) by the School Level Table 4-20 shows a comparison of disparity ratios for discipline out-of school suspensions (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black students, by school level

PAGE 129

110 (elementary, middle, high and the district), for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As the numbers in Table 4-20 show, the disparity in discipline, as measured by the OSS ratio was relatively stable for both middle and high school students. The disparity ratio for elementary school students had decreased during the last two years of the study. There was, however, an obvious difference in disparity between each of the three levels. Table 4-20 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Out-of School Suspensions (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by School Level School Year Disparity Ratio Elementary Disparity Ratio Middle Disparity Ratio High Disparity Ratio District 1999-2000 6.1 3.5 2.6 3.1 2000-2001 6.6 3.6 2.3 3.2 2001-2002 6.5 3.6 3.0 3.4 2002-2003 4.8 3.9 2.9 3.4 2003-2004 4.2 3.4 2.8 3.1 The disparity in discipline, as measured by the OSS ratio, for elementary school students ranged from 4.2 to 6.6, for middle school students from 3.4 to 3.9, for high school students from 2.3 to 3.0 and for the district from 3.1to 3.4. The table also shows that the disparity for elementary school students was greater than for either middle (an average of 2.3 times) or high school students (an average of 1.5 times). Likewise, the disparity for middle school students was slightly greater than for high school students (an average of 1.3 times).

PAGE 130

111 Figure 4-7 illustrates the comparison of disparity ratios for discipline out-of school suspensions (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black students, by school level (elementary, middle, high and the district), for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As Figure 4-7 illustrates, the disparity in discipline, as measured by the OSS ratio, was relatively stable for both middle and high school students. The disparity for elementary school students had decreased during the last two years of the study. There was, however, an obvious difference in disparity between each of the three levels. The figure also illustrates that the disparity for elementary school students was greater than for either middle or high school students. Likewise, the disparity for middle school students was slightly greater than for high school students. 0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.0EMHDSchool LevelDisparity Ratio 99 00 01 02 03 Figure 4-7 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Out-of School Suspensions (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by School Level Table 4-21 shows the percent of schools with a disparity in discipline greater than 2 for Black students as compared to non-Black students for out-of school suspensions

PAGE 131

112 (unduplicated), by school level (elementary, middle, high and the district), for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As the numbers in Table 4-21 show, the percent of schools with an OSS ratio greater than 2 was greater for high schools than for either elementary or middle schools, for 3 out of the 5 years studied. For the 2002-2003 school year, middle schools had the highest percent of schools with an OSS ratio greater than 2 and for the 2003-2004 school year middle and high schools had an equal percent of schools with an OSS ratio greater than 2 (100%) which was greater than for the elementary schools. The percent of schools with a disparity ratio greater than 2 for elementary schools ranged from 53.1 to 73.5 (a 5-year average of 48.0%), for middle schools the range was from 72.7 to 100.0 (a 5-year average of 85.0%), for high schools the range was from 71.4 to 100.0 (a 5-year average of 91.4%), and for the district the range was from 65.3 to 76.9 (a 5-year average of 70.5%). The table also shows that, on average, the percent of schools with a disparity ratio greater than 2 was greater for high schools than for either elementary (an average of 43.4% greater) or middle schools (an average of 6.4% greater). Likewise, the disparity for middle schools was greater than for elementary schools (an average of 37.0% greater). Figure 4-8 illustrates the percent of schools with a disparity in discipline greater than 2 for Black students as compared to non-Black students for out-of school suspensions (unduplicated), by school level (elementary, middle, high and the district), for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As Figure 4-8 illustrates, the percent of schools with an OSS ratio greater than 2 was greater for high schools than for either elementary or middle schools, for 3 out of the 5 years

PAGE 132

113 studied. For the 2002-2003 school year, middle schools had the highest percent of schools with an OSS ratio greater than 2 and for the 2003-2004 school year middle and high schools had an equal percent of schools with an OSS ratio greater than 2 (100%) which was greater than for the elementary schools. The figure also shows that, on average, the percent of schools with a disparity ratio greater than 2 was greater for high schools than for either elementary or middle schools. Likewise, the disparity for middle schools was greater than for elementary schools. Table 4-21 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Out-of School Suspensions (unduplicated) by the School Level School Year Elementary Middle High District 1999-2000 53.1 80.0 100.0 65.3 2000-2001 60.0 72.7 85.7 66.7 2001-2002 54.5 81.8 100.0 66.7 2002-2003 73.5 90.9 71.4 76.9 2003-2004 64.7 100.0 100.0 76.9 Figure 4-9 illustrates the percent of schools with a disparity in discipline greater than 2 for Black students as compared to non-Black students for out-of school suspensions (unduplicated), by school level (elementary, middle, high and the district), for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As Figure 4-9 illustrates, for the first 3-years of the study, the percent of high schools with a disparity in discipline greater than 2, as measured by the OSS ratio, was greater than for either elementary or middle schools. For the 2002-2003 school year, middle schools had

PAGE 133

114 the highest percent of schools with an OSS ratio greater than 2 and for the 2003-2004 school year middle and high schools had an equal percent of schools with an OSS ratio greater than 2 (100%) which was greater than for the elementary schools. 0102030405060708090100EMHDSchool LevelPercent 99 00 01 02 03 Figure 4-8 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Out-of School Suspensions (unduplicated) by the School Level 01020304050607080901009900010203YearPercent E M H D Figure 4-9 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Out-of School Suspensions (unduplicated) by the School Level

PAGE 134

115 Table 4-22 shows a comparison of disparity ratios for referrals, in-school and out-of school suspensions (unduplicated), for Black and Non-Black students attending elementary schools, for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As the numbers in Table 4-22 show, the trend in the disparity in discipline (for elementary schools), for the first 2-years was greatest for OSS (6.1 and 6.6 respectively), followed closely by that for ISS (5.5) and then for referral ratio (3.0). For the 2001-2002 school year, the disparity ratio for OSS and ISS was identical (6.5) and was considerably lower for referral ratio (3.3). For last 2-years of the study, the disparity ratio was greatest for ISS (5.9 and 6.3 respectively), followed by that for OSS (4.8 and 4.2 respectively) and then for referral ratio (3.3 and 2.7 respectively). The disparity ratio for OSS had decreased during the last two years of the study. Table 4-22 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Referrals, ISS, and OSS (unduplicated) between Black and Non-Black Students for Elementary Schools School Year Disparity Ratio Referrals Disparity Ratio ISS Disparity Ratio OSS 1999-2000 3.0 5.5 6.1 2000-2001 3.0 5.5 6.6 2001-2002 3.3 6.5 6.5 2002-2003 3.3 5.9 4.8 2003-2004 2.7 6.3 4.2 The disparity ratio for referrals in elementary schools ranged from 2.7 to 3.3 (an average of 3.1), for ISS from 5.5 to 6.5 (an average of 5.9), and for OSS from 4.2 to 6.6 (an average of 5.6). The table also shows that, for the 5-years studied, the disparity the

PAGE 135

116 ratio for ISS was only slightly greater than that of OSS (an average of 0.3 greater) but considerably greater than the referral ratio (an average of 2.8 greater). Likewise, the disparity ratio for OSS was considerably greater than the disparity ratio for referrals (an average of 2.5 greater). Figure 4-10 illustrates the comparison of disparity ratios for referrals, in-school and out-of school suspensions (unduplicated), for Black and Non-Black students attending elementary schools, for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As Figure 4-10 illustrates, the trend in the disparity in discipline (for elementary schools) for the first 2-years was greatest for OSS, followed closely by that for ISS and then for referral ratio. For the 2001-2002 school year, the disparity ratio for OSS and ISS was identical and was considerably lower for referral ratio. For last 2-years of the study, the disparity ratio was greatest for ISS, followed by that for OSS and then for referral ratio. The disparity ratio for OSS had decreased during the last two years of the study. 0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.09900010203School YearDisparity Ratio Referrals ISS OSS Figure 4-10 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Referrals, ISS, and OSS (unduplicated) between Black and Non-Black Students for Elementary Schools

PAGE 136

117 The figure also illustrates that for the 5-years studied, the disparity the ratio for ISS was only slightly greater than that of OSS but considerably greater than the referral ratio. Likewise, the disparity ratio for OSS was considerably greater than the disparity ratio for referrals. Table 4-23 shows a comparison of disparity ratios for referrals, in-school and out-of school suspensions (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black students attending middle schools, for the schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As the numbers in Table 4-23 show, the 5-year trend in the disparity in discipline (for middle schools) was relatively constant for each of the three indicators. Additionally, for each of the 5-years, the disparity in discipline was highest when measured by the OSS ratio, followed by that using the ISS ratio and then the referral ratio. The disparity ratio for referrals in middle schools ranged from 2.1 to 2.2 (an average of 2.2), for ISS from 2.8 to 3.1 (an average of 2.9), and for OSS from 3.4 to 3.9 (an average of 3.6). The table also shows that, for the 5-years studied, the disparity the ratio for OSS was greater than that of the ISS ratio (an average of 0.7 greater) and of the referral ratio (an average of 1.4 greater). Likewise, the disparity ratio for OSS was considerably greater than the disparity ratio for referrals (an average of 1.4 greater). Figure 4-11 illustrates the comparison of disparity ratios for referrals, in-school and out-of school suspensions (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black students attending middle schools, for the schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As Figure 4-10 illustrates, the 5-year trend in the disparity in discipline (for middle schools) was relatively constant for each of the three indicators. Additionally, for each of the 5-years,

PAGE 137

118 the disparity in discipline was highest as measured by the OSS ratio, followed by that using the ISS ratio and then the referral ratio. Table 4-23 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Referrals, ISS, and OSS (unduplicated) between Black and Non-Black Students for Middle Schools School Year Disparity Ratio Referrals Disparity Ratio ISS Disparity Ratio OSS 1999-2000 2.1 2.8 3.5 2000-2001 2.2 2.8 3.6 2001-2002 2.2 3.1 3.6 2002-2003 2.2 3.0 3.9 2003-2004 2.1 2.9 3.4 0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.09900010203School YearDisparity Ratio Referrals ISS OSS Figure 4-11 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Referrals, ISS, and OSS (unduplicated) between Black and Non-Black Students for Middle Schools Table 4-24 shows a comparison of disparity ratios for referrals, in-school and out-of school suspensions (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black students attending high

PAGE 138

119 schools, for the schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As the numbers in Table 4-24 show, the 5-year trend in the disparity in discipline (for high schools) was constant for the referral and ISS ratios. For 4 out of the 5 years studied, the disparity in discipline was highest when measured by the OSS ratio, followed by that using the ISS ratio and then the referral ratio. During the 2000-2001 school year, the disparity ratio for ISS (2.6) was slightly greater than the disparity ratio for OSS (2.3). The disparity ratio for referrals in high schools ranged from 1.6 to 1.7 (an average of 1.7), for ISS from 2.4 to 2.6 (an average of 2.5), and for OSS from 2.3 to 3.0 (an average of 2.7). The table also shows that, for the 5-years studied, the average disparity the ratio for OSS was slightly greater than that of the ISS ratio (an average of 0.2 greater) and of the referral ratio (an average of 0.8 greater). Likewise, the disparity ratio for OSS was greater than the disparity ratio for referrals (an average of 1.0 greater). Table 4-24 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Referrals, ISS, and OSS (unduplicated) between Black and Non-Black Students for High Schools School Year Disparity Ratio Referrals Disparity Ratio ISS Disparity Ratio OSS 1999-2000 1.6 2.5 2.6 2000-2001 1.6 2.6 2.3 2001-2002 1.7 2.5 3.0 2002-2003 1.7 2.4 2.9 2003-2004 1.7 2.4 2.8 Figure 4-12 illustrates the comparison of disparity ratios for referrals, in-school and out-of school suspensions (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black students attending

PAGE 139

120 high schools, for the schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As Figure 4-12 illustrates, the 5-year trend in the disparity in discipline for high schools was constant for the referral and ISS ratios. For 4 out of the 5 years studied, the disparity in discipline was highest when measured by the OSS ratio, followed by that using the ISS ratio and then the referral ratio. During the 2000-2001 school year, the disparity ratio for ISS was slightly greater than the disparity ratio for OSS. The figure also shows that, for the 5-years studied, the average disparity the ratio for OSS was slightly greater than for the ISS ratio and for the referral ratio. Likewise, the disparity ratio for OSS was greater than the disparity ratio for referrals. 0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.09900010203School YearDisparity Ratio Referrals ISS OSS Figure 4-12 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Referrals, ISS, and OSS (unduplicated) between Black and Non-Black Students for High Schools Table 4-25 shows a comparison of disparity ratios for referrals, in-school and out-of school suspensions (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black students attending all schools in the district, for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As the numbers in Table 4-25 show, the 5-year trend in the disparity

PAGE 140

121 in discipline, for the school district, was constant for all three indicators of disparity. For each of the 5-years studied, the disparity in discipline was highest when measured by the OSS ratio, followed by that using the ISS ratio and then the referral ratio. The disparity ratio for referrals in the school district ranged from 1.9 to 2.1 (an average of 2.0), for ISS from 2.5 to 2.9 (an average of 2.7), and for OSS from 3.1 to 3.4 (an average of 3.2). The table also shows that, for the 5-years studied, the disparity the ratio for OSS was greater than for the ISS ratio (an average of 0.5 greater) and for the referral ratio (an average of 1.2 greater). Likewise, the disparity ratio for OSS was greater than the disparity ratio for referrals (an average of 1.2 greater). Table 4-25 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Referrals, ISS, and OSS (unduplicated) between Black and Non-Black Students for the School District School Year Disparity Ratio Referrals Disparity Ratio ISS Disparity Ratio OSS 1999-2000 1.9 2.5 3.1 2000-2001 1.9 2.6 3.2 2001-2002 2.1 2.9 3.4 2002-2003 2.1 2.8 3.4 2003-2004 1.9 2.7 3.1 Figure 4-13 illustrates the comparison of disparity ratios for referrals, in-school and out-of school suspensions (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black students attending all schools in the district, for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As Figure 4-13 illustrates, the 5-year trend in the disparity in discipline, for the school district, was constant for all three indicators of disparity. For

PAGE 141

122 each of the 5-years studied, the disparity in discipline was highest when measured by the OSS ratio, followed by that using the ISS ratio and then the referral ratio. The figure also shows that, for the 5-years studied, the disparity the ratio for OSS was greater than that of the ISS ratio and of the referral ratio. Likewise, the disparity ratio for OSS was considerably greater than the disparity ratio for referrals. 0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.09900010203School YearDisparity Ratio Referrals ISS OSS Figure 4-13 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Referrals, ISS, and OSS (unduplicated) between Black and Non-Black Students for the School District Table 4-26 shows a comparison of disparity ratios for referrals, in-school and out-of school suspensions (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black students for the 1999-2000 school year. As the numbers in Table 4-26 show, the trend in the disparity in discipline, for all three school levels (elementary, middle and high), for the 1999-2000 school year, was greatest when measured by the OSS ratio, followed by when measured by the ISS ratio and then the referral ratio. The numbers also show that there was a considerable increase in the disparity in discipline going from using the referral ratio (lowest disparity) to the OSS ratio (greatest disparity). The disparity in discipline, using

PAGE 142

123 all three indicators was greatest for elementary school students, followed by middle and then high school students. The disparity for elementary school students increased from 3.0 for the referral ratio to 5.5 for the ISS ratio to 6.1 for the OSS ratio. The disparity for middle school students increased from 2.1 for the referral ratio to 2.8 for the ISS ratio to 3.5 for the OSS ratio. The disparity for high school students increased from 1.6 for the referral ratio to 2.2 for the ISS ratio to 2.6 for the OSS ratio. The overall disparity for the district, for the 1999-2000 school year, increased from 1.9 for the referral ratio to 2.5 for the ISS ratio to 3.1 for the OSS ratio. Table 4-26 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Referrals, ISS, and OSS (unduplicated) between Black and Non-Black Students for the 1999-2000 School Year School Year Disparity Ratio Elementary Disparity Ratio Middle Disparity Ratio High Disparity Ratio District Referrals 3.0 2.1 1.6 1.9 In-School Suspension 5.5 2.8 2.2 2.5 Out-of School Suspension 6.1 3.5 2.6 3.1 Figure 4-14 illustrates the comparison of disparity ratios for referrals, in-school and out-of school suspensions (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black students for the 1999-2000 school year. As Figure 4-14 illustrates, the trend in the disparity in discipline, for all three school levels (elementary, middle and high), for the 1999-2000 school year, was greatest when measured by the OSS ratio, followed by when measured by the ISS ratio and then the referral ratio. The numbers also show that there is a considerable increase,

PAGE 143

124 using all three indicators, in the disparity for elementary school students, followed by middle and then high school students. 0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.0EMHDSchool LevelDisparity Rati o Ref ISS OSS Figure 4-14 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Referrals, ISS, and OSS (unduplicated) between Black and Non-Black Students for the 1999-2000 School Year Table 4-27 shows a comparison of disparity ratios for referrals, in-school and out-of school suspensions (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black students for the 2000-2001 school year. As the numbers in Table 4-27 show, the trend in the disparity in discipline, for all three school levels (elementary, middle and high), for the 2000-2001 school year, was greatest when measured by the OSS ratio, followed by when measured by the ISS ratio and then the referral ratio. The numbers also show that there is a considerable increase, using all three indicators, in the disparity for elementary school students, followed by middle and then high school students. The disparity for elementary school students increased from 3.0 for the referral ratio to 5.5 for the ISS ratio to 6.6 for the OSS ratio. The disparity for middle school students increased from 2.2 for the referral ratio to 2.8 for the ISS ratio to 3.6 for the OSS

PAGE 144

125 ratio. The disparity for high school students increased from 1.6 for the referral ratio to 2.2 for the ISS ratio to 2.6 for the OSS ratio. The overall disparity for the district for the 2000-2001 school year increased from 1.9 for the referral ratio to 2.5 for the ISS ratio to 3.1 for the OSS ratio. Table 4-27 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Referrals, ISS, and OSS (unduplicated) between Black and Non-Black Students for the 2000-2001 School Year School Year Disparity Ratio Elementary Disparity Ratio Middle Disparity Ratio High Disparity Ratio District Referrals 3.0 2.2 1.6 1.9 In-School Suspension 5.5 2.8 2.2 2.5 Out-of School Suspension 6.6 3.6 2.6 3.1 Figure 4-15 illustrates the comparison of disparity ratios for referrals, in-school and out-of school suspensions (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black students for the 2000-2001 school year. As Figure 4-15 illustrates, the trend in the disparity in discipline, for all three school levels (elementary, middle and high), for the 2000-2001 school year, was greatest when measured by the OSS ratio, followed by when measured by the ISS ratio and then the referral ratio. The numbers also show that there was a considerable increase, using all three indicators, in the disparity for elementary school students, followed by middle and then high school students. Table 4-28 shows a comparison of disparity ratios for referrals, in-school and out-of school suspensions (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black students for the 2001-2002 school year. As the numbers in Table 4-28 show, the trend in the disparity in discipline differed from the previous 2 school years (1999-2000 and 2000-2001). During

PAGE 145

126 the 2001-2002 school year, elementary and high schools had the same disparity in discipline for both the ISS and OSS ratios. Both indicators were considerably greater than that for the referral ratio. For middle schools, the trend paralleled the first 2-years in the study; the disparity was greatest when measured by the OSS ratio, followed by when measured by the ISS and then the referral ratio. At all three school levels, there was a considerable increase, using all three indicators, in the disparity for elementary school students, followed by middle and then high school students. The disparity for elementary school students increased from 3.3 for the referral ratio to 6.5 for both the ISS and the OSS ratios. The disparity for middle school students increased from 2.2 for the referral ratio to 3.1 for the ISS ratio to 3.6 for the OSS ratio. The disparity for high school students increased from 1.7 for the referral ratio to 2.3 for both the ISS and OSS ratios. The overall disparity for the district, for the 2000-2001 school year, increased from 1.9 for the referral ratio to 2.6 for the ISS ratio to 3.2 for the OSS ratio. Figure 4-16 illustrates the comparison of disparity ratios for referrals, in-school and out-of school suspensions (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black students for the 2001-2002 school year. As Figure 4-16 illustrates, the trend in the disparity in discipline differed from the previous 2 school years (1999-2000 and 2000-2001). During the 2001-2002 school year, elementary and high schools had the same disparity in discipline for both the ISS and OSS ratios. Both indicators were considerably greater than that for the referral ratio. For middle schools, the trend paralleled the first 2-years in the study; the disparity was greatest when measured by the OSS ratio, followed by when measured by the ISS and then the referral ratio. At all three school levels, there was a considerable

PAGE 146

127 increase, using all three indicators, in the disparity for elementary school students, followed by middle and then high school students. 0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.0EMHDSchool LevelDisparity Ratio Ref ISS OSS Figure 4-15 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Referrals, ISS, and OSS (unduplicated) between Black and Non-Black Students for the 2000-2001 School Year Table 4-28 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Referrals, ISS, and OSS (unduplicated) between Black and Non-Black Students for the 2001-2002 School Year School Year Disparity Ratio Elementary Disparity Ratio Middle Disparity Ratio High Disparity Ratio District Referrals 3.3 2.2 1.7 1.9 In-School Suspension 6.5 3.1 2.3 2.6 Out-of School Suspension 6.5 3.6 2.3 3.2 Table 4-29 shows a comparison of disparity ratios for referrals, in-school and out-of school suspensions (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black students for the 2002-2003 school year. As the numbers in Table 4-29 show, during the 2002-2003 school year, elementary schools had a lower disparity in discipline for the OSS ratio than for the

PAGE 147

128 ISS ratio, however, both were greater than for the referral ratio. For middle and high schools, the trend in the disparity was greatest when measured by the OSS ratio, followed by when measured by the ISS ratio and then the referral ratio. At all three school levels, there was an increase in the disparity for elementary school students, followed by middle and then high school students, using all three indicators. 0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.0EMHDSchool LevelDisparity Ratio Ref ISS OSS Figure 4-16 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Referrals, ISS, and OSS (unduplicated) between Black and Non-Black Students for the 2001-2002 School Year Table 4-29 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Referrals, ISS, and OSS (unduplicated) between Black and Non-Black Students for the 2002-2003 School Year School Year Disparity Ratio Elementary Disparity Ratio Middle Disparity Ratio High Disparity Ratio District Referrals 3.3 2.2 1.7 2.1 In-School Suspension 5.9 3.0 2.4 2.8 Out-of School Suspension 4.8 3.9 2.9 3.4

PAGE 148

129 The disparity for elementary school students increased from 3.3 for the referral ratio to 5.9 for the ISS ratio and then decreased to 4.8 for the OSS ratio. The disparity for middle school students increased from 2.2 for the referral ratio to 3.0 for the ISS ratio to 3.9 for the OSS ratio. The disparity for high school students increased from 1.7 for the referral ratio to 2.4 for the ISS ratio to 2.9 for the OSS ratio. The overall disparity for the district, for the 2002-2003 school year, increased from 2.1 for the referral ratio to 2.8 for the ISS ratio to 3.4 for the OSS ratio. Figure 4-17 illustrates the comparison of disparity ratios for referrals, in-school and out-of school suspensions (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black students for the 2002-2003 school year. As Figure 4-17 illustrates, during the 2002-2003 school year, elementary schools had a lower disparity in discipline for the OSS ratio than for the ISS ratio, however, both were greater than for the referral ratio. For middle and high schools, the trend in the disparity was greatest when measured by the OSS ratio, followed by when measured by the ISS ratio and then the referral ratio. At all three school levels, there was an increase in the disparity for elementary school students, followed by middle and then high school students, using all three indicators. Table 4-30 shows a comparison of disparity ratios for referrals, in-school and out-of school suspensions (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black students for the 2003-2004 school year. As the numbers in Table 4-30 show, during the 2003-2004 school year, elementary schools had greatest disparity in discipline when measured by the ISS ratio, followed by when measured by the OSS ratio and then the referral ratio. For middle and high schools, the disparity in discipline was greatest when measured by the OSS ratio, followed by when measured by the ISS ratio and then the referral ratio.

PAGE 149

130 0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.0EMHDSchool LevelDisparity Ratio Ref ISS OSS Figure 4-17 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Referrals, ISS, and OSS (unduplicated) between Black and Non-Black Students for the 2002-2003 School Year Table 4-30 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Referrals, ISS, and OSS (unduplicated) between Black and Non-Black Students for the 2003-2004 School Year School Year Disparity Ratio Elementary Disparity Ratio Middle Disparity Ratio High Disparity Ratio District Referrals 2.7 2.1 1.7 1.9 In-School Suspension 6.3 2.9 2.4 2.7 Out-of School Suspension 4.2 3.4 2.8 3.1 The disparity for elementary school students increased from 2.7 for the referral ratio to 6.3 for the ISS ratio and then decreased to 4.2 for the OSS ratio. The disparity for middle school students increased from 2.1 for the referral ratio to 2.9 for the ISS ratio to 3.4 for the OSS ratio. The disparity for high school students increased from 1.7 for the referral ratio to 2.4 for the ISS ratio to 2.8 for the OSS ratio. The overall disparity for the

PAGE 150

131 district for the 2003-2004 school year increased from 1.9 for the referral ratio to 2.7 for the ISS ratio to 3.1 for the OSS ratio. Figure 4-18 illustrates the comparison of disparity ratios for referrals, in-school and out-of school suspensions (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black students for the 2003-2004 school year. As Figure 4-18 illustrates, during the 2003-2004 school year, elementary schools had greatest disparity in discipline when measured by the ISS ratio, followed by when measured by the OSS ratio and then the referral ratio. For middle and high schools, the disparity in discipline was greatest when measured by the OSS ratio, followed by when measured by the ISS ratio and then the referral ratio. 0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.0EMHDSchool LevelDisparity Ratio Ref ISS OSS Figure 4-18 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Referrals, ISS, and OSS (unduplicated) between Black and Non-Black Students for the 2003-2004 School Year Research Question 2: Population of Black Students Research Question 2 asked whether there was a trend in the disparity in discipline for Black students compared to non-Black students attending schools with a low (0 to 4.4%), medium (4.6% to 23.7%), and high (24.6% and higher) population of Black students during the five-year period from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004.

PAGE 151

132 Table 4-31 shows a comparison of disparity ratios for discipline referrals (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black students, by population of Black students attending each school, for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As the numbers in Table 4-31 show, there were no apparent trends in disparity in discipline, as measured by the referral ratio, between Black and Non-Black students attending schools with varying levels of populations of Black students, during the 5-year period studied. The disparity, as measured by the referral ratio, remained constant. The disparity in the referral ratio ranged from 1.4 to 3.0 (an average of 2.0) for schools with a low population of Black students, from 1.7 to 2.0 (an average of 1.9) for schools a medium population of Black students, and from 1.7 to 2.0 (an average of 1.8) for schools with a high population of Black students. Table 4-31 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by Population of Black Students Population of Black Students 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 Low 1.5 2.4 3 1.8 1.4 Medium 1.8 1.7 1.9 2 1.9 High 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.7 Figure 4-19 illustrates the comparison of disparity ratios for discipline referrals (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black students, by population of Black students attending each school, for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As Figure 4-19 illustrates, there were no apparent trends in disparity in discipline, as measured by the referral ratio, between Black and Non-Black students

PAGE 152

133 attending schools with varying levels of populations of Black students during the 5-year period studied. 0123456789101999-2000 2000-2001 2001-20022002-20032003-2004School YearDisparity Ratio Low Med High Figure 4-19 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by Population of Black Students Figure 4-20 illustrates the comparison of disparity ratios for discipline referrals (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black students, by population of Black students attending each school, for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As Figure 4-20 illustrates, there were no apparent trends in disparity in discipline, as measured by the referral ratio, between Black and Non-Black students attending schools with varying levels of populations of Black students, during the 5-year period studied. The disparity in discipline, as measured by the referral ratio, remained constant for schools with a low, medium and high population of Black students. Table 4-32 shows the percent of schools with a disparity in discipline greater than 2 for Black students as compared to non-Black students for discipline referrals (unduplicated), population of Black students attending each school, for each of the five

PAGE 153

134 consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As the numbers in Table 4-32 show, there were no apparent trends in the percent of schools with a referral ratio greater than 2, between Black and Non-Black students attending schools with varying levels of populations of Black students, during the 5-year period studied. The percent of schools with a disparity ratio greater than 2, for schools with a low population of Black students, ranged from 16.7 to 75.0 (a 5-year average of 42.3%), for schools with a medium population of Black students the range was from 15.0 to 70.0 (a 5-year average of 48.3%), and for schools with a high population of Black students the range was from 14.3 to 60.0 (a 5-year average of 35.7%). 012345678910LowMedHigh% Black PopulationDisparity Ratio 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 Figure 4-20 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by Population of Black Students Figure 4-21 illustrates the percent of schools with a disparity in discipline greater than 2 for Black students as compared to non-Black students for discipline referrals (unduplicated), population of Black students attending each school, for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As Figure 4-21

PAGE 154

135 illustrates, there were no apparent trends the percent of schools with a referral ratio greater than 2, between Black and Non-Black students attending schools with varying levels of populations of Black students, during the 5-year period studied. Table 4-32 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated) by Population of Black Students Population of Black Students 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 Low 16.7 40.0 75.0 60.0 20.0 Medium 50.0 15.0 51.4 70.0 55.0 High 60.0 30.0 45.5 14.3 28.6 Figure 4-22 illustrates the percent of schools with a disparity in discipline greater than 2 for Black students as compared to non-Black students for discipline referrals (unduplicated), population of Black students attending each school, for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As Figure 4-22 illustrates, there were no apparent trends the percent of schools with a referral ratio greater than 2, between Black and Non-Black students attending schools with varying levels of populations of Black students, during the 5-year period studied. Table 4-33 shows a comparison of disparity ratios for in-school suspensions (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black students, by population of Black students attending each school, for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As the numbers in Table 4-33 show, the 5-year trend in the disparity in discipline, for the ISS ratio, was highest for schools with a low population of Black students. The disparity in the ISS ratio ranged from 2.8 to 8.2 (an average of 4.8) for

PAGE 155

136 schools with a low population of Black students, from 2.1 to 2.7 (an average of 2.4) for schools with a medium population of Black students, and from 0.4 to 2.8 (an average of 2.0) for schools with a high population of Black students. 01020304050607080901001999-20002000-20012001-20022002-20032003-2004School YearPercent Low %B Medium %B High %B Figure 4-21 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated) ) by Population of Black Students 0102030405060708090100Low %BMedium %BHigh %BPercent Black PopulationPercent 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 Figure 4-22 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated) ) by Population of Black Students

PAGE 156

137 Table 4-33 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for In-School Suspension (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by Population of Black Students Population of Black Students 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 Low 3.5 8.2 2.8 4.4 4.9 Medium 2.1 2.1 2.5 2.5 2.7 High 2.1 0.4 2.3 2.2 2.8 Figure 4-23 illustrates the comparison of disparity ratios for in-school suspensions (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black students, by population of Black students attending each school, for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As Figure 4-23 illustrates, the 5-year trend in the disparity in discipline, for the ISS ratio, was highest for schools with a low population of Black students and similar for schools with medium and high populations of Black students. 0123456789101999-2000 2000-2001 2001-20022002-20032003-2004School YearDisparity Ratio Low Med High Figure 4-23 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for In-School Suspension (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by Population of Black Students

PAGE 157

138 Figure 4-24 illustrates the comparison of disparity ratios for in-school suspensions (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black students, by population of Black students attending each school, for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As Figure 4-24 illustrates, the 5-year trend in the disparity in discipline, for the ISS ratio, was highest for schools with a low population of Black students and similar for schools with medium and high populations of Black students. 012345678910LowMedHigh% Black PopulationDisparity Ratio 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 Figure 4-24 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for In-School Suspension (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by Population of Black Students Table 4-34 shows the percent of schools with a disparity in discipline greater than 2 for Black students as compared to non-Black students for in-school suspensions (unduplicated), by population of Black students attending each school, for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. Although there was not a trend in the disparity in discipline, as measured by the ISS ratio, between schools of varying populations of Black students, there were several trends identified when comparing the percent of schools with a disparity greater than 2.

PAGE 158

139 As the numbers in Table 4-34 show, for each of the 5-years studied, the highest percent of schools with a disparity in discipline greater than 2, as measured by the ISS ratio, was greatest for schools with a high population of Black students (an average of 84.6%). This number is in sharp contrast to schools with a low population of Black students (an average of 24.3%). Table 4-34 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for In-School Suspension (unduplicated) by Population of Black Students Population of Black Students 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 Low 16.7 20.0 25.0 40.0 20.0 Medium 59.4 54.5 64.9 62.5 67.5 High 80.0 90.0 81.8 85.7 85.7 The percent of schools with a disparity greater than 2 for schools with a low population of Black students, as measured by the ISS ratio, ranged from 16.7 to 40.0 (a 5-year average of 24.3%). For schools with a medium population of Black students, the range was from 54.5 to 67.5 (a 5-year average of 61.8%). For schools with a high population of Black students the range was from 80.0 to 90.0 (a 5-year average of 84.6%). Figure 4-25 illustrates the percent of schools with a disparity in discipline greater than 2 for Black students as compared to non-Black students for in-school suspensions (unduplicated), by population of Black students attending each school, for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As Figure 4-25 illustrates, for each of the 5-years studied, the highest percent of schools with a disparity

PAGE 159

140 in discipline greater than 2, as measured by the ISS ratio, was greatest for schools with a high population of Black students which was in sharp contrast to schools with a low population of Black students. 01020304050607080901001999-20002000-20012001-20022002-20032003-2004School YearPercent Low %B Medium %B High %B Figure 4-25 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for In-School Suspension (unduplicated) ) by Population of Black Students Figure 4-26 illustrates the percent of schools with a disparity in discipline greater than 2 for Black students as compared to non-Black students for in-school suspensions (unduplicated), by population of Black students attending each school, for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As Figure 4-26 illustrates, for each of the 5-years studied, the highest percent of schools with a disparity in discipline greater than 2, as measured by the ISS ratio, was greatest for schools with a high population of Black students which was in sharp contrast to schools with a low population of Black students. Table 4-35 shows a comparison of disparity ratios for out-of school suspensions (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black students, by population of Black students

PAGE 160

141 attending each school, for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As the numbers in Table 4-35 show, the 5-year trend in the disparity in discipline, for the OSS ratio, was lowest for schools with a low population of Black students. The disparity was similar for schools with a medium and high population of Black students. The disparity in discipline, as measured by the ISS ratio, ranged from 0 to 3.2 (an average of 1.4) for schools with a low population of Black students, from 2.5 to 3.3 (an average of 3.0) for schools with a medium population of Black students, and from 0.4 to 3.3 (an average of 2.2) for schools with a high population of Black students. 0102030405060708090100Low %BMedium %BHigh %BPercent Black PopulationPercent 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 Figure 4-26 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for In-School Suspension (unduplicated) by Population of Black Students Figure 4-27 illustrates the comparison of disparity ratios for out-of school suspensions (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black students, by population of Black students attending each school, for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As Figure 4-27 illustrates, the 5-year trend in the disparity in discipline, for the OSS ratio, was lowest for schools with a low population of

PAGE 161

142 Black students. The disparity was similar for schools with a medium and high population of Black students. Table 4-35 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Out-of School Suspension (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by Population of Black Students Population of Black Students 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 Low 1.6 0 0 3.2 2.4 Medium 2.6 2.5 3.3 3.3 3.1 High 2.6 0.4 2.5 3.3 2.2 0123456789101999-2000 2000-2001 2001-20022002-20032003-2004School YearDisparity Ratio Low Med High Figure 4-27 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Out-of School Suspension (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by Population of Black Students Figure 4-28 illustrates the comparison of disparity ratios for out-of school suspensions (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black students, by population of Black students attending each school, for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging

PAGE 162

143 from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As Figure 4-28 illustrates, the 5-year trend in the disparity in discipline, for the OSS ratio, was lowest for schools with a low population of Black students. The disparity was similar for schools with a medium and high population of Black students. 012345678910LowMedHigh% Black PopulationDisparity Ratio 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 Figure 4-28 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Out-of School Suspension (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by Population of Black Students Table 4-36 shows the percent of schools with a disparity in discipline greater than 2 for Black students as compared to non-Black students for out-of school suspensions (unduplicated), by population of Black students attending each school, for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As the numbers in Table 4-36 show, for 4 of the 5-years studied, the highest percent of schools with a disparity in discipline greater than 2, as measured by the OSS ratio, was for schools with a high population of Black students. Similarly, for each of the 5-years studied, the lowest percent of schools with a disparity in discipline greater than 2, was for schools with a low population of Black students.

PAGE 163

144 The percent of schools with a disparity ratio greater than 2, as measured by the OSS ratio, for schools with a very low population of Black students ranged from 0 to 60.0 (a 5-year average of 19.3%), for schools with a medium population of Black students the range was from 65.6 to 85.0 (a 5-year average of 75.8%), and for schools with a high population of Black students the range was from 71.4 to 100.0 (a 5-year average of 92.3%). Table 4-36 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Out-of School Suspension (unduplicated) by Population of Black Students Population of Black Students 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 Low 16.7 0.0 0.0 60.0 20.0 Medium 65.6 69.7 81.1 77.5 85.0 High 100.0 90.0 100.0 100.0 71.4 Figure 4-29 illustrates the percent of schools with a disparity in discipline greater than 2 for Black students as compared to non-Black students for out-of school suspensions (unduplicated), by population of Black students attending each school, for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As Figure 4-29 illustrates, for 4 of the 5-years studied, the highest percent of schools with a disparity in discipline greater than 2, as measured by the OSS ratio, was for schools with a high population of Black students. Similarly, for each of the 5-years studied, the lowest percent of schools with a disparity in discipline greater than 2, was for schools with a low population of Black students.

PAGE 164

145 01020304050607080901001999-20002000-20012001-20022002-20032003-2004School YearPercent Low %B Medium %B High %B Figure 4-29 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Out-of School Suspension (unduplicated) by Population of Black Students Figure 4-30 illustrates the percent of schools with a disparity in discipline greater than 2 for Black students as compared to non-Black students for out-of school suspensions (unduplicated), by population of Black students attending each school, for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As Figure 4-30 illustrates, for 4 of the 5-years studied, the highest percent of schools with a disparity in discipline greater than 2, as measured by the OSS ratio, was for schools with a high population of Black students. Similarly, for each of the 5-years studied, the lowest percent of schools with a disparity in discipline greater than 2, was for schools with a low population of Black students.

PAGE 165

146 0102030405060708090100Low %BMedium %BHigh %BPercent Black PopulationPercent 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 Figure 4-30 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Out-of School Suspension (unduplicated) by Population of Black Students Research Question 3: Number of Referrals Written Research Question 3 asked whether there was a trend in the disparity in discipline for Black students compared to non-Black students attending schools with a low (1-97) medium (97-511) high (greater than 511) number of referrals (unduplicated) written during the five-year period from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. Table 4-37 shows a comparison of disparity ratios for discipline referrals (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black students, by the total number of discipline referrals written at a school, for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As the numbers in Table 4-37 show, the trend in the disparity in discipline, as measured by the referral ratio, was greatest for schools with a low number of referrals written, followed by schools with an average number of referrals written and then by schools with a high number of referrals written, for each of the 5-years studied.

PAGE 166

147 The disparity in discipline, as measured by the referral ratio, ranged from 2.9 to 3.7 (a 5-year average of 2.7) for schools with a low number of referrals written, from 1.9 to 2.0 (a 5-year average of 2.0) for schools with an average number of referrals written, and from 1.6 to 1.8 (a 5-year average of 1.7) for schools with an high number of referrals written. Table 4-37 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by the Total Number of Referrals Written at a School (Unduplicated) Number of Referrals Written 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 Low 3.6 3.4 3.2 3.7 2.9 Medium 2.0 1.9 2.0 2.0 1.9 High 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 Figure 4-31 illustrates the comparison of disparity ratios for discipline referrals (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black students, by the total number of discipline referrals written at a school, for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As Figure 4-31 illustrates, the trend in the disparity in discipline, as measured by the referral ratio, was greatest for schools with a low number of referrals written, followed by schools with an average number of referrals written and then by schools with a high number of referrals written, for each of the 5-years studied. Figure 4-32 illustrates the comparison of disparity ratios for discipline referrals (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black students, by the total number of discipline referrals written at a school, for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As Figure 4-32 illustrates, the trend in the disparity in

PAGE 167

148 discipline, as measured by referral ratio, was greatest for schools with a low number of referrals written, followed by schools with an average number of referrals written and closely by schools with a high number of referrals written, for each of the 5-years studied. The percent of schools with a disparity greater than 2, as measured by referral ratio, for schools with a low number of referrals written ranged from 57.7 to 71.4 (a 5-year average of 65.9%), for schools with a medium number of referrals written ranged from 41.7 to 71.4 (a 5-year average of 57.1%) and for schools with a high number of referrals written ranged from 0 to 22.2 (a 5-year average of 11.9%). 012345671999-2000 2000-2001 2001-20022002-20032003-2004School YearDisparity Ratio Low Medium High Figure 4-31 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by the Total Number of Referrals Written at a School (Unduplicated) Table 4-38 shows the percent of schools with a disparity in discipline greater than 2 for Black students as compared to non-Black students for discipline referrals (unduplicated), by the total number of referrals written at each school, for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As the numbers in

PAGE 168

149 Table 4-38 show, the percent of schools with a disparity ratio greater than 2, as measured by the referral ratio, was greatest in school with a low number of referrals written, followed by schools with a medium and then by schools with a high number of referrals written, for the 2000-2001, 2001-2002, and 2003-2004 school years. For the 1999-2000 and 2002-2003 school years, schools with low and high number of referrals written had the greatest percent of schools with a disparity greater than 2, as measured by referral ratio. During those 2 school years, there was a considerably lower percent of schools with a high number of referrals written that had a disparity greater than 2. 01234567LowMediumHigh# Referrals WrittenDisparity Ratio 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 Figure 4-32 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by the Total Number of Referrals Written at a School (Unduplicated) Figure 4-33 illustrates the percent of schools with a disparity in discipline greater than 2 for Black students as compared to non-Black students for discipline referrals (unduplicated), by the total number of referrals written at each school, for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As Figure 4-33 illustrates, the percent of schools with a disparity ratio greater than 2, as measured by the

PAGE 169

150 referral ratio, was greatest in school with a low number of referrals written, followed by schools with a medium and then by schools with a high number of referrals written, for the 2000-2001, 2001-2002, and 2003-2004 school years. For the 1999-2000 and 2002-2003 school years, schools with low and high number of referrals written had the greatest percent of schools with a disparity greater than 2, as measured by referral ratio. During those 2 school years, there was a considerably lower percent of schools with a high number of referrals written that had a disparity greater than 2. Table 4-38 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated) by the Total Number of Referrals Written at a School (Unduplicated) Number of Referrals Written 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 Low 68.8 66.7 65.0 71.4 57.7 Medium 68.8 41.7 56.5 71.4 47.1 High 6.3 0 11.1 20.0 22.2 Figure 4-34 illustrates the percent of schools with a disparity in discipline greater than 2 for Black students as compared to non-Black students for discipline referrals (unduplicated), by the total number of referrals written at each school, for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As Figure 4-34 illustrates, the percent of schools with a disparity ratio greater than 2, as measured by the referral ratio, was greatest in school with a low number of referrals written, followed by schools with a medium and then by schools with a high number of referrals written, for the 2000-2001, 2001-2002, and 2003-2004 school years. For the 1999-2000 and 2002

PAGE 170

151 2003 school years, schools with low and high number of referrals written had the greatest percent of schools with a disparity greater than 2, as measured by referral ratio. During those 2 school years, there was a considerably lower percent of schools with a high number of referrals written that had a disparity greater than 2. 01020304050607080901001999-20002000-20012001-20022002-20032003-2004School YearPercen t Low Medium High Figure 4-33 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated) by the Total Number of Referrals Written at a School (Unduplicated) Table 4-39 shows a comparison of disparity ratios for in-school suspensions (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black students, by the total number of discipline referrals written at a school, for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As the numbers in Table 4-39 show, the trend in the disparity in discipline, as measured by the ISS ratio, was greatest for schools with a low number of referrals written and very similar for schools with an average and high number of referrals written, for each of the 5-years studied.

PAGE 171

152 The disparity in discipline, as measured by the ISS ratio, ranged from 4.9 to 6.8 (a 5-year average of 5.6) for schools with a low number of referrals written, from 2.1 to 3.0 (a 5-year average of 2.5) for schools with an average number of referrals written, and from 2.4 to 3.0 (a 5-year average of 2.6) for schools with an high number of referrals written. 0102030405060708090100LowMediumHighNumber of Referrals WrittenPercen t 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 Figure 4-34 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated) by the Total Number of Referrals Written at a School (Unduplicated) Table 4-39 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for In-School Suspensions (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by the Total Number of Referrals Written at a School (Unduplicated) Number of Referrals Written 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 Low 4.9 5.8 4.7 6.8 6.0 Average 2.3 2.1 2.5 2.4 3.0 High 2.4 2.4 2.6 2.5 3.0

PAGE 172

153 Figure 4-35 illustrates the comparison of disparity ratios for in-school suspensions (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black students, by the total number of discipline referrals written at a school, for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As Figure 4-35 illustrates, the trend in the disparity in discipline, as measured by the ISS ratio, was greatest for schools with a low number of referrals written and very similar for schools with an average and high number of referrals written, for each of the 5-years studied. 012345671999-2000 2000-2001 2001-20022002-20032003-2004School YearDisparity Ratio Low Medium High Figure 4-35 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for In-School Suspensions (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by the Total Number of Referrals Written at a School (Unduplicated) Figure 4-36 illustrates the comparison of disparity ratios for in-school suspensions (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black students, by the total number of discipline referrals written at a school, for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As Figure 4-36 illustrates, the trend in the disparity in discipline, as measured by the ISS ratio, was greatest for schools with a low number of

PAGE 173

154 referrals written and very similar for schools with an average and high number of referrals written, for each of the 5-years studied. 01234567LowMediumHigh# Referrals WrittenDisparity Ratio 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 Figure 4-36 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for In-School Suspensions (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by the Total Number of Referrals Written at a School (Unduplicated) Table 4-40 shows a comparison of disparity ratios for out-of school suspensions (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black students, by the total number of discipline referrals written at a school, for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As the numbers in Table 4-40 show, the trend in the disparity in discipline, as measured by the OSS ratio, was greatest for schools with a low number of referrals written and similar for schools with an average and high number of referrals written, for each of the 5-years studied. The disparity in discipline, as measured by the ISS ratio, ranged from 3.6 to 6.2 (a 5-year average of 4.8) for schools with a low number of referrals written, from 2.9 to 3.2 (a 5-year average of 2.4) for schools with an average number of referrals written, and

PAGE 174

155 from 2.7 to 3.1 (a 5-year average of 2.9) for schools with an high number of referrals written. Table 4-40 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Out-of School Suspensions (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by the Total Number of Referrals Written at a School (Unduplicated) Number of Referrals Written 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 Low 3.9 3.6 6.2 6.0 4.5 Average 3.2 3.0 2.9 3.0 2.9 High 2.9 2.7 3.1 3.0 2.9 Figure 4-37 illustrates the comparison of disparity ratios for out-of school suspensions (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black students, by the total number of discipline referrals written at a school, for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As Figure 4-37 illustrates, the trend in the disparity in discipline, as measured by the OSS ratio, was greatest for schools with a low number of referrals written and similar for schools with an average and high number of referrals written, for each of the 5-years studied. Figure 4-38 illustrates the comparison of disparity ratios for out-of school suspensions (unduplicated), for Black and Non-Black students, by the total number of discipline referrals written at a school, for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As Figure 4-38 illustrates, the trend in the disparity in discipline, as measured by the OSS ratio, was greatest for schools with a low number of referrals written and similar for schools with an average and high number of referrals written, for each of the 5-years studied.

PAGE 175

156 012345671999-2000 2000-2001 2001-20022002-20032003-2004School YearDisparity Rati o Low Medium High Figure 4-37 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Out-of School Suspensions (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by the Total Number of Referrals Written at a School (Unduplicated) 01234567LowMediumHigh# Referrals WrittenDisparity Rati o 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 Figure 4-38 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Out-of School Suspensions (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by the Total Number of Referrals Written at a School (Unduplicated)

PAGE 176

157 Research Question 4: Free and Reduced Lunch Research Question 3 asked whether there was a trend in the disparity in discipline for Black students compared to non-Black students attending schools with a low (0 to 9.9%), medium (10.0% to 52.8%), and high (52.9% and higher) number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch during the five-year period from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. Table 4-41 shows a comparison of disparity ratios for discipline referrals (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black students, by the population of students on free and reduced lunch at each school, for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As the numbers in Table 4-41 show, the trend in the disparity in discipline, as measured by the referral ratio, was consistently greater for schools with a high number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch then for schools with medium number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch, followed by schools with a low number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch. Table 4-41 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by Population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch Population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 Low 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.0 0.8 Medium 3.9 4.5 3.2 1.9 2.0 High 15.0 14.7 9.3 5.0 4.4 Another trend that is indicated by these numbers is that the disparity ratios in each of the three categories (low, medium and high numbers of students on Free and Reduced Lunch) constantly decreased over the 5-year period studied. For schools with a low

PAGE 177

158 number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch the disparity decreased from 1.8 during the 1999-2000 school year to 0.8 during the 2003-2004 school year (an overall decrease of 1.0). Schools with a medium number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch saw a decreased in the disparity, as measured by referral ratio, from 3.9 during the 1999-2000 school year to 2.0 during the 2003-2004 school year (an overall decrease of 1.9). Schools with a high number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch experienced the greatest decrease over the 5-year period. These schools saw a decreased in the disparity, from 15.0 during the 1999-2000 school year to 4.4 during the 2003-2004 school year (an overall decrease of 10.6). The disparity in discipline, as measured by the referral ratio, ranged from 0.8 to 1.8 (a 5-year average of 1.4) for schools with a low number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch, from 1.9 to 4.5 (a 5-year average of 3.1) for schools with a medium number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch, and from 4.4 to 15.0 (a 5-year average of 9.7) for schools with a high number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch. Figure 4-39 illustrates the comparison of disparity ratios for discipline referrals (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black students, by the population of students on free and reduced lunch at each school, for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As Figure 4-39 illustrates, the trend in the disparity in discipline, as measured by the referral ratio, was consistently greater for schools with a high number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch for schools with medium number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch, followed by schools with a low number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch.

PAGE 178

159 Another trend that is indicated by these numbers is that the disparity ratios in each of the three categories (low, medium and high numbers of students on Free and Reduced Lunch) constantly decreased over the 5-year period studied. 0510152025301999-2000 2000-2001 2001-20022002-20032003-2004School YearDisparity Ratio Low Med High Figure 4-39 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by Population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch Figure 4-40 illustrates the comparison of disparity ratios for discipline referrals (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black students, by the population of students on free and reduced lunch at each school, for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As Figure 4-40 illustrates, the trend in the disparity in discipline, as measured by the referral ratio, was consistently greater for schools with a high number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch for schools with medium number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch, followed by schools with a low number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch.

PAGE 179

160 Another trend that is indicated by these numbers is that the disparity ratios in each of the three categories (low, medium and high numbers of students on Free and Reduced Lunch) constantly decreased over the 5-year period studied. 051015202530LowMedHighFree ReducedDisparity Ratio 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 Figure 4-40 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by Population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch Table 4-42 shows the percent of schools with a disparity in discipline greater than 2 for Black students as compared to non-Black students for discipline referrals (unduplicated), by the population of students on free and reduced lunch at each school, for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As the numbers in Table 4-42 show, there were no apparent trends in the disparity in discipline, as measured by the referral ratio, for schools with varying levels of Free and Reduced Lunch. The percent of schools with a disparity greater than 2, as measured by referral ratio, for schools with a low number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch ranged from 27.3 to 50.0 (a 5-year average of 42.1%), for schools with a medium number of students on

PAGE 180

161 Free and Reduced Lunch ranged from 22.6 to 66.7 (a 5-year average of 45.9%) and for schools with a high number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch ranged from 37.5 to 66.7 (a 5-year average of 49.7%). There is a slight trend indicated when comparing the 5-year averages. The percent of schools with a disparity in discipline great than 2 was slightly greater for schools with a high number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch, followed by schools with a medium number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch and then by schools with a low number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch. Table 4-42 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated) by Population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch Population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 Low 33.3 27.3 50.0 50.0 50.0 Medium 22.6 43.8 51.4 66.7 45.0 High 66.7 37.5 50.0 44.4 50.0 Figure 4-41 illustrates the percent of schools with a disparity in discipline greater than 2 for Black students as compared to non-Black students for discipline referrals (unduplicated), by the population of students on free and reduced lunch at each school, for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As Figure 4-41 indicates, there were no apparent trends in the disparity in discipline, as measured by the referral ratio, for schools with varying levels of Free and Reduced Lunch.

PAGE 181

162 There is a slight trend indicated when comparing the 5-year averages. The percent of schools with a disparity in discipline great than 2 is slightly greater for schools with a high number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch, followed by schools with a medium number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch and then schools with a low number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch. 01020304050607080901001999-2000 2000-2001 2001-20022002-20032003-2004School YearPercent Low Mid High Figure 4-41 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated) by Population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch Figure 4-42 illustrates the percent of schools with a disparity in discipline greater than 2 for Black students as compared to non-Black students for discipline referrals (unduplicated), by the population of students on free and reduced lunch at each school, for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As Figure 4-42 indicates, there were no apparent trends in the disparity in discipline, as measured by the referral ratio, for schools with varying levels of Free and Reduced Lunch.

PAGE 182

163 There is a slight trend indicated when comparing the 5-year averages. The percent of schools with a disparity in discipline great than 2 is slightly greater for schools with a high number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch, followed by schools with a medium number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch and then schools with a low number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch. 0102030405060708090100LowMidHighFree and ReducedPercent 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 Figure 4-42 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated) ) by Population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch Table 4-43 shows a comparison of disparity ratios for in-school suspension (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black students, by the population of students on free and reduced lunch at each school, for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As the numbers in Table 4-43 show, the trend in the disparity in discipline, as measured by the ISS ratio, was consistently greater for schools with a high number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch for schools with medium number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch, followed by schools with a low number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch.

PAGE 183

164 Another trend that is indicated by these numbers is that the disparity ratios in each of the three categories (low, medium and high numbers of students on Free and Reduced Lunch) decreased over the 5-year period studied. There were some slight increases throughout the 5year period studied, however, there was an overall pattern of decreasing disparity. For schools with a low number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch the disparity decreased from 2.3 during the 1999-2000 school year to 0.7 during the 2003-2004 school year (an overall decrease of 1.6). Schools with a medium number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch saw a decreased in the disparity, as measured by referral ratio, from 5.2 during the 1999-2000 school year to 2.9 during the 2003-2004 school year (an overall decrease of 4.3). Schools with a high number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch experienced the greatest decrease over the 5-year period. These schools saw a decreased in the disparity, from 16.7 during the 1999-2000 school year to 10.1 during the 2003-2004 school year (an overall decrease of 6.6). Table 4-43 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for In-School Suspension (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by Population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch Population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 Low 2.3 2.2 2.4 1.0 0.7 Medium 5.2 6.3 4.3 2.6 2.9 High 16.7 18.6 14.5 8.0 10.1 Figure 4-43 illustrates the comparison of disparity ratios for in-school suspension (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black students, by the population of students on free

PAGE 184

165 and reduced lunch at each school, for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As Figure 4-43 illustrates, the trend in the disparity in discipline, as measured by the ISS ratio, was consistently greater for schools with a high number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch for schools with medium number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch, followed by schools with a low number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch. Another trend that is indicated by these numbers is that the disparity ratios in each of the three categories (low, medium and high numbers of students on Free and Reduced Lunch) decreased over the 5-year period studied. There were some slight increases throughout the 5years studied, however, there was a pattern of decreasing disparity. 0510152025301999-2001 2000-2002 2001-20032002-20042003-2005School YearDisparity Ratio Low Med High Figure 4-43 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for In-School Suspension (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by Population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch Figure 4-44 illustrates the comparison of disparity ratios for in-school suspension (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black students, by the population of students on free and reduced lunch at each school, for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging

PAGE 185

166 from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As Figure 4-44 illustrates, the trend in the disparity in discipline, as measured by the ISS ratio, was consistently greater for schools with a high number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch for schools with medium number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch, followed by schools with a low number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch. Another trend that is indicated by these numbers is that the disparity ratios in each of the three categories (low, medium and high numbers of students on Free and Reduced Lunch) decreased over the 5-year period studied. There were some slight increases throughout the 5years studied, however, there was a pattern of decreasing disparity. 051015202530LowMedHighFree ReducedDisparity Ratio 1999-2001 2000-2002 2001-2003 2002-2004 2003-2005 Figure 4-44 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for In-School Suspension (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by Population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch Table 4-44 shows the percent of schools with a disparity in discipline greater than 2 for Black students as compared to non-Black students for in-school suspension (unduplicated), by the population of students on free and reduced lunch at each school, for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As

PAGE 186

167 the numbers in Table 4-44 show, the percent of schools with a disparity greater than 2, as measured by the ISS ratio, was consistently greater for schools with a high number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch, followed closely by schools with medium number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch. The percent of schools with a low number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch was considerably lower then schools with either a medium of high number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch. Table 4-44 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for In-School Suspension (unduplicated) by Population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch Population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 Low 33.3 36.4 50.0 0.0 50.0 Medium 67.7 56.3 65.7 66.7 60.0 High 83.3 75.0 75.0 77.8 75.0 The percent of schools with a disparity greater than 2, as measured by ISS ratio, for schools with a low number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch ranged from 0 to 50.0 (a 5-year average of 33.9%), for schools with a medium number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch ranged from 56.3 to 66.7 (a 5-year average of 70.1%) and for schools with a high number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch ranged from 75.0 to 83.3 (a 5-year average of 77.2%). Figure 4-45 illustrates the percent of schools with a disparity in discipline greater than 2 for Black students as compared to non-Black students for in-school suspension (unduplicated), by the population of students on free and reduced lunch at each school,

PAGE 187

168 for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As Figure 4-45 illustrates, the percent of schools with a disparity greater than 2, as measured by the ISS ratio, was consistently greater for schools with a high number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch, followed closely by schools with medium number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch. The percent of schools with a low number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch was considerably lower then schools with either a medium of high number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch. 01020304050607080901001999-2000 2000-2001 2001-20022002-20032003-2004School YearPercent Low Mid High Figure 4-45 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for In-School Suspension (unduplicated) by Population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch Figure 4-46 illustrates the percent of schools with a disparity in discipline greater than 2 for Black students as compared to non-Black students for in-school suspension (unduplicated), by the population of students on free and reduced lunch at each school, for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As Figure 4-46 illustrates, the percent of schools with a disparity greater than 2, as measured by the ISS ratio, was consistently greater for schools with a high number of students on

PAGE 188

169 Free and Reduced Lunch, followed closely by schools with medium number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch. The percent of schools with a low number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch was considerably lower then schools with either a medium of high number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch. 0102030405060708090100LowMidHighFree ReducedPercent 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 Figure 4-46 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for In-School Suspension (unduplicated) by Population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch Table 4-45 shows a comparison of disparity ratios for out-of school suspension (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black students, by the population of students on free and reduced lunch at each school, for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As the numbers in Table 4-45 show, the trend in the disparity in discipline, as measured by the OSS ratio, was consistently greater for schools with a high number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch then for schools with medium number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch, followed by schools with a low number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch.

PAGE 189

170 Table 4-45 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Out-of School Suspension (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by Population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch Population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 Low 2.8 2.6 3.2 1.6 1.1 Medium 6.0 7.4 5.0 3.1 3.3 High 23.8 27.1 23.4 7.9 7.4 Another trend that is indicated by these numbers is that the disparity ratios in each of the three categories (low, medium and high numbers of students on Free and Reduced Lunch) constantly decreased over the 5-year period studied. There were some slight increases throughout the 5year period studied, however, there was a pattern of decreasing disparity. For schools with a low number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch the disparity decreased from 2.8 during the 1999-2000 school year to 1.1 during the 2003-2004 school year (an overall decrease of 1.7). Schools with a medium number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch saw a decreased in the disparity, as measured by referral ratio, from 6.0 during the 1999-2000 school year to 3.3 during the 2003-2004 school year (an overall decrease of 2.7). Schools with a high number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch experienced the greatest decrease over the 5-year period. These schools saw a decreased in the disparity, from 23.8 during the 1999-2000 school year to 7.4 during the 2003-2004 school year (an overall decrease of 16.4). The disparity in discipline, as measured by the OSS ratio, ranged from 1.6 to 3.2 (a 5-year average of 2.3) for schools with a low number of students on Free and Reduced

PAGE 190

171 Lunch, from 3.1to 7.4 (a 5-year average of 5.0) for schools with a medium number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch, and from 7.4 to 27.1 (a 5-year average of 17.9) for schools with a high number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch. Figure 4-47 illustrates the comparison of disparity ratios for out-of school suspension (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black students, by the population of students on free and reduced lunch at each school, for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As Figure 4-47 illustrates, the trend in the disparity in discipline, as measured by the OSS ratio, was consistently greater for schools with a high number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch then for schools with medium number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch, followed by schools with a low number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch. Another trend that is indicated by these numbers is that the disparity ratios in each of the three categories (low, medium and high numbers of students on Free and Reduced Lunch) constantly decreased over the 5-year period studied. There were some slight increases throughout the 5year period studied, however, there was an overall pattern of decreasing disparity. Figure 4-48 illustrates the comparison of disparity ratios for out-of school suspension (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black students, by the population of students on free and reduced lunch at each school, for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As Figure 4-48 illustrates, the trend in the disparity in discipline, as measured by the OSS ratio, was consistently greater for schools with a high number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch then for schools

PAGE 191

172 with medium number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch, followed by schools with a low number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch. 0510152025301999-2002 2000-2003 2001-20042002-20052003-2006School YearDisparity Ratio Low Med High Figure 4-47 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Out-of School Suspension (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by Population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch Another trend that is indicated by these numbers is that the disparity ratios in each of the three categories (low, medium and high numbers of students on Free and Reduced Lunch) constantly decreased over the 5-year period studied. There were some slight increases throughout the 5year period studied, however, there was an overall pattern of decreasing disparity. Table 4-46 shows the percent of schools with a disparity in discipline greater than 2 for Black students as compared to non-Black students for out-of school suspension (unduplicated), by the population of students on free and reduced lunch at each school, for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As the numbers in Table 4-46 show, the percent of schools with a disparity greater than 2, as measured by the OSS ratio, was consistently greater for schools with a high number of

PAGE 192

173 students on Free and Reduced Lunch. The second greatest percent of schools with a disparity greater than 2 were schools with a medium number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch, except during the 2000-2001 and 2003-2004 school years. The lowest percent of schools with a disparity greater than 2 were schools with a low number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch, except during the 2000-2001 and 2003-2004 school years. 051015202530LowMedHighFree ReducedPercent 1999-2002 2000-2003 2001-2004 2002-2005 2003-2006 Figure 4-48 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Out-of School Suspension (unduplicated) for Black and Non-Black Students by Population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch The percent of schools with a disparity greater than 2, as measured by OSS ratio, for schools with a low number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch ranged from 41.7 to 75.0 (a 5-year average of 58.6%), for schools with a medium number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch ranged from 28.1 to 87.1 (a 5-year average of 67.3%) and for schools with a high number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch ranged from 75.0 to 100.0 (a 5-year average of 92.5%).

PAGE 193

174 Table 4-46 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Out-of School Suspension (unduplicated) by Population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch Population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 Low 41.7 63.6 62.5 50.0 75.0 Medium 87.1 28.1 77.1 76.9 67.5 High 100.0 75.0 100.0 100.0 87.5 The percent of schools with a disparity in discipline great than 2 was greater for schools with a high number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch, followed by schools with a medium number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch and then by schools with a low number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch. Figure 4-49 illustrates the percent of schools with a disparity in discipline greater than 2 for Black students as compared to non-Black students for out-of school suspension (unduplicated), by the population of students on free and reduced lunch at each school, for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As Figure 4-49 illustrates, the percent of schools with a disparity greater than 2, as measured by the OSS ratio, was consistently greater for schools with a high number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch. The second greatest percent of schools with a disparity greater than 2 were schools with a medium number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch, except during the 2000-2001 and 2003-2004 school years. The lowest percent of schools with a disparity greater than 2 were schools with a low number of

PAGE 194

175 students on Free and Reduced Lunch, except during the 2000-2001 and 2003-2004 school years. 01020304050607080901001999-2000 2000-2001 2001-20022002-20032003-2004School YearPercent Low Mid High Figure 4-49 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Out-of School Suspension (unduplicated) by Population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch The percent of schools with a disparity in discipline great than 2 was greater for schools with a high number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch, followed by schools with a medium number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch and then by schools with a low number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch. Figure 4-50 illustrates the percent of schools with a disparity in discipline greater than 2 for Black students as compared to non-Black students for out-of school suspension (unduplicated), by the population of students on free and reduced lunch at each school, for each of the five consecutive schools years ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. As Figure 4-50 illustrates, the percent of schools with a disparity greater than 2, as measured by the OSS ratio, was consistently greater for schools with a high number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch. The second greatest percent of schools with a disparity greater

PAGE 195

176 than 2 were schools with a medium number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch, except during the 2000-2001 and 2003-2004 school years. The lowest percent of schools with a disparity greater than 2 were schools with a low number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch, except during the 2000-2001 and 2003-2004 school years. 0102030405060708090100LowMidHighFree and ReducedPercent 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 Figure 4-50 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Out-of School Suspension (unduplicated) by Population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch The percent of schools with a disparity in discipline great than 2 was greater for schools with a high number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch, followed by schools with a medium number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch and then by schools with a low number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch.

PAGE 196

CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Purpose The purpose of this study was to examine current disciplinary practices of a selected Florida school district to determine if there were racially neutral practices regarding student discipline. Participants All schools in the selected Florida public school district participated in this longitudinal study. Each school served as a unit of analysis, in other words, the focus of this study was at the school level. The data reported herein were drawn from the disciplinary records of all students in the selected Florida school district during the 1999-2000 through the 2003-2004 school years. For the purposes of this study, only the regular education schools (most of which had some self-contained exceptional student education classrooms) were included. Students in special centers and those from schools with incomplete or no reported data were excluded. Research questions This study was guided by the following research questions: 1. For all schools in the selected Florida school district, during the five-year period ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004, was there a trend in the disparity in discipline for Black students compared to non-Black students attending elementary (grades K-5), middle (grades 6-8) and high (grades 9-12) schools? 2. For all schools in the selected Florida school district, during the five-year period ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004, was there a trend in the disparity in discipline for Black students compared to non-Black students attending schools 177

PAGE 197

178 with a low (0 to 4.4%), medium (4.5% to 23.7%), and high (23.8% and higher) population of Black students? 3. For all schools in the selected Florida school district, during the five-year period ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004, was there a trend in the disparity in discipline for Black students compared to non-Black students attending schools with a low (1-96), medium (97-511), and high (512 or higher) number of referrals (unduplicated) written? 4. For all schools in the selected Florida school district, during the five-year period ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004, was there a trend in the disparity in discipline for Black students compared to non-Black students attending schools with a low (0 to 9.9%), medium (10.0% to 52.8%), and high (52.9% and higher) number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch? This study analyzed the data collected from the Information Database of the selected Florida public school district during the 5-year period ranging from the 1999-2000 to the 2003-2004 school years. Outcome Measures The fundamental analysis used in this study was the calculation of a disparity ratio. Three disparity ratios (referral ratio, ISS ratio, and OSS ratio) were calculated for the purpose of this study. The calculation of these three measures was described in Chapter 3 of this study. Four outcome measures were used in this study: school level (elementary, middle and high), percent of Black students attending a school, number of referrals written at a school, and number of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch attending a school. A detailed description of each measure was described in Chapter 3 of this study. Summary of Research Findings on the Disparity in Discipline for Black Students The fact that Black students are disproportionately suspended and expelled from school has been well-established (Bickel and Qualls, 1980; Bullara, 1993; Costenbader and Markson, 1994; Dupper and Bosch, 1996; Edelman, Beck, and Smith, 1975; Florida

PAGE 198

179 State Department of Education, 1995; Kaeser, 1979; Massachusetts State Board of Education, 1991; Moody, Williams, and Vergnon, 1978; Neill, 1976; Streitmatter, 1986; Wu et al., 1982). Researchers in the area of student discipline in schools typically present finding using two different formats, either percent of students suspended or suspension rate. Although the most common indicator of disparity in discipline used in research studies was the rates of suspensions (Wu et al., 1982), this researcher further disaggregated the data to include three indicators: referral ratio, in-school and out of school suspension ratios. The analysis of the data using these three indicators to determine disparity in discipline, allowed for a more thorough understanding of precisely where disparity in discipline occurred. Numerous research studies using suspension rate as the indicator for disparity in school discipline revealed that the rate of suspension for Black students was between two to three times that of White students (Childrens Defense Fund, 1974; Childrens Defense Fund, 1975; Costenbader and Markson, 1994; Larkin, 1979; Massachusetts Advocacy Center, 1986; McFadden et al., 1992; National Coalition of Advocates for Students, 1986; Office for Civil Rights, 1993; Raffaele, L. M., 1999; Wu et al., 1982). A research study conducted by Gordon, R., Della Piana, L., & Keleher, T. (2000) of suspension rates in ten cities revealed that the rate of suspension for Black students was between 1.2 (Phoenix) and 10.0 (Columbia, S.C.) times that of White students, with 9 out of the 10 cities having a suspension rate of 2.0 or higher and 7 out of 10 cities having a suspension rate of 3.0 or higher. In order to develop a true picture of disparity in discipline, for Black students as compared to non-Black students, this researched believed it was necessary to use more

PAGE 199

180 than one indicator of disparity. This researcher found that most other research studies use only one indicator of disparity, most commonly the suspension rate, which provided a narrow perspective on the problem. In addition, most studies do not differentiate between in-school and out-of school suspension rates. For the purposes of this study, three indicators of disparity were used: referral ratio, in-school suspension ratio, and out-of school suspension ratio. In accordance with the Consent Decree, the selected Florida school district used the referral ratio as the measure of disparity in discipline. In response to an Informal Discovery Request Discipline item, the Department of Justice identified schools with a disparity of two or more times the Black students receiving an unduplicated discipline referral compared to non-Black students. This has become the standard of measurement of disparity in the district. Because of this standard set by the Court, this researcher reported disparity in discipline as measured by the referral ratio to address each of the four research questions. These results are not comparable to previous research studies. In addition to using the referral ratio as a measure of disparity, this researcher used both the ISS and OSS ratios. While it is impossible to compare all of the results of past studies on the disparity in discipline between Black and non-Black students, due to the fact that most studies did not differentiate between ISS and OSS as in the current study, some results were comparable. Specifically, the comparison of the average disparity ratios for ISS and OSS for the entire school district. These results are presented in research question 1. The other findings of this study are unique.

PAGE 200

181 Summary of Findings School Level Research question 1 asked whether there was a trend in the disparity in discipline for Black students compared to non-Black students attending elementary (grades K-5), middle (grades 6-8) and high (grades 9-12) schools, for all schools in the selected Florida public school district during the five-year period ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. Several key findings were found using school level as the outcome measure. First, for each of the five-years studied elementary schools had the greatest disparity in discipline using all 3 indicators of disparity (referral, ISS and OSS ratio), followed by middle and then high schools. It is important to note that elementary schools also had the least number of referrals written which was also an indicator for a greater disparity in discipline. Further analysis is necessary to determine how much of an impact the number of referrals written effected the disparity for elementary schools. Another significant finding was that the disparity, as measured by the referral ratio, was lower than that of either the ISS or OSS ratio for all three-school levels. Although the results were consistent between school levels, there was some variability within school levels. In elementary schools, disparity was greatest as measured by the ISS ratio for two years and by the OSS ratio for two years. During one school year, the disparity was equal for both the ISS and OSS ratio. In middle schools, the disparity in discipline was always greatest as measure by the OSS ratio. In high schools, disparity was greatest, as measured by the OSS ratio, for 4 out of the 5 years studied. Although this research study was designed to determine the five-year trend in discipline, this researcher performed an additional analysis to determine the average

PAGE 201

182 disparity for the five-years studied. These results were directly comparable to previous research studies. Table 5-1 provides a comparison of the 5-year average disparity ratios for discipline referrals, ISS and OSS for Black and non-Black Students by school level. As the numbers in Table 5-1 indicate, the average disparity (using all three indicators of disparity) was consistently greatest for elementary schools, followed by middle and then high schools. When referral ratio was used the indicator of disparity, the average disparity for elementary school students was greater than that of either middle (an average of 1.4 times) or high school students (an average of 1.8 times). Likewise, the average disparity for middle school students was greater than that of high school students (an average of 1.3 times). Table 5-1 Comparison of the Average Disparity Ratios for Discipline Referrals, ISS and OSS for Black and Non-Black Students by School Level Level Disparity Ratio Referrals Disparity Ratio ISS Disparity Ratio OSS Elementary 3.1 6.0 5.6 Middle 2.2 3.0 3.6 High 1.7 2.4 2.7 District 2.0 2.7 3.2 When the ISS ratio was used the indicator of disparity, the average disparity for elementary school students was greater than that of either middle (an average of 2.0 times) or high school students (an average of 2.5 times). Likewise, the average disparity

PAGE 202

183 for middle school students was greater than that of high school students (an average of 1.3 times). When the OSS ratio was used the indicator of disparity, the average disparity for elementary school students was greater than that of either middle (an average of 1.6 times) or high school students (an average of 2.1 times). Likewise, the average disparity for middle school students was greater than that of high school students (an average of 1.3 times). Figure 5-1 illustrates the comparison of the average disparity ratios for discipline referrals, ISS and OSS for Black and non-Black Students by school level. 0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.0ElementaryMiddleHigh School Level Disparity Ratio Referrals Disparity Ratio ISS Disparity Ratio OSS Figure 5-1 Comparison of the Average Disparity Ratios for Discipline Referrals, ISS and OSS for Black and Non-Black Students by School Level Previous research studies revealed that the district level average rate of suspension for Black students to be between two to three times that of White students. Some studies even reported the rate of suspension for Black students to be as high as 10 times that for White students. The results of this study indicate that the average district suspension rate for the five-years studied to be 2.7 using the ISS ratio and 3.2 using the OSS ratio. These

PAGE 203

184 suspension ratios are within the range of the suspension rates found in previous studies. In other words, the disparity in discipline in the selected Florida school district was similar to that found in other school districts throughout the United States. In accordance with the Consent Decree of the selected Florida school district the disparity ratio in discipline using the referral ratio should not be higher than 2.0. The results of this study revealed the 5-year average disparity ratio, as measured by the referral ratio as 2.0. This was within the acceptable range to meet the Courts standard. Population of Black Students Research question 2 asked whether there was a trend in the disparity in discipline for Black students compared to non-Black students attending schools with a low (0 to 4.4%), medium (4.5% to 23.7%), and high (23.8% and higher) population of Black students, for all schools in the selected Florida school district during the five-year period ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. Another key finding of this study was found when varying populations of Black students attending a school was used as the outcome measure. First, there were no obvious trends in disparity at schools with varying populations of Black students when referral ratio was used the indicator of disparity. The disparity at all three levels of population of Black students remained relatively constant. When the ISS ratio was used the indicator of disparity, schools with a low population of Black students had the highest disparity in discipline. Schools with a medium and high population of Black students yielded similar results. When the OSS ratio was used the indicator of disparity, schools with a medium population of Black students had the highest disparity in discipline and for 2 of the 5 years studied, schools with a low population of Black students had no

PAGE 204

185 disparity in discipline. These results indicate that there was no overall pattern in the disparity in discipline for schools with varying populations of Black students. Again this researcher performed an additional analysis to determine the average disparity for the five-years studied. Table 5-2 provides a comparison of the average disparity ratio for discipline referrals (unduplicated), ISS and OSS for Black and non-Black students by population of Black students. These results are not directly comparable to previous research studies but yielded a great deal of information about the district. Figure 5-2 illustrates the comparison of the average disparity ratio for discipline referrals (unduplicated), ISS and OSS for Black and non-Black students by population of Black students. Table 5-2 Comparison of the Average Disparity Ratio for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated), ISS and OSS for Black and Non-Black Students by Population of Black Students Level Disparity Ratio Referrals Disparity Ratio ISS Disparity Ratio OSS Low 2.0 4.8 1.4 Medium 1.9 2.4 3.0 High 1.8 2.0 2.2 The 5-year average disparity in discipline revealed no obvious trends in disparity when referral ratio was used the indicator. Additionally, the average disparity ranged from 1.8 for school with a high population of Black students to 2.0 for schools with a low population of Black students. These disparity ratios were within the acceptable range to meet the Courts standard. When ISS ratio was used the indicator of disparity, the average disparity for schools with a low population of Black students was greater than

PAGE 205

186 that for schools with a medium (an average of 2.0 times) or high (an average of 2.4 times) population of Black students. When OSS ratio was used the indicator of disparity, the average disparity for schools with a medium population of Black students was greater than that for schools with a low (an average of 2.1 times) or high (an average of 1.4 times) population of Black students. The average disparity as measured by both ISS and OSS ratios were varied. The trend analysis for schools with varying populations of Black students yielded more conclusive results then the additional analysis using average disparity. 0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.0ReferralsISSOSSDisparity RatioDisparity RatioDisparity Ratio Population of BlackStudents Low Population of BlackStudents Medium Population of BlackStudents High Figure 5-2 Comparison of the Average Disparity Ratio for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated), ISS and OSS for Black and Non-Black Students by Population of Black Students Number of Referrals Written Research question 3 asked whether there was a trend in the disparity in discipline for Black students compared to non-Black students attending schools with a low (1-97), medium (98-511), and high (512 and higher) number of referrals (unduplicated) written,

PAGE 206

187 for all schools in the selected Florida school district during the five-year period ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. When schools with a varying number of referrals written was used as the outcome measure the results clearly indicated that the disparity in discipline was greatest for schools with a low number of referrals written using all three indicators of disparity. Using referral ratio as the indicator of disparity, disparity was lowest in schools with a high number of referrals written and highest in schools with a low number of referrals written. Using both the ISS and OSS ratios as the indicator of disparity, disparity was highest in schools with a low number of referrals written and similar in schools with a medium and high number of referrals written. Again this researcher performed an additional analysis to determine the average disparity for the five-years studied. Table 5-3 provides a comparison of the average disparity ratio for discipline referrals (unduplicated), ISS and OSS for Black and non-Black students by number of referrals written. These results are not directly comparable to previous research studies but yielded a great deal of information about the district. The 5-year average disparity ratios revealed several trends. First, when the referral ratio was used as the indicator of disparity, the disparity was greatest for schools with a low number of referrals written then for schools with a medium (an average of 1.4 times) or high (an average of 1.6 times) number of referrals written. When the ISS ratio was used the indicator of disparity, the average disparity for schools with a low number of referrals written was greater than that for schools with a medium (an average of 2.4 times) or high (an average of 2.3 times) number of referrals written.

PAGE 207

188 The disparity was similar in schools with medium and high number of referrals written. When the OSS ratio was used the indicator of disparity, the average disparity for schools with a low number of referrals written was greater than that for schools with a medium (an average of 2.0 times) or high (an average of 1.7 times) number of referrals written. The disparity for schools with a medium number of referrals written was similar to that for schools with a high number of referrals written. Figure 5-3 illustrates the comparison of the average disparity ratio for discipline referrals (unduplicated), ISS and OSS for Black and non-Black students by number of referrals written. Table 5-3 Comparison of the Average Disparity Ratio for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated), ISS and OSS for Black and Non-Black Students by the Number of Referrals Written at each School Level Disparity Ratio Referrals Disparity Ratio ISS Disparity Ratio OSS Low 2.7 5.6 4.8 Medium 2.0 2.5 2.4 High 1.7 2.6 2.9 Free and Reduced Lunch Research Question 4 asked whether there was a trend in the disparity in discipline for Black students compared to non-Black students attending schools with a low (0 to 9.9%), medium (10.0% to 52.8%), and high (52.9% and higher) number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch during the five-year period from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. The results of the study clearly indicated that the disparity was highest in schools with a high number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch and lowest in schools with a low number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch, using all three indicators of

PAGE 208

189 disparity. It is also important to note that the disparity in discipline, using all three measures of disparity, in schools with a high population of students on Free and Reduced Lunch was the higher then for all other outcome measures. This fact is important because it clearly shows that students who live in poverty are at the greatest risk for suspension and possibly expulsion from school. This finding also suggests that based on the evidence, there is a connection between poverty and disparity and discipline for Black students. This researcher suggests that this school district focus attention on this problem and look for strategies to reverse this trend. Additionally, this district is charged with making good faith efforts to reduce the disparity in discipline for Black students. By focusing on the population of students that most impact the disparity in discipline, it is imperative to begin here. This researcher performed an additional analysis to determine the average disparity for the five-years studied. Table 5-4 provides a comparison of the average disparity ratio for discipline referrals (unduplicated), ISS and OSS for Black and non-Black students by population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch. Using all three indicators of disparity (referral ratio, ISS ratio, and OSS ratio), the average disparity at schools with a high population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch was greater than schools with a medium or low population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch. The disparity increased as the severity of the consequence increased from referral to ISS and then to OSS. When the referral ratio was used as the indicator of disparity, the disparity was greatest for schools with a high population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch then

PAGE 209

190 for schools with a medium (an average of 2.2 times) or high (an average of 6.9 times) high population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch. 0.01.02.03.04.05.06.0ReferralsISSOSSDisparity RatioDisparity RatioDisparity Ratio Number of ReferralsWritten Low Number of ReferralsWritten Medium Number of ReferralsWritten High Figure 5-3 Comparison of the Average Disparity Ratio for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated), ISS and OSS for Black and Non-Black Students by the Number of Referrals Written at each School Table 5-4 Comparison of the Average Disparity Ratio for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated), ISS and OSS for Black and Non-Black Students by Population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch Level Disparity Ratio Referrals Disparity Ratio ISS Disparity Ratio OSS Low 1.4 1.7 2.3 Medium 3.1 4.3 5.0 High 9.7 13.6 19.9 When the ISS ratio was used the indicator of disparity, the average disparity for schools with a high population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch was greater than

PAGE 210

191 that for schools with a medium (an average of 2.5 times) or high (an average of 8.0 times) population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch. When the OSS ratio was used the indicator of disparity, the average disparity for schools with a high population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch was greater than that for schools with a medium (an average of 2.2 times) or high (an average of 8.7 times) population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch. Figure 5-4 illustrates the comparison of the average disparity ratio for discipline referrals (unduplicated), ISS and OSS for Black and non-Black students by population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch. 0.05.010.015.020.025.0ReferralsISSOSSDisparityRatioDisparityRatioDisparityRatio Population of Studentson Free and ReducedLunch Low Population of Studentson Free and ReducedLunch Medium Population of Studentson Free and ReducedLunch High Figure 5-4. Comparison of the Average Disparity Ratio for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated), ISS and OSS for Black and Non-Black Students by Population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch Conclusion The results of the study indicated that, without exception, the disparity in discipline was lowest as measured by the referral ratio. Further, the disparity in discipline as measured by the out-of school suspension ratio was greater than when measured by the

PAGE 211

192 in-school suspension ratio about 80 percent of the time. Further analysis is necessary to determine the cause fact that there is an increase in disparity for Black students as the severity of the consequence increases. Possible causes could be that Black students received referrals for more serious offenses or Black students received more referrals, which yielded an increase in the severity of the punishments with each offense. Besides the key finding concerning the use of different indicators of disparity, there were other important findings using the four outcome measures used in this study: school level (elementary, middle and high), percent of Black students attending a school, number of referrals written at a school, and number of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch attending a school. The key findings for each of the four outcome measures were described above. These findings should serve as a basis to further study the causes of disparity in discipline and measures the school district can take to reduce or eliminate the problem. District Level Policy Implications The Florida school district that was selected in this study should be advised that although the disparity in discipline is similar to that found in other research studies, there is a great deal of work that needs to be done to reduce the impact of discipline referrals on instructional time and the related impact of discipline disparity. Based on the results of this study, this researcher recommends that the selected Florida school district develop a comprehensive district-wide discipline plan with two overall goals: 1) to decrease the number of referrals earned, and 2) to decrease the disparity in discipline. This study can serve as the foundation upon which this district can build their discipline plan. However, in order for district and school staff to understand the depth of the challenge and the

PAGE 212

193 rationale for the recommended measures, it is essential that the district develop a more comprehensive discipline data monitoring plan. The monitoring plan should be designed to disaggregate the discipline data by school level (elementary, middle and high), by schools with varying levels of students on Free and Reduced lunch, and in schools with varying populations of Black students. The districts efforts to disaggregate the data by school level (elementary, middle and high), by individual school, by students on free and reduced lunch, and by Black/Non-black should be commended. The challenge for this district is to identify those schools and areas where the greatest disparity in discipline exists so that targeted support and resources can be provided. Secondly, the district should monitor disparity using indicators beyond those that are specifically monitored by the Department of Justice (specifically referral ratio). The results of this study indicate that the magnitude of the disparity in discipline was far greater using the ratios for both in and out-of-school suspension. This key finding points to the reality that Black students are losing instruction time at a rate greater than their non-Black counterparts as a result of suspensions. Since instructional time is directly correlated to academic achievement, it is essential that the district monitor the disparity in discipline using both in and out-of school suspension ratios and develop strategies to reverse this trend. Once the selected Florida school district develops a comprehensive discipline data monitoring plan, the district should research and implement targeted interventions to reduce the overall number of discipline referrals earned and to decrease the disparity in discipline for Black students. The district should conduct an annual review of school

PAGE 213

194 based behavior intervention plans and develop a process to determine the impact of the indicated interventions. The fact that the more frequently a student is disciplined, the more serious the consequences, is unquestionable. Students who earn multiple referrals are often called repeat offenders. These repeat offenders are more likely to be either suspended or expelled from their schools than students who violate discipline policies at a less frequent rate. In order to reduce the number of suspensions, and consequently the loss of instruction time for repeat offenders, the district should study this problem carefully and diligently. This researcher suggests that the district include a system to identify and monitor repeat offenders in its district-wide discipline plan. Finally, this researcher recommends that the district identify other variables that can be linked to student discipline. These variables include, but may not be limited to, gender, exceptional education students, and other ethnic groups, specifically Hispanic students. In summary, this researcher recommends that the district should continue to make a good faith effort to monitor frequency of referrals and discipline disparity, as well as the impact of measures taken to address these areas of concern. In addition, it is also recommended that school and district staff deepen their understanding of the possible causes of discipline, and define effective discipline procedures that minimize arbitrary interpretation of the discipline code and reduce the opportunity for teachers conscious or unconscious beliefs about a students race or socioeconomic status to influence discipline decisions. Including culturally-based strategies for managing student behavior can serve

PAGE 214

195 to reduce the loss of instructional time for the districts increasingly diverse population and the disparity among these groups. Recommendations for Further Study Further study on the disparity in discipline for African American students in public schools is needed. Recommendations for future study are listed below. 1. This study should be furthered by examining the possible causes of the disparity in discipline, such as cultural misperceptions, lack of parental support, student defiance, etc. 2. Further research should investigate the reasons students were referred, such as open defiance, tardiness, class disruption, etc. 3. Further research should investigate whether Black students receive the same consequence for the same offense as non-Black students. 4. Further research should be conducted to determine what schools could do to decrease the disparity in discipline between Black and non-Black students. 5. This study should be repeated for other ethnic groups, i.e. Hispanic Students.

PAGE 215

LIST OF REFERENCES Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 U.S. 19 (1969) Alexander, K. & Alexander, M. D. (1992). American public school law (3 rd ed.). St. Paul, MN: West. Bakersville, W. A. (1980). Differential implementation of a performance objective directed at the reeducation of suspensions at five desegregated high schools. (Doctoral dissertation, Eastern Michigan University, 1980). Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, 0257. Bear, G. G. (1998). School discipline in the United States: Prevention, correction, and long-term social development. School Psychology Review, 1, 14-32. Bennett, C. & Harris, J. (1982). Suspensions and expulsions of male and Black students: A study of the courses of disproportionality. Urban Education, 16, 399-423. Bickel, F. & Qualls, R. (1980). The impact of school climate on suspension rates in Jefferson County Public Schools. The Urban Review, 12, 79-86. Black, H. C. (2000). Blacks law dictionary (7 th ed.). St. Paul, MN: West Group Publishing Company. Board of Education of Okalahoma City v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237 (1991). Brantlinger, E. (1991). Social class distinctions in adolescents reports of problems and punishment in school. Behavioral Disorders, 17, 3646. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294 (1955). Bullara, D. T. (1993). Classroom management strategies to reduce racially-biased treatment of students. Journal of Education and Psychological Consultation, 4, 357-368. Bumbarger, B. (1999) School violence: disciplinary exclusion, prevention and alternatives. Universities Childrens Policy Partnership. Pennsylvania State University. Butera, G., Klein, H., McMullen, L. & Wilson, B. (1998). A statewide study of FAPE and school discipline policies. The Journal of Special Education, 32(2), 108-114. 196

PAGE 216

197 Campbell, D. W. (1991). A case study of discipline problems in a urban middle school (Doctoral dissertation, Temple University, 1991). Dissertation Abstracts International, 52, 0494. Cantu, N. (2000, February). Statement at the Briefing of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights on The Civil Rights Implications of Zero Tolerance Programs. Charles, L. E. (1981). Attitudinal characteristics of suspended students (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1981). Dissertation Abstracts International, 42 1053. Chicago Public Schools, FY 2000 Final Budget, Schools and Regions Objectives (2000). Suspended education: A preliminary report of the impact of Zero Tolerance on Chicago Public School Students, Generation Y, a project of the Southwest Youth Collaborative, Chicago, Illinois. Childrens Defense Fund, (1974). Children out of school in America. Washington, DC: Author, Washington Research Project, Inc. Children's Defense Fund (1975). School suspensions: Are they helping children? Cambridge, MA: Washington Research Project. Chobot, R. B., & Garibaldi, A. (1982). In-school alternatives to suspensions: A description of ten school district programs. The Urban Review, 14, 317-336. Ciminillo, L. M. (1980). Discipline: The schools dilemma. Adolescent, 15 (57), 1-12. The Civil Rights Project Harvard University. (2000, September). Opportunities suspended: The devastating consequences of zero tolerance and school discipline policies. Report by the Advancement Project and The Civil Rights Project. Harvard University: Cambridge, MA. Retrieved February 10, 2003 at http://www. civilrightsproject.harvard.edu/research/discipline/ call_opport.php. The Civil Rights Project Harvard University. (2001a, September). Constitution requirements for race-conscious policies in K-12 education: Cambridge, MA School District. The Civil Rights Project Harvard University. (2001b, September). Is diversity a compelling educational interest? Evidence from metropolitan Louisville. Cambridge, MA School District. The Civil Rights Project, Harvard University. Overview of constitutional requirements in race-conscious affirmative action policies in Education. (September 27, 2001c) The Civil Rights Project Harvard University. (2002a, January). The impact of racial and ethnic diversity on educational outcomes: Cambridge, MA School District.

PAGE 217

198 The Civil Rights Project Harvard University. (2002b, October). Civil Rights Alert: Zero Tolerance Policies and School Discipline. Downloaded from the World Wide Web March 1, 2003: http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu/resources/civilrights_brief/ Zero_Tolerance.pdf Coalition to Save our Children v. State Board of Education of the State of Delaware, 90 F.3d 752 (3d Cir. 1996) Comerford, D. J. & Jacobson, M. G. (1987, April). Capital Punishment for misdemeanors: The use of suspension at four suburban junior high schools and viable alternatives that could work. An ethnographic study. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (April 20-24, 1987). Washington, D.C. Commission for Positive Change in Oakland Public Schools. (1992). Keeping children in school: Sounding the alarm of suspensions. Oakland, CA: Urban Strategies Council. Consent Decree, 2000. Constitution of the United States of America. (1787). Retrieved April 11, 2002, from the World Wide Web site: http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html Cooly, S. (1995). Suspension/expulsion of regular and special education students in Kansas: A report to the Kansas State Board of Education. Topeka, KS: Kansas Costenbader, V. K., & Markson, S. (1994, October). School suspension: A survey of current policies and practices. NASSP Bulletin, 78, 103-107. Costenbader, V., & Markson, S. (1998). School suspension: A study with secondary school students. Journal of School Psychology, 36,59-82. Cotton, K. (1990). School-wide and classroom discipline. SIRS School Improvement Research Series. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. Davis, J. E., & Jordan, W. J. (1994). The effects of school context, structure, and experiences on African American males in middle and high school. Journal of Negro Education, 63(4), 570-587. DeLacy, D. R. (1997, December). Unitary status: Still the goal for U.S. school districts? The American School Board Journal, 184(12), 22-24. DeRidder, L. M. (1991). How suspension and expulsion contribute to dropping out. Education Digest, 56(6), 44-47. Diem, R. A. (1988, October/November). On campus suspensions: A case study. University of North Carolina Press. The High School Journal, 82(1).

PAGE 218

199 Dixon, A. (1992, April). Parents: Full partners in the decision-making process. NASSP Bulletin, 76(543), 15-18. Duke, D. L., & Jones, V. F. (1984). Two decades of discipline-assessing the development of an educational specialization. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 17, 25-25. Dupper, D. R. & Bosch, L. A. (1996). Reasons for school suspensions. Journal for a Just and Caring Education. 2(2), 140-50. Edelman v. Jordan, 415 US 651 (1974). Edelman, M., Beck, R., & Smith, P. (1975). School suspensions: Are they helping children? Cambridge, MA: Childrens Defense Fund. Edelman, M. W. (1997). Leaving no child behind. School Administrator, 54(5), 14-16. Ekstrom, R. B, Goertz, M. E., Pollack, J. M., & Rock, D. A. (1986). Who drops out of high school and why?: Findings from a national study. Teachers College Record, 87, 357-73. Federal Gun Free Schools Act of 1994, 33 U.S.C. 3315 (1994). Fife, B. L. (1996, September). The Supreme Court and school desegregation since 1896. Equity and Excellence in Education, 29(2), 46-55. Florida State Department of Education. (1999, May). Bureau of Instructional Support and Community Services, Statewide report on school safety and discipline data. Retrieved February 6, 2003, from http://www.firn.edu/doe/commhome Florida State Department of Education. (1995). Florida school discipline study: 1994 Juvenile Justice Reform Act. A report to the Florida legislature (Report No. EA026876). Tallahassee, FL: (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED384981) Foster, H. L. (1995). Educators and non-educators perceptions of Black males: A survey. Challenge: A Journal of Research on African American Men, 1(2), 37-70. Frahm, R. A. (1983). Minorities: Classroom crises, changes and challenges: City schools in America. Washington, DC: The Institute for Educational Leadership, Inc. Franklin, M. E. (1992). Culturally sensitive instructional practices for African American learners with disabilities, Exceptional Children, 59, 115-122. Freeman v. Pitts et al., 503 U.S. 467 (1992). Garibaldi, A. M. (1991). The Black male: An endangered species. Senga, 1(2), 71-73.

PAGE 219

200 Garibaldi, A. M. (1992). Educating and motivating African American males to succeed, Journal of Negro Education, 61(1), 4-11. Gibson, J. R. (1999). Unitary status: a new wave of litigation. Alabama School Boards. Retrieved April 2, 2002: from http://www.theaasb.org/asb.crm?docID=141 Gilbert, S. E., & Gay, G. (1985) Improving the success of poor Black children, Phi Delta Kappan, 67, 133-137. Goldsmith, A. H. (1979). Discipline discrimination, disproportionality and discretion: A legal memorandum (Report No. EA012229). Reston, VA: (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED177731) Gordon, R., Della Piana, L., & Keleher, T. (2000). Facing the consequences: An examination of racial discrimination in U.S. public schools. Oakland, CA: Applied Research Center. Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975) Gottfredson, D. C., Gottfredson, G. D., and Hybl, L. G. (1993). Managing adolescent behavior: A multiyear, multischool study. American Educational Research Journal, 30(1), 179-215. Gottlieb, D. (1964). Teaching and student: The views of Negro and White teachers. Sociology of Education, 37, 345-353. Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, Virginia, 391 U.S. 430 (1968). Green, R. L., & Brydon, J. (1975). Investing in youth: An approach to discipline in urban schools. In Discipline and Learning. Washington, DC: National Education Association. Gregory, J. F. (1995). The crime of punishment: Racial and gender disparities in the use of corporal punishment in U.S. public schools. Journal of Negro Education, 64(4), 454-462. Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County 377 U.S. 218 (1964). Harry, B., & Anderson, M. G. (1995). The disproportionate placement of African American males in special education programs: A critique of the process. Journal of Negro Education, 63 602-519. Hill, H. D. (1989). Effective strategies for teaching minority students Bloomington, IN: National Educational Services. Holt, K. (1990). Educating African American males: A dream deferred (Executive report of the African American Males Task Force). (Report No. UD028212).

PAGE 220

201 Hopkins, R. (1997). Educating Black males: Critical issues in school, community, and power. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Horton, J. O., & Moresi, M. G. (2001, Winter). Roberts, Plessy, and Brown: The long, hard struggle against segregation. Organization of American Historians: Magazine of History, 15, 14-16. Imich, A. J. (1994). Exclusions from school: Current trends and issues. Educational Research, 36(1), 3-11. Ingersoll, S., & Boeuf, D. (1977, February). Reaching out to youth out of the education mainstream. Juvenile Justice Bulletin, 1-11. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Washington D.C. Irvine, J. (1990). Black students and school failure: Policies, practices, and procedures. New York: Greenwood Press. Jencks, Christopher (1979). Who gets ahead? The determinants of economic success in America. New York, NY: Basic Books. Johnson, M. D. (1989). Organizational climate, discipline infractions, and student achievement (Doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University, 1989). Dissertation Abstracts International, 51, 0038. Jones, F. H. (1979). The gentle act of classroom discipline. National Elementary Principal, 58, 26-32. Kadel, S., and J. Follman. (1993). Reducing school violence in Florida. Hot topics: usable research. (Report No. EA024654). Washington, DC: Southeastern Regional Vision for Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED355614) Kaesar, S. C. (1979). Suspensions in school discipline. Education and Urban Society, 11(4), 465-484. Keyes v. School District No. 1, 391 U.S. 430, (1973). Kohl, H. (1994). I wont learn from you and other thoughts on creative maladjustment. New York: New Press Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education. Teachers College Record, 35, 47-68. Landon, T., & Mesinger, J. F. (1989). Teacher tolerance ratings on problem behaviors. Behavior Disorders, 14 236-249. Larkin, J. (1979). School desegregation and student suspension: A look at one school system. Education and Urban Society, 11(4), 485-495.

PAGE 221

202 Larkin, J. (1982). School desegregation, race, and discipline: A case study aggregation analysis (Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, 1982). Dissertation Abstracts International, 44 0098. Mason, W. G. (1980). A comparative study of academic grades, suspensions, and attendance of students from an all-Black junior high school who were assigned to one of four desegregated schools in Kansas (Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, 1979). Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, 1871. Massachusetts Advocacy Center (1986). The way out: Student exclusion practices in Boston middle schools. Boston, MA: Author Massachusetts State Board of Education, (1991). Suspensions in the Massachusetts public schools. (Report No. UD028159). Quincy, MA: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED334333) McCadden, E. M. (1998). Why is Michael always getting timed out? Race, class and disciplining other peoples children. In R.E. Butchart & B. McEwan (Eds.), Classroom discipline in American schools: Problems and possibilities for democratic education (p. 109-13). Albany: State University of New York Press. McCarthy, J. D. & Hoge, D. R. (1987) Analysis of age effects in longitudinal studies of adolescent self-esteem. Developmental Psychology, 18, 372-9 McFadden, A. C., Marsh, G. E., Price, J. P., & Hwang, H. (1992). The social construction of school punishment: Racial disadvantage out of universalistic process. Social Forces, 65(4), 1100-1120. Milliken, Governor of Michigan, et al., v. Bradley et al., 418 U.S. 717 (1974). Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 1139 (1995). Mizell, M. H. (1978). Designing and implementing in-school alternatives to suspension. The Urban Review, 10(3), 213-226. Moles, Oliver C. (1989). Strategies to reduce student misbehavior. Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, (Report No. ED021468). U.S. Department of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED311 608). Montgomery, J. D. (1977). Cultural disadvantage, race, and discipline in selected secondary schools in Arkansas (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Mississippi, 1977). Dissertation Abstracts International, 38, 7061. Moody, C. D. Williams, J., & Vergnon, C. B. (1978). Student rights and disciplinary procedures. (Report No. CG012862). Ann Arbor, MI. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED160926).

PAGE 222

203 Moore, E. (1987). Message from the executive director. Black Child Advocate, 14, 1. Morgan, H. (1991). Race and gender issues: In school suspension (Report No. UD028922). Chicago, IL. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED357149). Morrison, G. M., & DIncau, B. (1997). The web of Zero Tolerance: Characteristics of Students Who are Recommended for Expulsion from School. Education and Treatment of Children, 20 (3), 316-335. National Center for Educational Statistics, (1997). The Condition of Education Report NCES 97-981 Government Printing Office (GPO publication number 065-000-00997-8). National Center for Education Statistics. (1998). Violence and Discipline Problems in U.S. Public Schools: 1996-1997 (NCES 98-030). Washington, D.C., Department of Education. National Coalition of Advocates for Students, (1986). A special analysis of 1984 elementary and secondary civil rights survey data. Boston, MA: Author. National Education Goals Panel. The National Education Goals Report: Building a Nation of Learners. December 1999. Retrieved on April 7, 2003, from the World Wide Web: at www.negp.gov National School Board Association (1994). Towards better and safer schools. American School Board Journal, 152. Neill, S. B. (1976). Suspension and expulsion: Current trends in school policies and programs. Arlington, VA: National School Public Relations Association. Opotow, S. (1990). Moral exclusion and injustice: An introduction. Journal of Social Issues, 46(1), 1-20. Ordovensky, P. (1988, December 12). Florida, Maryland suspend most students. USA Today, p. D-1. Orfield, G., Bachmeier, M. D., James, D. R., & Eitle, T. (1997). Deepening segregation in American public schools: A special report from the Harvard Project on School desegregation. Equity & Excellence in Education, 30(2), 5-23. Orfield, G., & Yun, L. (1999). Resegregation in American schools. The Civil Rights Project. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Panko-Stilmock, J. L. (1996). Teacher gender and discipline referral rates for middle level boys and girls (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts International, 57, 5007.

PAGE 223

204 Pare, J. (1983). Alternative learning center: Another option for discipline programs. NASSP Bulletin, 67(459), 61-67. Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 527 (1986). Public Law 88-352, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.). Radin, N. (1988). Alternatives to suspension and corporal punishment. Urban Education, 22, 476-495. Raffaele, L. M. (1999, September). An analysis of out-of-school suspensions in Hillsborough County. Tampa, FL: The childrens Board of Hillsborough County. Ratcliff, R. (1980). Physical punishment must be abolished. Educational Leadership, 38, 474-476. Reed, R. (1988). Education and achievement of young Black males. In J. Gibb (Eds.), Young, Black and male in America: An endangered species (p. 37-96). Dover, MA: Auburn House. Robinson, S. P. (1979). An analysis of administrator discretion and its impact on Black student suspensions (Doctoral dissertation, University of Kentucky, 1979). Dissertation Abstracts International, 40, 3681. Rose, C. L. (1988). Current disciplinary practices with handicapped students: Suspensions and expulsions. Exceptional Children, 55, 230-239. Rose, C. L., & Gallup, A. M. (2002). The 34th Annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll of the Public's Attitudes Toward the Public Schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(1), 41-46, 51-56. Rosen, L. (1997). School discipline: Best practices for administrators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Rutherford, R. (1978). Theory and research on the use of aversive procedures in the education of behaviorally disordered and emotionally disturbed children and youth. In F. Wood & K.C. Lankin (Eds.), Punishment and aversive stimulation in special education (p. 41-64). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. Safer, D. (1986). Nonpromotion correlates and outcomes at different grade levels. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 500-503. Safran, P., & Safran, J. S. (1984). Elementary teachers tolerance of problem behaviors. Elementary School Journal, 85, 237-243. Schiraldi, V. (1998, August 25). Hyping school violence. The Washington Post [Online], p. A15. Retrieved September 5, 2002 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1998-08/25/009l-082598-idx.html

PAGE 224

205 Schwartz, W. (2001). School practices for equitable discipline of African American students. (Report No. UD034328). New York, NY. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EDO-UD-01-5). Skiba, J. S., Peterson, R. L., & Williams, T. (1997). Office referrals and suspension: disciplinary intervention in middle schools. Education and Treatment of Children, 20(3) 295-315. Sleeter, C. (1996). Multicultural education as social activism. New York: SUNY. Sneed, M., & Martin, C. (1997). Practical guide to issues related to unitary status. Inquiry & Analysis. Retrieved May 10, 2002, from the World Wide Web: http://216.239.39.100/search?q=cache:NBOK7zumMGsC:www.hhlaw.com/publications/pdf/UNITARY.pdf+how+many+school+districts+are+seeking+unitary+status&hl=en Spring, J. (1997). Deculturalization and the struggle for equality: A brief history of the education of dominated cultures in the United States. New York: McGraw-Hill. State of Wisconsin, Department of Public Instruction, (1999). School Discipline-Suspensions, Education at a Glance, April 1999. Steele, C. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52(6), 613-629. Streitmatter, J. L. (1986). Ethnic/racial and gender equity in school suspensions. The High School Journal, 69(2) 139-143. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 629 (1950). Swann et al. v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education et al., 302 U.S. 1, (1971). Tatum, B. (1994). Teaching white students about racism: The search for white allies and the restoration of hope. Teachers College Record, 95(4),462-475 Thrasher, J. (1997). Teacher-student ethnicity, suspension/expulsion, and referrals to special education: Implications for African American males (Report No. SP036380). Maryland: (ERIC Document Reproduction Servic No. ED390819). Title IV, SEC. 401 of the Constitution of the United States. Tobin, T. J., & Sugai, G. M. (1999). Using sixth-grade school records to predict violence, chronic discipline problems, and high school outcomes. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 7(1), 40-53. Tobin, T. J., Sugai, G. M., & Colvin, G. (May, 2000). Research brief: Using discipline referrals to make decisions. NASSP Bulletin 84(616), 106-117.

PAGE 225

206 Tobin, T. J., Sugai, G. M., & Colvin, G. (1996). Patterns in middle school discipline records. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 4(2), 82-94. Townsend, B. L. (2000) The disproportionate discipline of African American learners: reducing school suspensions and expulsions. Exceptional Children, 66(3), 381-391. United States Census Bureau, (1997). How Were Changing. Retrieved on June 15, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://www.census.gov/prod/2/pop/p23/p23-193.pdf United States Department of Labor, (1997). Work Experience of the Population in 2000. Retrieved on June 15, 2003, from the World Wide Web: ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/news.release/History/work.11062001.news United States Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, (1993). Fall 1990 elementary and secondary school civil rights survey: National summaries. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. United States Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, (1998) Fall 1998 Elementary and Secondary School Civil Rights Compliance Report: National and State Projections. FR Doc. 98-20169. United States Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights. (1999). Projected student suspension rates values for the nations public schools by race/ethnicity, from Elementary and Secondary School Civil Rights Compliance Reports. Compiled by the National Coalition to Abolish Corporal Punishment in Schools, Columbus, Ohio. Walker, H., Stieber, E., Ramsey, E., & & ONeill, R. E. (1990). School behavior profiles of arrested versus nonarrested adolescents. Exceptionality, 1, 249-65. Walker, H., Stieber, E., Ramsey, E., & & ONeill, R. E. (1991). Longitudinal prediction of the school achievement, adjustment, and delinquency of antisocial versus at-risk boys. Remedial and Special Education, 4, 43-51. Walker, H., Stieber, E., Ramsey, E., & & ONeill, R. E. (1993). Fifth grade school adjustment and later arrest rate: A longitudinal study of middle school antisocial boys. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 4, 295-315. Walker, H., Colvin, G., & Ramsey, E. (1995). Antisocial Behavior in School: Strategies and Best Practices. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Wanat, C. (1992, April). Meeting the needs of single-parent children: School and parent views differ. NASSP Bulletin, 76(543), 43-48. Williams, M. L., & De Lacy, D. R. (1996). With all deliberate speed. The American School Board Journal, 22-25.

PAGE 226

207 Williams, J. (1979). In-school alternatives to suspension: Why bother? In A.M. Garibaldi (Ed.). In-school alternatives to suspension: Conference report. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Williams, J. (1989). Reducing the disproportionately high frequency of disciplinary actions against minority students: An assessment-based policy approach. Equity and Excellence, 24(2), 31-37. Wood v. Strickland 95 S. Ct. 992 (1975). Woodridge, P., & Richman, C. L. (1985). Teachers choice of punishment as a function of a students gender, age, race, and IQ level. Journal of School Psychology, 23(1), 19-29. Wu, S., Pink, W., Crain, R., & Moles, O. (1982). Student suspensions: A critical reappraisal. The Urban Review, 14(4), 245-273.

PAGE 227

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Deborah Camilleri was born in Brooklyn, New York, in 1961. She is the oldest of three children. In 1963, her family moved from Brooklyn to Bethpage, Long Island, where she attended Bloomingdale Elementary School, John F. Kennedy Junior High and Bethpage High School. In 1990, Deborah earned her Associate of Science degree in chemistry and mathematics from Nassau Community College. After working in the pharmaceutical industry for several years, she traveled through Europe for a year then returned to the United States. She married Joseph Camilleri in 1985 and had her daughter Nicholina in 1987, then moved back to Europe with her family for another year. Upon returning to the United States, Deborah and her family moved to Central Florida, where she obtained her Associate of Arts degree in 1993 from Valencia Community College and her Bachelor of Arts degree in 1994 and her Master of Business Administration in 1995, both from the University of Central Florida. She continued to work in the pharmaceutical industry as the director of quality assurance and laboratory services until she went into the field of teaching. Her first teaching experience was as a 7th grade science teacher at Teague Middle School. She then began teaching honors, gifted and AP chemistry at Lake Howell High School and then Winter Spring High School. During her first year of teaching she was a recipient of the Sally Mae First Class Teacher Award and later became science department chair. She also taught evening classes at Seminole Community College as both an adjunct professor in chemistry and as a computer instructor for the community 208

PAGE 228

209 education department. She continued her education and in 1999 earned a specialist degree in educational leadership from the University of Florida. She is currently working as an assistant principal at Milwee Middle School.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0002120/00001

Material Information

Title: A Florida Public School District's Compliance with Disciplinary Requirements Regarding Unitary Status
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0002120:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0002120/00001

Material Information

Title: A Florida Public School District's Compliance with Disciplinary Requirements Regarding Unitary Status
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0002120:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text











A FLORIDA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT'S COMPLIANCE WITH DISCIPLINARY
REQUIREMENTS REGARDING UNITARY STATUS














By

DEBORAH CAMILLERI


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2006

































Copyright 2006

by

Deborah Camilleri















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The completion of my doctoral course work and the following dissertation could

not have been accomplished without the support and encouragement from my friends,

family, and colleagues. Special thanks go to my daughter, Nicholina, for her sacrifices,

her patience, and for always believing in me. I thank my husband Joe, for the freedom to

pursue my dreams. I would also like to thank my mother Rosemarie Zditowsky; my late

father Walter Zditowsky; and my sisters Denise and Lisa, whose continuous support for

all my pursuits always allowed me to achieve my dreams.

The inspiration for this dissertation came from Dr. Anne-Marie Cote, whose

guidance and motivation were always appreciated and invaluable. I would also like to

thank Dr. Ronald Pinnell and Mr. Raymond Gaines for allowing me to serve on the

District Discipline Committee which allowed me to put research into practice and vice

versa. I am especially grateful to my friend and colleague, Dr. Michelle Clopton, for her

time and support on this project; together we have pushed ourselves to our limits to reach

unbelievable goals.

Sincere appreciation goes to my committee chairperson, Dr. David Honeyman, who

was both flexible and supportive when he needed to be. I would like to extend sincere

thanks to my committee members: Dr. Linda Hagedorn, Dr. Dale Campbell, and Dr.

Mary Brownell. I especially would like to thank Dr. James Doud for his leadership and

guidance throughout the years; I could not have done this without him.









Finally, I would like to thank my entire cohort, especially Donna Weaver, Melanie

May, and Dr. Kathy Sciortino, for a memorable and life-changing experience. I thank my

friends and colleagues in Seminole County Public Schools (Robin Dehlingher, Patricia

Bowman, Tina Johnson and Lois Chavis). Their inspiration and friendship gave me the

strength to complete this challenging project.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ................................................................................................. iii

LIST OF TABLES .............................................. viii

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................ xiii

A B S T R A C T ................................................................................................................... x v iii

CHAPTER

1 IN TR O D U C T IO N ........ .. ......................................... ..........................................1.

Statem ent of the P problem ...................................................................... ...............8...
Purpose of the Study .......................... .. ........... ...................................... ...9
Research Questions ...................... ........... ...............................9
M eth o d o lo g y ........................................................................................................ ... 9
D elim stations of the Study .................. ............................................................ 10
Definition of Terms ............................................. ........ ................... 10
O organization of the Study .......................................... ......................... ............... 12

2 REV IEW OF TH E LITER A TU RE .......................................................... ............... 13

H historical Overview of D segregation .................................................. ................ 13
U nitary Statu s C ourt C ases......................................... ........................ ................ 2 1
S ch o o l D iscip lin e ........................................................................................................ 3 5
Suspensions and E xpulsions ........................................ ....................... ................ 37
Causes of Suspension and Expulsions.................................................... 39
Frequency of Suspensions .................. ............................................................. 42
D disparity in D discipline ... ... .................... .. ....................... ....................... 45
Studies C controlled for O their Factors..................................................... ................ 58
R a c e ............................................................................................................................ 5 9
Gender ........................................................................................... 59
Socioeconom ic Statu s .... .. ......................................... ........................ . ........... 6 1
B behavior and A attitudes ................ .............. ............................................ 63
Social and C cultural D ifferences............................................................. ................ 63
P rental Support ............... .. ................ .................... ............... ........ ............... 64
Teacher Expectation .................................. .......... ........................ 65
B ias and Stereotyping .... ... ......................................... ....................... . .......... 66


v









Effectiveness of Suspension and Expulsion ............... ....................................67
D district ...................................................................................................... ....... .. 7 0
M odel for C change ............... .. .................. .................. ...................... .. ............... 74

3 METHODS AND PROCEDURES ...................................................................78

R e search Q u e stio n s ..................................................................................................... 7 8
P a rtic ip a n ts ................................................................................................................ 7 9
Sam ple C haracteristics... ................................................................... ... ......... ... 80
Outcome Measures .............................................. ........ ................... 82
D isparity R atio C alculation ................. ............................................................ 82
P ercen t B lack .............................................................................................................. 8 3
Free and R educed Lunch ................................................................... ................ 84
R eferrals W written .................................................. .............................................. 84
S ch o o l L ev el ............................................................................................................... 8 4
Statistical A n aly sis...................................................................................................... 8 5
R research Q question 1 ............... ................ ............................................ 85
R research Q question 2 .............. .... ............. .............................................. 86
R research Q question 3 .............. ...... ............ .............................................. 86
R research Q question 4 .............. .... ............. .............................................. 87

4 RE SU LTS AN D D ISCU SSION ............................................................ ................ 88

P a rtic ip a n ts ................................................................................................................. 8 8
D escriptiv e Inform ation ......................................................................... ................ 89
Research Question 1: School Level -Elementary, Middle and High School.......... 100
Research Question 2: Population of Black Students ..................... ..................... 131
Research Question 3: Number of Referrals Written...................... ...................146
Research Question 4: Free and Reduced Lunch.......................... .................. 157

5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS............... ......................177

P u rp o se ..................................................................................................................... 1 7 7
P artic ip an ts ............................................................................................................... 17 7
Research questions............................. .......... ........................ 177
O utcom e M measures .............................................. .. ........ ........ ............. ....... ... .... 178
Summary of Research Findings on the Disparity in Discipline for Black Students. 178
Sum m ary of Findings ............. .. ............... .............................................. 181
S ch o o l L ev el ...................................................................................................... 18 1
Population of B lack Students................................... ...................... ............... 184
N um ber of R referrals W written ................................... ...................... ............... 186
Free and R educed Lunch .................. ............................................................ 188
C o n c lu sio n .................. ........................................................................................... 1 9 1
District Level Policy Im plications ...... ......... ........ ..................... 192
Recommendations for Further Study...... .... ...... ..................... 195









LIST O F R EFEREN CE S ... ................................................................... ............... 196

BIOGRAPH ICAL SKETCH .................. .............................................................. 208















LIST OF TABLES


Table page

2-1 Totals from the Office of Civil Rights Survey of Students Suspended During the
1972-1973 School Y ear......................................... .. ....................... ... ............ 48

2-2 Corporal Punishment and Suspension Likelihood Ratios of African American
Students Versus Other Comparison Groups (1995)............................................53

2-3 1996-97 Suspension rate by Race (duplicated)................................... ................ 55

2-4 1996-97 Suspension rate by Race (unduplicated)...............................................56

2-5 1996-97 Disciplinary Actions for Black and White Students................................56

2-6 Suspension & Expulsion D ata by Race............................................... ................ 57

2-7 Suspension & Expulsion D ata by Race............................................... ................ 58

3-1 Characteristics of the Florida Public School District for the 1999-2000 School
Year- School Information and Student Demographics......................................80

3-2 Characteristics of the Florida Public School District for the 2000-2001 School
Year- School Information and Student Demographics.....................................81

3-3 Characteristics of the Florida Public School District for the 2001-2002 School
Year- School Information and Student Demographics......................................81

3-4 Characteristics of the Florida Public School District for the 2002-2003 School
Year- School Information and Student Demographics......................................82

3-5 Characteristics of the Florida Public School District for the 2003-2004 School
Year- School Information and Student Demographics......................................82

4-1 Referral Data (unduplicated) for the Florida Public School District for the 1999-
2 0 0 0 S ch o ol Y ear ..................................................................................................... 9 1

4-2 In-School Suspension Data (unduplicated) for the Florida Public School District
for the 1999-2000 School Y ear ........................................................... ................ 92

4-3 Out-of School Suspension Data (unduplicated) for the Florida Public School
D district for the 1999-2000 School Y ear .............................................. ................ 92









4-4 Referral Data (unduplicated) for the Florida Public School District for the 2000-
2 0 0 1 S ch o ol Y ear ..................................................................................................... 9 3

4-5 In-School Suspension Data (unduplicated) for the Florida Public School District
for the 2000-2001 School Y ear ........................................................... ................ 94

4-6 Out-of School Suspension Data (unduplicated) for the Florida Public School
D district for the 2000-2001 School Y ear .............................................. ................ 94

4-7 Referral Data (unduplicated) for the Florida Public School District for the 2001-
2002 School Year .................. .. ........... ........................................95

4-8 In-School Suspension Data (unduplicated) for the Florida Public School District
for the 2001-2002 School Y ear ........................................................... ................ 96

4-9 Out-of School Suspension Data (unduplicated) for the Florida Public School
D district for the 2001-2002 School Y ear .............................................. ................ 96

4-10 Referral Data (unduplicated) for the Florida Public School District for the 2002-
2003 School Year .................. .. ........... ........................................97

4-11 In-School Suspension Data (unduplicated) for the Florida Public School District
for the 2002-2003 School Y ear ........................................................... ................ 98

4-12 Out-of School Suspension Data (unduplicated) for the Florida Public School
D district for the 2002-2003 School Y ear .............................................. ................ 98

4-13 Referral Data (unduplicated) for the Florida Public School District for the 2003-
2004 School Year .................. .. ........... ........................................99

4-14 In-School Suspension Data (unduplicated) for the Florida Public School District
for the 2003-2004 School Y ear ....... ........ ....... ...................... 100

4-15 Out-of School Suspension Data (unduplicated) for the Florida Public School
D district for the 2003-2004 School Y ear ....... .......... ....................................... 100

4-16 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated) for
Black and Non-Black Students by School Level ........................ ................... 101

4-17 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black
Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Discipline Referrals
(unduplicated) by School Level ....... .......... .......... ..................... 103

4-18 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for In-School Suspensions (unduplicated) for
Black and Non-Black Students by School Level ........................ ...................106









4-19 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black
Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for In-School Suspensions
(unduplicated) by the School Level ....... ....... ...................... 108

4-20 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Out-of School Suspensions (unduplicated)
for Black and Non-Black Students by School Level................... .................. 110

4-21 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black
Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Out-of School Suspensions
(unduplicated) by the School Level ....... ....... .....................1... 12

4-22 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Referrals, ISS, and OSS (unduplicated)
between Black and Non-Black Students for Elementary Schools .......................115

4-23 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Referrals, ISS, and OSS (unduplicated)
between Black and Non-Black Students for Middle Schools ..............................117

4-24 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Referrals, ISS, and OSS (unduplicated)
between Black and Non-Black Students for High Schools...............................119

4-25 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Referrals, ISS, and OSS (unduplicated)
between Black and Non-Black Students for the School District .........................121

4-26 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Referrals, ISS, and OSS (unduplicated)
between Black and Non-Black Students for the 1999-2000 School Year ...........123

4-27 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Referrals, ISS, and OSS (unduplicated)
between Black and Non-Black Students for the 2000-2001 School Year ...........125

4-28 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Referrals, ISS, and OSS (unduplicated)
between Black and Non-Black Students for the 2001-2002 School Year ...........127

4-29 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Referrals, ISS, and OSS (unduplicated)
between Black and Non-Black Students for the 2002-2003 School Year ...........128

4-30 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Referrals, ISS, and OSS (unduplicated)
between Black and Non-Black Students for the 2003-2004 School Year ...........130

4-31 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated) for
Black and Non-Black Students by Population of Black Students....................... 132

4-32 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black
Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Discipline Referrals
(unduplicated) by Population of Black Students......................... .................. 134

4-33 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for In-School Suspension (unduplicated) for
Black and Non-Black Students by Population of Black Students....................... 137









4-34 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black
Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for In-School Suspension
(unduplicated) by Population of Black Students......................... .................. 139

4-35 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Out-of School Suspension (unduplicated)
for Black and Non-Black Students by Population of Black Students................. 141

4-36 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black
Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Out-of School Suspension
(unduplicated) by Population of Black Students......................... ................... 144

4-37 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated) for
Black and Non-Black Students by the Total Number of Referrals Written at a
School (U nduplicated)........................................ ......................... ............... 147

4-38 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black
Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Discipline Referrals
(unduplicated) by the Total Number of Referrals Written at a School
(U n du p licated) ........................................................................................................ 150

4-39 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for In-School Suspensions (unduplicated) for
Black and Non-Black Students by the Total Number of Referrals Written at a
School (U nduplicated)........................................ ......................... ............... 152

4-40 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Out-of School Suspensions (unduplicated)
for Black and Non-Black Students by the Total Number of Referrals Written at a
School (U nduplicated).......................................... .. ...................... ........... 155

4-41 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated) for
Black and Non-Black Students by Population of Students on Free and Reduced
L u n ch .................................................................................................... .......... 15 7

4-42 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black
Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Discipline Referrals
(unduplicated) by Population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch ..............161

4-43 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for In-School Suspension (unduplicated) for
Black and Non-Black Students by Population of Students on Free and Reduced
L u n ch .................................................................................................... .......... 16 4

4-44 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black
Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for In-School Suspension
(unduplicated) by Population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch............. 167

4-45 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Out-of School Suspension (unduplicated)
for Black and Non-Black Students by Population of Students on Free and
R educed L unch ........... .. .................. .................. ................ .... ... .... ... .......... 170









4-46 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black
Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Out-of School Suspension
(unduplicated) by Population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch............. 173

5-1 Comparison of the Average Disparity Ratios for Discipline Referrals, ISS and
OSS for Black and Non-Black Students by School Level ................................182

5-2 Comparison of the Average Disparity Ratio for Discipline Referrals
(unduplicated), ISS and OSS for Black and Non-Black Students by Population
of Black Students .......... .............. .... ......... ........ ............... 185

5-3 Comparison of the Average Disparity Ratio for Discipline Referrals
(unduplicated), ISS and OSS for Black and Non-Black Students by the Number
of Referrals W written at each School ....... ....... ...................... 188

5-4 Comparison of the Average Disparity Ratio for Discipline Referrals
(unduplicated), ISS and OSS for Black and Non-Black Students by Population
of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch...... .... ...................................... 190















LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

4-1 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated) for
Black and Non-Black Students by School Level ........................ ................... 102

4-2 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black
Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Discipline Referrals
(unduplicated) by the School Level ....... ....... ...................... 104

4-3 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black
Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Discipline Referrals
(unduplicated) by the School Level ....... ....... ...................... 105

4-4 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for In-School Suspensions (unduplicated) for
Black and Non-Black Students by School Level ........................ ................... 107

4-5 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black
Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for In-School Suspensions
(unduplicated) by the School Level .................................. 109

4-6 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black
Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for In-School Suspensions
(unduplicated) by the School Level ....... ....... ...................... 109

4-7 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Out-of School Suspensions (unduplicated)
for Black and Non-Black Students by School Level............................................111

4-8 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black
Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Out-of School Suspensions
(unduplicated) by the School Level ....... ....... .....................1... 14

4-9 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black
Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Out-of School Suspensions
(unduplicated) by the School Level ....... ....... .....................1... 14

4-10 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Referrals, ISS, and OSS (unduplicated)
between Black and Non-Black Students for Elementary Schools .......................116

4-11 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Referrals, ISS, and OSS (unduplicated)
between Black and Non-Black Students for Middle Schools ..............................118









4-12 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Referrals, ISS, and OSS (unduplicated)
between Black and Non-Black Students for High Schools...............................120

4-13 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Referrals, ISS, and OSS (unduplicated)
between Black and Non-Black Students for the School District .........................122

4-14 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Referrals, ISS, and OSS (unduplicated)
between Black and Non-Black Students for the 1999-2000 School Year ...........124

4-15 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Referrals, ISS, and OSS (unduplicated)
between Black and Non-Black Students for the 2000-2001 School Year ...........127

4-16 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Referrals, ISS, and OSS (unduplicated)
between Black and Non-Black Students for the 2001-2002 School Year ...........128

4-17 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Referrals, ISS, and OSS (unduplicated)
between Black and Non-Black Students for the 2002-2003 School Year ...........130

4-18 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Referrals, ISS, and OSS (unduplicated)
between Black and Non-Black Students for the 2003-2004 School Year ...........131

4-19 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated) for
Black and Non-Black Students by Population of Black Students....................... 133

4-20 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated) for
Black and Non-Black Students by Population of Black Students....................... 134

4-21 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black
Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Discipline Referrals
(unduplicated) ) by Population of Black Students ...................... ................... 136

4-22 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black
Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Discipline Referrals
(unduplicated) ) by Population of Black Students ...................... ................... 136

4-23 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for In-School Suspension (unduplicated) for
Black and Non-Black Students by Population of Black Students....................... 137

4-24 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for In-School Suspension (unduplicated) for
Black and Non-Black Students by Population of Black Students ........................138

4-25 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black
Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for In-School Suspension
(unduplicated) ) by Population of Black Students ...................... ................... 140

4-26 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black
Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for In-School Suspension
(unduplicated) by Population of Black Students......................... .................. 141









4-27 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Out-of School Suspension (unduplicated)
for Black and Non-Black Students by Population of Black Students................. 142

4-28 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Out-of School Suspension (unduplicated)
for Black and Non-Black Students by Population of Black Students................. 143

4-29 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black
Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Out-of School Suspension
(unduplicated) by Population of Black Students......................... .................. 145

4-30 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black
Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Out-of School Suspension
(unduplicated) by Population of Black Students......................... .................. 146

4-31 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated) for
Black and Non-Black Students by the Total Number of Referrals Written at a
School (U nduplicated)........................................ ......................... ............... 148

4-32 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated) for
Black and Non-Black Students by the Total Number of Referrals Written at a
School (U nduplicated)........................................ ......................... ............... 149

4-33 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black
Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Discipline Referrals
(unduplicated) by the Total Number of Referrals Written at a School
(U n du p licated ) ........................................................................................................ 15 1

4-34 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black
Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Discipline Referrals
(unduplicated) by the Total Number of Referrals Written at a School
(U n du p licated) ........................................................................................................ 152

4-35 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for In-School Suspensions (unduplicated) for
Black and Non-Black Students by the Total Number of Referrals Written at a
School (U nduplicated).......................................... .. ...................... ........... 153

4-36 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for In-School Suspensions (unduplicated) for
Black and Non-Black Students by the Total Number of Referrals Written at a
School (U nduplicated)........................................ ......................... ............... 154

4-37 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Out-of School Suspensions (unduplicated)
for Black and Non-Black Students by the Total Number of Referrals Written at a
School (U nduplicated)........................................ ......................... ............... 156

4-38 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Out-of School Suspensions (unduplicated)
for Black and Non-Black Students by the Total Number of Referrals Written at a
School (U nduplicated)........................................ ......................... ............... 156









4-39 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated) for
Black and Non-Black Students by Population of Students on Free and Reduced
L u n ch .................................................................................................... .......... 15 9

4-40 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Discipline Referrals (unduplicated) for
Black and Non-Black Students by Population of Students on Free and Reduced
L u n ch .................................................................................................... .......... 16 0

4-41 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black
Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Discipline Referrals
(unduplicated) by Population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch............. 162

4-42 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black
Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Discipline Referrals
(unduplicated)) by Population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch........... 163

4-43 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for In-School Suspension (unduplicated) for
Black and Non-Black Students by Population of Students on Free and Reduced
L u n ch .................................................................................................... .......... 16 5

4-44 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for In-School Suspension (unduplicated) for
Black and Non-Black Students by Population of Students on Free and Reduced
L u n ch .................................................................................................... .......... 16 6

4-45 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black
Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for In-School Suspension
(unduplicated) by Population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch ..............168

4-46 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black
Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for In-School Suspension
(unduplicated) by Population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch............. 169

4-47 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Out-of School Suspension (unduplicated)
for Black and Non-Black Students by Population of Students on Free and
R educed L unch ........... .. .................. .................. ................ .... ... .... ... .......... 172

4-48 Comparison of Disparity Ratios for Out-of School Suspension (unduplicated)
for Black and Non-Black Students by Population of Students on Free and
R educed L unch ........... .. .................. .................. ................ .... ... .... ... .......... 173

4-49 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black
Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Out-of School Suspension
(unduplicated) by Population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch ..............175

4-50 Percent of Schools with a Disparity in Discipline Greater than 2 for Black
Students as Compared to Non-Black Students for Out-of School Suspension
(unduplicated) by Population of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch............. 176









5-1 Comparison of the Average Disparity Ratios for Discipline Referrals, ISS and
OSS for Black and Non-Black Students by School Level................................183

5-2 Comparison of the Average Disparity Ratio for Discipline Referrals
(unduplicated), ISS and OSS for Black and Non-Black Students by Population
of Black Students .......... .............. .... ......... ........ ............... 186

5-3 Comparison of the Average Disparity Ratio for Discipline Referrals
(unduplicated), ISS and OSS for Black and Non-Black Students by the Number
of Referrals W written at each School ....... ... .... ...................... 190

5-4 Comparison of the Average Disparity Ratio for Discipline Referrals
(unduplicated), ISS and OSS for Black and Non-Black Students by Population
of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch...... .... .................... 191















Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

A FLORIDA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT'S COMPLIANCE WITH DISCIPLINARY
REQUIREMENTS REGARDING UNITARY STATUS

By

Deborah Camilleri

May 2006

Chair: David S. Honeyman
Major Department: Educational Administration and Policy

The purpose of this study was to examine current disciplinary practices of a

selected Florida school district to determine if there were racially neutral practices

regarding student discipline. Quantitative methodologies were used in the study to

investigate the disparity in the number of unduplicated referrals, in-school suspensions

and out-of-school suspensions between Black and non-Black students.

There were several key findings in this study. First, the disparity in discipline was

lowest as measured by the referral ratio. Second, elementary schools had the greatest

disparity as measured by all 3 indicators (referral, ISS and OSS ratio), followed by

middle and then high schools. Third, there was no difference in the disparity in discipline

for Black students between schools with differing populations of Black students as

measured by the referral ratio. When ISS ratio was used as the indicator of disparity,

schools with a low population of Black students had the highest disparity in discipline.

Schools with a medium and high population of Black students yielded similar results.


xviii









When OSS ratio was used as the indicator of disparity, schools with a medium population

of Black students had the highest disparity in discipline. For 2 of the 5 years studied,

schools with a low population of Black students had no disparity in discipline. Fourth,

when schools with a varying number of referrals written was used as the outcome

measure the results indicated that the disparity in discipline was greatest for schools with

a low number of referrals written. The results were similar for schools with a medium

and high number of referrals written when using both the ISS and OSS ratios as the

indicators of disparity. Fifth, the results of the study indicated that the disparity was

highest in schools with a high number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch and lowest

in schools with a low number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch, using all three

indicators of disparity.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Equal educational opportunity for all children, including the least advantaged, is the

cornerstone of the American ideal of a free public education system. This concept of

equity has resulted in a multitude of legal battles, court settlements, and court-supervised

school district plans, all with the same intent of making the ideal of equity a reality in

American education.

During the past 50 years, the United States Supreme Court has taken an active role

in eliminating obstacles that prevent equal access to opportunity within America's public

school system. With the assistance of the courts, public education has made significant

strides in providing equal access and opportunity for Black students. The fact that there

are still school districts operating under the jurisdiction of the Justice Department which

have not yet obtained unitary status is evidence that, as a nation, we are still not where we

should be regarding segregation and its long-term effects.

Racial discrimination in education is prohibited under both the Equal Protection

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and Title

VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of

the United States (1787) states that

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No
State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.









Hence, actions or policies in which treatment can be traced to racial hostility of

school officials violate The Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution of the United

States. Additionally, school disciplinary actions and policies in which student referrals

and subsequent disciplinary sanctions have been traced to racial hostility of school

officials have been challenged in court using the Equal Protection Clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States (1787).

School programs and activities receiving federal funds must also comply with Title

VI in order to continue to be funded. Title VI of The Civil Rights Act of 1964

established that

No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national
origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected
to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial
assistance. (Pub.L. 88-352, Title VI, 601, July 2, 1964, 78 Stat. 252)

Plessy vs. Ferguson 163 U.S. 537 (1896) set the precedent that separate facilities

for Blacks were constitutional as long as they were equal. In an 8-1 decision, Justice

John Harlan demonstrated extraordinary foresight when he wrote in his dissenting

opinion, "Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among

citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law" (Plessy vs.

Ferguson 163 U.S. 537 (1896) p. 559).

The Plessy decision set the precedent until 1954 when the Supreme Court in Brown

v. Board of Education (1954) overturned the "separate but equal" doctrine. Brown

included four class action suits filed on behalf of African American students who had

been denied admission to schools attended exclusively by White students. In landmark

language, the Court ruled

We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public
schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other









'tangible' factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal
educational opportunities? We believe that it does. (Brown v. Board of Education,
347 U.S. 483 (1954), p. 493)

With this decision, the Supreme Court struck down the "separate but equal"

doctrine for public education and required the desegregation of schools in the United

States. The Court concluded that "in the field of public education the doctrine of

'separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal"

(Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), p.495). In Brown 11(1955) the

Court remanded with orders to require school districts to make a "prompt and reasonable

start toward full compliance with all deliberate speed" (Brown v. Board of Education,

349 U.S. 294 (1955), p.301). At the same time, the Court ordered district courts to

supervise school boards that practiced dejure segregation in an effort to desegregate their

school systems (Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294 (1955), p.299).

The Civil Rights Project of Harvard University (2001 a) paper opined,

With the passage of time since 1954, the ability of school districts to engage in de
jure segregation has been severely limited, and perhaps eliminated. The result,
however, has not been the integration ideal. Instead, we face a system struggling
with de facto segregation and the remaining effects of past discrimination.

After the Brown decisions, the Court repeatedly addressed the issue of race-based

education. In Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County 377 U.S. 218

(1964) the Court ended the doctrine of "all deliberate speed" (Brown v. Board of

Education, 349 U.S. 294 (1955), p.301) and declared that "[t]he time for 'mere deliberate

speed' had run out" (Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County 377 U.S.

218 (1964), p.234). Even after the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education

(1954) desegregation remains a controversial issue, with all interested parties debating

whether the country has or has not been able to create a "unitary" public school system.









"Unitary" is a term courts use to describe a school system that removes all vestiges

of race discrimination of the formally dual system (Alexander and Alexander, 1992).

According to the courts, "a finding of unitary status requires that the district has worked

in good faith to ensure that, to the extent practicable, segregation no longer existed in its

schools" (DeLacy, 1997, p. 23). "When there is racial disparity in a school under a

desegregation plan, it can be presumed as a matter of law that the disparity is the result of

the original illegal desegregation" (DeLacy, 1997, p. 23).

A significant Supreme Court desegregation ruling was in Green v. County School

Board ofNew Kent County, Virginia, 391 U.S. 430 (1968). Green (1968) both halted the

freedom-of-choice plans many school districts developed as a remedy to racial

segregation and proposed affirmative action as a viable alternative. The Court also

advised that in deciding whether a school district had done everything possible to convert

"to a unitary system in which racial discrimination would be eliminated root and branch"

(Green, 1968, p. 438), a lower court should apply six prescribed "factors." The six so-

called "Green (1968) factors" are

* Composition of the student body
* Faculty and staff assignment
* Transportation
* Extracurricular activities
* Facilities

These factors remain a benchmark in school-desegregation litigation.

Before Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowel, 498 US 237 (1991), and

Freeman et al. v. Pitts et al. 503 U.S. 467 (1992), lower courts expressed divergent

opinions about what it means for a school district to be declared unitary and about the

processes by which unitary status may be achieved (Sneed and Martin, 1997). In Dowell









(1991) the Supreme Court held that a school district must prove in a formal hearing that

the school district had

* Complied with the desegregation order for a reasonable period of time
* Eliminated all vestiges of past discrimination to the extent practicable
Demonstrated its good faith commitment to the constitutional rights that were the

predicate for judicial intervention. (Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowel, 498

US 237 (1991), p. 249-250)

Freeman (1992) further defined "practicable" to mean that a district can be

declared unitary "before full compliance has been achieved in every area of school

operations." Freeman (1992) set forth the following guidelines for lower courts to

determine whether to grant partial unitary status. A school district may achieve partial

unitary status if it demonstrates that

The vestiges of past discrimination [in that area] have been eliminated to the extent
practicable; (2) there has been full and satisfactory compliance with the decree in
those aspects of the system where supervision is to be withdrawn; (3) retention of
judicial control is [not] necessary or practicable to achieve compliance with the
decree in other facets of the system; and (4) the defendant has demonstrated, to the
public and to the parents and students of the once disfavored race, its good faith
commitment to the whole of the court's decree and to those provisions of the law
and the constitution that were the predicate for judicial intervention in the first
instance. (Freeman v. Pitts at 494) (Quoting Board of Education of Oklahoma City
v. Dowell at 249-250)

The Freeman (1992) decision extended "practicable" to every area of school

operations, including school discipline, as an indication of equity in education.

Additionally, according to Green (1968), the courts may consider school discipline as an

educational opportunity, when deciding whether to grant unitary status. Jones (1979)

defined discipline as the business of enforcing simple classroom rules that facilitate

learning and minimize disruption.









Regardless of the size of the school or the grade level taught, student discipline is

implicit in the daily operation of the educational process. Although schools were charged

with maintaining order, many indicators suggested that schools needed more effective

policies and interventions. One such indicator was the annual Gallup poll of the public's

attitudes toward the public schools. For the majority of its 25-year history, the poll has

identified "lack of discipline" as one of the most serious problems facing the nation's

education system (Cotton, 1990). Similarly, the 4th Phi Delta Kappa (Rose and Gallup,

2002) poll of teachers' attitudes toward the public schools revealed that discipline and

lack of parental support were the two greatest concerns of high school teachers. These

and other indicators would support the estimate that approximately one half of all

classroom time is non-instructional as a result of interference, with discipline being the

greatest distraction (Cotton, 1990)

While questionable discipline practices have been associated with students across

ethnic backgrounds, they were disproportionately high for African American students

(Garibaldi, 1992; Harry and Anderson, 1995; Skiba, Peterson & Williams, 1997;

Townsend, 2000; U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, 1993). One of

the most common indicators of disparity in discipline between African American students

and their non-Black counterparts was the rate of suspensions and expulsions. In fact,

many studies have confirmed that African American children receive more office

referrals and subsequent suspensions than any other ethnic group (Gordon, Della Piana &

Keleher, 2000; Skiba, Peterson & Williams, 1997). Likewise, Davis and Jordan (1994), in

a 1988 National Educational Longitudinal Study, reported that significantly more

suspensions were imposed on African American males than any other group.









The researchers of The Harvard Civil Rights Project (2001b) indicated that

although African American children represent only 17% of public school enrollment,

they received 33% of out-of-school suspensions. On the other hand, White students,

who constitute 63% of public school enrollment, represent only 50% of suspensions

(Civil Rights Alert, Zero Tolerance Policies and School Discipline, 2002b).

The Office for Civil Rights (1993) reported the findings of a national survey

indicating that even though African American males comprised 8.23% of the total student

population, they were suspended at a rate of over three times their percentage of the

population (U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, 1993). A study by

Garibaldi (1992) found that while African American males comprised 43% of the total

student population in a New Orleans School District, they received over 65% of the

school district's suspensions and 80% of the expulsions (Garibaldi, 1992).

Although many studies used the rate of suspensions and expulsions as indicators of

the prevalence of discipline problems in schools, a standard was also needed for

comparison of racial disparities. Harry and Anderson (1995) suggested a standard of

disproportionality whereby African American students would be expected to be

suspended or expelled disproportionately if the frequency with which they received

punitive consequences was greater than their percentage in the population by 10%. The

courts, however, set different standards by which school districts reported discipline data

for achieving unitary status. The Consent Decree of the Florida public school district this

researcher has selected to examine stated that "the District is committed to ensuring that

its discipline policies and practices are implemented fairly and consistently so that: all

students are disciplined equitably; disciplinary sanctions are imposed on students fairly









and consistently; and a student's race is not a factor in any disciplinary action" (Consent

Decree, 2000, p.51). If the disparity were greater than two, the school district was then

charged with acting in good faith to study the problem, analyze the data, and implement

any appropriate strategies to improve the situation (Consent Decree, 2000.)

Finally, if a court declared a school district unitary, any racial disparity that

continued to exist was no longer presumed to be illegal. Rather, the district would then

be subject to the same standards and scrutiny as a district that had never illegally

segregated its students. It is important to note that even after a district has been declared

unitary the district must continue to be vigilant to act in "good faith" to prevent further

discrimination.

Statement of the Problem

Discipline has been continually identified as one of the highest priorities for

parents, teachers, and the public. One of the indicators used by the Justice Department of

the Unites States of America to determine eligibility for unitary status for the selected

Florida school district was racial disparity in discipline. According to the Consent

Decree of the selected Florida public school district,

The District is committed to ensuring that its discipline policies and practices are
implemented fairly and consistently so that: all students are disciplined equitably;
disciplinary sanctions are imposed on students fairly and inconsistently; and a
student's race is not a factor in any disciplinary action.

By order of the Justice Department of the United States, the selected Florida public

school district was charged with demonstrating that there was less than a 2 to 1 disparity

in discipline referrals between Black and non-Black students (Consent Decree, 2000).









Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to examine current disciplinary practices in the

selected Florida school district over the 5-year period from the 1999-2000 to the 2003-

2004 school years to determine if there were racially neutral practices regarding student

discipline.

Research Questions

This study was guided by the following research questions:

1. For all schools in the selected Florida school district, during the five-year period
ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004, was there a trend in the disparity in
discipline for Black students compared to non-Black students attending elementary
(grades K-5), middle (grades 6-8) and high (grades 9-12) schools?

2. For all schools in the selected Florida school district, during the five-year period
ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004, was there a trend in the disparity in
discipline for Black students compared to non-Black students attending schools
with a low (0 to 4.4%), medium (4.5% to 23.7%), and high (23.8% and higher)
population of Black students?

3. For all schools in the selected Florida school district, during the five-year period
ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004, was there a trend in the disparity in
discipline for Black students compared to non-Black students attending schools
with a low (1-97), medium (97-511), and high (512 or higher) number of referrals
(unduplicated) written?

4. For all schools in the selected Florida school district, during the five-year period
ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004, was there a trend in the disparity in
discipline for Black students compared to non-Black students attending schools
with a low (0 to 9.9%), medium (10.0% to 52.8%), and high (52.9% and higher)
number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch?

Methodology

Quantitative methodologies were used in the study to investigate the disparity in

the number of unduplicated referrals, in-school suspensions and out-of-school

suspensions between Black and non-Black students. The research methodology was used









to obtain a comprehensive account of the disciplinary practices as they pertain to the

Consent Decree of the selected Florida school district.

The quantitative methodology consisted of an investigation of information recorded

in the information system (IS) database of the selected Florida public school district

concerning the discipline of students. Statistical analyses were performed on the data to

detect differences in the treatment of Black and non-Black students.

Delimitations of the Study

The scope of this study was limited to a selected Florida public school district

during the 5-year period from the 1999-2000 to the 2003-2004 school years. Quantitative

data were obtained from reported information in the selected Florida public school

district's database. The Information System (IS) database contained reports from all

schools in the selected Florida public school district; however, no special center schools

were considered in this study. Only one public school district in the State of Florida was

considered in this study.

The study only considered children from age 3 years to 21 years. Race, sex,

religion, or national origin of the teachers and administrators was not investigated. The

geographic locations of the schools were also not investigated. These variables may have

a relationship to the use of disciplinary procedures and may have implications for future

research, but were excluded from the scope of this study.

Definition of Terms

The primary sources of information for all legal terms used in this study were

Black's Law Dictionary, case law or statute, and the Constitution of the United States.

* Consent decree: An order or judgment of the United States District Court that
adopts an agreement, between the United States of America as represented by the









United States Department of Justice, and the school Board, that resolves an issue or
issues involved in the dispute, as the decision of the court on those issues.

* Dejure segregation: Segregation permitted by law. Florida's "dual system" of
public education was a "dejure system" mandated by state law.

* De facto segregation: Segregation that occurred without state authority, usually on
the basis of socioeconomic factors. (Black, 2000)

* Desegregation: The assignment of students to public schools and within such
schools without regard to their race, color, religion, or national origin, but
"desegregation" shall not mean the assignment of students to public schools in
order to overcome racial imbalance. (Title IV, SEC. 401 of the Constitution of the
United States)

* Discipline: Punishment intended to correct or instruct. (Black, 2000)

* Dual system: A system of public education in which White and Black students
attend separate schools.

* Green factors: Declaration of a unitary status that a system achieves by
eliminating vestiges of segregation "to the extent practicable" in the areas of
student assignments, faculty and staff assignments, transportation, facilities,
resources and staff allocation, and extracurricular activities. (Green v. New Kent
County, 1968)

* In-school suspension: Student placed in in-school suspension for a period not to
exceed ten days (Florida State Department of Education, 1995).

* Jim Crow law: A law enacted or purposely interpreted to discriminate against
Black, such as a law requiring separate restrooms for Blacks and Whites. (Black,
2000)

* Out-of-school suspension: Student removed from the school environment for a
period not to exceed ten days (Florida State Department of Education, 1995).

* Segregation: The act or process of separating or the unconstitutional policy of
separating people on the basis of color, nationality, religion, or the like. (Black,
2000)

* Unitary status: The status a school system achieves "when it no longer
discriminates between school children on the basis of race" or the status of a school
system when it affirmatively removes all vestiges of race discrimination of the
formerly dual system. (Alexander and Alexander, 1992)









Organization of the Study

Chapter 1 presents an introduction to the study, statement of the problem, purpose

of the study, research questions, hypothesis, methodology, organization of the study and

definition of terms. Chapter 2 provides a review of the literature and court cases

associated with school-desegregation in the United States, as well as a review of the

literature on school discipline, and a historical overview of the selected Florida school

districts pursuit for unitary status. Chapter 3 describes the research design and statistical

methodology of the study. Chapter 4 contains a detailed analysis of data findings.

Chapter 5 includes a summary and concluding statements of the study with

recommendations for future research.














CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The purpose of this chapter is to provide a review of the literature and court cases

associated with school-desegregation in the United States. Also included are a review of

the literature on school discipline, and a historical overview of the selected Florida public

school district's pursuit for unitary status.

Historical Overview of Desegregation

This review of the literature gives a chronology of events of major judicial cases

throughout the history of public school-desegregation and its far-reaching implications to

many local cases and school policies.

During the past 50 years, the courts have taken an active role in eliminating the

obstacles that prevent equal access to opportunity within America's public school system.

Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), set the precedent that separate facilities for

Blacks and Whites were constitutional as long as they were equal. Holmes Adolph

Plessy, who was 7/8 Caucasian and 1/8 African American was forcibly removed and

jailed for taking a first class seat in a railroad car in Louisiana, reserved for Whites only.

On May 18, 1896, the United States Supreme Court struck down the argument that the

Separate Car Act of 1890 conflicted with the Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery.

Further,

The objective of the Fourteenth Amendment was undoubtedly to enforce the
absolute equality of the two races before the law but in the nature of things it could
not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to enforce
social, as distinguished from political equality, or a commingling of the two races









upon terms unsatisfactory to either. (Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), p.
544-545)

The "separate but equal" doctrine was quickly extended to cover many areas of

public life, including public education. Horton and Moresi (2001) asserted that the

Plessy decision was a milestone in American legal history, as well as a pivotal point in

America's constitutional law. The Supreme Court set the constitutional foundation for

the "separate but equal" doctrine and racially discriminatory Jim Crow legislation that

became the hallmark of Southern law, as well as northern custom for the next half

century. Not until 1954, in the Brown et al. vs. Topeka Board ofEducation 347 U.S. 483

(1954), Brown I, decision, was the "separate but equal" doctrine struck down.

Brown I, one of the most significant decisions rendered by the Supreme Court

during the Twentieth Century, reversed Plessy v. Ferguson's (1896) "separate but equal"

doctrine and gave new meaning to the constitutional concepts of "equal protection" and

"due process." The case involved four class action suits filed on behalf of African

American students denied admission to schools attended by White children. Although

each of the four actions brought a different set of facts and local conditions, they were

consolidated on appeal in light of their common legal question

Segregation of White and Negro children in the public schools of a State solely on
the basis of race, pursuant to state laws permitting or requiring such segregation,
denies to Negro children the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the
Fourteenth Amendment even though the physical facilities and other "tangible"
factors of White and Negro schools may be equal. (Brown v. Topeka Board of
Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), p. 483)

Linda Brown, a Black third grade student in Topeka, Kansas, had to walk one

mile to get to her Black elementary school, even though a White elementary school was

only seven blocks away. Linda's father, Oliver Brown, tried to enroll his daughter in the

White elementary school but was denied by the school board based on its argument that









segregation in Topeka and elsewhere pervaded many other aspects of life and segregated

schools simply prepared Black children for the segregation they would face in adulthood.

In response, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)

requested an injunction on behalf of Linda Brown that would forbid the segregation of

Topeka Public Schools.

In a unanimous opinion written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, the Supreme Court

struck down dejure segregation in public schools stating the "separate but equal"

doctrine adopted in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) had no place in the field of public

education. In landmark language, the Court stated, "separate educational facilities are

inherently unequal" (Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), p. 495).

The basis for overturning Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) is found in the argument set by the

lower court in Kansas

Segregation of White and colored children in public schools has a detrimental
effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of
the law; for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the
inferiority of the Negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of the
child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of the law, therefore, has a tendency
to [retard] the educational and mental development of Negro children and to
deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial [ly] integrated
school system. (Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), p. 494)

On May 17, 1954, Chief Justice Earl Warren read the unanimous decision of the Court

We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public
schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other
"tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority groups of
equal educational opportunity? We believe it does. (Brown vs. Board of Education,
347 U.S. 483 (1954), p. 493)... We conclude that the field of public education the
doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are
inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly
situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of segregation
complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the
Fourteenth Amendment. (Brown vs. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), p.
495)









In the Brown vs. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court struck down the

"separate but equal" doctrine ofPlessy v. Ferguson for public education and required the

desegregation of schools across America.

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka et al., 349 U.S. 294 (1955), also known

as Brown II, was brought before the Court based on the argument set forth by the

NAACP stating that school districts were not acting fast enough in the desegrative order

established in Brown I. The Court in Brown 11H (1955) declared that "racial discrimination

in public education was unconstitutional and all provisions of federal, state, or local law

requiring or permitting such discrimination must yield to this principle" (Brown et al. v.

Board of Education of Topeka et al., 349 U.S. 294 (1955), p. 298). Furthermore, "school

authorities have the primary responsibility for elucidating, assessing, and solving the

varied local school problems which may require solution in fully implementing the

governing constitutional principles" (Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka et al.,

349 U.S. 294 (1955), p. 299). Additionally, the court in Brown II (1955) issued an edict

that public schools must desegregate "on a racially non-discriminatory basis with all

deliberate speed" (Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka et al., 349 U.S. 294

(1955), p. 301). In light of the decision in Brown 11H (1955), the court case of Alexander v.

Holmes County Board of Education, 396 U.S. 19 (1969) helped speed the pace of

desegregation by declaring it "the obligation of every school district to terminate dual

systems at once and to operate now and hereafter only unitary schools" (Alexander v.

Holmes County Board of Education, 396 U.S. 19 (1969), p. 20).

Keyes v. School District No. 1, 413 U.S. 189 (1973), was the first Supreme Court

case to address segregation outside the southern states where there were no explicit









statutes requiring racial segregation. In this case, the Court addressed the difference

between state-mandated segregation (dejure) and segregation that is the result of private

choices (de facto).

The petitioners in this case sought desegregation of the Park Hill area schools in

Denver and, upon securing an order of the District Court directing that relief, expanded

their suit to secure desegregation of the remaining schools of the Denver school district,

particularly those in the core city area. The District Court denied the further relief,

holding that the deliberate racial segregation of the Park Hill schools did not prove a like

segregation policy addressed specifically to the core city schools and requiring petitioners

to prove dejure segregation for each area that they sought to have desegregated.

Additionally, once a portion of the school district was found to be intentionally

segregated, the entire school district was presumed to be illegally segregated. Upon

appeal, the Supreme Court held

A policy of intentional segregation has been proved with a significant portion of the
school system, the burden is on the school authorities (regardless of claims that
their "neighborhood school policy" was racially neutral) to prove that there actions
as to other segregated schools in the system were not likewise motivated by a
segregative intent. (Keyes v. School District No. 1, 391 U.S. 430, (1973), p. 207)

The Supreme Court found that although there was not legal sanctioning of school

segregation in this district, the Board of Education, "by use of various techniques, such as

the manipulation of student attendance zones, school site selection, and a neighborhood

school policy, created or maintained racially or ethnically (or both racially and ethnically)

segregated schools throughout the school district," thereby enforcing de jure segregation

(Keyes v. School District No. 1, 413 U.S. 189 (1973), p. 215). Justice Douglas in

concurrence with Justice Powell in this decision said "There is, for the purposes of the

Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as applied to the school cases, no









difference between de facto and de jure segregation" (Keyes v. School District No. 1, 413

U.S. 189 (1973), p. 215). The Court held

1. The District Court, for purposes of defining a "segregated" core city school, erred
in not placing Negroes and Hispanos in the same category, since both groups suffer
the same educational inequities when compared with the treatment afforded Anglo
students. (Keyes v. School District No. 1, 413 U.S. 189 (1973), p. 195-198)

2. The courts below did not apply the correct legal standard in dealing with
petitioners' contention that respondent School Board had the policy of deliberately
segregating the core city schools. (Keyes v. School District No. 1, 413 U.S. 189
(1973), p. 198-213)

(a) Proof that the school authorities have pursued an intentional segregative
policy in a substantial portion of the school district will support a finding by
the trial court of the existence of a dual system, absent a showing that the
district is divided into clearly unrelated units. (Keyes v. School District No. 1,
413 U.S. 189 (1973), p. 201-203)

(b) On remand, the District Court should decide initially whether respondent
School Board's deliberately segregative policy [p 190] respecting the Park Hill
schools constitutes the whole Denver school district a dual school system.
(Keyes v. School District No. 1, 413 U.S. 189 (1973), p. 204-205)

(c) Where, as in this case, a policy of intentional segregation has been proved
with respect to a significant portion of the school system, the burden is on the
school authorities (regardless of claims that their "neighborhood school
policy" was racially neutral) to prove that their actions as to other segregated
schools in the system were not likewise motivated by a segregative intent.
(Keyes v. School District No. 1, 413 U.S. 189 (1973), p. 207-213)

This decision, for the first time, also recognized the rights of Hispanos to attend

desegregated educational settings, in addition to that of Blacks. The Court held that the

District Court erred in not considering Hispanos in the same category as Blacks, when it

referred to defining segregated school environments. The rationale offered was that "both

groups suffer from the same educational inequities when compared with the treatment

afforded Anglo students" (Keyes v. School District No. 1, 413 U.S. 189 (1973), p. 195-


198).









Throughout the 1960's and early 1970's, the courts heard a large number of

desegregation cases and ordered a variety of remedies including the use of busing,

transfer policies, and magnet schools to redress intentional segregation policies. Milliken,

Governor ofMichigan, et al. v. Bradley et al. 418 U.S. 717 (1974) (Milliken I) effectively

exempted suburban districts from the enforced desegregation order that involved

adjoining inner city school districts. The respondents sought the implementation of an

action plan, which included interdistrict, city-suburban remedies as a means to integrate

racially isolated city schools, or to eliminate dejure segregation and establish a unitary

school system. The District Court blocked the proposed remedies and ordered the School

Board to submit Detroit-only desegregation plans to encompass the three-county

metropolitan area, despite the fact that the 85 outlying school districts in these three

counties were not parties to the action and no claims of constitutional violations were

recorded.

Milliken I (1974) marked the culmination of seven years of litigation over dejure

school segregation. The 6th Circuit District Court in Milliken I (1974) determined that

interdistrict integration was an improper remedy for single-district dejure desegregation

plans limited to the Detroit school system. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District

Court's order concerning the implementation of and cost sharing for four educational

components. The Court held

* As part of a desegregation decree a district court can, if the record warrants, order
compensatory or remedial educational programs for schoolchildren who have been
subjected to past acts of de jure segregation. Here the District Court, acting on
substantial evidence in the record, did not abuse its discretion in approving a
remedial plan going beyond pupil assignments and adopting specific programs that
had been proposed by local school authorities. (Milliken, Governor of Michigan, et
al. v. Bradley et al. 418 U.S. 717 (1974), p. 279-288)









* The requirement that the state defendants pay one-half the additional cost
attributable to the four educational components does not violate the Eleventh
Amendment, since the District Court was authorized to provide prospective
equitable relief, even though such relief required the expenditure of money by the
State. Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 668. (Milliken, Governor ofMichigan, et
al. v. Bradley et al. 418 U.S. 717 (1974), p. 288-290)

* The Tenth Amendment's reservation of non-delegated powers to the States is not
implicated by a federal court's judgment enforcing the express prohibitions of
unlawful state conduct enacted by the Fourteenth Amendment, nor are principles of
federalism abrogated by the decree. (Milliken, Governor of Michigan, et al. v.
Bradley et al. 418 U.S. 717 (1974), p. 291)

After Milliken I (1974), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

Michigan, conducted extensive hearings regarding the proper remedies for desegregating

the Detroit public school system. The District Court ordered, in addition to pupil

assignment, that the Detroit School Board and the state institute several compensatory

and remedial programs, with the cost of these programs to be shared by the Board and the

State.

In Milliken, Governor of Michigan, et al. v. Bradley et al. Certiorari to the United

States Court of Appeals for the Sixihi Circuit 433 U.S. 267, 1977, (Milliken II) the Court

granted certiorari to consider two questions concerning the remedial powers of federal

district courts in school-desegregation cases: (1) "whether a District Court can, as part of

a desegregation decree, order compensatory or remedial educational programs for

schoolchildren who have been subjected to past acts of de jure segregation, and (2)

whether, consistent with the Eleventh Amendment, a federal court can require state

officials found responsible for constitutional violations to bear part of the costs of those

programs." Court opinion held

the compensatory and remedial programs were proper and did not exceed the scope
of the constitutional violation involved, and (2) the mandate that the state pay one-
half of the cost of these programs did not violate the Eleventh Amendment, the
Tenth Amendment, or the principles of federalism. (Milliken et al. v. Bradley et al.









Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Si.xii Circuit 433 U.S. 267
(1977), p. 288-290)

Unitary Status Court Cases

The origin of school-desegregation began with the U.S. Supreme Court's 1954

decision in Brown v. Board of Education. Since the Brown I (1954) decision, federal

courts have directed school districts to adopt comprehensive remedies to correct the

effects of significant racial imbalances and inequalities. Despite the many remedies

implemented by school districts across the United States, such as busing, new school

construction, creation of magnet programs, changes in attendance zones, communities

continued to find it difficult to achieve racial balance and equity.

The struggle with issues related to desegregation has resulted in continued debates

among local, state, and national educational agencies and had in turn led to numerous

court cases. School-desegregation laws began with the landmark case of Brown v. Board

of Education (1954), in which the Supreme Court held that state mandated segregation

was in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and

continued until the late 1960's when the unitary status cases of Green v. Schools Board of

New Kent County (1968) and Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg (1971) were decided.

Green v. County School Board ofNew Kent County, Virginia, 391 US 430 (1968),

was significant because it halted the "freedom-of-choice" plans many school districts

developed as a remedy to racial segregation, while at the same time proposed affirmative

action as a viable alternative. In Green (1968), petitioners sought injunctive relief for

continued maintenance of an alleged racially segregated school system. At the time of

the court case, New Kent County, a rural county in Eastern Virginia, had a population of

about 4,500 residents, about 50% African American. The residential community in New









Kent County was racially segregated and had only two schools, one on the East side of

the county (New Kent School) and one on the West (George W. Watkins). The District

Court, in a memorandum filed May 17, 1966, stated that the school district served 1,300

students, 740 African American and 550 White. Although there were no attendance

zones, the school board operated one White combined elementary and high school (New

Kent) and one Black combined elementary and high school (George W. Watkins). The

Court acknowledged that this pattern of separate White and African American schools in

the New Kent County school system, under compulsion of state laws, is precisely the

pattern of segregation which Brown I (1954) addressed and declared unconstitutional.

The School Board filed suit for injunctive relief against allegedly maintaining segregated

schools and in order to remain eligible for federal funding adopted a "freedom-of-choice"

plan for desegregating the school system (Green v. County School Board of New Kent

County, Virginia, 391 US 430 (1968), p. 430). The plan permitted students, except those

entering the 1st and 8th grades, to choose annually between schools. Although the Court

of Appeals approved the "freedom-of-choice" plan and remanded for a more specific and

comprehensive order concerning teachers, during the plan's three years of operation, no

White students had chosen to attend the all-Black school. Additionally, although 115

Black pupils enrolled in the formally all-White school, 85% of the Black students in the

system still attended the all-Negro school (Green v. County School Board of New Kent

County, Virginia, 391 US 430 (1968), p. 430). The Court held

* In 1955 this Court, in Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294 (Brown II),
ordered school boards operating dual school systems, part "White" and part
"Negro," to "effectuate a transition to a racially nondiscriminatory school system,"
and it is in light of that command that the effectiveness of the "freedom-of-choice"
plan to achieve that end is to be measured. (Green v. County School Board of New
Kent County, Virginia, 391 US 430 (1968), p. 430)









* The burden is on a school board to provide a plan that promises realistically to
work now, and a plan that at this late date fails to provide meaningful assurance of
prompt and effective disestablishment of a dual system is intolerable. (Green v.
County School Board of New Kent County, Virginia, 391 US 430 (1968), p. 430-
431)

* A district court's obligation is to assess the effectiveness of the plan in light of the
facts at hand and any alternatives which may be feasible and more promising, and
to retain jurisdiction until it is clear that state-imposed segregation has been
completely removed. (Green v. County School Board of New Kent County,
Virginia, 391 US 430 (1968), p. 431)

* Where a "freedom-of-choice" plan offers real promise of achieving a unitary,
nonracial system there might be no objection to allowing it to prove itself in
operation, but where there are reasonably available other ways, such as zoning,
promising speedier and more effective conversion to a unitary school system,
"freedom of choice" is not acceptable. (Green v. County School Board of New Kent
County, Virginia, 391 US 430 (1968), p. 431)

* The New Kent "freedom-of-choice" plan is not acceptable; it has not dismantled the
dual system, but has operated simply to burden students and their parents with a
responsibility, which Brown II placed squarely on the School Board. (Green v.
County School Board of New Kent County, Virginia, 391 US 430 (1968), p. 431)

The Court also advised that in deciding whether a school district had done

everything possible to convert "to a unitary system in which racial discrimination would

be eliminated root and branch" (Green v. County School Board of New Kent County,

Virginia, 391 US 430 (1968), p. 438), desegregation must occur among students in each

of six designated areas. The Court suggested that a lower court apply six prescribed

"Green factors" when determining if a district can be declared "unitary"

* Composition of the student body
* Faculty and staff assignment
* Transportation
* Extracurricular activities
* Facilities









These factors remain the benchmark in school-desegregation litigation. Further, in

Freeman et al. v. Pitts et al. 503 U.S. 467 (1992), the Eleventh Circuit court added a

possible seventh factor, the quality of education.

"Unitary" is a term defined by the courts as a school system that has made a

transition from a segregated or "racially dual" system to one that is desegregated or

"unitary." The first applicable unitary status case was Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg

Board of Education et al., 402 U.S. 1 (1971), which began the battle over urban

desegregation (Orfield, Bachmeier, James & Eitle, 1997). Swann (1971) presented a

comprehensive set of policies in the South in order to address a massive desegregation

movement (Orfield, Bachmeier, James & Eitle, 1997).

In 1968-1969, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg school system had over 84,000 students

in 107 schools; approximately 29% of the students were Black and 21 schools in the

district were at least 99% Black. The District Court approved a desegregation plan in

1965, but by 1968, the 29% Black and 71% White student population remained

segregated. The District Court found the school board's further proposals for

desegregation inadequate and appointed an expert who provided additional desegregation

recommendations. In 1969, the District Court ordered

* That faculty members be reassigned in such a manner as to result in the ratio of
Negro and White faculty members in each school being approximately the same as
the ratio of Negro and White faculty members throughout the school system

* That in accordance with the school board's plan, as modified by the expert's plan,
new attendance zones be created for secondary schools, and some inner-city
Negroes be transported to outlying, predominantly white schools, so that the
percentage of Negroes would range from about 17 percent to less than 36 percent in
each high school and would range from about 9 percent to about 33 percent in each
junior high school; and

* That in accordance with the expert's plan, new attendance zones and pairing and
grouping of schools be used for elementary schools, and the about of busing of









elementary school students be substantially increased, so that the percentage of
Negroes in each elementary school would range from about 9 percent to about 38
percent. (300 F. Supp. 1358 (W.D.N.C. 1969), p. 2)

In February of 1970, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's plan as far

as faculty desegregation and secondary schools but vacated the order regarding

elementary schools on the ground that the additional busing would be cost prohibitive

(431 F.2d 138 (4th Cir. 1970)). The case was remanded to the District Court and upon

remand, the Court ordered the board to adopt a new plan for elementary schools, but after

the school board failed to submit a plan, the District Court adopted the expert's plan. The

decision was later appealed and in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education

(1971), on certiorari, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals'

judgment to the extent that the Court of Appeals had affirmed the District Court's

judgment and the Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's order reinstating the

expert's plan for elementary school students. In a unanimous opinion given by Burger,

Ch J., it was held

* Today's objective is to eliminate from the public schools all vestiges of state-
imposed segregation that was held violative of equal protection guarantees by
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, in 1954. (Swann v. Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Board of Education et al., 402 U.S. 1 (1971), p. 15)

* In default by the school authorities of their affirmative obligation to proffer
acceptable remedies, the district courts have broad power to fashion remedies that
will assure unitary school systems. (Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of
Education et al., 402 U.S. 1 (1971), p. 16)

* Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not restrict or withdraw from the
federal courts their historic equitable remedial powers. The proviso in 42 U.S.C.
2000c-6 was designed simply to foreclose any interpretation of the Act as
expanding the existing powers of the federal courts to enforce the Equal Protection
Clause. (Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education et al., 402 U.S. 1
(1971), p. 16-18)

* Policy and practice with regard to faculty, staff, transportation, extracurricular
activities, and facilities are among the most important indicia of a segregated









system, and the first remedial responsibility of school authorities is to eliminate
invidious racial distinctions in those respects. Normal administrative practice
should then produce schools of like quality, facilities, and staffs. (Swann v.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board ofEducation et al., 402 U.S. 1 (1971), p. 18-19)

* The Constitution does not prohibit district courts from using their equity power to
order assignment of teachers to achieve a particular degree of faculty
desegregation. United States v. Montgomery County Board of Education, 395 U.S.
225, was properly followed by the lower courts in this case (Swann v. Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Board of Education et al., 402 U.S. 1 (1971), p. 19-20)

* In devising remedies to eliminate legally imposed segregation, local authorities and
district courts must see to it that future school construction and abandonment are
not used and do not serve to perpetuate or reestablish a dual system. (Swann v.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education etal., 402 U.S. 1 (1971), p. 20-21)

* Four problem areas exist on the issue of student assignment:

1. Racial quotas. The constitutional command to desegregate schools does not mean
that every school in the community must always reflect the racial composition of
the system as a whole; here the District Court's very limited use of the racial ratio --
not as an inflexible requirement, but as a starting point in shaping a remedy -- was
within its equitable discretion. (Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of
Education et al., 402 U.S. 1 (1971), p. 22-25)
2. One-race schools. While the existence of a small number of one-race, or virtually
one-race, schools does not, in itself, denote a system that still practices segregation
by law, the court should scrutinize such schools and require the school authorities
to satisfy the court that the racial composition does not result from present or past
discriminatory action on their part. (Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of
Education et al., 402 U.S. 1 (1971), p. 25-26)
An optional majority-to-minority transfer provision has long been recognized as a
useful part of a desegregation plan, and to be effective such arrangement must
provide the transferring student free transportation and available space in the school
to which he desires to move. (Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education
etal., 402 U.S. 1 (1971), p. 26-27)

3. Attendance zones. The remedial altering of attendance zones is not, as an interim
corrective measure, beyond the remedial powers of a district court. A student
assignment plan is not acceptable merely because it appears to be neutral, for such
a plan may fail to counteract the continuing effects of past school segregation. The
pairing and grouping of noncontiguous zones is a permissible tool; judicial steps
going beyond contiguous zones should be examined in light of the objectives to be
sought. No rigid rules can be laid down to govern conditions in different localities.
(Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education et al., 402 U.S. 1 (1971), p.
27-29)
4. Transportation. The District Court's conclusion that assignment of children to the
school nearest their home serving their grade would not effectively dismantle the









dual school system is supported by the record, and the remedial technique of
requiring bus transportation as a tool of school desegregation was within that
court's power to provide equitable relief. An objection to transportation of students
may have validity when the time or distance of travel is so great as to risk either the
health of the children or significantly impinge on the educational process; limits on
travel time will vary with many factors, but probably with none more than the age
of the students. (Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education et al., 402
U.S. 1 (1971), p. 29-31)

* Neither school authorities nor district courts are constitutionally required to make
year-by-year adjustments of the racial composition of student bodies once a unitary
system has been achieved. (Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education et
al., 402 U.S. 1 (1971), p. 31-32)

In Swann (1971), the Supreme Court affirmed a federal judge's decision to use

racial classifications to determine student assignments in order to accomplish school-

desegregation in Charlotte, North Carolina. Additionally, the Court ruled that the federal

courts had the power to deny school construction and school closings that perpetuated

segregation, to alter school attendance zones, and to make necessary changes to achieve a

unitary school system (Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education 402 U.S. 1

(1971), p. 32).

Later, in Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell, 498 US 237 (1991),

several Black students and their parents brought a suit against the Board of Education of

Oklahoma City, seeking an end to alleged, dejure segregation of the city's public

schools. In 1972, the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma,

determined that the city was in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment of the United States Constitution because it had intentionally segregated

both schools and housing in the past, and had been operating a "dual," racially segregated

school system. The court held that

Previous efforts had not been successful in eliminating such state-imposed
segregation; and (2) ordered the adoption of a desegregation plan whose elements









included (a) mandatory student assignments for many specified schools and grades,
and (b) school busing. (338 F Supp 1256)

Upon appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed

(465 F2d 1012) and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari (409 US 1041, 34

L Ed 2d 490, 93 S Ct 526). In 1977, the District Court, issued an "Order Terminating

Case," expressing the view that

* The desegregation plan had worked
* Substantial compliance with the constitutional requirements had been achieved
* A "unitary" school system had been accomplished.

The school board adopted a student reassignment plan to begin in the 1985-1986

school year; to accommodate allegedly changed conditions. Although the reassignment

plan still allowed for some busing, the plan also included provisions for (1) neighborhood

school assignments, and (2) a student's voluntary transfer from a school in which the

student was in the majority to a school in which the student would be in the minority. As

a result of the school boards actions, the Black students and their parents then asserted

that the school district had not achieved "unitary" status and that the reassignment plan

was a return to segregation. The District Court refused to reopen the case, expressing the

view that (1) the 1977 finding ofunitariness was resjudicata as to the parties, and (2) the

school district remained unitary (606 F Supp 1548). On appeal, the Court of Appeals,

reversing, expressed the view that while the 1977 order was binding on the parties,

nothing in the 1977 order indicated that the 1972 injunction itself was terminated (795

F2d 1516).

In 1987, the Supreme Court again denied certiorari (479 US 938, 93 L Ed 2d 370,

107 S Ct 420). On remand, the District Court, concluding that the 1972 decree should be

vacated and the school district returned to local control, where, according to the District









Court, (1) demographic changes had made the desegregation plan unworkable; (2) the

board had done nothing for 25 years to promote residential segregation; (3) the school

district had bused students for more than a decade in good-faith compliance with the

District Court's orders; (4) the city's existing residential segregation was the result of

private decision making and economics, rather than a vestige of former school

segregation; (5) the district had maintained its unitary status; and (6) the reassignment

plan was not designed with discriminatory intent (677 F Supp 1503).

On appeal, the Court of Appeals, again reversing, expressed the view that (1) a

desegregation decree generally remains in effect until a school district can show a

"grievous wrong" evoked by new and unforeseen conditions; and (2) the circumstances in

the case at hand had not changed enough to justify modification of the 1972 decree,

where, according to the Court of Appeals, a number of schools would return to being

primarily one-race schools under the reassignment plan (890 F2d 1483). On certiorari,

the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment and remanded the case to the

District Court for further proceedings.

In an opinion, by Rehnquist, Ch. J., joined by White, O'Connor, Scalia, and

Kennedy, J.J., it was held

* the District Court's unappealed 1977 order did not bar the Black students and their
parents from contesting the District Court's 1987 order dissolving the 1972
injunctive decree, where (a) the 1977 order did not dissolve the 1972 decree, and
(b) the 1977 order's unitariness finding was too ambiguous to bar the students and
their parents from challenging later action by the school board; but (2) in the case at
hand, a finding by the District Court--that the school district was being operated in
compliance with the commands of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection
clause and that it was unlikely that the school board would return to its former
ways--would be a finding that the purposes of the desegregation litigation had been
fully achieved, and would thus be sufficient to justify dissolution of the
desegregation decree, without any additional requirement for the school board to
show a "grievous wrong" evoked by new and unforeseen conditions; (3) the District









Court, on remand, was to decide, in accordance with the Supreme Court's opinion,
whether the school board had made a sufficient showing of constitutional
compliance as of 1985, when the school board had adopted the student
reassignment plan, so as to allow the injunction to be dissolved; and (4) the District
Court ought to address itself as to whether (a) the board had complied in good faith
with the desegregation decree since it had been entered, and (b) the vestiges of past
discrimination had been eliminated to the extent practicable.

Marshall, J., joined by Blackmen and Stevens, J.J., dissenting, expressed the view
that (1) the District Court's 1977 order did not contain a sufficiently precise
statement to bar review of the District Court's 1987 order expressly dissolving the
1972 decree; and (2) the proper standard for determining whether a school-
desegregation decree should be dissolved is whether the purposes of the
desegregation litigation, as incorporated in the decree, have been fully achieved;
but (3) such a standard must (a) take into account the unique harm associated with a
system of racially identifiable schools, and (b) expressly demand the elimination of
such schools; and (4) while it was possible that some modification of the 1972
decree might be appropriate, the purposes of the 1972 decree had not yet been
achieved, and the Court of Appeals' reinstatement of the decree ought to be
affirmed, because the record showed, and the Court of Appeals had found, that
feasible steps could be taken to avoid one-race schools. (Board of Ed. of Oklahoma
City v. Dowell, 498 US 237 (1991), p. 267)

In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that a school system meeting the Green

(1968) factors could be declared unitary, and thus freed from any affirmative obligations

to end segregation. In addition, the Court held that any government action recreating

racially segregated schools would be presumed innocent. Dowell (1991) made it easier

for districts to be declared unitary by ruling that a school district may be freed from court

supervision once it eliminates the vestiges of desegregation to the extent practical

(Education Week, 2002) and the court declared that a school district is not responsible for

remedying local conditions such as segregated housing patterns.

In Freeman et al. v. Pitts et al. 503 U.S. 467 (1992), Black students and their

parents, entered a consent order approving a plan to dismantle the dejure segregation that

had existed in the DeKalb County, Georgia, School System (DCSS). In 1986, petitioner

DCSS officials filed a motion for final dismissal of the litigation, seeking a declaration









that DCSS had achieved unitary status. Among other things, the court found that DCSS,

"has traveled the ... road to unitary status almost to its end," and noted that it had

"continually been impressed by [DCSS'] successes ... and its dedication to providing a

quality education for all," and ruled that DCSS is a unitary system with regard to four of

the six factors identified in Green v. School Bd. Of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430

(1968); student assignments, transportation, physical facilities, and extracurricular

activities. The Court found, with respect to student assignments, DCSS had briefly

achieved unitary status under the court-ordered plan and that subsequent and continuing

racial imbalance in this category was a product of independent demographic changes that

were unrelated to petitioners' actions taken by DCSS. The Court stated that DCSS had

achieved maximum practical desegregation from 1969 to 1986. However, the Court

ruled that it would order no further relief in the foregoing areas, further, the court refused

to dismiss the case because it found that DCSS was not unitary with respect to the

remaining Green factors, faculty assignment and resource allocation. The Court of

Appeals reversed, holding, inter alia, that a district court should retain full remedial

authority over a school system until it achieves unitary status in all Green (1968)

categories. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals and held

* In the course of supervising a desegregation plan, a district court has the authority
to relinquish supervision and control of a school district in incremental stages,
before full compliance has been achieved in every are of school operations, and
may, while retaining jurisdiction over the case, determining that it will not order
remedies in areas where the school district is in compliance with the decree.
(Freeman et al. v. Pitts et al. 503 U.S. 467 (1992), p. 15-22)

* The Court of Appeals erred in holding that, as a matter of law, the District Court
had no discretion to permit SCSS to regain control over student assignments and
three other Green factors, while retaining supervision over faculty assignments and
the quality of education. (Freeman et al. v. Pitts et al. 503 U.S. 467 (1992), p. 22-
29)









The decision in Freeman v. Pitts (1991) allowed for incremental withdrawal from

court supervision by declaring a school district "partially unitary." Further, incremental

withdrawal of judicial authority may occur once a school district had demonstrated the

following: (a) compliance with a minimum of one Green (1968) factor for a period of

time; (b) indications that retention of jurisdiction is necessary to ensure compliance with

other factors; and (c) demonstration of good faith commitment to the whole of the court's

Consent Decree and to the law and constitutional provisions underlying that decree

(Williams and De Lacy, 1996).

The Court further defined "practible" to mean that a district can be declared unitary

before full compliance has been achieved in every area of school operations. Based on

Dowell (1991) and Freeman (1992), a school district must meet three Supreme Court

requirements in order to be declared "unitary": (1) Has the district complied with the

desegregation order for a reasonable period of time? (2) Have the vestiges of segregation

been eliminated to the extent practicable? (3) Is the district committed in good faith to its

constitutional obligations? (Sneed and Martin, 1997).

The court case, Coalition to Save our Children v. State Board of Education of the

State of Delaware, 90 F.3d 752 (3d Cir. 1996) brought an end to court supervision and

more than four decades of litigation designed to desegregate the public schools of

Delaware. In this case, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware had

declared that the school districts of Northern New Castle County, Delaware, had achieved

unitary status, and the plaintiff organization, Coalition to Save our Children, appealed.


The Court of Appeals held that









* District court did not clearly err in finding that school districts had satisfied the
Green factors of unitary status as well as ancillary measures provided in prior
order;

* There was no error in excluding testimony of expert when plaintiff disregarded two
pretrial orders requiring disclosure of specific subject matter as to which expert
would testify and provision of expert reports;

* Plaintiff was properly allocated burden to prove that performance disparities were
vestiges of de jure segregation;

* Record established that such disparities were caused by socioeconomic factors and
were not vestiges of de jure segregation. (Coalition to Save our Children v. State
Board of Education of the State of Delaware, 90 F.3d 752 (3d Cir. 1996), p. 752-
753)

In addition to the Green (1968) factors, the court considered eight programs of

"ancillary remedial relief" to determine whether Delaware school districts had achieved

unitary status. The eight programs included

(1) an in-service training program for teachers; (2) an affirmative reading and
communication skills program; (3) new curriculum offerings; (4) a
nondiscriminatory counseling and guidance program; (5) a human relations
program; (6) codes of conduct providing for nondiscriminatory discipline; (7) the
reassignment of faculty and staff; and (8) nondiscriminatory guidelines for
construction and maintenance of school buildings. (Coalition to Save our Children
v. State Board of Education Of the State of Delaware, 90 F.3d 752 (3d Cir. 1996),
p. 757)

A 1978 order required the following concerning the disciplining of students

* develop ... a code of rights and responsibilities providing] for racially
nondiscriminatory discipline and .. containing] provisions to insure each student
in the desegregation area procedural and substantive due process required by
existing law. Such a code will help to provide equal educational opportunity to all
students by protecting them from unreasonable, discriminatory, and arbitrary rules;
and the Board shall not administer the code on a racially selective or otherwise
biased basis. (Coalition to Save our Children v. State Board of Education Of the
State of Delaware, 90 F.3d 752 (3d Cir. 1996), p. 769)

In July 1978, a committee in the New Castle district adopted a code of conduct

drafted using similar documents from Delaware and large desegregated school districts.

Prior to adoption, citizen groups, student council leaders, the Teachers' Association, and









administrators reviewed drafts of the code. The code was revised periodically through a

formalized process.

* The appellant's discipline expert conceded that the districts' codes are not
"discriminatory on their face." And the district court found that the codes "are not
applied in a discriminatory fashion." Coalition, 901 F. Sup. at 817. Appellant
argues, however, that the school districts have failed to reduce racial disparities in
discipline rates among students, and that Appellant was denied the opportunity to
admit expert testimony in support of this claim. However, on this matter the record
supports the district court's findings, as well as its exercise of discretion.

* The district court's finding that discipline is not administered in a discriminatory
fashion is supported by the testimony of Dr. Charles Achilles, the school districts'
expert. Dr. Achilles calculated indices by dividing the percentage of black student
suspensions by the black enrollment percentage. Based on these data, Dr. Achilles
determined that the districts' suspension indices reflected less racial imbalance than
indices calculated from national suspension data compiled by the Office of Civil
Rights and Delaware arrest data. JA 722-23. Dr. Achilles further illustrated that the
indices were essentially consistent across the four districts -- "a result difficult to
achieve if equitable nondiscriminatory codes were not being used and applied in an
equitable, nondiscriminatory manner." Coalition, 901 F. Sup. at 817; see JA 724.
And finally, Dr. Achilles demonstrated "consistency in how the codes were applied
by administrators, regardless of the administrators' race." Coalition, 901 F. Sup. at
817; see JA 725. In light of this compelling testimony, we conclude that the district
court did not clearly err in determining that, as to discipline, the school districts
have complied with the 1978 Order. See Krasnov, 465 F.2d at 1302 (standard of
review)

* Nor did the district court err in rejecting the testimony of Appellant's discipline
expert, Dr. William Gordon. He could cite no study or authoritative literature to
support his assumption "that undisciplinee' or misbehavior is a randomly distributed
characteristic among racial groups. ." JA 1161. And in fact, statistical data
demonstrate a comparable or greater racial disproportion for those offenses for
which Delaware law mandates suspension, which Gordon called "very objective"
offenses, than for those offenses he viewed as less objective. JA 726. Accordingly,
we reject Appellant's argument that the schools have failed to reduce racial
disparities in discipline rates. (Coalition to Save our Children v. State Board of
Education Of the State of Delaware, 90 F.3d 752 (3d Cir. 1996), p. 775)

Coalition to Save our Children v. State Board of Education Of the State of

Delaware (1996) was just one of many cases where disparity in discipline was named as

one of the programs of "ancillary remedial relief" that a school district had to consider


when striving the achieve unitary status.









School Discipline

The following is a review of the literature concerning discipline in public schools

and how it related to disparity between Black and non-Black students. The fact that

schools were becoming increasingly dangerous was well documented in research studies,

polls, and the news media. With tragic and publicized events such as the shootings at

Columbine High School and September 11th, public safety, including the safety of

students in school, was at the forefront of the national agenda.

School safety is often perceived as the number one problem facing America's

public schools, and school discipline is a key component of school safety. During most

of its existence, the Phi Delta Kappa's Annual Gallop Poll of the Public's Attitudes

Toward the Public Schools has identified "lack of discipline" as one of the most serious

problem facing the nation's public schools (Rose and Gallup, 2002). In support of those

findings, the problem of disruptive student conduct in schools continues to be one of the

most pressing problems facing educators (Duke and Jones, 1984; Gottfredson,

Gottfredson, and Hybl, 1993; Kadel and Follman, 1993). In one study, 27% of school

personnel surveyed were concerned about their safety while at school, with 53% to 63%

perceiving violence as increasing at all levels of public education (Skiba, Peterson and

Williams 1997). Cotton (1990) estimated that about 1/2 of all classroom time was taken

up with activities other than instruction, with discipline problems accounting for a large

portion of lost instruction time.

In a August 25, 1998 Washington Post article, Vincent Schiraldi wrote,
"communities all over America are considering new ways of combating violence in the

schools." Legislation has been proposed at the national and state levels, and local schools

continued to formulate new policies and regulations to deal with these serious problems"









(Schiraldi, 1998). The realization that public schools needed effective discipline

programs prompted legislation such as Goal Number Seven of the National Education

Goals, written by the National Educational Goals Panel in 1995. Goal Seven stated "all

schools in America will be free of drugs and violence and the unauthorized presence of

firearms and alcohol, and offer a disciplined environment that is conducive to learning"

and prescribed a decrease in the occurrence of violent acts in America's schools to zero

by the year 2000. That goal that fell noticeably short of its intent (National Education

Goals Panel, 1999). In response to this goal, the Congress passed the Safe and Drug-Free

Schools and Communities Act of 1994, which provided for support of drug and violence

prevention programs.

Regardless of the size of the school, grade level taught, location or setting of a

school, student discipline has been an integral part of the educational process. Effective

schools must be safe schools and administrators were challenged with maintaining order.

But, what is discipline? Discipline was defined by Jones (1979) as the "business of

enforcing simple classroom rules that facilitate learning and minimize disruption." When

students violate one or more federal, state, local or school policy's they were disciplined.

Typically, the first step in disciplining a student is the generation of a student

discipline referral. A discipline referral is a form generated whenever a student is

accused of violating one or more of a school's pre-determined standards of behavior.

The student discipline referral contains all of the pertinent information regarding the

violation, including the sanctions) or consequences) the student received. Sanctions or

consequences ranged from a relatively minor 'verbal reprimand' to a more serious

consequence such as a 'suspension' or 'expulsion.' Discipline referrals are especially









useful in monitoring and analyzing a school's discipline profile. Student discipline

referrals can also be used to predict such things as school failure (Walker, Colvin, and

Ramsey, 1995), delinquency (Walker, Stieber, Ramsey & O'Neill, 1990, 1991, 1993),

referral for special education, placement in alternative settings (Tobin and Sugai, 1999),

and future incidents of violence at school (Tobin, Sugai, and Colvin, 1996; Tobin and

Sugai, 1999).

Suspensions and Expulsions

Despite the importance placed on school participation with compulsory attendance

laws, schools may deny students access to education by suspending students for a period

ranging from one to ten days or removing students permanently from public school

through an expulsion. An out-of-school suspension was defined as the removal from the

school environment for a period not to exceed ten days, whereas, in-school suspension

was defined as the removal from the classroom environment for a period from one to ten

days (Florida Department of Education, 1995).

In 1975, the U.S. Supreme Court, in two separate decisions, mandated that students

had both property rights and liberty interests when facing temporary suspension from

school. The first decision, Goss vs. Lopez et al., 419 U.S. 565, 95 S.Ct. 729 (1975)

mandated due process regarding disciplinary procedures involving the removal of

students from school. Due process ensured a student's right to be heard, present

evidence, witnesses, and have the opportunity to rebut charges. In this case, the Court

made the distinction between a minor deprivation of the student's right to attend school (a

suspension often or fewer days) and a serious deprivation (suspension in excess often

days or an expulsion). The Court did not set out any particular procedures which must be

followed in effecting an expulsion or other "serious" removal from school, noting,









instead, that a student facing such a removal ". .must be given some kind of notice and

afforded some kind of hearing" (95 S.Ct. p. 738).

Students facing temporary suspension have interests qualifying for protection of the
Due Process Clause, and due process requires, in connection with a suspension of
10 days or less, that the student be given oral or written notice of the charges
against him and, if he denies them, an explanation of the evidence the authorities
have and an opportunity to present his side of the story. The Clause requires at least
these rudimentary precautions against unfair or mistaken findings of misconduct
and arbitrary exclusion from school. (Goss vs. Lopez et al., 419 U.S. 565, 95 S.Ct.
729 (1975), p.23)

The second case, Wood v. Strickland 95 S. Ct. 992 (1975), made schools boards

liable for damages in school suspension cases. In addition to the legal obligations,

schools must follow laws and statutes concerning school suspensions and expulsions and

schools were also required to fully comply with state regulations mandated by The

Federal Drug-Free Schools Act and The Gun-Free-Schools Act, in order to qualify for

federal funds. The Fourteenth Amendment (1868) to the Constitution of the United

States provided

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person
of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Historically, suspensions were considered as disciplinary actions administered as a

consequence for a student's inappropriate behavior and required that a student be

removed from the classroom or school for a specific period of time (Bumbarger, 1999).

Suspensions or expulsions were also viewed as a severe punitive consequence meant to

alert both the student and the parents about the seriousness of a student's misconduct.

Additionally, suspensions isolated a student from the classroom setting, and were often

used to protect the staff and other students from further verbal or physical abuse

(Bumbarger, 1999).









Causes of Suspension and Expulsions

Students were suspended for a variety of reasons ranging from minor infractions,

such as tardiness and skipping Saturday school, to severe infractions such as fighting and

the possession of weapons or drugs; however, the commonest discipline problems

involve non-criminal student behavior (Moles, 1989). In support of this statement, Skiba,

Peterson and Williams (1997) found that most suspensions were for noncompliance or

disrespect, and the fewest number were for behaviors that threaten safety. Further

support for these findings can be found in the research studies of Imich (1994) and

McFadden, Marsh, Price, and Hwang (1992), whose findings revealed that the most

frequent causes of referrals and suspensions were disrespect, noncompliance, defiance,

and general school disruption. Morrison and D'Incau (1997) also found that students

who would not be considered dangerous in the school environment committed the

majority of offenses in the sample they studied. The National School Board Association

(1994) confirmed these findings reporting that, contrary to popular belief, most out-of-

school suspensions across the country were for minor infractions of school rules rather

than for dangerous or violent acts.

There are a multitude of studies designed to identify the causes for suspensions in

public schools. Several studies identified the most common behaviors that lead to

internal suspension vary from tardiness (Edelman, Beck and Smith, 1975; McFadden et

al., 1992; Pare, 1983), skipping class (Johnson, 1989), truancy (Edelman, Back, and

Smith, 1975; McFadden et al. 1992), forging excuses (Pare, 1983), disruptive classroom

behaviors (Pare, 1983), insubordination (Williams, 1979), lack of cooperation (Diem,

1988) to smoking and alcohol and drug use (Chobot and Garibaldi, 1982; Williams,









1979), fighting (Costenbader and Markson, 1994), possession of a weapon, extortion, and

drug possession (Williams, 1979).

Given the recent spate of violent acts in public schools and the subsequent media

attention surrounding those events, school violence is at the forefront of issues

concerning schools, both for educators and the public alike. But does the hype match the

statistics? In response to Goal Number Seven of the National Education Goals Congress

passed the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act of 1994. As part of this

legislation, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (1997) was required to

collect data to determine the "frequency, seriousness, and incidence of violence in

elementary and secondary schools." NCES responded to this requirement by

commissioning a survey titled The Principal/School Disciplinarian Survey on School

Violence, 1996-97. The school violence survey was conducted with a nationally

representative sample of 1,234 public elementary, middle, and secondary schools in the

50 states and the District of Columbia during the spring and summer of 1997. The results

of this study revealed

* Less serious or nonviolent crimes were more common than serious violent crimes.

* In both 1990-91 and 1996-97, the three discipline issues most frequently rated as
serious or moderate problems by principals were student tardiness, student
absenteeism or class cutting, and physical conflicts among students.

* More than half of U.S. public schools reported experiencing at least one crime
incident in school year 1996-97, and 1 in 10 schools reported at least one serious
violent crime during that school year.

* Crime and violence were more of a problem in middle and high schools than in
elementary schools. Middle schools and high schools were more likely to report
that they had experienced one or more incidents of any crime and one or more
incidents of serious violent crime than elementary schools.

* Schools that reported serious discipline problems were more likely to have
experienced one or more incidents of crime or violence, and were more likely to









experience serious violent crime than those with less serious discipline problems.
(Violence and Discipline Problems in U.S. Public Schools: 1996-97 March 1998,
NCES)

Although violence (including fighting) among students was among the most

common infraction leading to both internal and external suspension (Costenbader and

Markson, 1994; Skiba, Peterson, and Williams, 1997), the majority of school suspensions

were a result of relatively minor incidents that do not threaten school safety. Middle

schools reported an average of 25% of all internal suspensions resulting from physical

aggression while high schools reported 12% (Costenbader and Markson, 1994).

In 1996-1997, NCES published a report titled Violence and Discipline Problems in

U.S. Public Schools. This report identified what school principals or disciplinarians at

the elementary, middle, and high school levels considered to be serious or moderate

discipline problems in their schools. The most frequently cited problems at all three

levels were non-violent behaviors such as tardiness (40%), absenteeism (25%), physical

conflicts among students (21%) and tobacco use (14%). Incidents typically associated

with school safety which were reported as occurring relatively infrequently were drug use

(9%), gangs (5%), possession of weapons (2%), and physical abuse of teachers (2%).

Hillsborough County Public Schools listed 37 different types of offenses for which

students were suspended out-of-school during the 1996-97 school year. To facilitate the

interpretation of these results, the researcher, Raffaele (1999) grouped these thirty-seven

infractions into seven categories. The top three categories of infractions for each grade

level were as follows: disobedience, violence against persons, and substance possession

for high schools; disobedience, violence against persons, and violence against property

for middle schools; and disobedience, violence against persons, and violence against

property for elementary schools (Raffaele, 1999). Rosen (1997), in a study of over 100









secondary administrators, found that the most common reasons for out-of-school

suspension were defiance of school authority, not reporting to after school detention or

Saturday school, and class disruption.

In 1997, Skiba, Peterson and Williams published a dual study titled Office

Referrals and Suspension: Disciplinary Intervention in Middle Schools. Study I

examined data from the entire middle school population in a large, urban Midwestern

public school district, serving over 50,000 students. The results of the study identified

disobedience as the most frequent cause for disciplinary referrals, followed by

misconduct, disrespect, and fighting. The study also revealed that African American

students received a higher number of referrals on average than students from any other

ethnic background except Native Americans. Study II examined detailed descriptive

information about one middle school in the same district. Study II also revealed that the

most common reasons for referrals were lack of cooperation, and insubordination/verbal

abuses, followed by excessive tardiness/absences and inappropriate/profane/abusive

language. Both studies indicated that problems with authority, such as of insubordination

and noncompliance, were the most frequent reasons for disciplinary referral in middle

schools, rather than behaviors that place others in danger. Edelman, Beck, and Smith

(1975) reported that almost two thirds of the suspensions reported in The Office of Civil

Rights data were for "non-serious" offenses. The data were also consistent with findings

that noncompliance and defiance were among the least well tolerated of student behaviors

in the classroom (Cooly, 1995; Landon and Mesinger, 1989; Safran and Safran, 1984).

Frequency of Suspensions

The reason students were suspended from school were varied and well

documented, furthermore, there was a noticeable increase in student violent and









disruptive behaviors in and around schools which had, in turn, resulted in a proportionate

increase in the number of suspensions and expulsions (Ingersoll and Boeuf, 1977). The

Children's Defense Fund (1975) declared that the suspension of children in schools across

all levels had become a problem of national proportion. Other research indicated that the

most commonly administered forms of discipline used in public schools were both in-

school suspension (ISS) (Costenbader and Markson, 1994) and out-of-school suspension

(OSS) (Costenbader and Markson, 1994; Dupper and Bosch, 1996). With the passage of

legislation such as the 1994 Federal Gun-Free Schools Act and Zero-Tolerance, Supreme

Court decisions, and the lack of viable alternatives, suspensions and expulsions were

likely to increase significantly (Bumbarger, 1999).

Using national level data from a Safe School Study, Wu, Pink, Crain and Moles

(1982) found that about 11% of students surveyed (31,103) had been suspended at least

once during their enrollment in public school. The United States Department of

Education (1993) estimated that 1.5 million students miss one or more days of school per

year because they have been suspended or expelled. Later estimates continued to show a

marked rise in the number of suspensions and expulsions.

Costenbader and Markson (1998) analyzed the results of 620 surveys from both

middle and high school students in public schools. Of the students who responded to the

survey, 41% indicated that they had been suspended at least one time in their educational

history, 18% had received in-school suspension and 22% had been suspended out-of-

school. Recent figures regarding suspensions from the U.S. Department of Education,

Office for Civil Rights, 1999, indicated that over 3.1 million students were suspended









during the 1998 school year and another 87,000 were expelled (The Civil Rights Project,

2001b).

Individual states reported a marked increase in suspension rates for students in

public schools. In the State of Wisconsin, suspensions were reported to have increased

34% from the 1991-92 to the 1997-1998 school years (State of Wisconsin Department of

Instruction, 1999). Chicago Public Schools had experienced a similar dramatic increase

in the number of expulsions from 14 in 1992-1993 to 737 in 1998-1999 (Chicago Public

Schools, 2000).

During the 1991-1992 school year, the West Virginia Department of Education

collected data regarding the use of suspension and expulsion in West Virginia schools.

The analysis of State's data revealed that during the five-month period from September

1991 to January 1992, 18,915 out-of-school suspensions were reported by the county

school system. The unduplicated number of students suspended during this time period

was 12,997 students across all grade levels or almost 10% of all students attending West

Virginia public schools. The actual number of lost instruction days lost due to

suspensions totaled 41,538 days; 51% of those suspensions occurred at the secondary

level, 7,677 cases at the middle school, and 1,585 at the elementary school level. In

Jefferson County, Florida, a small predominantly Black school district, 43% of all high

school students and 31% of middle school students were suspended at least once during

the 1998-1999 school year (Florida Department of Education, 1999).

Researchers Wu et al. (1982) disaggregated suspension data to determine if the

school suspension rate varied between school settings (urban, suburban, and rural).

Comparing school setting in relation to school suspensions, more students in urban









schools (15% in high schools and middle schools) were suspended then those from

suburban schools (13% in high schools and 8% in middle schools), who were suspended

more than those in rural schools (9% in high schools and 7% in middle schools).

The rate of suspensions has also been disaggregated by school levels (elementary,

middle, and high). Within the specific school levels, first suspensions occurred more

frequently in the seventh grade of junior high school (having only two grades, seventh

and eighth) and the first year in high school (ninth grade) (Wu et al., 1982). The

researchers suggested that the first year in a new school may be a difficult period. It has

also been reported that out-of-school suspension rates rose steadily from seventh through

eighth grades and peak in the ninth grade (The Florida State Department of Education,

1995; Massachusetts State Board of Education, 1991; Safer, 1986). Costenbader and

Markson (1994) also found the rates of suspension to be higher in high schools then in

middle schools.

Disparity in Discipline

While suspect discipline practices can be found with students of all ethnic

backgrounds, they are especially disproportionate for African American students (Harry

and Anderson, 1995). Researchers studying the disciplining of African American

students in desegregated public schools found that they were disproportionately

represented in disciplinary actions (Bakersville, 1980; Frahm, 1983; Goldsmith, 1979;

Larkin, 1982; Mason, 1980; Robinson; 1979; Wu et al., 1982). More recent studies on

the disciplining of African American students continued to indicate that African

American students received a disproportionate number of disciplinary actions when

compared to other ethnic groups (Gregory, 1995; Morgan, 1991; Panko-Stilmock, 1996).









The fact that Black students are disproportionately suspended and expelled from

school has been well-established (Bickel and Qualls, 1980; Bullara, 1993; Costenbader

and Markson, 1994; Dupper and Bosch, 1996; Edelman, Beck, and Smith, 1975; Florida

State Department of Education, 1995; Kaeser, 1979; Massachusetts State Board of

Education, 1991; Moody, Williams, and Vergnon, 1978; Neill, 1976; Streitmatter, 1986;

Wu et al., 1982). The most common indicator of disparity in discipline used in research

studies was the rates of suspensions (Wu et al., 1982). Skiba, Peterson, & Williams

(1997), in a study of an urban school district revealed African American children

received more office referrals and subsequent suspensions than any other ethnic group. It

has also been reported that while African American children only represented 17% of

public school enrollment they received 33% of out-of-school suspensions, while White

students who represented 63% of public school enrollment only received 50% of

suspensions (The Civil Rights Project, 2002a). More specific examples of

disproportionality can be found in school districts throughout the United States. In the

Chicago Public Schools, African American students represented 73% of those expelled

but only 53% of the total enrollment (Chicago Public Schools, 2000).

Many researchers compared the rate of suspension for African American students

to those of other ethnic groups. Suspension rate indicates the number of times a Black

student is more likely to receive a suspension than other ethnic groups, typically White

students. Numerous studies have found the rate of suspension for Black students to be

two to three times that of White students (Children's Defense Fund, 1974; Costenbader

and Markson, 1994; Massachusetts Advocacy Center, 1986; McFadden et al., 1992;

National Coalition of Advocates for Students, 1986; Wu et al., 1982). While some









studies used suspension rate as an indicator of disproportionality, most studies used

percentage of students suspended as the key indicator. Research studies using percentage

as the indicator for disparity have been conducted at the national, state and local levels

and have spanned several decades. This researcher chose to place the findings of these

studies in chronological order.

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (as cited in

Montgomery, 1977) filed a complaint against the Little Rock, Arkansas School System

for the alleged discrimination against African American students. During the first

semester of the 1974-1975 school year, 546 African American students and 105 White

students were suspended. This disparity translated to the alarming fact that African

American students received 85% of the suspensions while White students received only

15%.

In 1975, the Children's Defense Fund (CDF) released a national study on discipline

in public schools. The CDF obtained and analyzed data collected by the Office of Civil

Rights from 2,862 school districts in which 24,188,681 students attended. Findings

revealed that over a million students were suspended during the 1972-1973 school year,

citing fighting (36%) as the single most frequent reason for suspension. The CDF also

found that the percentage of African American students suspended (6%) was greater than

the percentage of students suspended from any other ethnic group (Table 2-1). What

Table 2-1 shows is that 3.1% of White students were suspended and 6.0% of Black

students were suspended. This translates to the fact that two Black students were

suspended to every one White student suspended.









Table 2-1 Totals from the Office of Civil Rights Survey of Students Suspended During
the 1972-1973 School Year
Ethnicity October Number Average length of Percentage
enrollment suspension in days
White 15,163,546 471,948 3.55 3.1
Black 6,553,104 392,437 4.46 6.0
Spanish 2,153,923 57,402 3.53 2.7
Indian 141,720 3,955 3.60 2.8
Asian 176,388 1,987 3.13 1.1
Total 24,188,681 1,012,347 4.01 4.2
The Children's Defense Fund. (1975). School suspensions: Are they helping children?
Cambridge, MA.

There were two research studies conducted in 1979 that had similar findings

concerning the disproportionate suspension rate for African American students. Jencks

(1979) conducted a study in an Ohio school district to determine the occurrence of

suspensions and expulsions of White and minority students. The data indicated that

although the frequency of suspensions varied between schools and districts, there were a

disproportionately high number of minorities suspended.

Larkin (1979) studied the Milwaukee Public School System for a two-year period

following a desegregation order to determine the impact of suspensions on White and

non-White students. During the 1976-1977 and the 1977-1978 school years, the

suspension rates were 22% and 29% respectively, and the total enrollment was

approximately 101,000 students. In order to compare the differential impact of these

suspensions on White and non-White students, two different measures of inequality were

used. It should be noted that duplicated data was used for this study due to the limitations

of the data available; this makes it impossible to know how many students were

suspended, only how many suspensions were given. First, a suspension disproportion

was determined by calculating the difference between a given race group's proportion of

the total suspensions issued and their proportion of the total student enrollment. The









results indicated that White students, comprising 67.7% of the population, received

37.4% of the total suspensions issued. The suspension disproportion was calculated to be

-25.3. Conversely, Black students who compromised only 32.5% of the population

received 57% of the suspensions. The suspension disproportion for Black students was

+24.5. Other minority groups who were also included in the study had only a very slight

disproportion between their suspension rate and their enrollment. The suspension

disproportion for individual schools was also calculated and for a number of schools the

Black suspension proportion was greater than +40.0, while two integrated schools had

Black suspension proportions as low as -0.8 and -4.8. In one comparison of two high

schools with similar Black enrollments (18%), one school had a Black suspension

proportion of +39.8, while the others were only +8.2. The second measure of inequality

was a comparison of the rates of suspension for each of the groups, Black and White.

Results indicated that for the 1976-1977 school year, White students received 22.4

suspensions per 100 White students, while Black students received 76.6 suspensions per

100 Black students. Hence, Black students were suspended at a rate of about three times

the rate of White students. Additionally, at 32 of the 34 secondary schools, Black

students received a greater proportion of suspensions then their proportion of the student

population. During the second year of integration, 1977-1978, Black students were

suspended at a rate of 2.5 that of the rate for White students. Using either of the two

methods described above, the researcher came to the same conclusion; Black students

were suspended at a greater proportion then their population. A limitation of this study

was that no discipline data was collected prior to the desegregation order, so the results

could not be related to the desegregation process itself, rather it had to stand on its own.









In this same study, Larkin (1979) also calculated a correlation coefficient to answer

several questions related to the findings of the study. First, whether the actual number or

percent of Black students enrolled in a school correlated to the school's overall

suspension rate, however, the results indicated that it did not. A second correlation was

calculated to determine if the actual number or percent of Black students enrolled in a

school correlate to the suspension rate for Black students. There was a slightly higher

correlation for this relationship. A third correlation was calculated to determine if there

was a relationship between the changes from one year to the next in the percentage of

Black enrollment, and both the overall suspension rate and the Black suspension rate.

These correlations were weak and inconsistent, denoting that schools, which experience

larger increases in Black enrollment, were not necessarily the schools, which also had the

highest Black suspension rates. The researcher did find a positive moderate correlation

between the changes in Black enrollment and the Black suspension rate, that is, schools,

which experience a larger increase in Black student enrollment, tend to be the same

schools which suspend Black students at a greater proportion (Larkin, 1979).

The Florida Department of Education (1983) found that for the 1981-1982 school

year, 86,875 students were suspended throughout the state. African American students,

who comprised 23% of the school population, received 32,946 or 38% of the suspension,

while White students, who comprised 68% of the population, received 49,248 or 57% of

the suspensions. The rate of expulsions indicated a disparity as well.

Streitmatter (1986) conducted a study of three high schools in a large, urban

Southwestern community. In one of the high schools, School A, the population was 93%

White, 6% Black, and 4.9% Hispanic, and the suspensions rates reflected the racial/ethnic









percentages of the school. In School B, with a student population of 76% White, 5.7%

Black, and 12.9% Hispanic, the suspension rates revealed that White students were

slightly underrepresented, Black students were slightly over represented, and Hispanic

students were over represented. In school C, with a population of 32.6% White, 7.8%

Black, and 53.4% Hispanic, White student suspensions were underrepresented, Black

students were suspended at almost double their percentage, and Hispanic student

suspensions were slightly over represented. Compiling the data for all three schools, the

researcher reported that White students were underrepresented, and Black and Hispanic

students were over represented when it came to suspensions.

In 1988, the National Coalition of Advocates for Students (NCAS) released an

analysis of the data from the 1986 Survey of Elementary and Secondary Schools

conducted by the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights. The NCAS

report denoted an overall suspension rate in the United States of 9.07% for Black

students, 4.45% for Hispanic students, and 4.10% for Native American students, all

exceeding the rate of 4.05% for White students. The lowest rate of suspensions, 2.29%,

was among Asian students. The suspension rate for African American students ranged

from a high of 21% in Wisconsin to a low of 1% in North Dakota. Additionally, African

American students were suspended at rates well in excess of White students in all but two

(North Dakota and Massachusetts) of the fifty states.

In the 1990-1991 school year, Oakland, California Public Schools were comprised

of 56% African Americans, yet they accounted for 80% of all suspensions (Commission

for Positive Change in Oakland Public Schools, 1992). Garibaldi (1992) reported similar

findings in a study of a New Orleans school district, where the districts African American









male population of 43% received 65% of the district's suspensions and 80% of the

expulsions. A national survey conducted by the Office for Civil Rights (1993) found that

while African American males comprised only 8.23% of the total student population,

they were suspended at a rate over three times their percentage of the population.

Costenbader and Markson (1994) reported African American students to be suspended in

numbers significantly disproportionate to their total enrollment.

Researcher James F. Gregory conducted a study in 1995, using the data from the

summary report of The Office for Civil Rights 1992 Biennial Census Survey on the use

of corporal punishment as a disciplinary action for student (Gregory, 1995). The survey

was given to 4,692 of the nation's public school districts and 43,034 public schools

across the country in the 30 states (and the District of Columbia) in which corporal

punishment was still legal. Gregory (1995) found that African American students were

more likely to receive corporal punishment when compared to White students. In fact,

African American males were almost three times more likely to be hit in school by an

adult than a White male and sixteen times more likely to be hit than a White female. The

researcher also revealed that African American boys were 2.00 times more likely to be

suspended then African American females, 2.14 times more likely to be suspended then

White males, and 6.29 times more likely to be suspended then White females (Gregory,

1995) (see table 2-2).

Costenbader and Markson (1998) reported that 45% of the Black students, 12% of

the White students and 18% of the Hispanic students surveyed had been suspended out-

of-school. They also reported that this finding was consistent with previous studies

(Bickel and Qualls, 1980; Bullara, 1993; Costenbader and Markson, 1994; Edelman et









al., 1975; Kaeser, 1979; McFadden et al., 1992; Moody et al., 1978; Moore, 1987;

Ordovensky, 1998; Reed, 1988; Streitmatter, 1986; Wu et al., 1982). The Condition of

Education Report (1997) published by the U.S. Department of Education, found that

almost 25% of all African American male students were suspended at least once over a

four-year period.

Table 2-2 Corporal Punishment and Suspension Likelihood Ratios of African American
Students Versus Other Comparison Groups (1995)
Comparison group Likelihood ratios
Corporal punishment
African American students to White students 3.26 to 1
African American males to White males 2.81 to 1
African American males to White females 16.00 to 1
Suspension
African American males to White males 2.14 to 1
African American males to White females 6.29 to 1
Gregory, J.F. (1995). The crime of punishment: Racial and gender disparities in the use
of corporal punishment in U.S. public schools. Journal of Negro Education, 64 (4), 454-
462.

The 1998 Elementary and Secondary School Civil Rights Compliance Report from

the Office of Civil Rights provided data on the disciplinary actions received by students

in public schools in the United States. The data from the report revealed that African

American students received a disproportionate number of the disciplinary actions in

public schools. While African American students comprised 17% of the student

population in the United States, they received 37% of the corporal punishment, 33% of

the suspensions, and 31% of the expulsions given to students as disciplinary actions in

public schools during the 1997-1998 school year (United States Department of

Education, 1999). Of the 21 states reporting data on the use of corporal punishment,

African American students received a disproportionate amount of corporal punishment in

15 (68%) of the 21 states. The greatest disproportion between the percentages of African









American students enrolled in public schools and in the percentage of African American

students receiving corporal punishment occurred in the states of Wyoming and Arizona.

In Arizona, African American students comprised 4% of the student population, yet

received 19% of the corporal punishments given as a disciplinary action to students. In

Wyoming, African American students comprised 1% of the student population, yet

received 5% of the corporal punishments (United States Department of Education, 1999).

Additionally, data from the 1998 Elementary and Secondary School Civil Rights

Compliance Report revealed that African American students were the most frequent

recipients of suspensions in public schools. Of the 48 states reporting data on the use of

suspensions, African American students received a disproportionate amount of

suspensions in public schools. The greatest disproportion between the percentages of

African American students enrolled in public schools and in the percentage of African

American students suspended occurred in the states of Minnesota and Iowa. In

Minnesota, African American students comprised 6% of the student population, yet

received 26% of the suspensions given as a disciplinary action to students. In Iowa,

African American students comprised 4% of the student population, yet received 15% of

the suspensions (United States Department of Education, 1999).

Finally, data from the same report revealed that African American students were

the most frequent recipients of expulsions in public schools. Of the 40 states reporting

data on the use of expulsions, African American students received a disproportionate

amount of expulsions in public schools. The greatest disproportion between the

percentages of African American students enrolled in public schools and in the

percentage of African American students expelled occurred in the states of Rhode Island









and Missouri. In Rhode Island, African American students comprised 7% of the student

population, yet received 35% of the expulsions. In Missouri, African American students

comprised 17% of the student population, yet received 59% of the expulsions (United

States Department of Education, 1999).

In 1999, Linda M. Raffaele conducted a study titled An Analysis of Out-of-school

Suspensions in Hillsborough County. The data used for the study was from the 1996-97

school year. During the 1996-1997 school year, there were a total of 33,620 out-of-

school suspensions in the Hillsborough County Public Schools. Table 2-3 shows a

breakdown of the duplicated count of out-of-school suspensions for Black and White

student, other racial groups are not in the totals.

Table 2-3 1996-97 Suspension rate by Race (duplicated)
Pop Percent Percent Pop Percent Percent Ratio
White White White Black Black Black Black/White
Susp. Susp. Susp.
Total 80,329 55% 37% 35% 24% 55% 1.2 to 1
Raffaele, L. M. (1999). An analysis of out-of-school suspensions in Hillsborough County.

As the numbers in Table 2-3 indicate, Black students were suspended at a rate of

1.2 to every 1 White student suspended out-of-school (duplicated count). Table 2-4

reports a breakdown of the unduplicated count of out-of-school suspensions for Black

and White students; other racial groups are not in the totals.

As the numbers in Table 2-4 indicate, Black students were suspended at a rate of

2.3 to every 1 White student suspended out-of-school (unduplicated count). In order to

determine if the overrepresentation of Black students was found exclusively in out-of-

school suspensions or in other types of discipline actions, Black and White students were

compared on a number of types of disciplinary-related interventions (see Table 2-5).









Table 2-4 1996-97 Suspension rate by Race (unduplicated)
Pop % % White Pop % % Black Ratio
White White Susp. Black Black Susp. Black/White
Susp.
Total 80,329 55% 8.2% 35% 24% 18.7% 2.3 to 1
Raffaele, L. M. (1999). An analysis of out-of-school suspensions in Hillsborough County.

Table 2-5 1996-97 Disciplinary Actions for Black and White Students
Percentage of Percentage Percentage of Percentage
White Students Difference of White Students Difference of White
Receiving this White Students Receiving this Students
Type of Receiving this Type of Receiving this Type
Disciplinary Type of Disciplinary of Disciplinary
Action Disciplinary Action Action
Action
OSS 38.59 -16.71 44.10 +20.1
ISS 43.61 -11.39 40.80 +16.8
Change of 36.86 -18.14 44.60 +20.60
Placement
Expulsion 31.34 -23.66 49.25 +25.25
Parent 38.98 -16.02 44.89 +20.89
Involvement
In-School 40.77 -14.23 46.01 +22.01
Problem-
Solving
In-School 45.88 -9.12 35.01 +11.01
Punishment
Bus 42.54 -12.46 42.3 +18.23
Privileges
Suspended
Mediation 40.59 -14.41 43.39 +19.93
Other 44.02 -10.98 43.41 +19.41
Raffaele, L. M. (1999). An analysis of out-of-school suspensions in Hillsborough County.

What Table 2-5 reveals is that Black students were not only over-represented in

out-of-school suspensions, there were over-represented in all disciplinary actions noted

above. At the same time, White students were under-represented in all categories. The

key point was that the over-representation of Black students in out-of-school suspensions

was not an isolated finding; rather, it paralleled findings of over-representation across

disciplinary actions.









The Applied Research Center at Indiana University conducted a study of ten large

school districts throughout the United States. Table 2-6 below is a summary of the

study's findings (Gordon, Della Piana and Keleher, T., 2000).

Table 2-6 Suspension & Expulsion Data by Race
City Population Percent Whites Population Percent Blacks
Whites suspended/expelled Blacks suspended/expelled
Phoenix 74% 18% 4% 21%
San Francisco 12% 10% 16% 52%
Austin 37% 18% 18% 36%
Boston 13% 9% 55% 70%
Chicago 10% 8% 53% 63%
Denver 24% 15% 21% 42%
Durham, N.C. 36% 15% 58% 68%
Los Angelos 11% 8% 14% 30%
Providence R.I. 21% 13% 23% 39%
Columbia S.C. 20% 9% 78% 90%
Gordon, R., Della Piana, L., & Keleher, T. (2000). Facing the consequences: An
examination of racial discrimination in U.S. public schools. Oakland, CA: Applied
Research Center. ERASE. ARC

The results were analyzed further to determine the actual suspension rate for each

of the school districts. The suspension rate was calculated by dividing the percent Black

students suspended by the percent White students suspended. Table 2-7 below reveals

the results of that calculation. As the data indicates, the rates of suspension ranged from

10:1 for Columbia, South Carolina which had the highest Black population (78%), to

1.2:1 for Phoenix Arizona which had the lowest Black population (4%).

The Department of Education (2000) conducted a compilation of nationwide

expulsion rates. The data revealed that the annual suspension rate for all students

increased from 3.7% in 1974 to 6.9% in 1998, however, of the approximately 87,000

students expelled in 1997-1998, about 31% were Black and 50% were White. These

findings by the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights were just one of many









similar findings in research studies over the past 20 or more years concerning the

disparity in the rates of suspensions and expulsions between White and minority students.

Table 2-7 Suspension & Expulsion Data by Race
City Ratio of Black students
suspended to White students
suspended
Phoenix 1.2 to 1
San Francisco 5.2 to 1
Austin 2.0 to 1
Boston 7.8 to 1
Chicago 7.9 to 1
Denver 2.8 to 1
Durham, N.C. 4.5 to 1
Los Angelos 3.8 to 1
Providence R.I. 3.0 to 1
Columbia S.C. 10.0 to 1
Gordon, R., Della Piana, L., & Keleher, T. (2000). Facing the consequences: An
examination of racial discrimination in U.S. public schools. Oakland, CA: Applied
Research Center. ERASE. ARC

Studies Controlled for Other Factors

There is growing body of research that begins to shed light on some of the factors

that may contribute to the increasing number of Black students being suspended. Studies

of school discipline have revealed bias due to race, gender and low socioeconomic

students (Panko-Stilmock, 1996) and overrepresentation of students possessing one or

more of these factors have been among the most consistent finding in studies of school

discipline (Brantlinger, 1991; Costenbader and Markson, 1994; Edelman et al., 1975;

NCAS, 1986; Panko-Stilmock, 1996; Rose, 1988; Wu et al., 1982, Skiba, Peterson and

Williams, 1997). The majority of research studies yielded specific discipline rates,

disaggregated by such factors as setting, school population, SES, and other such factors

that can be expected to effect rates of suspensions and expulsion. Low socioeconomic

status, minority and special education students appear to be at the greatest risk for









receiving harsh disciplinary practices, including suspension, expulsion, and corporal

punishment (Skiba, Peterson and Williams, 1997).

In a landmark study by Wu et al. (1982), the researchers used national level data

gathered for the Congressionally mandated Safe School Study to directly address the

question, "why are students suspended from school?" This study addressed student

suspensions from five perspectives: (1) the extent of suspensions, (2) the relationship

between student misbehavior at school and suspension from school, (3) the possibility of

teachers' judgments and attitudes as potential factors in suspensions, (4) whether student

suspension is related to the administrative structure of school in handling disciplinary

matters, (5) the possibility of academic ability and potential factor in suspensions, and (6)

a discussion of the possibility of the interference of racial bias (Wu et al., 1982). The

results of this study and others are discussed throughout the remainder of this section.

Race

The Coalition of Advocates for Students (1988) and Wu et al. (1982) concluded

that African American students were disproportionately disciplined due to blatant racism.

Larkin (1982) emphasized that given the reality of pervasive discrimination in society,

the mere fact that there is a statistical racial disparity in discipline in many public schools

was sufficient evidence to conclude that "blatant racism" is occurring. Larkin also

asserted that disproportionate discipline and discriminatory discipline were synonymous

concepts.

Gender

The fact that males were disproportionately suspended and expelled from school

has been well established (Bennett and Harris 1982; Bickel, et al. 1980; Harry and

Anderson, 1995; Moody, 1978) with males receiving more frequent and harsher









discipline (Panko-Stilmock, 1996). Although the majority of studies regarding disparity

in school discipline have been focused on African American students and their non-Black

counterparts, most also revealed a disparity in the discipline rate of males versus females.

Streitmeyer (1986) determined that the offenses which most often resulted in

suspensions (14 out of 15) were considered typically male behaviors, such as, defiance of

authority, physical abuse, assault or threat, illegal use or possession of drugs, and

repeated interference with the learning process. Streitmeyer further defined typical male

behaviors as those involving aggression or drugs; and noted that the only non-male

behavior that frequently led to suspensions were what Streitmeyer described as passive-

aggressive (Streitmeyer, 1986).

The results of a 1982 study by Schmidt on junior high suspension rates revealed

that males were suspended at over twice the rate of females. Additionally, in a 1982

study, Wu et al. found that male students, in every school location at every level studied,

were more likely to be suspended than females. A later study found that boys (75.4%)

were more likely to receive a disciplinary referral then girls (Skiba, Peterson and

Williams, 1997).

McFadden et al. (1992) examined 4,391 discipline files from nine K-12 schools in

Florida. The analysis indicated that males were more frequently disciplined then females

in each of the different categories of misbehavior. Additionally, males received 75% of

the in-school suspensions and 81% of the corporal punishments.

Grant (as cited in Panko-Stilmock, 1996) found that White females received the

least number of reprimands in school, while African American males received the most.

In a study by Costenbader and Markson (1998) the researchers reported that although the









total population in their study was 48% male and 52% female, 56% of the student

receiving in-school suspension and 64% receiving out-of-school suspension, were male,

while the never suspended group was 60% female. A study by the New Orleans School

Board (as cited in Thrasher, 1997) revealed that African American males made up 43%

of the school population yet accounted for 65% of the suspensions and 80% of the

expulsions during the 1986-1987 school year.

The 1998 Elementary and Secondary Civil Rights Compliance Report showed that

African Americans received a disproportionate number of disciplinary actions in public

schools and within the African American population of students, males received 73% of

the corporal punishments, 64% of the suspensions, and 74% of the expulsions. Raffaele

(1999) found that while boys made up about 51% of the total school population, they

made up 73% of suspensions, girls, on the other hand, who comprised about 49% of the

school population only 27% of suspensions.

Socioeconomic Status

Green and Brydon (1975) reported that in urban schools, students from low

socioeconomic backgrounds were often perceived as intellectually deprived and unlikely

to achieve. This stereotypic outlook often influenced the classroom atmosphere and the

student-teacher relationship. Green and Brydon (1975) concluded that the racial views

and middle class orientation of many teachers had obstructed communication between

teachers and low socioeconomic students; consequently students of low socioeconomic

status were discipline more frequently.

Neill (1976) attributed the higher rate of suspensions of minorities to their low

socioeconomic status, not racial bias. When compared to White children, African

American children were twice as likely to be poor, lived with a parent who had been









separated, and lived in a female-headed household. Female's headed 71% of all Black

families living below the poverty line, and 44% of all Black children lived in households

where the father was absent. The lack of a middle class orientation for the low

socioeconomic minority student increased their chances of encountering problems in

school.

Ratcliff (1980) conducted a survey of 116 schools in the states of Delaware,

Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia and found that Blacks received a

significantly higher proportion of punishment than their White classmates. The data also

indicated that if a student were poor, his chance of receiving corporal punishment was

about four or five times greater than those of a student who was not poor. Wu et al.

(1982), using data from the Safe School Study found that students with fathers who had

no full-time job and those who were on free and reduced lunch were the most likely to be

suspended.

According to Irvine (1990), many educators speculated that low-income Black

children bring to school a set of anti-social behaviors and traits that emanated from a

culture of poverty. Educators often justified their harsh treatment of these students by

claiming students came from an undisciplined and unstructured home life, lacked a

positive role model, and disrespected adult authority figures. Irvine further stated that

such a view distorted a teacher's perception and could realistically lead to subjectivity in

dispensing punishment unequally. Skiba, Peterson & Williams (1997) examined issues

related to discipline in 19 middle schools and concluded that the number of disciplinary

actions received by students were based on race, socioeconomic status, and gender.









Behavior and Attitudes

Another cause of the disparity in discipline for Black students was a student's

resistance. Several research studies reported that the vase majority of student discipline

referrals and suspensions were for defiance (Kohl, 1994). Common actions defined as

defiant student behavior were talking back, not following directions, and insubordination.

Wu et al. (1982), using data from the Safe School Study, performed 21 subsets of

analysis and discovered that suspension of students did have a behavioral basis. The data

revealed that even when controlled for behavior and attitude differences, the suspension

rate was still higher among non-Whites than Whites. A study by McCarthy and Hoge

(1987) had similar findings which indicated that minority overrepresentation in school

discipline appears to be independent of student behavior. To the extent that this was true,

suspension as a disciplinary measure was not considered arbitrary and suspension was

therefore considered a function of students' antisocial attitudes.

Social and Cultural Differences

Cultural and social factors have also been studied in regards to their impact on the

disproportionality of Black students being disciplined in public schools. African

American students often had cultural and social patterns that were different from those

found and expected in the middle class educational environment (National Coalition of

Advocated for Student, 1988). Larken (1982) asserted that African American students

who were unable to adapt to cultural differences while in a school setting were more

susceptible to disciplinary actions.

Researchers such as Ladson-Billings (1995) suggested that the contrasting teacher

and student demographics often lead to a "cultural mismatch" in which teachers lacked

familiarity with the cultural values, norms, and belief systems of their students. Most









teachers who worked with African American students did not live in the same community

as their students which translated to limited teacher knowledge about their students

neighborhood and lifestyle (Hill, 1989). Often, teachers and administrators did not

understand that students may dress, walk, and communicate in a different manner when

at home or in their communitity then they were expected to do in the school setting.

Franklin (1992) suggested that these cultural conflicts often posed a threat to African

American students' participation and engagement in schools. Gilbert and Gay (1985)

offered specific examples of how these cultural differences may have been exibited in the

school setting, i.e., African American students may have had a propensity toward "stage-

setting" behaviors, such as pencil sharpening and socializing, before actually beginning

tasks. Often the language and behaviors of Black students were misinterpreted and

misunderstood by educators. This began the process of African American students being

stereotyped as discipline problems in school. Because schools were rooted in what were

considered middle class norms and values, the cultural expression of Black students is

seen as unacceptable. Consequently, African American students were removed from

class and school when that type of behavior was exhibited. These and other such

behaviors at school often translated into a higher likelihood for African American

students to be disciplined in the classroom setting and students, parents, and educator's

reported similar incidents of cultural misreads with African American dress, hand-

shakes, and dance styles at a Civil Rights hearing (Cantu, 2000, Harvard Civil Rights

Project, 2000b).

Parental Support

Perhaps the greatest single influence on any child is the quality of family life

(Campbell, 1991; Edelman, 1997; Holt, 1990; Larkin, 1982). Parental involvement, in









almost any form, produced measurable gains in student achievement (Dixon, 1992) and

students with discipline problems often lacked family support. Another factor that was

considered was that parent involvement actually declined as students grew older, so that

it was less in secondary schools than in elementary, however, schools must understand

that lack of participation by parents does not necessarily mean they were neglecting their

responsibilities, they simply may not have the time, resources, or know-how to help out

(Wanat, 1992). In many cases, parents felt alienated from the school and took no part in

the school life of their child because school officials made no effort to reach out to them

(Charles, 1981). The problem lied in the fact that children who did not receive adequate

social and emotional support toward being successful at school often sought attention in

inappropriate ways (Ciminillo, 1980).

Teacher Expectation

Harvard University's Civil Rights Project concluded that as inequity increased,

there was also an increase in low teacher expectations for poor students and students of

color despite rhetoric about, "all children can learn" (Orfield and Yun, 1999). A number

of researchers attributed the disproportionate number of disciplinary actions received by

African American students in public schools to low teacher expectations (Garibaldi,

1991; Hopkins, 1997; Morgan, 1991). In a report to the Committee to Study the Status of

Black males in New Orleans public schools, Garibaldi (1992) reported that 40% of Black

males believed their teachers had lower expectations for them and 60% of Black males

believed that their teachers did not push them enough. Likewise, 60% of the teachers

indicated that they did not believe the Black males would go to college, and both Black

and non-Black teachers had lower expectations for Black males then for any other

subgroup of the population. The results of the study validated the idea that many teachers









had low expectations for African American males (Hopkins, 1997). If African American

students perceived that they were not wanted or not valued, they tended to react

accordingly. Opotow (1990) found that teachers who held low expectations for African

American students pushed them toward misbehavior; in other words, disproportionate

disciplining of African American students was due to a self-fulfilling prophecy (Morgan,

1991). Similarly, McCadden (1998) indicated that teachers tried to control Black males

with greater eagerness then Whites, perhaps believing that they were not sufficiently

disciplined at home.

Bias and Stereotyping

The stereotyping of African Americans was a problem in America and these

negative stereotypes had become prevalent in public schools (Foster, 1995; Goldsmith,

1979; Gottlieb, 1964; Steele, 1997; Woodridge and Richman, 1985). Media portrayals of

African Americans have frequently depicted them as over-aggressive, violent, lazy, and

dishonest and these persistent negative and fear-inducing media images of African

Americans have pervaded U.S. society for a long-time (Schwartz, 2001).

In a research study, Bennett and Harris (1982) sought to identify the causes of

disproportionality in suspension and expulsion rates for Black and male students. The

goals of the study were to identify both explanations for the disproportionality and

promising school practices and conditions to help alleviate the problem. The study was

conducted in two large urban school districts in the Midwest, both which had been

identified by the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1976, as one of the

top 100 most problematic school districts concerning minorities and discipline. The

study was conducted using interviews, student records, discipline records, questionnaires,

and State Department and school statistics on enrollments, withdrawals, suspensions, and









expulsions, all disaggregated by school, sex, and race. The results of the study indicated

that there were contrasting feelings between personal and school efficacy among

disruptive students. The researchers suggested that conflicting levels of efficacy resulted

in continued disturbance or acting out on the part of these students. Further, although

admitting that the exact causes of disproportionality were not identified, broad findings

indicated that the causes were related to an overall orientation of White predominance,

which included institutional and individual racism.

Several researchers have documented that institutional racism has continued to

impact teaching and learning despite years of integration policies in large urban and rural

school districts (Sleeter, 1996, Spring, 1997, Tatum, 1994). Wu et al. (1982) had similar

findings and concluded that racial bias did play a role in school suspension.

Effectiveness of Suspension and Expulsion

Each year millions of our nations public school students miss a day or more of

school because they have been suspended or expelled. The facts were also clear that

suspensions were generally used for minor infractions of school rules rather than for

violent acts or serious misconduct and minority students were disproportionately

suspended or expelled. Keeping these facts in mind, the question must be asked whether

suspensions were effective in changing behaviors of students who violate school rules.

There were three rationales for using suspension and expulsion as disciplinary

measures. First is the protection of those who work in and attend schools, by the removal

of the student, who misbehaved, from the classroom or school environment. Second, to

reinforce the authority of those who were responsible for order and control of schools and

classrooms; and third, adherence to federal and state laws and local school board policies.









When addressing the issue of the effectiveness of suspensions in changing

behavior, in-school and out-of school suspensions were treated differently. The rationale

is that in-school suspension does not disrupt the learning process and out-of-school

suspensions were typically unsupervised and out of the hands of school officials.

Proponents of school suspension argue that the majority of students who were

interested in learning should not have to suffer from the constant disruption of the very

few (Wu et al., 1982). In-school suspension was an alternative method of discipline that

avoided some of the disadvantages of external suspension by allowing greater continuity

of educational experience. Although students who received in-school suspension were

excluded from the classroom, they spent a prescribed period of time in alternative in-

school suspension classroom (Costenbader and Markson, 1994). Costenbader and

Markson (1994) suggested that continuity of the educational experience is often cited as

an advantage of in-school suspension.

The research regarding out-of school suspension and expulsion were not as

favorable as that for in-school suspensions. In fact, a thorough review of research

literature produced no studies demonstrating the positive impact of expulsion or out-of-

school suspension in reducing school violence (Bumbarger, 1999). There was also little

evidence that suspension and expulsion were effective in changing student behavior

(Children's Defense Fund, 1985; Comerford and Jacobson, 1987; Diem, 1988; and

Johnson, 1989).

In 1975, the Children's Defense Fund published a study investigating the merit of

out-of-school suspension. The results of that study indicated that out-of-school

suspensions was not beneficial to students and had an adverse impact on the educational









process. Some problems noted with out-of-school suspension were missed instruction,

unsupervised minors, failure to provide assistance to deal with problems underlying

students' misbehavior, and over-representation of minority students among those

suspended.

The Civil Rights Project of Harvard University revealed that suspending and

expelling students had devastating consequences. Students suspended or expelled from

schools were: 1) most often, sitting at home, or on the streets, with no educational

alternatives; 2) likely to be labeled a "trouble-maker"; 3) likely to fail academically; 4)

likely to dropout; and 5) likely to be sent to the juvenile justice system. Suspensions and

expulsions, regardless of length of time, remain on a student's academic record and may

also negatively affect a student's chances of admission to college. (The Civil Rights

Project, January 2002a).

Other researchers have reported that 31% of students who dropout of schools were

previously suspended (Ekstrom, Goertz, Pollack and Rock, 1986). One of the many

consequences of being suspended or expelled is the fact that students have a greater

likelihood for run-ins with the law (Chobot and Garibaldi, 1982). In 1998-1999, in the

State of Florida, 3,831 students were referred to the Juvenile Justice system for

misconduct in school (Florida Department of Education, 1999). Costenbader and

Markson (1994) reported that schools with fewer than 500 students had a dropout rate

that ranged between 16% to 20% for students who had been suspended at least one time,

while schools with over 2,000 students reported that from 46% to 50% of students who

had been suspended at least once failed to receive a high school diploma. Many

educators recognize that external suspension was ineffective and may even have been









counterproductive (Edelman, Beck and Smith, 1975; Mizell, 1978; Radin, 1988;

Williams, 1979) and suspensions were effective only if the environment to which the

student was removed was more interesting and reinforcing than the environment from

which the student was removed (Rutherford, 1978).

District

Below is a synopsis of pursuit of the unitary status of the selected Florida School

District and the policy and laws related to said pursuit.

On July 10, 1970, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a suit against the selected

Florida public school district for the purpose of ending their "dual" system of education.

According to the court document, the action was brought by the Attorney General, John

N. Mitchell, for violation of Section 407 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the

Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The United States

alleged that the district had traditionally operated and continued to operate a segregated

school system a dual system based on race. Prior to 1965, the district assigned students

and faculty in accordance with Florida's dejure laws of segregation. From 1965 to 1970,

the district continued to assign students to schools based on race, which resulted in the

continuance of a dual system for Black and White students.

In the 1970 document, the United States proposed that the district use educationally

sound alternatives for student assignment and offered the district technical assistance

through the Department of Health, Education and Welfare for the preparation, adoption,

and implementation of a desegregation plan that would meet with the requirements of

Federal Law. The district was ordered to develop and implement a plan for the 1970 -

1971 school year that would eliminate the dual system of education and help correct the

effects of past discrimination based on race. This order initiated the first consent decree









between the Department of Justice and the selected Florida public school district. From

August 5, 1996 to July 10, 2000 the selected Florida public school district entered into

five Consent Decrees with the Justice Department. In a December 2, 1996 letter to

Attorney Michael O'Connor of the Civil Rights Division, the Superintendent of the

selected school district stated that the mission of the selected Florida Public School

system was to ensure that all students received a quality education.

On December 13, 1999, the Justice Department sent a letter to the districts school

board that outlined areas of concerned. These areas included the following: (a) student

assignment, (b) faculty recruitment and hiring, (c) discipline, (d) facilities and equipment

at a specific school of choice, and (e) extracurricular activities, specifically, cheerleading.

The Supreme Court identified specific standards that a school district must meet to obtain

a decree of unitary status as the following: (a) compliance with the court's decrees to the

extent practicable for a reasonable period of time; (b) elimination of past vestiges of

segregation to the extent practicable; and (c) demonstration of a good faith commitment

to all of the court's decrees

The selected Florida public school district continued to reach for its goal of unitary

status and on July 10, 2000 they entered into a fifth agreement with the Department of

Justice. This Consent Decree considered the following: (a) procedural history, (b) profile

of the selected Florida public school district, (c) current status of unitary status goals, (d)

legal standards, (e) injunctive relief, (f) additional remedial measures (facilities at two

specified high schools), (g) good faith commitment (faculty recruiting and hiring, gifted

programs, higher level courses at secondary level, special education and discipline), and

monitoring and reporting.









In the 2000 Consent Decree, the Department of Justice referenced cases such as

Dowell v. Okalahoma (1991), Freeman v. Pitts (1992), and Missouri v. Jenkins (1995)

and stated that the selected Florida public school district must not only show past good

faith compliance, but must also demonstrate a commitment to the future operation of a

unitary school system.

Based on the legal standards outlined by the Supreme Court, the district was

declared unitary in two areas: (a) faculty assignment and (b) transportation, however, the

district was not granted unitary status in the following areas: (a) student assignment, (b)

facilities, and (c) extracurricular activities, specifically, cheerleading. Additionally, the

Justice Department indicated that the district had met its obligations regarding facilities

with the exception of the two specified high schools. The District engaged in remedial

measures to address the concerns of the Justice Department and was committed in good

faith to implement actions and strategies to remove any remaining vestiges of past dejure

segregation.

One of the areas of concern for the Justice Department was disparity in discipline.

In the July 10, 2000 Consent Decree the District reported that it is committed to ensuring

that its discipline policies and practices are implemented fairly and consistently so that:

All students are disciplined equitably, disciplinary sanctions are imposed on

students fairly and consistently; and a student's race is not a factor in any disciplinary

action. Therefore, the District will undertake the actions listed below to decrease the

current disparity in discipline rates between black and non-black students.

1. Ensure that the District's discipline policies and practices are implemented fairly
and consistently so that all students are treated equitably and that a student's race is
not a factor in any disciplinary action by undertaking the following actions









(a) Reviewing and recommending for revision, as appropriate, the School
Board's Discipline Policy and Student Code of Conduct;

(b) Preparing an annual Student Discipline Report that analyzes and provides
data for the District and by school, disaggregated by race and ethnicity, the
following: the number of students receiving disciplinary sanctions
(duplicated and unduplicated); the number of students receiving in-school
and out-of-school suspensions (duplicated and unduplicated); the infractions
for which the disciplinary sanctions were imposed; the sanctions imposed by
infraction; trend lines from year-to-year; the reason or reasons for black
students being disproportionately disciplined and recommendations for
addressing any disparities in disciplining black students;

(c) Submitting the annual Student Discipline Report to the Board by July 23rd of
each school year.

(d) Monitoring implementation of the recommendations in the annual Student
Discipline Report;

(e) Reviewing current student discipline school-based procedures and practices
by analyzing the data in the Student Discipline Report;

(f) Establishing school-based, racially and ethnically diverse Discipline Teams
as part of the School Advisory Council, which will analyze the school's data
in the Discipline Report to determine whether any racial or ethnic group is
disproportionately disciplined and the reasons for any racial or ethnic group
being disproportionately disciplined;

(g) Developing discipline objective or objectives in each school's action plan to
address any trends or issues raised by the discipline data;

(h) Monitoring implementation of each school's action plan discipline objective
or objectives for the purpose of ensuring progress toward achieving the
objective or objectives; and

(i) Basing each principal's annual evaluation in part on his or her school's
progress toward achieving the discipline objective or objectives in their
respective action plan and basing each executive director's annual evaluation
on each of their school's progress in achieving the discipline objectives in the
action plan.

2. Develop a process for including parent and community input in the development of
discipline strategies and procedures, including:

(a) Forming a racially and ethnically diverse District Discipline Advisory
Committee that includes parents, community members, and school and
administrative staff;









(b) Reviewing and discussing the Discipline Policy, the Code of Student
Conduct, and the annual Student Discipline Report; and

(c) Recommending strategies to the Superintendent based on review of the
Discipline Policy, the Code of Student Conduct, and the annual Student
Discipline Report to ensure that students are disciplined fairly and
consistently.

3. Provide annual discipline training to faculty and staff involved in the discipline
process, including;

(a) Training regarding discipline strategies for faculty and staff at all schools
annually.

(b) Training to targeted groups of district employees, such as teachers and bus
drivers. Target groups may be identified by an executive director and/or the
principal and school discipline team based on analysis of the Student
Discipline Report; and

(c) Training for new teachers and relevant administrators.

Model for Change

School administrators faced considerable pressure to improve school discipline

programs and to provide greater support for students with behavior problems (Bear,

1998; Butera et al., 1998). The first step in addressing discipline issues, especially those

concerning disparity in discipline for Black students was data collection and analysis.

The analysis of school discipline data began with an examination of the discipline

referral pattern (Tobin, et al. 2000). A discipline referral was a form generated whenever

a student was accused of violating one or more of a school's pre-determined standards of

behavior. The student discipline referral contained all of the pertinent information

regarding the violation including the sanctions) or consequences) the student received

for the violation.

Williams (1989) proposed that data collection and analysis should include: (1)

determining the enrollment figured by ethnicity, (2) determining the number of students









from each ethnic group who were suspended at least one time during the school year, and

(3) identifying the number of students form each ethnic group suspended for each

category or offenses (Williams, 1989). The data collected should also be unduplicated;

the actual number of students suspended rather then the total number of students

suspended, which is how the Office of Civil Rights collects its data for their surveys.

This method of data collection would prevent the same students from being counted

multiple times and would result in a clearer account of what was happening in schools.

School and district-wide disciplinary policies and data collection could help

address minority overrepresentation in the application of school discipline (Williams,

1989). After collecting and analyzing the data, the researcher asked two research

questions. First, did any ethnic groups experience disproportionately high levels of

suspension? This question should be answered using two measures: (1) compare the

groups enrollment to the groups suspension rate in percentages and if the percentage

suspended was greater then the percentage enrolled, a disparity existed, (2) compare the

percentage of Black students suspended to the percentage of non-Black students

suspended and if the percentage of Black students suspended was greater then the

percentage of non-Black students suspended, a disparity existed (Williams, 1989).

Second, was there substantial variation in the degree of overrepresentation experienced

by minority groups attending specific buildings or at different levels? This question

could be answered by disaggregating the data by individual schools and grade levels

(Williams, 1989). Finally, the researcher would generate three profiles: a district profile,

a grade level profile, and a building profile (Williams, 1989).









School administrators could use the data profiles as a tool for identifying and

developing a plan for reducing disparities in discipline for Black students if they were

present (Tobin, 2000). Williams (1989) suggested that a school or school district could

reduce the disparity that existed between minority and White students could be

accomplished by either: (1) reducing the rate of suspensions for minority students, (2)

increasing the rate of suspensions for White students, or (3) a combination of the two.

Williams (1989) also suggested that option two should be rejected and consequently,

reducing disparity in discipline should mean reducing the rate of disciplinary actions

against minority students (Williams, 1989). Given the complexity of the lives of students

exhibiting disruptive behavior, multi-component instructional interventions would be

necessary in order to effectively address school conduct problems (Skiba, Peterson and

Williams, 1997).

Improving practices to reduce the disproportionate number of African American

students being disciplined requires helping students, teachers, and schools develop

strategies for managing behavior in the classroom. These strategies cannot ignore the

institutional and social realities of the achievement gap and inequity in the lives of low-

performing African American students. Developing culturally relevant strategies requires

teachers to move beyond their comfort zone in dealing with parents and communities of

African-American students. Unfortunately, educators often look for a set of generic

practices that they can use with African American students. There is no one set of

strategies that teachers can use successfully without having some deep understanding of

the social-political reality of how African American communities have been impacted by






77


racism in society and in our educational system. Addressing disparity in discipline

practices is an integral part of closing the achievement gap in the nations schools.














CHAPTER 3
METHODS AND PROCEDURES

The purpose of this study was to examine current disciplinary practices of a

selected Florida school district to determine if there were racially neutral practices

regarding student discipline. This chapter contains a description of the methods used in

the study to determine the extent by which the district exhibited racially neutral practices

regarding student discipline. The information gathered was then analyzed to determine

whether this Florida public school district's disciplinary practices were racially neutral by

answering the following research questions

Research Questions

This study was guided by the following research questions:

1. For all schools in the selected Florida school district, during the five-year period
ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004, was there a trend in the disparity in
discipline for Black students compared to non-Black students attending elementary
(grades K-5), middle (grades 6-8) and high (grades 9-12) schools?

2. For all schools in the selected Florida school district, during the five-year period
ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004, was there a trend in the disparity in
discipline for Black students compared to non-Black students attending schools
with a low (0 to 4.4%), medium (4.5% to 23.7%), and high (23.8% and higher)
population of Black students?

3. For all schools in the selected Florida school district, during the five-year period
ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004, was there a trend in the disparity in
discipline for Black students compared to non-Black students attending schools
with a low (1-96), medium (97-511), and high (512 or higher) number of referrals
(unduplicated) written?

4. For all schools in the selected Florida school district, during the five-year period
ranging from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004, was there a trend in the disparity in
discipline for Black students compared to non-Black students attending schools









with a low (0 to 9.9%), medium (10.0% to 52.8%), and high (52.9% and higher)
number of students on Free and Reduced Lunch?

This study analyzed the data collected from the Information Database of the

selected Florida public school district during the 5-year period ranging from the 1999-

2000 to the 2003-2004 school years.

Participants

All schools in the selected Florida public school district participated in this

longitudinal study. Each school served as a unit of analysis, in other words, the focus of

this study was at the school level. The name of the district was not divulged to insure

anonymity.

The data reported herein were drawn from the disciplinary records of all students in

the selected Florida school district during the 1999-2000 through the 2003-2004 school

years. The selected Florida school district is one of 67 school districts in the state of

Florida, all of which are organized by county. For the purposes of this study, only the

regular education schools (most of which had some self-contained exceptional student

education classrooms) were included. Students in special centers and those from schools

with incomplete or no reported data were excluded.

The district was described by characteristics that were recorded in the data

information system from the 1999-2000 through the 2003-2004 school years. The

characteristics reported included: total student population, Black student population, non-

Black student population, and the number of referrals, in-school suspensions (ISS), and

out-of-school suspensions (OSS).









Sample Characteristics

Tables 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 3-4, and 3-5 summarize the characteristics of the selected

Florida school district for each respective school year. Included in each table are the

number of schools at each level (elementary, middle, and high) and the total number of

schools in the district, and the number and percent of Black and Non-Black students at

each school level and the total population in the district.

Table 3-1 provides a summary the characteristics of the selected Florida school

district for the 1999-2000 school year. As Table 3-1 indicates, during the 1999-2000

school year, discipline data was reported for a total of 56,582 students in 32 elementary

schools, 10 middle schools and 7 high schools. During this school year, 13.3% of

students identified themselves as Black, while 86.7% of students identified themselves as

non-Black.

Table 3-1 Characteristics of the Florida Public School District for the 1999-2000 School
Year School Information and Student Demographics
School Number Student Total Non- Total Percent Percent
level of Population Black Black Non-Black Black
Schools Students Students
Elem. 32 26875 23015 3860 85.6 14.4
Middle 10 13477 11768 1709 87.7 12.7
High 7 16230 14282 1948 88.0 12.0
Total 49 56582 49065 7517 86.7 13.3

Table 3-2 provides a summary the characteristics of the selected Florida school

district for the 2000-2001 school year. As Table 3-2 indicates, during the 2000-2001

school year, discipline data was reported for a total of 55,824 students in 30 elementary

schools, 11 middle schools and 7 high schools. During this school year, 13.5% of

students identified themselves as Black, while 86.5% of students identified themselves as

non-Black.









Table 3-2 Characteristics of the Florida Public School District for the 2000-2001 School
Year School Information and Student Demographics.
School Number Student Total Non- Total Percent Percent
level of Population Black Black Non-Black Black
Schools Students Students
Elem. 30 24616 20992 3642 85.3 14.7
Middle 11 14258 12381 1877 86.8 13.2
High 7 16950 14940 2010 88.1 11.9
Total 48 55824 48313 7511 86.5 13.5

Table 3-3 provides a summary the characteristics of the selected Florida school

district for the 2001-2002 school year. As Table 3-3 indicates, during the 2001-2002

school year, discipline data was reported for a total of 59,972 students in 34 elementary

schools, 11 middle schools and 7 high schools. During this school year, 13.2% of

students identified themselves as Black, while 86.8% of students identified themselves as

non-Black.

Table 3-3 Characteristics of the Florida Public School District for the 2001-2002 School
Year School Information and Student Demographics.
School Number Student Total Non- Total Percent Percent
level of Population Black Black Non-Black Black
Schools Students Students
Elem. 34 27667 23805 3862 86.0 14.0
Middle 11 14771 12823 1948 86.8 13.2
High 7 17534 15442 2092 88.1 11.9
Total 52 59972 52070 7902 86.8 13.2

Table 3-4 provides a summary the characteristics of the selected Florida school

district for the 2002-2003 school year. As Table 3-4 indicates, during the 2002-2003

school year, discipline data was reported for a total of 60,797students in 34 elementary

schools, 11 middle schools and 7 high schools. During this school year, 13.0% of

students identified themselves as Black, while 86.0% of students identified themselves as

non-Black.