Essay about racism in high school setting

Psychology in the Schools, Vol. 52(5), 2015 C© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pits DOI: 10.1002/pits.21838

PRINCIPAL ATTITUDES REGARDING ZERO TOLERANCE AND RACIAL DISPARITIES IN SCHOOL SUSPENSIONS

ANNA HEILBRUN AND DEWEY CORNELL

University of Virginia

PETER LOVEGROVE

JBS International–Aguirre Division

Zero tolerance school discipline practices have been associated with a national increase in suspen- sions, a practice that has had a disproportionate negative impact on Black students. The present study investigated an association between principal attitudes toward zero tolerance and suspension rates for White and Black students in 306 Virginia high schools. Black suspension rates were more than double White suspension rates. Regression analyses controlling for student poverty and school enrollment showed that principal endorsement of zero tolerance was moderately associated with suspension rates for both White and Black students, but was not associated with the size of the racial disparity. Paired-samples t tests showed statistically significant differences in the types of offenses that resulted in suspensions, with Black students significantly more likely to be sus- pended for disruptive offenses and White students more likely to be suspended for alcohol- and drug-related offenses. C© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Over the past several decades, there has been a national rise in the use of school suspension, the disciplinary practice of removing a student from school for one or more days. In 1974, approximately 1.7 million (3.7% of all students) were suspended from school; in 2006, that number had risen to more than 3.3 million, or 6.8%, of all students (U.S. Department of Education [USDOE], Office for Civil Rights, 2004). In recent years, the use of suspension has come under widespread scrutiny (Petras, Masyn, Buckley, Ialongo, & Kellam, 2011; Skiba, Eckes, & Brown, 2010) because it is associated with a host of negative outcomes, including school disengagement, academic difficulties, school dropout, and juvenile justice involvement (Fabelo et al., 2011; Gregory, Skiba, & Noguera, 2010; Lee, Cornell, Gregory, & Fan, 2011). The purpose of the present study was to investigate whether principal attitudes toward zero tolerance are associated with both the level of suspensions and racial disparity in suspensions in high schools.

ZERO TOLERANCE AND SCHOOL REMOVAL

One notable change in public education over the past two decades has been the widespread adoption of zero tolerance policies. Zero tolerance is defined as a disciplinary policy that calls for a mandatory sanction for student disciplinary infractions without regard for the severity of the misconduct (American Psychological Association [APA] Zero Tolerance Task Force, 2008). The widespread perception of an increase in school violence prompted schools to respond with harsher disciplinary sanctions (Skiba, 2011). This shift in disciplinary procedure was reinforced by the 1994 Gun-Free Schools Act, which required states receiving federal funding to expel any student for at least a year for bringing a firearm into school (Skiba, 2011). Many states and school systems have expanded the principle of zero tolerance for guns to include a variety of other infractions, including drugs, alcohol, and aggressive behavior (Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2011).

Zero tolerance operates under two core assumptions: 1) harsh sanctions will deter student misconduct, and 2) removal of the most serious offenders from the school will improve the school

Correspondence to: Anna Heilbrun, University of Virginia Curry School of Education–Clinical and School Psychology, 1800 Jefferson Park Ave. 122, Charlottesville, VA 22903. E-mail: [email protected]

489

490 Heilbrun et al.

climate (Skiba et al., 2011). Yet, research suggests the opposite: the APA Task Force on Zero Tolerance (2008) concluded that there was no evidence to support the efficacy of zero tolerance as a disciplinary policy. Longitudinal studies showed that students who were suspended once were more likely to be suspended again, suggesting that first-time suspension is associated with continued misbehavior and further suspensions, with no evidence of a deterrent or remedial effect (Fabelo et al., 2011; Tobin, Sugai, & Colvin, 1998).

Previous studies (Skiba, Edl, & Rausch, 2007; Wu, Pink, Crain, & Moles, 1982) suggest that school-to-school variations in suspension rates cannot be adequately explained by differences in student behavior and may be partly caused by differences in the attitudes held by school principals regarding the value of school suspension as a disciplinary practice.

Skiba (2007) surveyed public high school principals in Indiana and reported that their endorse- ment of zero tolerance as a disciplinary philosophy predicted higher suspension rates in their school. A cluster analysis identified two prevailing orientations among the sample, labeled “prevention” and “exclusion.” Principals in the prevention orientation group were more likely to endorse preven- tive programs and did not perceive that suspension and expulsion improved the school climate. In contrast, principals with an exclusion orientation felt that zero tolerance policies helped maintain order in their schools. Skiba reported that principals in the latter group were more likely to believe that school climate would be improved, and discipline problems reduced, if the most persistent troublemakers were removed from school. Notably, principal attitudes were related to their school’s disciplinary practices. Schools with principals who endorsed a preventive orientation had signifi- cantly lower rates of out-of-school suspension and expulsion and were less likely to suspend students for nonviolent offenses, such as possession of drugs, alcohol, or weapons. The current study builds on the 2007 Skiba study by examining more specifically whether high school principals who endorse zero tolerance as a disciplinary practice have higher suspension rates and a greater racial disparity in suspensions.

RACIAL DISPARITIES IN SCHOOL SUSPENSIONS

Researchers and civil rights groups have called attention to the racial disparity in disciplinary practices, noting that Black students are suspended at higher rates than are White students and other minority groups (Gregory, Cornell, & Fan, 2011; Losen & Skiba, 2010; Petras et al., 2011). Suspension rates have more than doubled for Black students in kindergarten through 12th-grade schools in the United States, whereas they have increased less than two percentage points for White students (Skiba et al., 2011). Black males have been identified as a subgroup at a particularly elevated risk; they are more likely than White students and other racial minorities to be suspended for relatively minor disciplinary infractions and to incur more severe penalties for minor misconduct (Losen & Skiba, 2010; Petras et al., 2011). The racial gap remains even when poverty and other sociodemographic variables are accounted for (Raffaele Mendoz, Knoff, & Ferron, 2002).

In 2014, the U.S. Department of Justice and USDOE, Office for Civil Rights, issued a “Dear Colleague” letter to state departments of education and local school districts advising that racial disparities in school discipline constitute violations of federal antidiscrimination laws—and that schools must take prompt and effective steps to prevent and reduce differential treatment by race. The Dear Colleague letter advised that discriminatory discipline practices on the basis of race, color, or national origin can constitute a violation of Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (U.S. Department of Justice & USDOE, 2014), which prohibits racial discrimination in schools. The letter noted that differential suspension rates cannot be adequately explained by student behavior, and urged schools to implement policies on suspension and other disciplinary practices that are not racially discriminatory.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

Zero Tolerance and Racial Disparities 491

Losen and Skiba (2010) analyzed school and district-level suspension data and identified significant differences between racial subgroups. More than 28% of the middle school Black males in their sample had been suspended over the past year, compared with 10% of White males and 4% of White females (Losen & Skiba, 2010). In addition, approximately one third of the schools in their sample had “extraordinarily high” suspension rates for at least some subgroups, suspending Black males at a rate of 33% or higher.

Zero tolerance policies have broadened the scope of disciplinary infractions considered pun- ishable by suspension to include more minor transgressions, including classroom disruption and insubordination (Skiba et al., 2010). Black students, in particular, are more likely to be suspended for subjective, relatively minor offenses (Fabelo et al., 2011), such as insubordination and disruption. These infractions have been labeled “soft offenses” (Bradshaw, Mitchell, O’Brennan, & Leaf, 2010) and are generally considered less severe than violent or aggressive offenses. Critics have questioned whether they are serious enough to warrant suspension (Skiba & Rausch, 2006).

PRESENT STUDY

The use of zero tolerance as a disciplinary method in schools is highly controversial and has been associated with negative outcomes for students. This study investigated the following research questions: 1) Are there racial disparities in suspension rates in Virginia high schools? 2) Are principal attitudes favoring zero tolerance associated with higher suspension rates? 3) Are there racial differences in the types of offenses that result in suspensions?

METHOD

Sample

The sample for this study included 306 high school principals who completed the 2012 Virginia School Safety Audit, a state-mandated survey administered annually online by the Virginia Center for School Safety, of the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services. The Safety Audit was completed by 100% of public school principals in the state. Alternative, correctional, and technical schools were not included in this sample. Virginia enrolled a total of 357,353 students in grades 9–12, with a racial/ethnic breakdown of 56% White, 24% Black, 12% Hispanic, 6% Native American, and less than 2% Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Native American, or multi-racial. Thirty seven percent qualified for free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL).

Measures

Principal Attitudes toward Zero Tolerance. The Zero Tolerance Attitudes (ZTA) Scale is a brief measure that was included in the 2012 Safety Audit. The ZTA scale (alpha = .75) was derived from the best-discriminating items on zero tolerance from Skiba’s 60-item Disciplinary Practices Survey (Skiba, Edl, 2004). We selected six items identified by Skiba and Edl (2004) as endorsed most frequently by principals with an exclusionary orientation (inclined to support school suspension and zero tolerance). A preliminary examination of the internal consistency of the scale identified two items that were dropped, leaving a four-item scale. Although a longer scale would have been desirable, the ZTA scale was condensed to four items to meet space limitations for the state survey. There is a considerable demand in applied research for short scales that can be incorporated into larger surveys of multiple constructs (Widaman, Little, Preacher, & Sawalani, 2011).

The ZTA scale assessed principal attitudes toward the use of zero tolerance and suspension in reducing disruption and maintaining order in school. Principals were asked to rate their agreement with the following statements on a scale of 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree): 1) Zero

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

492 Heilbrun et al.

tolerance makes a significant contribution to maintaining order at this school; 2) Zero tolerance sends a clear message to disruptive students about appropriate behaviors in school; 3) Suspension is a necessary tool for maintaining school order; and 4) Schools cannot afford to tolerate students who disrupt the learning environment. Higher scores indicated more favorable attitudes toward the use of zero tolerance and suspension.

School Discipline Records. The Virginia Department of Education provided school-level discipline data for all incidents that resulted in suspension from the 2011 to 2012 school year. All public schools in Virginia are required to report the annual number of short-term suspensions (removal from school for 1 to 10 days) and long-term suspensions (11 to 364 days) out of school. Only short-term suspensions (hereafter “suspensions”) were included in these analyses because they were imposed much more frequently (an average of 11% of the total student population) than long-term suspensions (0.44%, or less than half of 1% of the total student population).

Suspension rates were calculated without duplication, meaning that each student was counted only once in the database, regardless of the number of offenses they committed. The use of undupli- cated suspensions is consistent with previous school suspension studies (Gregory et al., 2011; Suh, Suh, & Houston, 2007; Wallace, Goodkind, Wallace, & Bachman, 2008) and avoids the problem of non-independence when the same student is counted multiple times. Offenses were ordered by severity within each category, and the most severe offense was counted for the student. Suspension rates were calculated by dividing the number of unduplicated suspensions by the school’s total enrollment.

Disciplinary Offenses. Offense types were obtained from the Safe Schools Information Re- source (SSIR) User’s Guide, which is publicly available online at https://p1pe.doe.virginia.gov/pti/. The SSIR guide included 130 disciplinary categories. All offenses resulting in suspension were grouped into one of the four categories for the purposes of our analyses: 1) Aggressive behavior toward others (assault, bullying, harassment, and violent and physical threats); 2) Alcohol, tobacco, and other drug-related offenses (ATOD); 3) Disruptive or Disrespectful behavior (defined by the Virginia Department of Education as conduct that obstructs the learning environment, including insubordination, defiance of authority, and campus disruption; see Figure 1 for a detailed breakdown of the types of disruptive offenses); and 4) Other (nonviolent offenses, including theft, property, and technology).

Analysis Plan

The first research question examined the magnitude of racial disparities in school suspensions. Dependent-samples t tests were conducted to determine whether Black and White suspension rates were significantly different, and the racial suspension gap was measured by subtracting the White rate from the Black rate. To answer the second question, a two-step linear regression examined the contribution of principal attitudes toward zero tolerance policies to the variance in suspension rates, after controlling for the proportion of students in a school who qualify for a FRPL and total school enrollment. Schools with a higher proportion of low-income students have higher rates of suspension and victimization (Bauer, Guerino, Noelle, & Tang, 2008; Gottfredson, Gottfredson, Payne, & Gottfredson, 2005), and the total school enrollment has been associated with higher rates of student misbehavior, crime, and victimization (Gregory et al., 2011). To address the third question, paired-samples t tests were conducted to investigate whether there were racial differences in the types of offenses that resulted in suspensions.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

Zero Tolerance and Racial Disparities 493

FIGURE 1. Comparison (%) of disruptive behavior subcategories for Black and White students. *p < .05.

RESULTS

The average Virginia public high school gave 85 total suspensions a year to an average of 47 students per school. At least one suspension was imposed on about one tenth of all students (M = 11%). To address the first question, the first set of analyses examined the magnitude and extent of racial disparities in suspension rates. A dependent-samples t test indicated significant differences between Black (M = 17%) and White suspension rates (M = 8.3%) within schools, t(284) = 17.58, p < .001, d = 1.02. An effect size of 1.02 is classified as large based on Cohen’s (1992) standards. Black and White suspension rates were highly correlated (r = .64, p < .001). The racial suspension gap was measured by subtracting the White rate from the Black rate. The mean racial suspension gap (M = 9%, SD = 8%) ranged from –12% (higher suspension rate for White than Black students) to 42% (higher suspension rate for Black than White students). The racial suspension gap was highly correlated with Black suspension rates (r = .84, p < .001) and modestly correlated with White suspension rates (r = .12, p < .001). Table 1 presents the correlations among and descriptive statistics for the key study variables.

To address the second research question, a two-step linear regression analysis examined the contribution of principal attitudes toward zero tolerance in school suspension rates. Suspension rates and ZTA were significantly correlated, r(297) = .18, p < .01. At step one, the two covariates (school enrollment size and FRPL) accounted for 33.6% of the variance in suspension rates, F(2, 281) = 70.631, p < .001. At step two, ZTA accounted for an additional 3.1% of the variance, F(2, 281) = 53.32, p < .001. Separate linear regressions were run for White and Black suspension rates. In the first block, school enrollment size and FRPL accounted for 21.6% of the variance in White suspension rates, F(2, 281) = 38.45, p < .001. In the second block, ZTA accounted for an additional 3.6% of the variance, F(2, 281) = 31.20, p < .001. For Black suspensions, school enrollment size

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

494 Heilbrun et al.

Table 1 Correlations among and Descriptive Statistics for Key Study Variables

M (SD) Enroll FRPL SUS WSUS BSUS Dist. ZTA

Enroll 1362 (566) 1.0 –.29* –.31* –.34* –.29* –.01 FRPL .42 (.17) 1.0 1.0 .64* .35* .44* .05* SUS 11.1 (8.41) 1.0 1.0 1.0 .72* .84* .14* WSUS 8.32 (5.62) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 .64* .17* BSUS 17.03 (10.22) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 –.11* ZTA 3.05 (.47) 1.0

Note. Enroll = school enrollment; FRPL = free or reduced-price lunch; SUS = overall suspension rate; WSUS = White suspension rate; BSUS = Black suspension rate; ZTA = Zero Tolerance Attitudes mean score. *p < .01.

FIGURE 2. Comparison (%) of offense categories for Black and White students. ATOD = alcohol, tobacco, or other drug offense. *p < .05.

and FRPL accounted for 18.7% of the variance, F(2, 268) = 30.59, p < .001. In the second block, ZTA accounted for an additional 1.2% of the variance, F(2, 281) = 21.94, p < .001.

To address the third research question, dependent-samples t tests were conducted to assess whether there were racial differences in the four types of offenses that resulted in suspensions (see Figure 2) for a breakdown of the four offenses by race). White rates were significantly higher than Black rates in the ATOD category, (M = –6.6 SD = 16.58), t(294) = –6.85, p < .001, d = .398, but Black rates were significantly higher in the Disruptive category (M = 15.7, S = 77.17), t(294) = –3.5, p < .001, d = .202. Chi-square tests for independence were conducted to assess whether there were racial differences in the six types of offenses within the Disruptive category. Black students had significantly more offenses for all six of the most frequently used Disruptive categories (see Figure 1), which included classroom-disruption offenses, χ 2(1, N = 41163) = 290.65, p < .05; disruptive demonstrations, χ 2(1, N = 43177) = 66.9, p < .05; defiance, χ 2(1, N = 38556) =

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

Zero Tolerance and Racial Disparities 495

872.43, p < .05; walking away, χ 2(1, N = 42561) = 165.61, p < .05; obscene language or gestures, χ 2(1, N = 41188) = 439.77, p < .05; and minor insubordination, χ 2(1, N = 42905) = 108.38, p < .05. There were no significant differences between Black and White rates in the Aggressive category or the Other category.

DISCUSSION

Black students are suspended at more than twice the rate as White students in Virginia public high schools, a finding that is consistent with research in other states (Fabelo et al., 2011; Losen and Skiba 2010). This finding is particularly troubling because suspension rates are associated with high dropout rates and juvenile crime (Suh et al., 2007). Lee et al. (2011) found that suspension rates in Virginia high schools were associated with higher dropout rates, even after controlling for school demographics, percentage of students eligible for FRPL, and per pupil expenditures.

The U.S. Department of Justice and USDOE (2014) brought renewed attention to school discipline in their Dear Colleague letter of January 8, 2014. This letter raises concern that racial disparities in school suspension could reflect discriminatory practices that are violations of federal law. School psychologists can play an important role in helping schools use disciplinary measures that promote a safe and orderly school environment without discriminatory impact on minority students. They can encourage the use of proactive policies and practices that encourage positive student behavior (Bradshaw et al., 2010) and advocate less reliance on school suspension because of its consistent association with negative student outcomes.

Although the negative consequences of suspension rates are well documented, there is less certainty about the factors that contribute to high suspension rates. Critics have contended that the rise in suspensions is a product of zero tolerance disciplinary practices, but few studies have directly examined this hypothesis. Because school suspensions are largely determined by school principals, this study examined the extent to which principal support for a zero tolerance philosophy of discipline would be associated with higher school suspension rates. Principal endorsement of zero tolerance was positively associated with suspension rates, holding school-level demographic factors constant. School suspensions were higher in schools where principals endorsed the view that zero tolerance disciplinary policies helped maintain order in their schools.

Suspension rates were highest in large schools with a high proportion of students receiving FRPL. These variables accounted for a substantial amount of the variance in suspension rates, ranging from 18.7% (Black rates), 21.6% (White rates), to 33.6% (overall rates). ZTA made a small but statistically significant contribution to suspension rates after controlling for these school demographics. Although these effect sizes were small, they may nevertheless have meaningful consequences (Rosnow & Rosenthal, 1989). A relatively small change in the suspension rates for a school can affect thousands of students. This finding provides support for the concern that zero tolerance has contributed to the high rate of suspensions in U.S. schools (Skiba, Edl, & Rausch, 2007; Skiba & Rausch, 2006).

There is much debate about the reasons for the racial disparity in suspension rate. One possible explanation is that Black students have higher suspension rates because they engage in more serious misbehavior, such as weapon carrying, fighting, or drug violations, which are often targeted by zero tolerance policies. On the contrary, Skiba et al. (2002) found that White students are more likely to be disciplined for objective offenses (e.g., smoking), whereas Black students are more often disciplined for subjective offenses, such as disrespect. The present study supports and extends Skiba’s findings in a statewide sample of high schools. Black students were no more likely to be suspended for Aggressive offenses (or Other offenses) than were White students. This is noteworthy because suspensions are generally regarded as disciplinary responses for serious behavior, such

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

496 Heilbrun et al.

as fighting and assault. Black students are suspended at twice the rate as White students, but do not commit aggressive offenses at a higher rate than White students. These findings undercut the argument that Black students are suspended more often because they engage in more dangerous and violent behavior than White students.

Notably, White students were more likely to be suspended for drug- and alcohol-related offenses than were Black students. This is consistent with national adolescent drug studies, which show that White students have significantly higher rates of licit and illicit drug use than do Black students (Johnston, O’Malley, Miech, Bachman, & Schulenberg, 2013). The national race difference is found for hallucinogens, ecstasy, and prescription drugs, and is particularly pronounced in tobacco use. These findings also contrast with data showing that Blacks, especially young adults, are arrested at disproportionate rates for drug use: as of 2011, Black juveniles were approximately 45% more likely to be arrested for drug-related offenses (U.S. Department of Justice, 2014). There is an important need to examine the larger racial disparities observed in the criminal justice system, as well as in school discipline.

Disruption-related offenses were the most common cause of suspension and the only category in which Black students were significantly more likely to be suspended than White students (d = .202). The Disruptive category included infractions such as classroom disruption, disorderly conduct, insubordination, and obscene language (see Figure 1). These infractions, which have been labeled “soft offenses” (Bradshaw et al., 2010), are generally considered less severe than violent or aggressive offenses, and critics have questioned whether they are serious enough to warrant suspension (Skiba & Rausch, 2006). These findings are consistent with research showing that Black students are more likely to be suspended for relatively minor offenses (Fabelo et al., 2011) and raise concern about schools’ use of suspension for discretionary disciplinary actions. For example, teachers must make a judgment whether a student’s language is disrespectful, disruptive, or in some other way sufficiently unacceptable that the student should be referred to the office. Furthermore, the principal must make a judgment whether the misbehavior is serious enough to merit school suspension.

Limitations

This study used a correlational design that cannot demonstrate causal effects of principal attitudes on suspension rates. One approach that would indicate a causal relationship would involve assessing whether an intervention to reduce principal support for zero tolerance led to a reduction in suspension rates. One indirect source of support for this view is research on the implementation of the Virginia Student Threat Assessment Guidelines in schools (Cornell, Allen, & Fan, 2012). The Virginia Guidelines represent a threat assessment approach to school discipline that is intended in part to give school authorities an alternative to zero tolerance when students engage in threatening behavior. Two studies found that training school administrators (and other school staff) in the use of threat assessment reduces their support for zero tolerance and school suspension (Allen, Cornell, Lorek, & Sheras, 2008; Cornell et al., 2012). In addition, three studies have found that schools adopting the Virginia Guidelines have reductions in their suspension rates (Cornell, Gregory, & Fan, 2011; Cornell, Sheras, Gregory, & Fan, 2009).

Another limitation of the present study is that the Safety Audit survey did not include demo- graphic information about the participating school principals, such as gender, age, race, and years of experience. There may be meaningful individual-level differences among principals; for instance, Skiba & Edl (2004) found that male principals were more likely to endorse suspension and female principals were more inclined to support prevention-oriented practices. Disciplinary orientation was not associated with the principals’ ethnicity. Future research should investigate whether gender and other individual-level characteristics inform principal attitudes toward zero tolerance.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

Zero Tolerance and Racial Disparities 497

An important direction for future study would involve a more thorough examination of the disciplinary referral process to assess possible race differences in classroom referrals to the office, as well as the decisions made in the principal’s office. School removal may be more aptly described as a process than a single incident or event (Morrison et al., 2001; Skiba et al., 2007). As an outcome measure of the disciplinary process, a suspension decision only reflects the final result. This process may begin in the classroom or hallway, with a teacher making a judgment that a student has misbehaved. Office disciplinary referrals (ODRs) provide important insight into the disciplinary process (but were not available for this study). Consistent with suspension patterns, Black students are more likely than are White students to receive an ODR for less serious, more subjective offenses (Skiba et al., 2011), and, once given, the referral is more likely to result in suspension or expulsion (Bradshaw et al., 2010). In this context, it might be useful to measure teacher attitudes toward school suspension and zero tolerance as well.

Implications for Research and Practice

Suspension from school has become an increasingly routine practice in response to a range of disciplinary infractions, including relatively minor offenses, a trend that has disproportionately affected Black students. These results add to a growing body of research to demonstrate that suspensions are not applied equitably among students of different races across schools. Although our data demonstrate a clear trend of racial disproportionality in school discipline, our findings cannot explain the source of these persistent disparities. Additional research is needed to understand and identify the source of these disparities. Qualitative and observational data in particular may provide insight into the question of whether the same behavior is in fact interpreted differently by administrators or whether different groups have distinct patterns of offending.

There is promising research to suggest that a positive school climate is associated with lower suspension rates and smaller disparities. Authoritative discipline theory (Gregory, Cornell, Fan, Sheras, & Shih, 2010) identifies structure (strict but fair discipline, as well as high academic expectations) and support (students’ perception of their teachers as caring and concerned) as two key elements of a positive school climate and may provide important insight into disciplinary outcomes. Gregory et al. (2011) found that schools that were high in structure and support (a combination that has been labeled authoritative) had lower overall suspension rates and a lower racial gap in suspension rates.

These results have important implications for school psychologists. As advocates of evidence- based practice, school psychologists should stay informed about issues that interfere with student access to a fair and safe education. The National Association of School Psychologists (2001) website has a fact sheet for educators and policymakers (www.nasponline.org/resources/factsheet/zt_fs.aspx) that details the negative outcomes associated with zero tolerance and urges school psychologists to implement evidence-based alternatives. In particular, they note that prevention programs that iden- tify and intervene with at-risk youth early may help circumvent the need for harsh punishment after behavior has escalated. The statement reports that programs such as Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS), Stop and Think (Project ACHIEVE), and Promoting Positive Thinking Strate- gies have been shown to significantly reduce problematic behavior. PBIS in particular has been found to contribute to a more positive experience of school climate (Bradshsaw, Koth, Bevans, Ialongo, & Leaf, 2008) and has been associated with higher student ratings of order, fairness, and student–staff relationships. In contrast, schools that used exclusionary discipline strategies have lower student ratings of order and discipline (Mitchell & Bradshaw, 2013).

In Virginia schools, principals are primarily responsible for discipline and set the tone for disciplinary practices in the school. Principals may have longstanding beliefs that zero tolerance

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

498 Heilbrun et al.

plays an important role in order and safety in the school. These findings add to a growing body of evidence that questions the utility of punitive disciplinary measures. School psychologists work closely with principals and other administrators and should communicate these findings so that they can inform disciplinary practices.

In sum, these results demonstrate that there are large racial disparities in high school suspension rates and racial differences in the types of infractions that result in suspensions. Although zero tolerance explained some of the variance in suspension rates for both Black and White students, it did not explain the racial disparity. These findings add to a growing body of research showing variability in the implementation of suspensions with no apparent explanation and underscore the importance of accountability for consistency in school discipline practices. School psychologists should be aware of these findings as well as the larger body of literature that discourages the use of exclusionary discipline strategies and encourages a broader preventive approach to school discipline.

REFERENCES

Allen, K., Cornell, D., Lorek, E., & Sheras, P. (2008). Response of school personnel to student threat assessment training. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 19(3), 319–332.

American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force. (2008). Are zero tolerance policies effect in the schools? An evidentiary review and recommendations. American Psychologist, 63, 852–862.

Bauer, L., Guerino, P., Nolle, K. L., & Tang, S. (2008). Student victimization in U.S. schools: Results from the 2005 school crime supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCES 2009–306).

Bradshaw, C., Koth, C., Bevans, K., Ialongo, N., & Leaf, P. (2008). The impact of school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) on the organizational health of elementary schools. School Psychology Quarterly, 23, 462–473.

Bradshaw, C., Mitchell, M., O’Brennan, L., & Leaf, P. (2010). Multilevel exploration of factors contributing to the overrep- resentation of black students in office disciplinary referrals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 508–520.

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159. Cornell, D., Allen, K., & Fan, X. (2012). A randomized controlled study of the Virginia Student Threat Assessment Guidelines

in grades K-12. School Psychology Review, 41, 100–115. Council of State Governments (2011). Breaking schools’ rules: A statewide study of how school discipline relates to

students’ success and juvenile justice involvement. Retrieved 8-4-14 from http://csgjusticecenter.org/youth/breaking- schools-rules-report/

Fabelo, T., Thompson, M. D., Plotkin, M., Carmichael, D., Marchbanks, M. P., & Booth, E. A. (2011). Breaking schools’ rules: A statewide study of how school discipline relates to students’ success and juvenile justice involvement. New York, NY: Council of State Governments Justice Center.

Gregory, A., Cornell, D., & Fan, X. (2011). The relationship of school structure and support to suspension rates for black and white high school students. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 904–934. Doi: 10.3201/002831211398531

Gregory, A., Cornell, D., Fan, X., Sheras, P., & Shih, T. (2010). Authoritative school discipline: High school practices associated with lower student bullying and victimization. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 483–496.

Gregory, A., Skiba, R. J., & Noguera, P. A. (2010). The achievement gap and the discipline gap: Two sides of the same coin? Educational Researcher, 39, 59–68.

Gottfredson, G. D., Gottfredson, D. C., Payne, A. A., & Gottfredson, N. C. (2005). School climate predictors of school disorder: Results from a national study of delinquency prevention and schools. Journals of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 42, 412–444.

Johnston, L., O’Malley, P., Miech, R., Bachman, J., & Schulenberg, J. (2014). Monitoring the Future national survey results on drug use: 1975–2013: Overview and key findings on adolescent drug use. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, the University of Michigan.

Lee, T., Cornell, D., Gregory, A., & Fan, X. (2011). High suspension schools and dropout rates for black and white students. Education and Treatment of Children, 34, 167–192.

Losen, D., & Skiba, R. (2010). UCLA: The Civil Rights Project/ProyectoDerechosCiviles. Retrieved from: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/8fh0s5dv

Mitchell, M., & Bradshaw, C. (2013). Examining classroom influences on student perceptions of school climate: The role of classroom management and exclusionary discipline strategies. Journal of School Psychology, 51, 599–610.

Morrison, G., Anthony, S., Storino, M., Cheng, J., Furlong, M., & Morrison, R. L. (2001). School expulsion as a process and an event: Before and after effects on children at-risk for school discipline. New Directions for Youth Development: Theory, Practice, Research, 92, 45–72.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

Zero Tolerance and Racial Disparities 499

National Association of School Psychologists. (2001). Zero tolerance and alternative strategies: A fact sheet for educations and policymakers. Retrieved from www.nasponline.org/resources/factsheet/zt_fs.aspx

Petras, H., Masyn, K., Buckley, J., Ialongo, N., & Kellam, S. (2011) Who is most at risk for school removal? A multilevel discrete-time survival analysis of individual- and context-level influences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 223–237.

Raffaele Mendez, L. M., Knoff, H. M., & Ferron, J. M. (2002). School demographic variables and out-of-school suspension rates: A quantitative and qualitative analysis of large ethnically diverse school districts. Psychology in the Schools, 39, 259–276.

Rosnow, R., & Rosenthal, R. (1989). Statistical procedures and the justification of knowledge in psychological science. American Psychologist, 44, 1276–1284.

Skiba, R., Eckes, S., & Brown, K. (2010). African American disproportionality in school discipline: The divide between best evidence and legal remedy. New York Law School Law Review, 54, 1072–1112.

Skiba, R., & Edl, H. (2004). The Disciplinary Practices Survey: How Do Indiana’s Principals Feel About Discipline? Children Left Behind Policy Briefs Supplementary Analysis 2-C. Bloomington, IN: Center for Evaluation and Education Policy.

Skiba, R., Edl, H., & Rausch, M. (2007, Month). How do principals feel about discipline? The Disciplinary Practices Survey. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Skiba, R., Horner, R., Chung, C., Rausch, M., May, S., & Tobin, T. (2011). Race is not neutral: A national investigation of African American and Latino disproportionality in school discipline. School Psychology Review, 40, 85–107.

Skiba, R. J., Michael, R. S., Nardo, A. C., & Peterson, R. (2002). The color of discipline: Sources of racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment. Urban Review, 34(4), 317–342.

Skiba, R., & Rausch, M. (2006). Zero tolerance, suspension, and expulsion: Questions of equity and effectiveness. In C. M. Evertson & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 1063–1089). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Suh, S., Suh, J., & Houston, I. (2007). Predictors of categorical at-risk high school dropouts. Journal of Counseling and Development, 85, 196–203.

U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (2004). Elementary and Secondary School Survey. U.S. Department of Justice. (2014). Statistical briefing book: Law enforcement & juvenile crime: Juvenile arrest rate trends.

Retrieved from http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/JAR_Display.asp?ID=qa05274 U.S. Department of Justice & U.S. Department of Education (2014). Dear Colleague Letter on the Nondiscriminatory Ad-

ministration of School Discipline. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201401- title-vi.pdf

Wallace, J. M., Jr., Goodkind, S., Wallace, C. M., & Bachman, J. G. (2008). Racial, ethnic, and gender differences in school discipline among U.S. high school students: 1991–2005. Negro Educational Review, 59, 47–62.

Widaman, K. F., Little, T. D., Preacher, K. J., & Sawalani, G. M. (2011). On creating and using short forms of scales in secondary research. In K. H. Trzesniewski, M. B. Donnellan, & R. E. Lucas (Eds.), Secondary data analysis: An introduction for psychologists (pp. 39–61). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Wu, S., Pink, W., Crain, R., & Moles, O. (1982). Student suspension: A critical appraisal. Urban Review, 14, 245–273.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

Copyright of Psychology in the Schools is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.