A new working paper published by the Annenberg Institute at Brown University examines the statewide ban Maryland placed on exclusionary discipline practices for K-2 students, and notes the implications the findings have for the many state and local bans implemented across the country.
While the probability, number and duration of suspensions declined substantially and significantly for Black students, low-income youth and students with disabilities in all three grades subject to the ban, the reductions weren’t large enough to eliminate the disproportionate use of suspensions.
“It is unsurprising that the ban failed to eliminate disproportionalities in suspensions and even exacerbated some inequities, particularly for students with disabilities,” wrote Catherine Mata, a postdoctoral research associate at the Annenberg Institute and one the study’s co-authors. “The ban is a broad policy that does not take aim at any of the underlying causes of discipline disparities. To effectively eliminate entrenched disparities, schools will likely need to attend to the multitude of reasons why some student groups are disciplined at higher rates than others. For example, schools might need to address factors that contribute to educator biases in referrals and suspensions, rather than simply implementing a race-neutral strategy and hoping it will reduce racial inequalities.”
Similar findings have come out of examinations of Arkansas and Rhode Island (which restricted the use of exclusionary discipline for specific infractions including truancy and absenteeism) as well as districts in Los Angeles, New York and Philadelphia. Often, reforms led to reductions in suspensions for the prohibited infractions but did not effectively reduce the disproportionate use of exclusionary discipline against historically marginalized students, Mata noted.
In 2017, Maryland restricted the use of out-of-school suspensions in grades K-2, with exceptions for cases involving an imminent threat of violence. In doing so, the state did reduce the number of days students spent outside of school. For example, among second graders, suspensions decreased by 60 percent and suspension days were reduced by 64 percent.
Because suspensions were not fully eliminated, Mata said researchers expected to see an increase in the use of violent codes to justify out-of-school suspensions or a shift toward increased use of in-school suspensions. Surprisingly, they instead found a significant decrease in the use of violent codes in grades K-2, as well as no uptick in rates of in-school suspension.
Despite the reduction in suspensions, there were a few blemishes in the results of the initiative. While overall rates were reduced, Black students continued to be suspended more frequently than white students, male students more than female students, and low-income students more than their wealthier peers.
Additionally, disparities between students with disabilities and their peers widened after the ban. Previously, students with disabilities were suspended five times more often than their peers. After the ban, this rate increased to six times more often.
“The ban is a blunt policy instrument that does not target any specific student subgroups for additional supports or treatment,” the study states. “Likely, eliminating entrenched disparities will require more tailored interventions (such as those taught in restorative practices programs) and a focus on students’ needs and risks both inside and outside of schools. Importantly, the safety net of requiring a school psychologist to approve K-2 suspensions was not adequate to achieve equity in suspension rates for special education students, suggesting that more advocacy, research, and training are required for this subpopulation.”
