Improving Michigan School Discipline Practices

CLOSUP Student Working Paper Series Number 45 December 2018

Improving Michigan School Discipline Practices

KeAndra Hollis, University of Michigan

This paper is available online at http://closup.umich.edu Papers in the CLOSUP Student Working Paper Series are written by students at the University of Michigan.

This paper was submitted as part of the Fall 2018 course PubPol 475-750 Michigan Politics and Policy, that is part of the CLOSUP in the Classroom Initiative.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy or any sponsoring agency

Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy University of Michigan

KeAndra Hollis Improving Michigan School Discipline Practices Introduction Over the recent years, many studies have attempted to shed light on the negative impacts and gaps of exclusionary discipline practices within Michigan schools. Research shows that students who face suspension and expulsion are as much as 10 times more likely to drop-out of highschool, experience student trauma, have negative disciplinary records, experience low academic achievement, and contact with the criminal justice system than those who are not. Students facing these outcomes are at a greater risk of being funneled into what we know as the school-to prison pipeline. Unfortunately, these practices have impacted a higher number of students, in addition to disproportionately affecting higher rates of minority students and students with disabilities.

Even though efforts have been made at the state level to revise school discipline issues, current policies do not offer clear alternatives to relying on exclusionary practices or address underlying factors that strongly contribute to the persisting gaps and patterns. To reverse these persisting trends, Michigan’s legislature should: mandate hat restorative practices be considered initially for all behaviors while using a tier system, provide funding and additional support for school districts struggling to implement restorative practices, and provide school districts with funds to engage in culturally relevant professional-development for all staff associated with students.

Historical Context of the Rise in School Discipline Policies Beginning in 1994, after Congress passed the gun-free schools act, school districts in states that received funds under the Elementary and Secondary School Act were mandated to update their school codes to reflect zero tolerance policies (Gun-Free Schools Act, 1994). The state of Michigan, specifically, amended its school code provisions to reflect zero tolerance policies and take effect on January 1, 1995. The amendments mandated that school districts permanently expel students who possessed a dangerous weapon, who set fire on school grounds, or who commit a sexual assault (Stone-Palmquist, 2004). In addition to many other states, Michigan began to see various changes in its school culture following this update and a major rise in the rate of student suspensions and expulsions.

In 1999, following high-profile school shootings and suspicions of a more “dangerous” student population, additional provisions were made to Michigan school codes that allowed school officials to suspend students for any “good” reason, required of up to 180 days of suspension for students who physically assaulted another student, and required permanent expulsions for any student who physically assaulted a school employee or school volunteer (Stone-Palmquist, 2004). These stringent changes to Michigan school policies more than doubled student expulsions between the mid-1990s and the 2001-2002 school year with only 82% of schools reporting (Lansing: CEPI, 2003). In the 2014-2015 school year, Michigan schools produced more than 1,300 expulsions (Tanner & Higgins, 2016).

In addition to a major increase in student suspensions and expulsions since the mid 1990’s, school discipline trends have depicted major disparities in practices- targeting minority students, low-income students and students with disabilities at alarming rates. In the United States, African American students were approximately three times as likely as white students to be suspended while only representing 15 percent of all enrolled students in 2015-2016 (Wallace et al. 2008).

This gap is also mirrored in many school districts in Michigan as well. In the 2015-16 school

year, black students made up 16.4% of the high school student population in Ann Arbor Public School District, while white students accounted for 43.5% of the high school student population.

Although black students made up a smaller proportion of the population, black students accounted for 43.5% of high school students suspended that year. In addition to Ann Arbor Public School District, 11 other school districts were reported in 2017 for over-suspending or excluding minority group students at a rate of at least 3 times more than their share of the districts population (Cweik, 2014).

In addition to race, students with disabilities are also suspended at higher rates. A 2018 report from the Government Accountability Office found that students with disabilities accounted for around 12 percent of the overall public-school student population but represented approximately 25 percent or more of students referred to law enforcement, arrested for a school-related incident, or suspended from school. This disproportion is seen in Michigan as well. While special education students make up 10.8 percent of the total high school population in Ann Arbor Public Schools, they account for 31.2 percent of students suspended. Overall, reports from 2012 showed that the discipline gap in Michigan stood at 15.9 points between black and white students following only Illinois, at 21.3 points, Missouri at 18.4, Connecticut at 18.1 points and Tennessee at 16.4 (Murray, 2012). Primary reasons for these suspensions that result in reported disparities have included insubordination, creating disruptive conditions, altercations, loitering, and several subjective offenses (ACLU, 2009).

Implications of the School-to-Prison Pipeline and Discipline Alternatives In response to ongoing trends within exclusionary discipline, many authors have produced ample research on the implications of school discipline referring to the school-to-prison pipeline and possible solutions to combating over-suspension and disparities. As noted previously, students who are suspended are more likely to face adverse effects from high school dropout, low academic achievement and trauma. Research also shows how these outcomes force students in the school-to-prison pipeline as they are at greater odds for engaging in criminal activity, incarceration and victimization. Authors, Wolf & Kupchik, found that the odds of victimization for students who suspended are 22% greater, the odds of engaging in criminal activity for students who are suspended are 31% greater, and the odds of being incarcerated for students who suspended are 72% greater. With minority students being more likely to be suspended and excluded in such practices, the study outlined how these trends connect to the disproportionate representation of minority youth and adults facing the criminal justice system.

These trends are reflected in Michigan when comparing the disproportionate rates of minorities who are suspended, and the disproportionate rate of juveniles in custody within Michigan’s juvenile system. In 2013, black youth in Michigan were six times more likely than white youth to be arrested for a violent crime and almost seven times more likely to be arrested for a property crime (Public Policy Associates, 2014). When students are constantly engaged with school officials and school or local police who do not have culturally relevant professional development training and understanding of restorative justice, students will constantly be in contact with the criminal justice system.

Researchers Cole and Cohen also shed light on the implications of exclusionary discipline policy by focusing on juvenile justice personnel and school reentry after being suspended or expelled.

In their study, Cole and Cohen explore the barriers which students face because of the juvenile justice system and reentry into the schools that have pushed them out. They find that when students are referred to the criminal justice system, schools leave it solely upon the law enforcement personnel to take care of the student academics and manage behavior instead of

remaining engaged. Law enforcement officers, whether in schools or within juvenile justice centers are more likely to use force in a way that teachers and administrators are not, opposed to de-escalation tactics and counseling (Balko, 2018). These relationships and discipline practices when dealing with students are important to reduce the disparities we see among students with disabilities and minority students.

According to Michigan Public Policy Survey Data in Figure 1., when local officials were asked of likelihood of current and future use of practices in law enforcement within the following areas: de-escalation tactics, cultural understanding, and/or bias awareness, only 32. 63% of total responses reported that these practices were already being used, while 31.41 % said that they did not know.

Given this data, more investment is needed to foster positive relationships of not only teachers, but all school staff such as law enforcement officers who are in contact with students. Improving these relationships between students, school leadership staff is one major factor that many researchers suggest in dismantling the school-to-prison pipeline and reducing discipline referrals.

Researchers suggest accomplishing these goals through restorative practices and restorative justice which provide several benefits in addition to creating equity and justice in school discipline practices. Restorative practices are defined by the International Institute for Restorative Practices (IIRP) as “a social science that studies how to build social capital and achieve social discipline through participatory learning and decision making, and by “the use of informal and formal processes that precede wrongdoing and proactively build relationships and a sense of community to prevent conflict and wrongdoing.” A few benefits of restorative practices identified by the IIRP are reducing crime, violence and bullying, improving human behavior, strengthening civil society, providing effective leadership, restoring relationships and repairing harm. Restorative justice on the other hand is defined as reactive practices by the IIRP which “consist of formal or informal responses to crime and other wrongdoing after it occurs.” Such practices can be found in many recent studies with proven results in creating fair and equitable practices.

Gregory et al., draws on student and teacher surveys to understand how restorative practices associate with teacher-student relationships and achieves equity in school discipline. Their study finds that several factors including staff and teacher-student relationships and teachers’ perceptions of students play a role in the implementation of restorative practices and discipline.

The approach used in this study is the known as the Restorative Practice Whole-School approach that uses a tier model and focuses primarily on prevention and intervention. One of the preventative restorative practices that were used include “Proactive Circles” which occurs daily or weekly basis where students sit in a circle and discuss a topic that helps build community (Gregory et al., 2010). Another practice that is used is called “Fair Process” which engage students in decisions and help students explain the rationale of discipline (Gregory et al.,2010).

Examples of restorative justice used in the study include “Restorative Circles” where after a moderately serious incident occurs, students sit in a circle and discuss who has been harmed and what needs to be done to make things right (Gregory et al., 2010). Another restorative practice is the “Reintegrative Management of Shame”, which involves the acknowledgement of the emotions of the wrongdoers and those impacted by the wrongdoing (Gregory et al., 2010).

These restorative actions emphasize the significance behind student engagement, voice and perspectives as well as relationship building. Overall, Gregory et al., found that higher implementation of restorative practices tended to yield better relationships between students and

teachers, and that higher implementation of restorative practices is associated with lower use of disruption/defiance disciplinary referrals with Latino and African American students. Other states such as Minnesota, California, Colorado, and Florida that have use tiered restorative models focusing on prevention and intervention has seen significant declines in exclusionary discipline referrals and reductions among disparities as well. (Gregory et al., 2010). In 3 years, for example researchers Ingraham et al., saw an 85% reduction in behavioral referrals using a whole-school restorative project in a diverse elementary school (Ingraham et al., 2016).

If both restorative justice practices and culturally relevant professional development is offered in schools, relationships between students and all school professionals may improve as which is shown to be a strong factor in improving school discipline according to Wolf and Kupchik.

Overall, these practices yield to better student-teacher relationships, improved classroom engagement and academic achievement (Wolf & Kupchik, 2016).

Current Efforts to Improve School Discipline in Michigan Throughout the country, some states have changed laws and policies around suspensions and expulsions in response to research depicting ineffectiveness of zero tolerance policies. Compared to other states that have a salient history in relying on harsh disciplinary policies and major gaps, Michigan’s state legislature has taken proactive efforts to improve school discipline patterns. The percentage of students suspended has decreased in many school districts that have a history of high use in punitive policies. For example, in Ann Arbor Public School District, the Overall, 3.4 percent of high school students, 2.4 percent of middle school students and 0.2 percent of elementary school students were suspended at least once in 2015-16. Five years ago, 6 percent of high schoolers, 7.3 percent of middle schoolers and 1.5 percent of elementary school students were suspended at least once. While these numbers decreased, however, disparities in suspensions and expulsions among minority students and students with disabilities persisted.

In 2012, Michigan’s governor Rick Snyder and the State Board of Education issued a resolution urging schools to improve disciplinary codes and policies within their schools entitled “Resolution to Address School Discipline Issues Impacting Student Outcomes”. Following persisting trends and exclusionary gaps in student discipline, Michigan passed a bipartisan package of bills in 2016 to further improve this area (Student Advocacy Right Center, Ann Arbor). These bills took effect in the 2016-17 school year and mandated that: restorative practices should be used as an alternative to suspensions and expulsions as or in addition to suspension or expulsions under this act, restorative practices be considered first in cases such as interpersonal conflicts, bullying, verbal and physical conflicts, theft, damage to property, class disruption, and harassment and cyberbullying. The law also mandated that school districts consider 7 factors before suspending or expelling any student. Expulsion under this new law is required for a student who possesses a dangerous weapon, commits arson or criminal sexual conduct. The 7 Factors to consider before suspending or expelling a student are: 1.

The pupil’s age.

2.

The pupil’s disciplinary history.

3.

Whether the pupil is a student with a disability.

4.

The seriousness of the violation or behavior committed by the pupil.

5.

Whether the violation or behavior committed by the pupil threatened the safety of any pupil or staff member.

6.

Whether restorative practices will be used to address the violation or behavior committed by the pupil.

7.

Whether a lesser intervention would properly address the violation or behavior committed by the pupil In addition to introducing Michigan Rethink Discipline Laws, Michigan Department of Education provides resources and a toolkit entitled: Alternatives to Suspensions and Expulsions Toolkit on their website. This toolkit consists of Positive Behavioral Intervention, information on restorative justice, Michigan Health Curriculum and Socio-Economical Learning.

Recommendations to Improve Michigan School Discipline While these efforts may work to reduce the number of suspensions and expulsions in Michigan schools, these new policies do not offer clear alternatives to exclusionary policies, do not provide funding for training to implement restorative justice practices for struggling school districts, and do not address school factors that may strongly contribute to the persisting gaps and patterns.

Initially, Michigan state legislature should improve their recommended toolkit and “Rethink Discipline Bills” by offering a tier system and effective discipline practice alternatives. The recommended tool kit should provide clear well-researched examples of restorative practices that have been shown to reduce suspensions and expulsions in schools in other states and successful school districts. This tool-kit currently only list vague restorative practices that do not interpret clear examples to use in different schools with varying populations. In addition to improving the recommended tool-kit, the legislature should make clarifications within its “Rethink Discipline Bills” and offer a tier system within this new law to support those bills.

Under the new law, the text suggest that restorative practices should be considered first in only a number of cases. This gives schools the ability to rely on suspension for other infractions not outlined in the policy. The policy therefore should mandate that schools first consider restorative practice and justice prior to any suspension and consider the 7 factors as well. If schools are also encouraged to consider using a tier system that uses both prevention and intervention, schools will be more successful in considering restorative practices initially. Tier systems, such as those with successful results from research, use prevention of certain discipline by building positive relationships, using restorative language, involving students in discipline and accountability processes and later using restorative justice if negative behavior persist. Without addressing the need to also use prevention in addition to intervention after a problem with a student occurs, schools may not reverse their thinking to rely on restorative justice more heavily.

Secondly, Michigan’s legislature should provide funding and additional support for struggling school districts and provide school districts with funds to engage in culturally relevant professional development for all staff associated with students. According to Michigan’s Department of Education “Section 31a At Risk” State funding is provided for at risk pupils who meet one of the outlined criteria. The state, however, does not grant funding for districts that may be contributing to students being at risk for academic failure and adverse trajectories due to the school’s culture in preparing students for success. As research shows, school discipline plays a major role in student success. Therefore, schools that are struggling with school disciple should be provided with additional funding to assist in implementing successful programs and addressing underlying factors such as negative relationships with school staff and law enforcement personnel in schools, culturally relevant pedagogies and pervasive stereotypes and biases.

Even though these recommendations are likely to reduce reliance on exclusionary policies and tighten the gap among groups of students facing these consequences, there are counter narratives of why this issue does not deserve much attention or additional funding. While these efforts have

been outlined to reduce these practices in the new law, lack of clarity and a failure to enforce restorative practices will allow pervasive actions to continue. It has been seen that white parents have historically had more power at the school level, therefore giving schools greater pressure when their child is facing discipline consequences (Allison Roda and Amy Stuart Wells, 2013).

Black student parents in comparison have had less political power. If the state mandates changes and considerations in all school districts to consider restorative practices first for all infractions, black parents may be more successful in advocating for their students. They will now have the state’s law supporting them for infractions that their child may be specifically involved in.

Another belief perpetuating discipline gaps includes the idea that removing disorderly students will maintain an orderly environment and will reduce parental concerns of their child’s safety.

While removing students who are perceived to be disorderly may allow teachers to maintain effective classroom environments and increase parent support, such classrooms are not necessarily effective if certain students are being excluded. This narrative disregard the importance of classroom management, underlying discipline biases and culturally relevant pedagogy.

Overall, to create a sustainable impact in school discipline and student future trajectories, the state should consider these recommendations and additions to the new law. These recommendations should reduce disparities, provide more clarity for all schools, staff, students and parents reduce reliance on exclusion practices, and improve student future outcomes.

Reference Page American Civil Liberties Union of Mi. “Reclaiming Michigan's Throwaway Kids: Students Trapped in the School to Prison Pipeline.” ACLU of Michigan, 1 Jan. 2009, aclumich.org/ reclaiming-michigans-throwaway-kids-students-trapped-school-prison-pipeline.

Balko, Radley. “Putting More Cops in Schools Won't Make Schools Safer, and It Will Likely Inflict a Lot of Harm.” Washington Post, 22 Feb. 2018.

Cweik, S. (2017, November 17). State: 12 Michigan school districts disproportionately suspend students of colorSa. The Detroit Free Press. Retrieved November 20, 2018, from http:// www.michiganradio.org/post/state-12-michigan-school-districts-disproportionately-suspendstudents-color Gregory, A., Clawson K., Davis A., & Gerewitz, J. (2016). The promise of restorative practices to transform teacher-student relationships and achieve equity in school discipline. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 26(4), 325-353.

“Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 12 Nov. 2018, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_Schools_Act_of_1994.

Higgins, L., & Tanner, K. (2016, May 22). Mich. lawmakers take aim at school expulsions, suspensions. The Detroit Free Press. Retrieved November 28, 2018, from https:// www.freep.com/story/news/education/2016/05/22/expulsions-school-michigan-lawmakers/ 84291958/ Ingraham, C. L., Hokoda, A., Moehlenbruck, D., Karafin, M., Manzo, C., & Ramirez, D. (2016).

Consultation and collaboration to develop and implement restorative practices in a culturally and linguistically diverse elementary school. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 26(4), 354-384.

International Institute for Restorative Practices Staff, IIRP. “What Is Restorative Practices?” IIRP, www.iirp.edu/restorative-practices/what-is-restorative-practices.

MDE State Aid & School Finance. (2017, November). Retrieved December 10, 2018, from https://www.michigan.gov/mde/0,4615,7-140-6605---,00.html Michigan Public Policy Survey Public Use Datasets (Fall 2015) Police Services Data (Q27e)Version Title Spring 2009 - Fall 2016, Version: V25, Date: 11/18/2018 Murray, D. (2017, August 7). Report: Black students suspended at higher rate than white students, Michigan's disparity among the highest. M Live. Retrieved November 25, 2018, from https://www.mlive.com/education/index.ssf/2012/08/report_black_students_suspende.html Public Policy Associates. Michigan’s Statewide Juvenile Arrest Analysis Report . 2018th-2013th ed., One, Public Policy Associates Inc., 2014, Michigan’s Statewide Juvenile Arrest Analysis Report .

Student Advocacy Center of Michigan. “Rethink Discipline State Law Changes Summary” Student Advocacy Center of Michigan, www.studentadvocacycenter.org/programs/student-rightsproject/.

Stone-Palmquist, P (2014) Michigan’s Brand of Zero Tolerance: Is There Another Way? The Michigan Journal of Public Affairs - Volume 1, Summer 2004 Roda, A., & Wells, A. S. (2013). School Choice Policies and Racial Segregation: Where White Parents’ Good Intentions, Anxiety, and Privilege Collide. American Journal of Education, 119(2), 261-293. doi:10.1086/668753 Wolf, K.C., & Kupchik, A. (2017). School Suspensions and Adverse Experiences in Adulthood.

Justice Quarterly, 34:3, 407-430.