Disparate Use of Exclusionary Discipline: Evidence on Inequities in School Discipline from a U.S. State
Disparate Use of Exclusionary Discipline: Evidence on Inequities in School Discipline from a U.S. State
复制标题
排斥性纪律的不同使用：美国各州学校纪律不平等的证据
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2016
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Gary W. Ritter
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kaitlin P. Anderson;Gary W. Ritter
在美国，关于学校的排他性纪律(停学和开除)的讨论很多。根据美国教育部民权办公室2014年的一份报告，黑人学生占学生总数的15%，但44%的学生停学不止一次，36%的学生被开除。这项分析使用了阿肯色州公立学校七年来的个人违规水平数据。我们发现，被边缘化的学生更有可能受到排他性的纪律处分，即使在控制了纪律转介的性质和数量之后，但大多数差异发生在学校之间，而不是学校内部。在全州范围内，黑人学生受到惩戒的可能性大约是后者的2.4倍(条件是举报的违规行为和其他学生特征)，而在学校内部，同样的条件差异在统计上并不显著。在学校内部，排他性纪律的不成比例主要是由非种族因素推动的，比如免费和降价午餐(FRL)资格和特殊教育地位。我们发现，毫不奇怪，非白人学生比例较大的学校往往会给予更长时间的惩罚，无论学校的收入水平如何，以FRL比率衡量。总而言之，这些结果似乎表明了多重不利因素：种族导致了学校之间的大部分差异，而在学校内部，女性权利或特殊教育地位可能更重要。
There is much discussion in the United States about exclusionary discipline (suspensions and expulsions) in schools. According to a 2014 report from the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, Black students represent 15% of students, but 44% of students suspended more than once and 36% of expelled students. This analysis uses seven years of individual infraction-level data from public schools in Arkansas. We find that marginalized students are more likely to receive exclusionary discipline, even after controlling for the nature and number of disciplinary referrals, but that most of the differences occur across rather than within schools. Across the state, black students are about 2.4 times as likely to receive exclusionary discipline (conditional on reported infractions and other student characteristics) whereas within school, this same conditional disparity is not statistically significant. Within schools, the disproportionalities in exclusionary discipline are driven primarily by non-race factors such as free- and reduced-price lunch (FRL) eligibility and special education status. We find, not surprisingly, that schools with larger proportions of non-White students tend to give out longer punishments, regardless of school income levels, measured by FRL rates. Combined, these results appear to indicate multiple tiers of disadvantage: race drives most of the disparities across schools, whereas within schools, FRL or special education status may matter more.