Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
August, 2004
by
Constance C. Bergquist, Ph.D.
?
Cindy L. Bigbie, Ph.D.
?
Lynn Groves, M.Ed.
?
Geraldine H. Richardson, M.Ed.
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
?
5145 Pimlico Drive
?
Tallahassee, FL 32309
?
850-893-9504 (phone)
?
850-893-9569 (fax)
?
email: esdi@talstar.com
?
For a pdf copy of the full report, refer to the publications section of the Evaluation
Systems Design, Inc. website at http://www.esdi.cc/. For further information concerning
the complete study, contact Dr. Constance C. Bergquist at Evaluation Systems Design,
Inc. (esdi@talstar.com or 850-893-9504).
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................1
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY..................................................................................................................3
FIRST YEAR METHODOLOGY..........................................................................................................4
INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS................................................................................................................8
LITERATURE REVIEW RESULTS..........................................................................................8
ANALYSIS OF FLORIDA PROGRAMS ....................................................................................9
MIS DATA ELEMENTS.......................................................................................................52
BRIEF SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS............................................................................56
ISSUES ............................................................................................................................................57
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONTINUATION ACTIVITIES...............................................................58
APPENDIX A: LITERATURE REVIEW.............................................................................................60
APPENDIX B: DISTRICT SUMMARIES .......................................................... (SEPARATELY BOUND)
?
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
Page i
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.
Selection of Districts for Site Visits...........................................................................5
?
Table 2.
In-school and Out-of-School Suspension Rates – By District ................................. 10
?
Table 3.
Discipline Rates by District for Students with Disabilities...................................... 12
?
Table 4.
District Definitions and Policies .............................................................................. 14
?
Table 5.
Correlations among Out-Of-School, In-School Suspension Rates,
?
and District Student Populations in Florida ............................................................. 19
?
Table 6.
Districts with the Lowest and Highest ISS and OSS rates by School Level ........... 20
?
Table 7.
Inschool Suspension Estimated Length of Assignment ...........................................25
?
Table 8.
Before/After School Program Estimated Length of Assignment.............................27
?
Table 9.
Saturday School Program Estimated Length of Assignment ...................................29
?
Table 10. Alternative School/Off-Site Program Estimated Length of Assignment .................32
?
Table 11. Dropout Prevention Program Data Elements...........................................................53
?
Table 12. Additional Related Data Elements ...........................................................................54
?
Table 13. Program Data Elements for Use in Comparison Studies .........................................55
?
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
Page ii
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.
Decision-Makers for Selection of Delivery Models at Site ..................................15
Figure 2.
Decision-Makers for Operation of Delivery Models at Site .................................16
Figure 3.
Factors Considered in Selecting Delivery Models................................................17
Figure 4.
District Implementation of Common Delivery Models ........................................18
Figure 5.
Most Frequently Used Program Components .......................................................36
Figure 6.
Common Prevention Programs .............................................................................37
Figure 7.
Program Components Less Frequently Used........................................................38
Figure 8.
Individualized Plants/Contracts ............................................................................39
Figure 9.
Specific Academic Curriculum .............................................................................40
Figure 10.
Tutoring.................................................................................................................41
Figure 11.
Parent Involvement ...............................................................................................43
Figure 12.
Conflict Mediation, Anti-bullying, and Character Education Classes..................44
Figure 13.
Individualized or Group Counseling.....................................................................45
Figure 14.
Behavioral Curriculum and Reward System.........................................................46
Figure 15.
Service Learning and Job Shadowing/Internships ................................................47
Figure 16.
Mentoring and Volunteering .................................................................................48
Figure 17.
Community Clean-up Projects ..............................................................................48
Figure 18.
Restorative Justice Model, Work Detail, and Field Trips.....................................49
Figure 19.
Academic or Behavioral Objectives......................................................................51
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
Page iii
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
Back to top
Introduction
Across the nation school systems are struggling with the essential conflicts presented when students
misbehave in school. The most severe consequence is to suspend or expel students. These
approaches, however, result in students losing educational opportunities that may be critical to their
futures. Frequently, the students who are suspended are those who are most in need of additional,
intensive instruction to meet increasingly stiff academic standards for high school diplomas.
Without the structure of attending school, many of these students turn to illicit activities that lead
them to incarceration, costing our society even more financial and human resources. Suspension
and expulsion contribute to an underclass of poorly educated adults who are employed at the lowest
economic levels and are incarcerated at a much higher rate than any other segment of society,
resulting in lost wages for the economy, and a host of other social and economic problems for
families and for the country. Suspending and expelling students from schools is in diametrical
opposition to the basic reason our society has established public education: to educate the children
of our society.
The pattern in some cases is an agonizing interplay between the student and administrators. A
student who is not performing well in school acts out in frustration. The acting out results in
discipline that may cause the student to escalate the behavior. In frustration as well, the
administration suspends the student who then fails the semester because of receiving failing grades
for the time spent suspended from school. The failing grades and lack of instruction cause further
educational gaps that result in further frustration and anger for the student, causing a spiral of
increasing behavior problems, academic gaps, and discipline efforts, until the student drops out of
school or is arrested and sent to juvenile detention.
Suspensions may range from a day to 15 or more days out of school. Suspended students often
have no supervision when out of school, even at the elementary school level if a single parent is
working and there is little money for childcare. The lack of supervision contributes to other
negative consequences for suspension, including drugs and vandalism that are detrimental to the
child, family, and society.
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
Page 1
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
Behavior problems in school in the last two decades have risen to crisis proportions. In Florida,
more than 11,000 violent acts were recorded in the 2002-2003 academic year, for all grade levels
(2,450 elementary; 5,344 middle; 3,445 high).
During the 2002-2003 academic year, 1.6% of Florida’s elementary school children received in-
school suspension and 2.6% received out-of-school suspension. During this same period, 16.9% of
middle school children in Florida received in-school suspension and 14.4% received out-of-school
suspension. At the high school level, 15.8% of Florida’s students received in-school suspension and
12.8% received out-of-school suspension.
The total number of in-school suspensions, in Florida during the 2002-2003 school year was over
600,000. Additionally, there were over 446,000 out-of-school suspensions in Florida during the
same school year (these numbers include students who received multiple suspensions). During the
2002-2003 school year, Florida expelled approximately 700 students from its schools.
Considering these issues with suspension and expulsion programs, many school systems have been
implementing alternatives to suspension. These programs keep students in school instead of
sending them home under the sometimes questionable supervision of their parents. The most
effective programs provide instruction designed to increase students’ academic levels while also
addressing their behavior problems. The major types of programs providing alternatives to
suspension are:
1.
?
Prevention Programs
.
–
students who are disruptive or for some other negative reason
come to the attention of teachers or administrators may be referred to school-based
intervention teams, social skills, conflict mediation or character education classes, time
out in another teacher’s class or in the principal’s office, or a behavioral specialist may be
hired or contracted to work with individual students or with teachers in creating behavior
management strategies. These strategies are designed to redirect the student’s behavior
and avoid suspension. These techniques may often be employed with ESE students and
are designed to occur within the regular school day.
2.
?
In School –
students attend school within structured programs such as:
-
In School Suspension –
alternative classroom or supervision, often including
academic instruction
-
Work Detail –
students work under the supervision of a counselor or assigned
teacher/paraprofessional
-
?
Special Class –
students attend a separate class designed for students who were or
would have been suspended
3.
?
Before/After School –
students can make up their academic work before or after school
under supervision
4.
?
Saturday School –
the school provides classes on Saturday in which students can make
up their academic work
5.
?
Community Based –
students may attend a program operated by a community agency
such as the YMCA
6.
?
Special Program/Setting –
the district may have special programs or schools established
to provide alternative instruction for students
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
?
Page 2
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
All of these programs vary in terms of the type of students who can participate, the types of
instructional programs provided, the types of people providing the supervision, and other factors.
Within one type of program such as in school suspension, the programs vary widely. For
example, the supervising person may be a certified teacher who works closely with the
homeroom teachers to ensure students receive instruction paralleling the classroom assignments,
or a paraprofessional who operates a computer lab where students are assigned instructional
lessons based on their proficiency levels. Programs may or may not include a component to help
students understand and eliminate behavior problems and learn to control anger, reduce
impulsive actions, and recognize the consequences of their behavior. Little information is
available currently at the state level that describes or defines these alternatives to suspension
programs or the success they have had in reducing student dropout rates, mitigating the academic
losses from suspension, or improving student behaviors.
The Florida Department of Education (DOE) has formed a Statewide Advisory Council to
coordinate activities funded through federal Title IV funds. Currently, Title IV funds have been
used to support 35 local projects to use Service Learning in suspension programs that were
funded earlier this year in amounts ranging from $10,000 to $130,000. Through Title IV funds
the Florida Department of Education has contracted with Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
(ESDI) of Tallahassee, Florida, to conduct a
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
. The study
will extend over two years through three phases, culminating in a final report that presents a
recommended continuum of outcome-based best practices for alternative suspension services and
include information on the use of service learning in these alternative programs. This report is
submitted by ESDI as the first in a series documenting the activities and outcomes of the two-
year study and encompasses activities conducted from January to July, 2004.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
is to work collaboratively with the
Florida Department of Education to document best practices in Florida and across the nation in
providing alternatives to suspension, document current practices in Florida, and create a
continuum of outcome-based best practices that can be used by school districts in Florida in
implementing appropriate and effective alternatives to suspension. Defined purposes of the
study are:
1.
?
To identify existing practices regarding alternatives to suspension currently being
used in school districts within the State of Florida.
2.
?
To identify outcome-based best practices.
3.
?
To identify essential components of outcome-based best practices.
4.
?
To develop an array of programs that can be used by districts as effective outcome-
based alternatives to suspension.
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
?
Page 3
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
The results of the study will be a comprehensive listing and description of outcome-based best
practices that Florida school districts can use to improve and enhance their suspension
alternatives.
First Year Methodology
The Department anticipates conducting the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
in three
phases. Phase I has been an examination of the existing programs in Florida to determine their
configurations and components. This phase also included a comprehensive review of the
national and state literature to document outcome-based best practices. The result has been this
report that provides a description of Florida’s alternative programs to suspension, a written
review of the literature on alternatives to suspension, a catalog that is a representative sample of
existing programs in Florida that are alternatives to expulsion and suspension, and a description
of the MIS database elements that can used to track program components and/or outcomes.
Phase II of the study will be an application of the results learned from the literature review and
program documentation from Phase I to all Florida alternative programs to determine the
programs that display the features of outcome-based best practices. Phase III will be a
comprehensive report on the most promising outcome-based programs in Florida and nationally,
and a continuum of best practices that Florida school districts can implement.
The four major research methods for Phase I were:
1.
?
Telephone Interviews with Program Directors in Local School Districts
2.
?
Site Visits to Six Selected Projects
3.
?
Literature Review of National Research on Alternatives to Out-Of-School
Suspension Programs
4.
?
Analysis of MIS Database Elements
1.
?
Telephone Interviews with Program Directors in Local School Districts
ESDI consultants worked collaboratively with the project managers for the study and the Title IV
Statewide Coordinating Council to generate a set of structured-response data collection
instruments for the interviews. ESDI staff contacted district staff in all 67 school districts to
arrange a telephone interview or multiple interviews as needed. Key elements to be investigated
through the interviews included:
1.
?
Entrance/exit criteria
2.
?
Target behaviors (academic and behavioral)
3.
?
Outcome data and tracking/follow-up issues
4.
?
Program elements/components (including parent involvement and community
service/service-learning features)
5.
?
Duration of treatment or intervention
6.
?
Staff qualifications
7.
?
Level of funding
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
?
Page 4
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
Each interview took approximately 30-45 minutes, and multiple staff were interviewed in some
large districts in which the responsibilities for the various programs serving as alternatives to
out-of-school suspension resided in different departments. Twenty districts did not respond to
the telephone calls. ESDI also faxed copies of the interview guide to these 20 districts, of which
17 did not respond. Overall, a total of 50 districts responded to these efforts for a response rate
of 75%. Individual profiles of these 50 districts are included in a separately bound Appendix B.
2.
?
Site Visits to Six Selected Projects
To increase the knowledge and understanding of the details of the programs districts offer as
alternatives to suspension, ESDI conducted site visits to six local school districts. At each
district, the key district stakeholders for program alternatives to suspension were interviewed,
and ESDI consultants visited two of the programs at their school sites. At the schools, ESDI
consultants toured the facility and interviewed the principal and the director(s) of the program.
As needed and appropriate, consultants also conducted a focus group interview of up to three
selected staff members to gather more detailed information about the nuances of the alternative
programs.
The six districts were selected using a purposeful selection design sampling by district size and
geographic region that ensured representation of large, medium, and small districts in the north,
central, and south regions of the state. In addition, as the telephone interviews identified sites
with promising practices, these sites were incorporated into the purposeful selection of the
districts. Final selection included three large, two medium and one small district, as displayed in
Table 1. Four of the six selected districts (marked with an asterisk) also had been funded
through Title IV for service learning projects.
Table 1
Selection of Districts for Site Visits
Size Large
Medium
Small
North
Leon*
Central Pinellas
Orange*
Sarasota*
South Broward*
Okeechobee
* District received funding through Title IV for service learning projects
ESDI generated an interview protocol for the site visits. The interview protocol mirrored the
telephone interview guide and also contained open-ended questions to encourage elaboration by
the participants.
3.
?
Literature Review of National Research on Alternatives to Out-Of-School Suspension
Programs
ESDI conducted a comprehensive review of the state and national literature related to programs
providing alternatives to suspension and expulsion. The primary resource was the ERIC system
that was searched with key words related to suspension program alternatives. The result was an
annotated bibliography of relevant references published within the last ten years that is included
in Appendix A of this report.
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
?
Page 5
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
4.
Analysis of MIS Database Elements
Finally, ESDI consultants worked with the Department to identify existing data elements already
collected from districts through the annual DOE MIS data collection that could be used to track
program components and/or outcomes for alternatives to suspension. Examples anticipated were
FCAT achievement scores, promotion/retention in grade, and graduation rates. Results from this
analysis are incorporated into this report.
ESDI also generated a database from the completed district interviews using Excel, and analyzed
the data using SPSS. All structured response items were coded, and responses to open-ended
questions were word-processed. The result of this activity was a database by district and program
type that is available to the Department and contains consistent data collection elements for each
program reviewed including these elements:
1.
?
Entrance/exit criteria
2.
?
Target behaviors (academic and behavioral)
3.
?
Outcome data and tracking/follow-up issues
4.
?
Program elements/components (including parent involvement and community
service/service-learning features)
5.
?
Duration of treatment or intervention
6.
?
Staff qualifications
7.
?
Level of funding
This file has been submitted to the Department for future research efforts.
Report Organization
This report is organized into six major sections as follows:
♦
Introduction
?
♦
Purpose of the Study
?
♦
First Year Methodology
?
♦
Initial Study Findings
?
♦
Issues
?
♦
Recommendations for Continuation Activities
?
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
?
Page 6
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
The Initial Study Findings section of this report is further divided into three subsections that
display results within these areas:
♦
Literature Review Results
?
♦
Analysis of Florida Programs
?
♦
MIS Data Elements
?
Detailed descriptions of the alternatives to out-of-school suspension programs operated in
Florida school districts are presented by district in a separately bound Appendix. Note that the
most accurate information about these programs probably resides at the school or program level.
Data Limitations
The data contained in this report represents preliminary results of an exploratory research effort.
Telephone interview results from 50 of the 67 Florida public school districts represents 75% of
the districts serving students in Florida. Most of the non-responding districts were small districts
serving fewer than 15,000 students and tend to offer fewer services to students as alternatives to
out-of-school suspension. Findings were supplemented and expanded through site visits to
selected districts that allowed more time to explore the multiple factors impacting on decisions
and services for students in danger of being suspended from schools. These results will be
refined and updated in the research effort conducted in 2004-05.
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
Page 7
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
Initial Study Findings
Literature Review Results
The first phase of the literature search was conducted using the ERIC database. Search terms
included “alternatives to suspension,” “alternatives to expulsion,” and “Title IV.” This literature
search yielded eight articles from the past ten years related to alternatives to out-of-school
suspension programs. The second phase of the literature search was conducted using the online
search engine google.com. The search terms used were identical to those in the ERIC search.
The online search resulted in a list of seven websites relevant to this study. The complete list of
references and citations are presented in the Appendix.
Although the programs discussed varied greatly, there were several common themes. Adult
mentoring and parental involvement were repeatedly identified as effective components of a
disciplinary program. One program in Arizona provided a sequence of classes that were
attended by both students and their parents. Community volunteers with different areas of
expertise were in charge of leading the classes. Two-hour sessions were scheduled weekly and
were designed to cover topics such as law education and juvenile justice, impulse control and
anger management, study skills and time management, and substance abuse. This was deemed a
highly effective component of a program designed to decrease violence in public schools.
A continuum of alternative placements is recommended by some of the authors. These continua
typically include a progression from in-school crisis centers to in-school suspension to longer-
term alternative settings, often located off-campus or in a separate facility serving students from
across multiple schools in the district. These programs, along with most of the others identified
in the literature review, highlighted a few key components that are thought to be highly effective.
The importance of conflict resolution, social skills, and anger management training was stressed,
as was the need for character and ethics training. The need for a controlled and disciplined
environment supervised by a knowledgeable, trained staff was emphasized. Community service
and job training were discussed in some articles. Smaller schools, or schools within schools,
were also mentioned briefly.
Peer involvement was identified as another potentially effective component of disciplinary
programs. Student leadership and peer mediation were discussed, as were teen court programs.
Of particular concern to some of the authors was the fact that minority and special education
students were disproportionately affected by suspension policies. New discipline requirements
under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) were also a common topic in these
articles.
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
Page 8
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
Although the articles reviewed identified several components of disciplinary programs that have
the potential to be highly effective, no thorough outcome evaluations were evident from the
literature. The field is still lacking a detailed review of the effectiveness of the various program
components.
Analysis of Florida Programs
The analyses of Florida’s programs serving as alternatives to out-of-school suspension were
organized into eleven major areas:
1.
District Policies and Coordination
2.
Prevention Programs
3.
In-School Suspension Programs
4.
Before/After School Programs
5.
Saturday School Programs
6.
Alternative Schools/Off-Site Locations
7.
Community-Based Programs
8.
Use of Program Components
9.
Staffing for Programs
10. Program Evaluation
11. Funding and Fund Sources
Data charts and graphs are presented for each area with supporting narrative explanations.
1.
District Policies and Coordination
Florida’s public school system is composed of the Florida Department of Education and 67
school districts with service areas that are isometric with county borders, plus several districts
composed of separate individual university schools. In the fall of 2003, the number of schools in
a district ranged from only two in Glades County to over 350 in Miami-Dade Public Schools,
serving a range from 1,012 to 371,691 students. Table 2 presents the in-school and out-of-school
suspension rates for the 67 school districts by level of school. Table 3 presents similar discipline
data for students with disabilities. With such tremendous variation, the influence of district
policies and coordination on the types and effectiveness of alternatives to out-of-school
suspension (OSS) programs was a critical component to consider.
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
Page 9
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
Table 2
In-School and Out-of-School Suspension Rates – By District
District
District
Size
District
Population
ISS-
Elem
OSS-
Elem
ISS-
Middle
OSS-
Middle
ISS-
High
OSS-
High
Alachua 2 29,422
1.4%
3.1%
9.4%
20.1%
3.8%
14.6%
Baker 1
4,606
2.6%
0.5%
1.3%
35.3%
0.1%
26.7%
Bay 2
26,687
0.6%
2.5%
15.2%
11%
12.8%
12%
Bradford 1 3,897
7.2%
4.6%
38.9%
22.1%
32.9%
13.2%
Brevard 3 73,849
0.5%
1.9%
10.3%
18.6%
7.3%
17.2%
Broward 3 272,782
0.3%
0.9%
8.8%
7.9%
7.2%
7.2%
Calhoun 1 2,223
0%
2%
0%
21.3%
0%
18.6%
Charlotte 2 18,263
0.4%
1%
10.2%
7.3%
9.9%
12.5%
Citrus 2
15,509
1.7%
1.9%
27%
15%
19.5%
16.1%
Clay 2
31,368
7.1%
2%
29.2%
10.6%
25.4%
9.8%
Collier 2
40,145
3.6%
0.3%
30.9%
0.9%
26.1%
0.1%
Columbia 1
9,780
2.4%
2.4%
32.9%
17.3%
34.6%
13.4%
Dade 3
371,691
0.6%
2.4%
16.4%
14%
17.6%
10.4%
Desoto
1
4,966
7.7% 2.2% 0.5%
6% 0.2%
8.5%
Dixie 1
2,169
0%
2.8%
0%
14.1%
0%
17.6%
Duval 3
129,553
1.8%
3.7%
24.2%
27.5%
23.9%
26.8%
Escambia 2 43,984
2.4%
3.1%
8%
23.9%
7.4%
18.5%
Flagler 1 8,562
11.2%
3.6%
30.6%
14.8%
34.9%
11.3%
Franklin 1 1,347
6.3%
4.2%
31.8%
23.4%
20.5%
16.4%
Gadsden 1 6,946
4.1%
8.6%
25.7%
36.3%
30.6%
27%
Gilchrist 1 2,832
4.2%
1.8%
28.1%
19.2%
21.4%
13.5%
Glades 1 1,012
5.4%
4.4%
41.5%
12%
45.4%
8.4%
Gulf 1
2,150
6%
4.2%
47.9%
19.5%
31.4%
14.6%
Hamilton 1
2,057
9.1%
10%
38%
36.1%
30.1%
29.1%
Hardee 1 4,970
0%
0.8%
0%
17%
5.9%
6.7%
Hendry 1 7,658
4.2%
3.9%
4%
24.4%
15%
21.8%
Hernando 2 19,587
4.2%
1.5%
17.4%
10.7%
29%
12%
Highlands 1 11,649
5.2%
3%
34.8%
12.4%
38.7%
13.5%
Hillsborough 3
181,755
2.1%
3.4%
24.8%
12.7%
23.4%
9.1%
Holmes
1
3,383
0.1%
0.3%
8.4%
3.7% 11.1% 10%
Indian River
2
16,619
0.3%
2.5%
22.7%
12.7%
19.8%
14%
Jackson 1 7,182
1.9%
3.1%
4.9%
18%
8.5%
11.2%
Jefferson 1 1,485
19.4%
15.5%
0%
41.5%
0%
34.1%
Lafayette 1
1,035
10.7%
1.6%
27.2%
7.5%
13.2%
7.4%
Lake 2
33,988
1.2%
4.8%
11.8%
18.4%
0.4%
16%
Lee 3
66,428
0.7%
1.6%
17.9%
10.4%
20.1%
14.7%
Leon 2
32,194
0.8%
2.4%
12.6%
13.4%
5.4%
7.9%
Levy 1
6,191
12.6%
3.2%
38.4%
17.8%
29.7%
12.9%
Liberty 1 1,404
1.3%
2.4%
5.6%
7.7%
7.7%
1.9%
Madison 1 3,245
11.5%
3%
38%
21.3%
27.9%
17.8%
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
Page 10
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
Table 2 (Continued)
In-School and Out-of-School Suspension Rates – By District
District
District
Size
District
Population
ISS-
Elem
OSS-
Elem
ISS-
Middle
OSS-
Middle
ISS-
High
OSS-
High
Manatee 2 40,254
0.2%
4%
20.4%
19.9%
14.9%
16.9%
Marion 2
40,322
4.3%
4.3%
16.1%
19.9%
23.7%
17.7%
Martin
2
17,771
0.5% 1.8% 23.6% 9.9% 0%
11.3%
Monroe 1 9,123
1.3%
2.2%
20.2%
12.4%
19.7%
11.5%
Nassau 1
10,544
0.3%
1.7%
24.8%
15.2%
23.1%
17.2%
Okaloosa 2 31,017
0.8%
1.8%
9.1%
10.6%
7.2%
10.3%
Okeechobee 1
7,275 1.9%
3.2%
5.5%
20.4%
21.2%
21.2%
Orange 3
165,881
1%
3.2%
12.8%
13.9%
10.4%
11.9%
Osceola 2 43,907
3.4%
3.7%
9.8%
22%
4.4%
20.7%
Palm Beach
3
170,214 1.6% 3.6% 8.7% 14.8%
11.7%
13.1%
Pasco 2
57,498
1%
1.7%
23.9%
11.8%
27.7%
12.1%
Pinellas 2
114,466
1%
1.9%
24.4%
13.3%
25%
15.6%
Polk 2
84,066
4.6%
4.1%
22.1%
20.5%
8.5%
17.5%
Putnam 1 12,237
0.2%
6.6%
31.9%
13.1%
28.7%
8.8%
Santa Rosa
2
23,150
0.3% 0.7% 16.9% 6.9% 8% 7.3%
Sarasota 2 32,782
0.1%
1.5% 0.7% 9.7%
2.7%
5.5%
Seminole 2 24,421
1.8%
1.3%
14.2%
8.7%
16.5%
9%
St. Johns
2
39,519
0%
1.5%
12.8%
11.3%
7.5%
13.6%
St. Lucie
3
64,853
0.6%
4.1%
26.9%
22%
30%
24.2%
Sumter 1 6,857
7.7%
3.6%
26%
17.1%
33.7%
17.1%
Suwannee 1
5,851
1.3%
3.9%
27.1%
19.3%
28.7%
16.9%
Taylor 1 3,560
19.4%
11.6%
34.6%
25%
33.9%
17.4%
Union 1 2,171
0%
4.3%
35.2%
21.2%
26.3%
11.7%
Volusia 3 64,046
2.7%
4.2%
28%
15.3%
25.5%
12.8%
Wakulla 1 4,728
0%
0.1%
34.4%
12%
36.6%
6.5%
Walton 1 6,522
1.7%
1.1%
11.7%
7.6%
17.7%
12.5%
Washington 1
3,425 2.1%
2.9%
16.2%
10.1%
8.8%
4.8%
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
Page 11
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
Table 3
Discipline Rates by District for Students with Disabilities
2003-04
District
In-School
Suspensions
Out-of-School
Suspensions
Expulsions
Alternative
Placement
Member
-ship
# % # % # % #
%
Alachua 528
8%
1,341
21%
0
0%
0
0%
6,534
Baker 12
2%
94
13%
1
<1%
31
4%
731
Bay 632
11%
727
12%
12
<1%
17
<1%
5,852
Bradford 331
29%
220
19%
0
0%
2
<1%
1,148
Brevard 877
6%
2,028
14%
6
<1%
68
<1%
14,968
Broward 2,629
7%
2,603
7%
3
<1%
6
<1%
36,767
Calhoun 0
0%
82
15%
0
0%
0
0%
539
Charlotte
110 5%
145 6%
0 0%
0
0%
2,365
Citrus 623
18%
514
15%
5
<1%
0
0%
3,504
Clay
1,365
20%
636 9%
0 0%
0
0%
6,856
Collier 1,638
22%
73
<1%
0
0%
4
<1%
7,334
Columbia 401
21%
294
15%
0
0%
0
0%
1,932
Dade 7,507
15%
7,796
16%
0
0%
218
<1%
49,149
DeSoto
56 4% 83 6%
0 0%
4
<1%
1,348
Dixie 0
0%
99
15%
0
0%
5
<1%
639
Duval
417 2%
604 2%
0 0%
2
<1%
24,260
Escambia 583
6%
1,563
17%
0
0%
5
<1%
9,249
Flagler 480
28%
248
15%
0
0%
0
0%
1,692
Franklin 57
20%
59
20%
1
<1%
2
<1%
289
Gadsden 332
22%
435
29%
13
<1%
0
0%
1,513
Gilchrist 160
19%
120
14%
0
0%
0
0%
841
Glades 62
23%
28
10%
0
0%
0
0%
268
Gulf 134
29%
88
19%
1
<1%
0
0%
462
Hamilton 91
19%
92
19%
0
0%
0
0%
482
Hardee 37
3%
146
11%
1
<1%
0
0%
1,301
Hendry 176
10%
405
24%
0
0%
36
2%
1,682
Hernando 687
18%
432
11%
0
0%
0
0%
3,787
Highlands 811
32%
425
17%
1
<1%
7
<1%
2,538
Hillsborough 5,192 16%
4,631 14%
7 <1%
10
<1%
33,407
Holmes
44 7% 47 7%
0 0%
2
<1% 676
Indian River
426
15%
410
15%
1
<1%
2
<1%
2,819
Jackson 112
7%
219
13%
3
<1%
0
0%
1,683
Jefferson 56
11%
182
34%
2
<1%
14
3%
533
Lafayette
33
21% 13 8%
0 0%
1
<1% 158
Lake 323
5%
1,082
17%
1
<1%
10
<1%
6,532
Lee 1,811
15%
1,665
14%
1
<1%
463
4%
11,766
Leon 348
5%
635
9%
31
<1%
0
0%
7,153
Levy 526
29%
272
15%
0
0%
2
<1%
1,830
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
Page 12
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
Table 3 (Continued)
Discipline Rates by District for Students with Disabilities
2003-04
District
In-School
Suspensions
Out-of-School
Suspensions
Expulsions
Alternative
Placement
Member
-ship
# % # % # % #
%
Liberty
13 2% 17 3%
0 0%
1
<1% 556
Madison 236
22%
143
13%
0
0%
8
<1%
1,085
Manatee 953
10%
1,644
17%
0
0%
9
<1%
9,643
Marion 1,423
16%
1,556
17%
1
<1%
3
<1%
8,919
Martin 283
8%
400
12%
0
0%
1
<1%
3,397
Monroe 341
17%
247
12%
0
0%
4
<1%
1,978
Nassau 281
18%
216
14%
0
0%
1
<1%
1,594
Okaloosa 399
6%
680
10%
0
0%
5
<1%
6,487
Okeechobee 131
6%
304
15% 0
0% 0
0%
2,065
Orange 2,977
9%
4,483
14%
1
<1%
1
<1%
32,589
Osceola 748
10%
1,463
19%
0
0%
9
<1%
7,675
Palm Beach
2,549
9% 4,119
15%
2
<1%
9 <1% 27,945
Pasco 2,434
19%
1,660
13%
1
<1%
1
<1%
12,824
Pinellas 4,696
20%
3,838
16%
10
<1%
223
<1%
23,928
Polk 1,125
18%
1,460
23%
0
0%
0
0%
6,331
Putnam 548
20%
495
18%
0
0%
8
<1%
2,744
St. Johns
317
8%
457
11%
0
0%
1
<1%
4,095
St. Lucie
1,056
18%
1,248
21%
4
<1%
0
0%
6,006
Santa Rosa
433 9%
317 7%
0 0% 15
<1%
4,798
Sarasota 141
2%
714
9%
3
<1%
0
0%
7,633
Seminole 1,363
12%
1,005
9%
1
<1%
14
<1%
11,073
Sumter 381
26%
233
16%
0
0%
7
<1%
1,448
Suwannee 179
17%
188
17%
0
0%
2
<1%
1,079
Taylor 257
31%
214
26%
1
<1%
0
0%
826
Union 117
24%
88
18%
0
0%
3
<1%
484
Volusia 2,978
21%
2,248
16%
0
0%
0
0%
13,969
Wakulla 216
20%
84
8%
2
<1%
2
<1%
1,077
Walton 120
10%
128
10%
1
<1%
10
<1%
1,230
Washington
71
10% 65 9%
0 0%
8
1% 732
FSDB 5
<1%
4
<1%
0
0%
0
0%
760
Dozier/Okee-
chobee
37 8%
0 0%
0 0% 12
3% 451
FAU Lab
School
5
33%
0 0%
0 0%
0
0%
15
FSU Lab
School 0
0%
23
14%
0
0%
0
0%
170
FAMU Lab
School
0 0%
0 0%
0 0%
0
0%
6
UF Lab
School 32
19%
18
11%
0
0%
0
0%
171
56,171
13%
59,898
14%
117
<1%
1,268
<1%
439,737
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
Page 13
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
The district interviews first examined the extent to which the operating definitions employed by
the study matched the definitions used by the school districts. The project’s operating definitions
used to define the program delivery models that were known to be in use as alternatives to OSS
were:
♦
?
In school.
Students attend school within structured programs such as an alternative
classroom often with academic instruction; students are assigned to work detail under
the supervision of an adult; or students are assigned to a special class designed for
suspended students.
♦
Before/After School.
Students can make up academic work under supervision at the
school site before and/or after regular school hours.
♦
Saturday School.
Students make up academic work in classes with adult supervision
held on Saturdays.
♦
Special Program/Setting.
Students are re-assigned to alternative school placements
within the district.
♦
Community-Based.
Students attend a program operated by a community-based
agency such as YMCA.
The initial question in the district interviews asked the respondents to review these definitions,
with 96% of the participants responding that the definitions provided by the study matched the
definitions used in the district for the alternatives to OSS programs (Table 4).
Table 4
District Definitions and Policies
Question Percent
Yes
Definitions match the terms your district uses for alternatives to
96%
out-of-school suspension programs
District’s Code of Student conduct is guide that defines or sets
71%
parameters for operation
For most districts (71%) the district’s Codes of Student Conduct define the offense levels and set
parameters of consequences for behaviors. They also may specify the operational parameters for
alternative programs used in lieu of OSS. Some districts may have additional operational guides,
program descriptions with specific criteria for entry and exit, or other documents that provide
additional guidance to district and school staff.
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
?
Page 14
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
As displayed in Figure 1, generally, decisions about which program delivery model or models
operate at a particular school or site are made at the building level by site principals and/or
assistant principals (APs), school staff, and School Advisory Councils (SACs). District staff,
superintendents, and school boards tend to be less involved in these decisions, although they set
the overall parameters for operations through approval of the district’s Code of Student Conduct
and fiscal approval of various program delivery models. For example, a district may approve the
implementation of dropout prevention programs in schools, but individual schools decide what
type of program to conduct, choosing among such alternatives as an afterschool program or a
pull-out counseling program.
Principals or assistant principals, school staff, and the SACs usually make decisions concerning
the operations of programs serving as alternatives to OSS (Figure 2). In most schools the
principals and APs have the final say in how and what consequences are used at a school site,
with APs for discipline making these decisions in larger middle and high schools. The
application of consequences that determine entry into alternative programs are most often a
function of the severity and frequency of the offense.
8%
21%
21%
35%
44%
87%
0%
40%
80%
Figure 1
Decision-Makers for Selection of Delivery Models at Sites
17%
20%
60%
100%
Program Specialist
School Board
District Director
Superintendent
SAC
School Staff
Principal
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
Page 15
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
0%
6%
21%
25%
33%
75%
0%
40%
80%
Figure 2
Decision-Makers for Operation of Delivery Models at Sites
12%
20%
60%
100%
Program Specialist
School Board
Superintendent
District Director
SAC
School Staff
Principal
As displayed in Figure 3, the factors that were most frequently considered in deciding which
program delivery models and program components will be used as alternatives to OSS are
available funds (75%) and staffing resources (69%). Although 40% of the responding districts
indicated that the effectiveness of prior interventions with individual or groups of students was a
factor in deciding what delivery models to use. Site visits documented very little data collection
or systematic review of the effectiveness of prior interventions that might be used to inform
future decisions concerning selections among possible delivery models.
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
Page 16
40%
69%
75%
40%
80%
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
Figure 3
Factors Considered in Selecting Delivery Models
0% 20%
60%
100%
Effectiveness of
Prior Interventions
Staffing Resources
Available Funds
Overall, these district factors varied with the size of the district. Larger districts had more
detailed policies in place at the district level that set parameters for the operation of various
school-based programs. For example, Orange County has developed a detailed program manual
for use in the school-based programs, and Pinellas County has compiled an extensive set of
descriptions of programs in operation in the district. In small districts, most of the decisions
about the operations of programs and consequences are made at the school level by a
combination of the principal, AP, and selected staff with overall approval by the SACs.
Figure 4 presents the percent of responding districts that indicated they were using various
common delivery models. Almost all districts (96%) are implementing some form of in-school
suspension programs. Most districts were also using special programs or special schools (68%),
prevention programs (65%), programs operating before or after school (63%), and Saturday
school programs (55%). Only 33% of the districts indicated that they used community-based
programs, and 12% identified a range of other program models that were in place in the district,
often as a result of strong support from specific interest groups or decision-makers.
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
Page 17
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
12%
55%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
/
Figure 4
District Implementation of Common Delivery Models
33%
63%
65%
68%
96%
100%
Other models
Community-Based
Saturday School
Before After School
Prevention
Special Programs
Inschool
An analysis was also conducted to examine the relationship between ISS and OSS rates in
Florida’s school districts as well as the correlation of these rates with the size of the districts as
represented by student population. As displayed in Table 5, there was a strong positive
correlation at the elementary level between the percent of students placed in ISS programs and
the percent placed in OSS programs. This relationship, however, was not reflected at the middle
and high school levels. Possible explanations may be that elementary schools with more difficult
populations use both ISS and OSS as methods for disciplining students, while middle and high
schools may use more of one method than another. At the elementary level, there was a weak
but significant relationship between the percent of students placed in ISS and the size of the
district in student population. As the size of the district increases, the use of ISS decreases at the
elementary level. Similar weak, negative correlations were noted for middle and high schools,
and for all three levels with OSS, although none of the correlations were statistically significant.
One conclusion may be that larger districts tend to place fewer students (proportionately) in ISS
at the elementary school level.
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
Page 18
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
Table 5
Correlations among Out-Of-School, In-School Suspension Rates, and District Student
Populations in Florida
School Level
Correlation of OSS
with ISS
Correlation of OSS
with District
Population
Correlation of ISS with
District Population
Elementary .647** -.118
-.248*
Middle .057
-.127 -.123
High .016
-.093
-.100
* Correlation is significant at the p<.05 level
**Correlation is significant at the p<.01 level
Table 6 presents the ten districts with the lowest and highest ISS and OSS rates by school level.
Eleven of the districts were consistently low or high for all three levels of schools, although
overall there was little consistency across school level in the districts identified as high or low.
Three districts had consistently low ISS rates: Calhoun, Dixie, and Sarasota. Two districts had
consistently high ISS rates: Bradford and Taylor. Three districts had consistently low OSS
rates: Broward, Collier, and Santa Rosa. Three districts had consistently high OSS rates:
Gadsden, Hamilton, and Jefferson. It was noted that only three large districts had ISS or OSS
rates at the extremes (either very low or very high) for any levels: Broward, Duval, and
Seminole. Most large district rates were in the middles of the distributions.
The specific types of alternative programs to OSS are described in the following sections.
Prevention programs analyzed in the next section generally are targeted towards groups of
students that schools anticipate may have future problems leading to out-of-school suspension.
The remainder of the program models reviewed usually target students who have already
committed offenses for which out-of-school suspension may be applied as a consequence and are
considered diversion programs.
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
Page 19
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
Table 6
Districts with the Lowest and Highest ISS and OSS rates by School Level
Lowest
ISS
Highest
ISS
Lowest OSS
Highest OSS
Elementary
Calhoun
Dixie
Hardee
St. Johns
Union
Wakulla
Holmes
Sarasota
Manatee
Putnam
Bradford
Desoto
Sumter
Hamilton
Lafayette
Flagler
Madison
Levy
Jefferson
Taylor
Wakulla
Holmes
Collier
Baker
Santa Rosa
Hardee
Broward
Charlotte
Walton
Seminole
Union
Marion
Glades
Bradford
Lake
Putnam
Gadsden
Hamilton
Taylor
Jefferson
Middle
Hardee
Calhoun
Dixie
Jefferson
Desoto
Sarasota
Baker
Hendry
Jackson
Okeechobee
Wakulla
Taylor
Highlands
Union
Madison
Hamilton
Levy
Bradford
Glades
Gulf
Collier
Holmes
Desoto
Santa Rosa
Charlotte
Lafayette
Walton
Liberty
Broward
Seminole
Bradford
Franklin
Escambia
Hendry
Taylor
Duval
Baker
Hamilton
Gadsden
Jefferson
High
Martin
Dixie
Calhoun
Jefferson
Baker
Desoto
Lake
Sarasota
Alachua
Osceola
Gadsden
Gulf
Bradford
Sumter
Taylor
Columbia
Flagler
Wakulla
Highlands
Glades
Collier
Liberty
Washington
Sarasota
Wakulla
Hardee
Broward
Santa Rosa
Lafayette
Leon
Calhoun
Osceola
Okeechobee
Hendry
St. Lucie
Baker
Duval
Gadsden
Hamilton
Jefferson
Note: districts marked in bold appeared on the list for all three levels of schools.
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
Page 20
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
2.
Prevention Programs
All school districts operate a variety of programs designed to reduce academic failures that may
also prevent students from dropping out of school. These programs are funded and regulated
through state and federally funded Academic Improvement programs in which students receive
individual Academic Improvement Plans and other academic interventions, and a large variety of
other district or school-based interventions designed to increase academic achievement for the
lowest performing students. The No Child Left Behind Act has specific requirements related to
academic remediation for students not meeting reading standards. Additionally, federally
subsidized Dropout Prevention programs may target all students in a school for a variety of
programs that may generally lead to preventing disruptive behaviors, such as the Just Say No to
Drugs program, anti-bullying, and character education programs. Through this study, districts
were queried about specific programs designed to keep students from engaging in behavior that
would result in disciplinary action such as ISS or OSS. Note that most of these programs
operated not as a consequence of an immediate infraction that would cause the school to suspend
a student, but rather as ways to keep students channeled into appropriate activities that would
prevent future incidents warranting suspension.
As previously displayed in Figure 4, 65% of the districts interviewed reported using prevention
programs in their districts as a direct method for reducing out-of-school suspensions and keeping
students productively involved in their educational programs. Over half of the districts indicated
that all schools in the district are implementing prevention programs, most commonly dropout
prevention programs and drug addiction prevention programs such as the DARE program. The
total number of students participating ranged from a single class to the entire student population
of the district. Interviews with district staff and site visits to schools documented a variety of
programs in use that are specifically targeted toward preventing disciplinary actions. Elementary
and middle schools tended to use prevention programs with a specific academic curriculum such
as computer-based systems that provide skill remediation. Students who are scoring at Levels 1
and/or 2 on FCAT may be scheduled into these programs that may also be used in combination
with other components such as tutoring, mentoring, and counseling. In some schools, students
are placed for the whole day in a separate “dropout prevention class” that may be given other,
more positive names such as “Super Stars.” Other schools may assign students with potential
problems to specific teachers as an inhouse “buddy” mentoring system.
Peer mediation programs such as the Teen Court program were identified as effective prevention
programs, especially at the high school level, in which possible at-risk students are identified to
participate in judging the infractions of other students. A range of conflict resolution programs
may also be used at all three levels, including training students on ways in which to solve
differences short of violence such as the Peace Builders program.
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
Page 21
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
Another program that was widely used was the Developmental Guidance curriculum, and in
some districts concerted efforts are made to train teachers in classroom management strategies
when high rates of discipline referrals are noted in a particular class or school. Other prevention
efforts include Student Intervention Support Teams and consistent training for and
implementation of parent conferences. Statewide, character education programs such as
Character Counts and Peace Builders are being used widely as well as consistent behavior and
classroom management programs. DARE programs to reduce drug involvement of students are
also frequently implemented district-wide. Some of these programs are implemented for entire
districts through initiatives from superintendents or district staff, while others are initiated by
principals or staff within individual schools without district-wide coordination or support. Some
districts such as Palm Beach, have selected schools that have high proportions of at-risk students
or fit a demographic profile that predicts lower student achievement and concentrate prevention
programs in this subset of schools. More commonly, there appears to be little coordination in
districts on what kinds of prevention programs schools should implement.
Entry/Exit Criteria.
Thirteen of the districts reported that there were entry criteria for
the prevention programs, and four reported no entry criteria. Most of the entry criteria were
informal and school based. Example descriptions of the entry criteria and process were:
♦
Entry criteria based on academics, failed courses, behind in credits, and/or students
performing at levels 1 & 2 on the FCAT.
♦
At the elementary schools, students are assigned in lieu of suspension, as determined by
the AP.
♦
If the student is disruptive, he or she is referred to the school-based intervention team and
then on to the particular programs operating within the schools.
♦
Entry is based on referrals from law enforcement, parents, and DJJ in addition to teacher
referrals.
♦
?
The Child Study Team meets and looks at the student’s academic and behavior record.
Entry into the prevention program is determined at the meeting. They develop a plan to
work with the child.
♦
?
The Guidance Counselor determines entry into the program, based on a referral by
teachers or other staff. For ESE students, entry is based on behavior referrals to
administration and review of teachers’ anecdotal notes.
Exit criteria were even less explicit. Most districts did not know if there were exit criteria.
When they existed, the exit criteria were almost always based on time: the number of days
“served” or the specified length of the program (semester or year). Three examples were noted
of other exit processes:
♦
Exit from the program is when the case is closed by the Child Study Team.
?
♦
Exit is based on a functional behavioral assessment.
?
♦
Students exit when they meet their academic, behavioral, and attendance goals.
?
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
?
Page 22
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
Program Intensity/Duration
. The intensity and duration of the prevention programs varied
extensively. Several districts cited programs in which the time is very limited such as “2 hours
per incident” or “30 minute conference one time in which the student is sent to the school
counselor or School Resource Officer (SRO) or staff.” Other programs are designed as separate
classes lasting a 9-week term on a “wheel” or a whole semester. These programs may be once a
week or everyday, depending on the school structure. Some programs last all year long as a
targeted counseling or peer mentoring program for a targeted set of students.
District staff found it difficult to estimate the number of students participating in prevention
programs that were targeted toward reducing the number of students placed in out-of-school
suspension programs. Responses ranged from about 100 to 178,800 with several districts
indicating that all students participate to some degree in such programs as character education or
DARE. Others indicated that all elementary schools participated, or that only targeted sets of
students were involved in the prevention programs.
3.
In-school Suspension Programs
The most commonly used alternative to OSS was inschool suspension programs, with virtually
all of the responding districts (96%) reporting the use of this model in some schools. Note that
the Department of Education provides funds for dropout prevention services that are used to
support the inschool suspension programs and therefore are widely recognized throughout school
districts. For clarification, three types of ISS programs were cited in the definitions provided to
school districts during the interviews with district staff:
-
In School Suspension –
alternative classroom or supervision, often including
academic instruction
-
Work Detail –
students work under the supervision of a counselor or assigned
teacher/paraprofessional [during the school day]
-
Special Class –
students attend a separate class designed for students who were or
would have been suspended
Typically, students who have committed infractions for which out-of-school suspension can be
the consequence are given an option of participating in an inschool program. Inschool
suspension programs vary extensively but have the common factor of providing services to the
student during the school day within the school building. Examples of frequently used
arrangements for ISS are:
♦
A separate classroom to which students are assigned for the whole day in which students
complete classroom assignments for credit.
♦
Assignment to a different teacher within the same “pod” or grade level.
♦
A short-term, one-hour assignment during a “specials’ time period such as physical
education to an ISS class with a guidance counselor, AP, or other assigned staff providing
supervision and sometimes informal counseling.
♦
A 9-week or semester assignment to an ISS class one hour a day.
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
Page 23
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
The most commonly described model for an ISS program was operation as a time out/study hall
setting in which students are placed in a separate classroom, given their regular classroom work
by the classroom teacher, and told to sit quietly and complete their seat work. These ISS
programs usually are proctored by a paraprofessional who maintains discipline but does not
assist students in completing their academic assignments. In some settings, paraprofessionals are
prohibited by the bargaining unit’s contract from providing any academic assistance.
Staffing for ISS programs vary greatly, ranging from a teacher unit assigned full time to the
program to staffing by a part-time paraprofessional. Infrequently, districts responded that a
guidance counselor is available for the ISS program to intervene with particularly troublesome
students.
Very few districts provided any behavioral curriculum within ISS through which the students’
referring behaviors were addressed in any formal manner. Examples of districts that did provide
such curricula were Broward, Hillsborough, Hernando, Highlands, and Orange. Some of the
curricula were developed by a publisher and disseminated through the ISS coordinators or
instructors, and others were developed inhouse as a composite of teacher-made exercises and
activities.
Entry/Exit Criteria.
Students entering ISS programs usually are assigned a certain
number of hours or days depending upon the “crime.” The entry criteria typically used is the
Code of Student Conduct, although within a district the application of the code may be
determined at the school level and vary considerably across schools within the district. The exit
criteria typically are dependent upon serving the sentenced hours/days, complying with the
behavior requirements and other rules, and completing their assigned academic work. Examples
of responses to queries on entry/exit criteria for ISS included:
♦
The Code of Conduct outlines what is in school versus out of school.
?
♦
In the Code of Conduct it is a Level 1 or higher. The exit criterion is to serve the amount
?
of time assigned.
♦
Level 1 & 2 offense.
♦
We use a behavior model based on number of referrals that is determined by the school.
♦
Entry: administrator or teacher referrals, based on discipline, type of offense, uses
CERCES classification. Exit: time served, skill acquisition.
♦
Have a discipline grid that states infractions. Have a protocol of so many points to get
out, not just serving days.
♦
?
We look at each child case-by-case and have a range of options for kids. We use an
escalating system of consequences so there are no special entry criteria. Exit is
determined by the number of days assigned.
♦
?
Some schools have specific criteria after a certain number of referrals/warnings. In
general it is after the 5
th
referral, and students may be sent to ISS, Saturday, or
community based alternatives.
♦
Ladder - progression discipline - time assigned for exit.
?
♦
Minor offense.
?
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
?
Page 24
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
Program Intensity/Duration
. The intensity and duration of the ISS programs varies
extensively. In elementary schools, these programs almost always ranged in duration from one
hour to a couple of days, while in middle and high schools the duration typically was longer and
ranged from 5-10 days. In some schools students are sent to ISS for a specific period of the day
(during the subject/class in which the latest offense had occurred). More commonly, students are
sent for the entire day for several days running. Some rare examples were noted of ISS programs
that operate all day or everyday for an extended time period. For example, several programs are
designed to last all year long as a targeted counseling or peer mentoring program for a targeted
set of students. Other programs are designed as separate classes lasting a 9-week term on a
“wheel” or a whole semester. Students may be assigned to these programs for once a week or
everyday, depending on the school structure.
District staff found it easier to estimate the number of sites operating ISS programs and
the number of students participating in these programs that were targeted toward reducing the
number of students placed in out-of-school suspension programs. Over one-third of the districts
responded that all secondary schools operate ISS programs with six of these districts indicating
that all schools use ISS programs as an alternative to OSS. Student participation estimates
ranged from 120 students to 17,000. Some districts indicated that approximately 20% of all
students participate to some degree in ISS programs over the course of a school year. Others
could document participation in number of days served without knowing the number of different
students participating.
District staff were asked to estimate the length of assignment of students to ISS
programs. As displayed in Table 7, the minimum assignment ranged from 15 minutes to 5 days,
with 72% of the districts indicating that the minimum assignment was 1-2 days. The range on
the maximum time students spent in ISS programs was from one classroom period to 10 days,
with 59% of the responding districts estimating that the maximum assignment was 3-5 days.
Table 7
Inschool Suspension Estimated Length of Assignment
Length Partial
1–2
3-5
6+
Lowest Highest
day
days
days
days
Minimum Assignment
21% 72% 8%
15 min 5 days
(n=39)
Maximum Assignment
2% 17% 59% 22%
1
10 days
(n=41)
classroom
period
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
Page 25
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
Advantages/Disadvantages.
Primary advantages of ISS programs as alternatives to OSS are:
♦
students in some of the ISS programs continue to learn through the academic work
completed,
♦
students are counted as present in school and therefore do not automatically fail the
grading period or semester,
♦
students continue to earn credits toward promotion and graduation, and
♦
teachers are relieved of handling the discipline and behavior issues within the regular
classroom.
Disadvantages of some of the ISS programs approach include:
♦
the students’ loss of instruction on the subjects/topics taught during the time they spend
in ISS,
♦
students are stigmatized by removal from class,
♦
the lack of a certified instructor in some ISS classes decreases the academic benefits of
maintaining the students within the school structure, and
♦
the programs fail to address the underlying behavioral causes of the misbehavior
increases the likelihood that these students will act out again and repeat the process.
Another issue in operation of the ISS programs is the coordination of academic assignments
between the regular classroom teacher and the teacher or paraprofessional supervising the ISS
class. In some settings, students arrive in ISS without classroom assignments, or assignments
given by the ISS teacher may be inappropriate or duplicative of previous work the student has
completed. Little time is available for coordination, especially in large schools in which an
elementary ISS classroom may have 18 or more students, each with a different classroom
teacher, or in middle and high school classes where each student has up to seven different
classroom teachers for any given day.
4.
Before/After School Programs
Another alternative to out of school suspension is to place students into programs that operate
prior to or after school. Many schools already have before and after school programs with a
range of recreational and academic activities for students. Typically these programs also offer
breakfast in the morning and a snack in the afternoon that increase the nutrition levels of
participating students. Schools may have an associated before/after school disciplinary class or
student assignment that operates in conjunction with these other non-punitive programs or may
make such assignments independently of and in the absence of any non-punitive before/after
school program.
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
Page 26
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
Of the responding school districts on the telephone interviews, 63% identified before/after school
programs as an option being used in their schools. For schools that have existing before/after
non-punitive school programs, students who qualify for OSS may be given the option of
attending a special class within the school’s before/after school program. All schools may
require misbehaving students to come early or stay late and assign the student to a teacher to
monitor, often the teacher in whose class the student infraction occurred. This very common
model in both middle and high schools is often referred to as “detention,” and may also occur
during lunch time. Detention may also be assigned for the afternoon portion of early release
days.
Activities assigned during before/after school programs may include working silently on
classroom work or homework, or on assignments provided by the monitoring teachers who may
or may not be the teacher for the class in which the infraction(s) occurred. Assignments may
also include cleanup duties around the school. Before school and lunch time detention may
include cafeteria clean-up duties, while after school assignments more typically include cleaning
the grounds or classroom cleanup activities. Behavioral interventions are rarely incorporated
into before/after school programs, other than the punishment of staying after school to do school
work. Usually these before/after school programs are informally operated and dependent on the
supervising teacher or paraprofessional for structure. Student transportation is often a factor in
determining if detention is assigned after school. If the school does not have an after school
activities bus, the alternative usually is not used because of the responsibility of the school
district to provide transportation for the student.
Entry/Exit Criteria.
Almost all of the responding districts reported that the criteria for
entry into the before/after school programs was based on the type of infraction committed by the
students and determined through the Code of Student Conduct for the district. Usually the
criteria are applied by the principal or an administrator for discipline, and may vary considerably
across schools within a district. Exiting is almost always determined by serving a set number of
days, as in a sentence.
Program Intensity/Duration
. These programs, by definition, tend to last for 1-2 hours
at the beginning or end of the day. As displayed in Table 8, 83% of the districts reported that
before/after school programs typically lasted a minimum of one day or less with the shortest
amount of time reported as 15 minutes. Students most typically are assigned for 2-5 days as a
maximum duration for the assignment. The longest reported assignments were 10 days in
approximately 11% of the responding districts.
Table 8
Before/After School Program Estimated Length of Assignment
Length 1
day
2-5
6+
Lowest Highest
or less
days
days
Minimum 83%
17%
15
min
5
days
Maximum 17%
72%
11%
1 day
10 days
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
Page 27
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
Advantages/Disadvantages.
Primary advantages of before/after school programs as alternatives to OSS are:
♦
?
students in before/after school detention programs continue to learn by participating in
regular classwork during the school day; thus, they are counted as present in school and
therefore do not automatically fail the grading period or semester, and they continue to
earn credits toward promotion and graduation, and
♦
?
students receive extra time to work on homework assignments, resulting in a greater
opportunity to succeed academically and avoid failing grades resulting from missed
homework assignments.
Disadvantages of some of the before/after school programs approach include:
♦
?
additional staffing needs to be available after student hours to provide the supervision for the
programs,
♦
lack of transportation for students may limit the use of these programs in some schools, and
♦
the programs fail to address the underlying behavioral causes of the misbehavior increases
the likelihood that these students will act out again and repeat the process.
5.
?
Saturday School Programs
Another commonly employed alternative to OSS is the Saturday School program in which the
school provides classes on Saturday during which time students can make up their academic
work. As previously displayed in Figure 4, 55% of the responding districts reported using
Saturday School programs in at least some of their schools as a diversion from out-of-school
suspension. This program model is employed most often at the high school level. Students
typically are assigned to one or two morning sessions that last from 8:00 AM until noon.
Assignments vary considerably from silent seat work or homework to structured academic
assignments or projects generated by the instructor. Rarely, students in some schools work in a
computer laboratory on a computer-based academic skills program. Campus clean-up or other
restitution-type activities are usually part of the model. Saturday School is typically staffed by a
school administrator whose salary may be supplemented with an hourly pay rate or through an
annual supplement. Note that many schools offer an academic Saturday School that is not based
on discipline referrals but operates as additional preparation time for FCAT-tested skills. For
these schools, assigning students to be on campus for disciplinary actions does not increase the
costs or staffing for the alternative.
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
?
Page 28
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
Entry/Exit Criteria.
District staff were less clear on the entry and exit criteria for
Saturday School programs. Assignment appears to be controlled at the school level based on
minor infractions, and exit is based on serving the number of assigned days in Saturday School.
Program Intensity/Duration
. Almost all of the reported Saturday School programs had
a duration of 1-4 hours with 94% listing a minimum of a day or less and 78% with a maximum
of a day or less (Table 9). The shortest assignment was one hour and the longest reported was a
total of 10 days.
Table 9
Saturday School Program Estimated Length of Assignment
(n=18)
Length 1
day
or less
2-5
days
6+
days
Lowest Highest
Minimum
94%
6%
1 hour
6 hours
Maximum
78%
11%
11%
2 hours
10 days
Advantages/Disadvantages.
Primary advantages of Saturday School programs as
alternatives to OSS are:
♦
?
students in Saturday School detention programs continue to learn by participating in
regular classwork during the school day; thus, they are counted as present in school and
therefore do not automatically fail the grading period or semester, and they continue to
earn credits toward promotion and graduation, and
♦
?
students receive extra time to work on homework assignments during Saturday School,
resulting in a greater opportunity to succeed academically and avoid failing grades
resulting from missed homework assignments.
Disadvantages of the Saturday School programs include:
♦
?
additional staffing needs to be available on Saturday to provide the supervision for the
programs, although in some schools the administrators are already present to supervise
the academic Saturday School program,
♦
lack of transportation for students may limit the use of these programs in some schools,
and
♦
the programs fail to address the underlying behavioral causes of the misbehavior
increases the likelihood that these students will act out again and repeat the process.
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
?
Page 29
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
6.
Alternative Schools/Off-Site Locations
Another commonly employed model for keeping students in school instead of giving them OSS
is to place students in an alternative school or an “inschool” suspension that is served at a
different school location from the school in which the student is enrolled. Most districts have at
least one alternative school site, with 68% of the districts in the telephone interviews indicating
they use alternative schools or off-school locations as an optional alternative to OSS (see Figure
4, previously displayed). Districts operating alternative schools may offer these as alternative
placements for students displaying serious behavior problems or for chronic minor offenses.
Placements typically are longer than ISS or before/after school programs and tend to range from
a grading period to a semester.
The level of services provided in the alternative school programs varied considerably across
districts. In most of the programs, students earn credit for work completed while attending the
alternative school or off-school location, and academic work is usually the most emphasized
component of the programs. Some alternative school programs include using student contracts
for behavior change and/or academic accomplishments. Other components may include some
form of counseling or behavioral change curriculum, and parental involvement. Parent
involvement is typical as placement in the alternative site requires parent agreement and may
require the parent to provide transportation.
Districts employing alternative schools or schools at off-school locations for these programs,
typically have established a feeder school pattern to serve all of the schools in the district. One-
third of the districts who indicated they use alternative programs responded that the programs
were limited to middle and high schools where most of the more serious offenses occur.
Reported number of students served each year ranged from 15 in a small district to 8,000 in a
large district. These programs may also serve other types of students, such as:
♦
students who have been expelled and are not allowed on regular campuses but want to
continue their education,
♦
students who have dropped out of school and are returning to work on a GED,
♦
students who are seeking an alternative curriculum, and
♦
students who are failing academically and may learn better in an alternative setting.
Specialized curricula and behavioral programs were more frequently cited for the alternative
schools and off-site programs than in other types of alternative programs for OSS. Examples
were computer assisted instructional programs in which students’ academic performance levels
were assessed and students learned on computers at their own pace, and behavioral programs that
helped students understand the causes and consequences of inappropriate actions and behaviors.
Some of these alternative schools are operated under contract to private non-profit organizations,
church affiliated programs, and for-profit organizations. Others may be conducted as charter
schools within the school system or under other provisions that allow more flexibility in the
academic and behavioral programming provided to students.
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
Page 30
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
Entry/Exit Criteria.
District staff were more certain about the entry criteria for the
alternative schools. Entry included Level 3 and 4 offenses, drug abuse offenses, and serious or
continuous violent behavior. Example descriptions of the entry criteria were:
♦
Level 3 or 4 offense. Not necessarily an expulsion. Most are there for multiple offenses.
?
♦
Either charges pending or expulsion.
?
♦
Expulsion for violent offense or continuous disruptive behavior.
?
♦
Expelled, chronically disruptive.
?
♦
Entry based on referral from the sending school and intake interviews with parents and
?
students.
♦
?
ESE students are assigned for 30 - 45 days or completion of the level program. Regular
education student: a year to a year and a half. Yes, working through the exit system -
this needs to be better defined though - not for ESE this is more clearly defined. The
ESE noticed that the kids were not moving through the levels - put someone in place to
get them to get through.
♦
?
Students with gross violations or a history of disruptive behavior or zero tolerance
situation - possession of substance or weapon - disciplinary program.
♦
?
Students enter from the school board and are staffed in for 45 days. An application
process looks at the offense that occurred and the child's history. After 45 days the
school board decides if it will place the student some place permanently. Other students
can apply to come on voluntary basis. Some attend for academic reasons. The program
is also used as an OSS from other school for infractions that are not zero tolerance. The
students spend their amount of time of OSS in the alternative school.
♦
Entry is based on habitual probation, judicial intervention, and serious infractions.
?
♦
We have seven entry criteria.
?
Most exit criteria reflected a combination of days served and performing academically with no
further behavioral incidents. Some alternative schools tie exiting to the behavioral contracts
students have signed. Others have point or level systems and totals that students must meet to
exit. Examples of descriptions of exit criteria included:
♦
Serving time - along with other program completion criteria but the time served is most
important.
♦
We have a portfolio-based level program. 12-18 weeks of behavior to be considered and
academically producing.
♦
You have to work through the levels or through the 180 days until expulsion is complete.
♦
Exit criteria are based on performance - for 6
th
grade, students must attend 45 days, and
for grades 7-12 placements are for 90 days, but you can earn your way out. They can
stay longer but they tend not to repeat the offense when they return to their regular
school.
♦
Exit criteria: be able to sustain good conduct in program - not receive any referrals for
the last nine weeks - maintain passing grades - 90-95% attendance.
♦
Exit criteria: have to have “C” grades in all courses - improved behavior with minimal
referrals - have to reach a certain level in the behavior system.
?
♦
Exit criteria - earn points - amount of time and behavior.
?
♦
To exit they have 90 good days on level system of four levels they must complete.
?
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
?
Page 31
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
Program Intensity/Duration
. Placement into alternative schools usually is for longer
periods of time than for the other alternatives to OSS previously discussed, and almost always is
for the entire school day. Three-fourths of the districts using alternative schools indicated that
the minimum placement time is over 11 days, with the lowest reported amount being 4 hours and
the highest minimum placement of one year or 180 days (Table 10). More than half of the
district staff reported a maximum placement time of more than 45 days with the highest amount
at two years. Many of the students never return to a regular school, either dropping out of school
entirely or obtaining a GED. The referring regular schools often refuse to take the students back
onto their campuses.
Table 10
Alternative School/Off-Site Program Estimated Length of Assignment
(n=25)
Length ½-10
days
11-45
days
46-90
days
90+
days
Lowest Highest
Minimum
24% 36% 20% 20%
4 hours
180
days
Maximum
20%
32%
16%
32%
8 hours
2 years
Advantages/Disadvantages.
Primary advantages of alternative school programs as
alternatives to OSS are:
♦
Students receive an academic program that may be tailored to their performance levels
and increase the likelihood that they will graduate with a high school diploma.
♦
While in the alternative school placement, students continue to earn credits toward
promotion and graduation.
♦
Some programs provide staffing with smaller classes and more individualized instruction.
♦
Students are more apt to receive some instruction or assistance in changing adverse
behavioral patterns that are disruptive to their academic learning and overall adjustment
to society.
♦
Teachers and administrators at the referring schools appreciate the removal of disruptive
students and the increased time they have to teach more cooperative students.
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
Page 32
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
Disadvantages of the alternative school and off-site programs include:
♦
Separating students from their zoned schools stigmatizes the students and decreases the
likelihood that the students will continue with their education to graduation.
♦
Locating appropriate facilities for these programs is an issue in some districts, especially
those experiencing student population increases.
♦
Attracting and keeping trained and competent faculty to teach this difficult population
may be an issue in some districts.
♦
?
Failure to provide trained and competent faculty in alternative schools and off-site
locations results in an inferior education for students who have demonstrated needs for
very skillful instruction.
♦
?
Transportation to the alternative schools and off-site locations limits participation or
becomes an additional cost item for the district.
♦
?
Some programs emphasize only the academic performance of students and fail to address
the underlying behavioral causes of the misbehavior, thereby increasing the likelihood
that these students will act out again and repeat the process.
7.
?
Community-Based Programs
As previously presented in Figure 4, only 33% of the school districts reported using community-
based programs as alternatives to OSS. These are programs operated by community groups such
as the YMCA, and may be used in a wide variety of configurations and arrangements with public
schools. Examples identified through the study included these community-based programs:
♦
?
The school district partners with the YMCA for an after school program through a no-
cost agreement in which the district provides transportation to the YMCA facility and
students complete academic assignments after school.
♦
The school district contracts with Boys and Girls Clubs to provide after school programs
that target students with disruptive behavior.
♦
Several districts in the Panhandle and in Central Florida contract with private for-profit
organizations to staff and operate alternative schools.
♦
School districts contract with local community mental health providers for counseling
component in some programs.
♦
?
In Central Florida a school district contracts with a private for-profit organization for
student alternative placements in schools serving adjudicated youth in the custody of the
Department of Juvenile Justice.
♦
?
A school district participates in a grant from the Department of Juvenile Justice to the
Jewish Foundation to conduct a program within two elementary schools targeting repeat
offenders that provides a strong counseling component.
♦
?
Several school districts have approved charter schools operated by local church groups
that serve as alternative schools for youth who may be suspended or expelled from
school.
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
?
Page 33
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
These programs were more commonly noted in medium and large districts with small districts
reporting that they have very limited options or available community organizations in their
communities. The number of students reported participating in community-based programs
ranged from 15 in one district to over 1,600 a year in a large district. The structure and operation
of the programs varied widely including:
♦
after school programs that students attended daily for an hour or more,
?
♦
pull-out programs within schools for targeted sets of at-risk students,
?
♦
alternative schools for students attending full time for a semester or year, and
?
♦
schools within schools for failing and disruptive students operated under charter to school
?
districts but within the public school structure and facility.
Entry/Exit Criteria.
Entry and exit criteria depended on the structure of the program
and the targeted student population. Nine of the programs had established entry and exit criteria,
although the exit criteria were primarily serving the suspension time. Some programs were
voluntary in which any student who was assigned to an out of school suspension could
participate in lieu of time being suspended and receive credit while they were in the community-
based programs.
Program Intensity/Duration
. The duration and intensity of the programs varied widely,
depending on the structure of the program and the targeted student population. Reported ranges
were from one day to an entire year.
Advantages/Disadvantages.
These programs are too diverse to categorize easily the
advantages and disadvantages. Some potential advantages that may be common to all of them,
however, stem from the commitment of many community groups to reaching and helping
students through strategies not typically used in public schools including the strong beliefs of the
staff in faith-based organizations and reality-based therapy programs that are a hallmark of some
DJJ programs. Potential disadvantages may result from the lack of oversight and possible
liability when students are placed away from public school facilities, and the possible reduction
in the quality of the instructional programs delivered to the students.
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
Page 34
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
8.
?
Use of Program Components
Many different components may be implemented within any of the types of programs previously
discussed. These components typically are focused on increasing the academic successes of the
students, decreasing inappropriate or destructive behaviors, and increasing personal
responsibility for actions, all of which are expected to help the student avoid future repeat
offenses. The phone survey conducted of district staff responsible for alternative programs to
OSS included an assessment of the extent to which these program components were part of any
of the alternative programs operated by the district:
a.
?
Individualized student improvement plans or contracts
b.
?
Specific Academic Curriculum
c.
?
Tutoring
d.
?
Behavioral Curriculum
e.
?
Reward System
f.
?
Service Learning
g.
?
Job Shadowing/Internships
h.
?
Mentoring younger students
i.
?
Volunteering
j.
?
Community clean-up projects
k.
?
Parent involvement
l.
?
Individualized or group counseling
m. Restorative Justice model
n.
?
Work detail
o.
?
Conflict mediation class
p.
?
Field trips to the jail, court room, juvenile detention, Second Chance
school
q.
?
Anti-bulling/Character education class
The following charts and graphs display the extent to which these components are reported by
districts to be included in any of their alternative programs to OSS, and provide a breakdown by
specific programs. The basis for these data are the 50 interviews with district staff; therefore, the
unit of analysis is at the district level. Interpretations can be viewed from the perspective of the
frequency with which these components are used by Florida school districts. Note, however, that
for some programs, district staff may be unaware of the use of some components when schools
have direct operational control.
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
?
Page 35
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
Overall Use of Components.
As displayed in Figure 5, the most frequently used
components are parent involvement, character education classes, and individual or group
counseling. Two-thirds (66%) of district staff reported the use of parent involvement in at least
one of the six major types of alternative programs, 64% of Florida districts identified Character
Education classes as a strategy, and 62% listed individual or group counseling as a component.
More notably, however, is the lack of these components in one-third or more of the alternative
programs operated by districts. That is, over a third of Florida school districts do not involve
parents in working with their children who are at immediate or longer-range risk of being
suspended, do not provide character education programs to assist students in clarifying their
responsibilities within the school community and larger society, and do not ensure that students
who have committed offenses leading to suspension receive counseling to help prevent
recurrence and resolve the underlying causes of disruptive behavior.
Over half of the districts reported using some type of behavioral curriculum, individualized plans
or contracts, or a specific academic curriculum within their alternative programs (58%, 54%, and
52%, respectively). Half or less of the districts are using the program components of anti-
bullying, conflict mediation classes, or tutoring (50%, 44%, 42%). Note that some districts may
use either character education, conflict mediation classes, or anti-bullying programs as school or
district-wide prevention programs without using the other components. When analyzed jointly,
over 70% of the Florida school districts report using at least one of these prevention components
within their schools (Figure 6).
Figure 5
(
42%
52%
54%
62%
64%
66%
0%
20%
60%
80%
/
Most Frequently Used Program Components
n=50)
44%
50%
58%
40%
Tutoring
Conflict Mediation Class
Anti-Bullying
Specific Academic Curriculum
Individualized Plans or Contracts
Behavioral Curriculum
Individualized Group Counseling
Character Education Class
Parent Involvement
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
Page 36
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
Figure 6
(
44%
50%
64%
72%
20%
40%
80%
Common Prevention Programs
n=50)
0%
60%
Conflict Mediation
Class
Anti-Bullying
Character Education
Class
Any of These Programs
As displayed in Figure 7, approximately one-third or less of the Florida school districts employ
strategies in alternative programs that include assignments of students to work detail (36%) or
using a reward system to encourage appropriate behaviors (32%). Also infrequently used were
the components of mentoring (26%), field trips (24%), or community clean-up projects (24%).
The least commonly used program components, with less than 20% of school districts reporting
use in any of their alternative programs, were volunteering, job shadowing or internships,
Service Learning, or the Restorative Justice Model. Note that these strategies may be employed
in some programs targeted at students with risk factors (low academic achievement, high
poverty, poor attendance, and limited family support systems) who have not yet committed
offenses, but be considered by districts to involve too much liability for use after a student has
demonstrated violent or disruptive behavior.
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
Page 37
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
Figure 7
?
(
18%
24%
24%
26%
32%
36%
0%
20%
80%
Program Components Less Frequently Used
n=50)
16%
16%
16%
40%
60%
Restorative Justice Model
Service Learning
Job Shadowing/Internships
Volunteering
Community Clean-up Projects
Field Trips
Mentoring
Reward System
Work Detail
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
Page 38
?
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
Use of Components within Program Types.
The interview data were analyzed by the
use of various program components within each of the major program types that have been
suggested in the literature or through experts in the field as having potential for reducing the
causes of out-of-school suspension. These results are presented in Figures 8 to 18. Percents
represent the proportion of Florida school districts using the specified program component within
each type of program. Interpretations may be most useful in revealing the relative use or lack of
use of the components for specific program types.
Individualized plans or contracts are a strategy used in some programs to increase the student’s
awareness of and commitment to academic goals and appropriate behaviors to display in school.
As displayed in Figure 8, 28% of the school districts use individualized plans or contracts as part
of prevention programs, and 24% of the districts employ them in alternative schools and inschool
suspension programs. In prevention programs, the plans tend to be more focused on academics
and are required for students who have scored at Levels 1 or 2 on any of the FCAT tests in the
form of an Academic Improvement Plan (AIP). Individual plans and contracts used in
alternative schools and ISS programs are more likely to include behavioral goals such as being
on time to classes, participating in group discussions, or maintaining set levels within a system of
points for good behavior (or negative points for unacceptable behavior).
Individual plans or
contracts are rarely used (12% or less) in other types of programs.
Figure 8
/
)
6%
8%
40%
/
/
Individualized Plans Contracts
(n=50
10%
12%
24%
24%
28%
0%
20%
Before After School Programs
Saturday School
Other Programs
Community-Based Programs
In-School Suspension
Alternative Schools Off-Site Locations
Prevention Programs
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
Page 39
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
Another strategy or component is to implement a specific academic curriculum within the
program serving as an alternative to OSS. These academic curricula are most frequently noted in
alternative schools or programs located off-site (32% of districts) and in ISS programs (24%).
Most of the specific academic curricula observed during the site visits were a continuation of the
district’s curriculum. In ISS programs, such curricula most often took the form of assigned
homework by the regular classroom teacher.
Rarely were different curricula mentioned,
although occasional use was noted of computer-assisted instructional programs (CAI) that drill
students on skills tested on the FCAT. Examples were FCAT Explorer and SuccessMaker. The
Steck-Vaughan series of individualized instructional booklets and accompanying computer-
based system were also noted occasionally to help prepare students to pass the GED.
Figure 9
)
4%
6%
8%
8%
40%
/
/
Specific Academic Curriculum
(n=50
18%
24%
32%
0% 10% 20% 30% 50%
Other Programs
Community-Based Programs
Before After School Programs
Saturday School
Prevention Programs
In-School Suspension
Alternative Schools Off-Site Locations
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
Page 40
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
Many of the students assigned to alternative programs to OSS have already encountered
academic difficulties in addition to the behavior issues that may contribute to triggering an out-of
school suspension. Often these multiple problems are intertwined with mental health issues and
issues stemming from poverty until the student is enmeshed in a complex spiral of school and
social failure. Tutoring students may reduce the contribution of the academic issues to this
volatile “stew” of counterproductive factors. Tutoring may take the form of small classes in
which the teacher has additional time to sit one-on-one with a student, students from another
school (usually higher grade levels) or a cooperating post-secondary institution, or volunteers
from the community such as senior citizens, retired teachers, or community centers.
Almost one-quarter of the districts (24%) reported using tutoring in their prevention programs
(Figure 10), and 18% indicated that tutoring is used in alternative schools/off-site locations or in
ISS programs. Rare use was also noted (10% or less) in community-based programs,
before/after school programs, and Saturday schools. Site visits documented that a few
community-based programs are designed as tutoring programs (sometimes with a mentor or
volunteer from the community group) combined with a behavioral change curriculum such as
Character Counts or anti-bullying materials.
Figure 10
)
2%
6%
8%
40%
/
/
Tutoring
(n=50
10%
18%
18%
24%
0% 10% 20% 30% 50%
Other Programs
Saturday School
Before After School Programs
Community-Based Programs
In-School Suspension
Alternative Schools Off-Site Locations
Prevention Programs
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
Page 41
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
The parents of many of the students referred for behavioral or academic problems in public
schools often are having difficulty coping with their children’s issues or may have their own
issues that cause disruptive or dysfunctional relationships that are reflected in the student’s
performance in school. Again, these factors tend to be multi-faceted and interactive. For
example, if parents are going through a divorce, children in the family may display academic
failure or behavioral outbursts that then contribute to increased tension in the family and
exacerbate parental communication that accelerates the divorce process. In another example, if a
single mother loses her job, an older child may be forced to skip school to look for work to help
make rent payments. Parents living in poverty have little time to participate in their children’s
education and often leave all educational decisions to the school system. Increasing parent
involvement in the student’s school program can help resolve some of the issues contributing to
the student’s offending behaviors and increase the willingness of the student to complete the
assigned alternative programs to OSS.
As displayed in Figure 11, concerted efforts to increase parent involvement were most frequently
noted in prevention programs (38% of the districts), alternative schools or programs located
away from the regular public school (34%), and ISS programs (26%). Less than 20% of the
districts reported using additional strategies or efforts to involve parents in community-based
programs, Saturday school programs, or before or after school programs. The parent
involvement efforts in prevention programs may take many different forms. In some districts,
increased parent involvement may be as simple as the requirement that parents agree to the
alternative placement of students who otherwise would be given OSS. Parent involvement was
noted as well in providing transportation to alternative schools or off-site programs. More
concerted efforts to involve parents include contracts with parents to participate in group
meetings or assisting students with homework. Rarely mentioned were joint parent/student
counseling sessions (either family counseling or group counseling sessions) or parent
volunteering to assist in the education programs.
District staff expressed their concerns about the difficulty school staff have in involving parents
in their children’s educational programs and in alternative programs to OSS. One district
described a pilot program to set up a parent university in which parents receive training in
parenting skills. The purpose was to teach parents how to control their child and mimic the life
skills that the alternative program was teaching to the students.
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
Page 42
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
Figure 11
)
10%
26%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
/
/
Parent Involvement
(n=50
12%
14%
18%
34%
38%
50%
Other Programs
Before After School Programs
Saturday School
Community-Based Programs
In-School Suspension
Alternative Schools Off-Site Locations
Prevention Programs
As previously discussed, prevention programs in schools frequently take the form of special
classes or curricula addressing character education, conflict resolution or mediation, or anti-
bullying programs. The 1999 Legislature required school districts to provide a character
development program in elementary schools, similar to Character First or Character Counts. The
1999 Legislature also amended the Florida Statutes on dropout prevention programs to require
that all dropout prevention and academic intervention programs provide character development
and law education. The required annual district “School Safety and Security Self-Assessment
Form” includes indicators requiring incorporation into the curricula programs addressing pro-
social skills, character education, conflict resolution, and peer mediation, as well as providing
teachers professional development in teaching students about these issues.
Figure 12 presents results from the telephone interview on these major anti-violence thrusts:
50% of the responding districts indicated that their prevention programs include character
education classes, 38% listed anti-bullying classes, and 26% referenced conflict resolution
instruction in prevention programs. When analyzed jointly, 72% of the districts cited at least one
of these anti-violence curricula as operating in their prevention programs. Some alternative
schools or off-site programs serving as alternatives to OSS were also identified as incorporating
these types of anti-violence programs. These efforts to reduce violence and increase peaceful
classrooms, however, were much less evident in all other program types, with percentages
ranging from 14% to 2%.
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
Page 43
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
Some districts reported using character education classes formally across all schools, sometimes
within a specific set of classrooms such as the language arts program. Other schools mentioned
peer mediation as a program implemented in some schools with selected sets of students who
have committed minor offenses. One district is conducting a pilot study at one school for an
anti-bullying class and hoping to roll it out for all schools next year. Other efforts included
implementing the Positive Peer Culture program, and providing staff development for counselors
on violence prevention.
Figure 12
)
50%
4%
4%
4%
8%
4%
2%
2%
4%
6%
4%
8%
2%
0%
20%
/
/
Conflict Mediation, Anti-bullying, and Character Education Classes
(n=50
22%
26%
14%
10%
38%
14%
12%
22%
40%
60%
Before After School Programs
Saturday School
Other Programs
In-School Suspension
Community-Based Programs
Alternative Schools Off-Site Locations
Prevention Programs
Conflict Mediation
Anti-Bullying
Character Education
A more staff-intensive approach to improving the behavior of offending students is to provide
individual or group counseling that addresses the underlying issues that may be causing
disruptive or violent behavior. These programs are most frequently implemented in alternative
schools or off-site alternative programs (42% of districts), in prevention programs that target
specific sets of students (32%), and in ISS programs (26% of districts). Other program types
may use counseling as a strategy, but the inclusion is much less frequent (18% or fewer of the
districts) (Figure 13).
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
Page 44
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
It was noted that districts that place a heavy emphasis on prevention often have this component
in place in special programs. Some counseling services are provided through contract or other
arrangement with community mental health agencies and may also include parent involvement
through family counseling with the student. Some districts deploy behavior specialists who work
with multiple schools and may provide counseling to individual or groups of students. One
district reported providing a behavior specialist in every school who sets up behavior contracts
and monitors student behavior to help students be more successful in class. Another county
reported extensive counseling services for their students as part of their diversion efforts to keep
students from being suspended. While in their community programs (in lieu of OSS), students
receive daily counseling sessions as well as conflict resolution education. The program is
heavily laden with therapeutic interventions, even when students return to their “home schools.”
In another district, an elementary school program for targeted students provides an hour of
counseling and behavior therapy each day through a special scheduling arrangement. Two
mental heath counselors staff the program. These examples, however, were rare in the overall
study.
Figure 13
)
6%
10%
26%
42%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
/
/
Individualized or Group Counseling
(n=50
14%
18%
32%
50%
Before After School Programs
Saturday School
Other Programs
Community-Based Programs
In-School Suspension
Prevention Programs
Alternative Schools Off-Site Locations
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
Page 45
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
Two other methods for increasing students’ positive interactions with others and reducing
inappropriate behaviors are to use a structured behavioral curriculum or a reward system.
Typical behavioral curricula lead students through a series of activities to gain a better
understanding of their responsibilities within society, the causes and consequences of good and
bad behaviors, and how to make responsible choices in their actions. Reward systems often are
based on earning points for good behavior and may be coupled with losing points for
inappropriate behavior. These types of interventions may be implemented together and are more
frequently used in programs for adjudicated youth.
Within the programs serving as alternatives to OSS, 32% of the districts reported using
behavioral curricula in their alternative schools or off-site programs, and 24% indicated they are
used in prevention programs (Figure 14). Less than 15% of the districts use behavioral curricula
in other types of programs serving as alternatives to OSS. Reward systems were even less
frequently reported by districts for any of their alternative programs to OSS, with 24% of the
districts using reward systems in alternative schools or off-site programs, 16% in prevention
programs, and less than 10% of the districts reporting using reward systems in other types of
programs.
Figure 14
)
4%
6%
24%
2%
2%
4%
4%
8%
16%
24%
0%
10%
/
/
Behavioral Curriculum and Reward System
(n=50
10%
14%
14%
32%
20% 30% 40%
Before After School Programs
Saturday School
Other Programs
In-School Suspension
Community-Based Programs
Prevention Programs
Alternative Schools Off-Site Locations
Behavioral Curriculum
Reward System
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
Page 46
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
The remaining components examined through this initial study were seldom used by districts in
any of the alternative programs to OSS. As displayed in Figure 15, job shadowing or internships
were reported by 10% or fewer of the districts to be used in any of the types of programs, and
service learning was even less frequently noted with only 6% of the districts indicating that
service learning is incorporated into some alternative schools or off-site locations and in some
prevention programs. Note that the Florida Department of Education, through federal Title IV
funds, has support for 35 local projects to use Service Learning in alternatives to OSS programs
that in amounts ranging from $10,000 to $130,000. These efforts are just beginning to be known
in districts as a viable strategy for increasing student participation and interest in schools and
decreasing inappropriate behaviors.
Figure 15
)
6%
6%
0%
0%
2%
2%
2%
0%
0%
0%
2%
0%
0%
/
/
Service Learning and Job Shadowing/Internships
(n=50
10%
10%
10%
20%
In-School Suspension
Before After School Programs
Saturday School
Community-Based Programs
Other Programs
Prevention Programs
Alternative Schools Off-Site Locations
Service Learning
Job Shadowing-Internships
Mentoring and volunteering also are rarely used as components of OSS-alternative programs, as
displayed in Figure 16. Although these methods may be used in some prevention programs and
alternative schools or off-site programs, less than 16% of the districts reported using them in any
of the alternative programs. Community clean-up projects had similar results that are presented
in Figure 17. Only 12% of the school districts use community clean-up projects in some
prevention programs and alternative schools or off-site programs, and less than 5% of the
districts reported using these assignments in other types of programs such as before or after
school programs or Saturday school.
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
Page 47
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
Figure 16
)
4%
2%
0%
0%
0%
16%
6%
10%
2%
4%
2%
0%
0%
0%
/
/
Mentoring and Volunteering
(n=50
12%
10%
20%
In-School Suspension
Before After School Programs
Saturday School
Other Programs
Community-Based Programs
Alternative Schools Off-Site Locations
Prevention Programs
Mentoring
Volunteering
Figure 17
j
)
0%
2%
2%
4%
4%
40%
/
/
Community Clean-up Pro ects
(n=50
12%
12%
0% 10% 20% 30% 50%
In-School Suspension
Before After School Programs
Community-Based Programs
Saturday School
Other Programs
Prevention Programs
Alternative Schools Off-Site Locations
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
Page 48
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
As displayed in Figure 18, assigning students to work detail involving cleaning up the school
campus or classrooms, or helping with the kitchen cleanup activities were more frequently noted,
with 10%-16% of the districts reporting that this method is used in Saturday School, alternative
schools or off-site locations, prevention programs, before or after school programs, and ISS
programs (Figure 18). Field trips were identified by 14% of the districts as used in prevention
programs and 10% of the alternative schools or off-site programs, but rarely in other programs.
Field trips usually took the form of visits to jails, court rooms, or juvenile detention to help
students understand the next level of consequences if they repeated their offenses. Key
components of the Restorative Justice Model are restitution, community service and victim
offender mediation. These practices create an awareness in offenders of the harmful
consequences of their actions, requiring that they take action to "make amends" to victims and
the community. Very few districts use the Restorative Justice Model in any of the programs
operating as alternatives to OSS. Some districts, however, contract with outside agencies or for-
profit groups to serve students referred from the school system within programs operated under
contract to the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice for juvenile offenders. These programs
may be using the Restorative Justice Model for the entire facility.
Figure 18
)
0%
0%
6%
2%
2%
2%
0%
6%
12%
16%
4%
0%
2%
2%
4%
0%
/
/
Restorative Justice Model, Work Detail, and Field Trips
(n=50
14%
10%
10%
10%
12%
10%
10%
20%
Before After School Programs
In-School Suspension
Community-Based Programs
Other Programs
Prevention Programs
Alternative Schools Off-Site Locations
Saturday School
Restorative Justice
Work Detail
Field Trips
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
Page 49
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
Overall, most of the components or strategies explored through the study were used infrequently
in any of the program types. One-half of the school districts reported using character education
curricula or classes in prevention programs, and 42% of the school districts use individual or
group counseling in alternative special schools or programs located away from the school site.
Parent involvement in some form was noted in 38% of the school districts’ prevention programs,
and the same level of use was recorded for anti-bullying classes or curricula in prevention
programs. All other components or strategies were employed by approximately one-third or less
of the districts in any of the program types.
9.
Staffing for Programs
Staffing for all of the programs examined varies widely, with little consistency noted for any of
the program models. Staffing for any of the models may be provided by classroom teachers,
teachers with special supplements, administrators with or without supplements,
paraprofessionals, guidance counselors, volunteers, school resource officers, contracted staff, or
any combinations of these and other staff. In part these variations in staffing patterns reflect the
lack of statewide standards for staffing of the programs and the locus of decision-making control
within individual schools. Consequently, even within a single district, the same type of program
may be staffed differently across schools. District staff most often were not able to delineate the
staffing provided for many of the alternative programs within their districts.
10. Program Evaluation
Very few districts conduct formal or informal evaluations of the effectiveness of the various
alternative programs to out-of-school suspension. As depicted in Figure 19, some of the
programs have defined academic or behavioral objectives. Prevention programs target primarily
behavioral objectives (59%) or a combination of both behavioral and academic objectives.
Inschool suspension and before/after school programs emphasize academic objectives more
heavily than other program models, but still have a preponderance of behavioral or combined
targets. For community-based programs and alternative schools/off-site locations, over 60% of
the responding districts indicated that the targeted objectives were both behavioral and academic.
Schools and districts may track discipline referrals by the types of incidents and the number of
students, and the number of incidents by the number of students. Some districts have fairly
extensive systems to collate and display these discipline data. Occasionally, a school may also
analyze discipline referrals by the time of day, location, and grade levels of students involved
and use these data for modifying the school schedule or other operations. Most districts reported
that no efforts are made to measure the effectiveness of the program delivery models or program
components. Some districts indicated that the schools operating the programs informally review
the progress of students as they return to regular classes.
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
Page 50
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
With a few exceptions, if districts evaluate their programs it is conducted using general district
data by tracking such things as attendance, grades, referrals, and suspension. These evaluation
efforts rarely use program specific data. More typically, little effort is made at the school or
district level to track students after program exit to determine academic success or recidivism,
especially after students leave an elementary or middle school or if students move into an
alternative school and do not return to the referring school for further education. Several
excellent examples were noted of districts that track the progress of students over time and return
data to schools for their review and program improvement. Overall, however, few systems were
in place to collect data systematically on student success or recidivism for most of the program
models.
Figure 19
6%
30%
15%
10%
9%
17%
59%
37%
47%
54%
30%
26%
50%
33%
11%
65%
33%
0% 20% 40% 60%
( )
( )
/
( )
)
( )
/
(
( )
Academic or Behavioral Objectives
41%
35%
31%
60%
80% 100%
Prevention Programs n=17
In-School Suspension n=27
Before After School Programs n=17
Saturday School (n=25
Community-Based Programs n=10
Alternative Schools Off-Site Locations n=23)
Other Programs n=6
Academic
Behavioral
Both
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
Page 51
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
11. Funding and Fund Sources
Funding for these various program models to serve students in lieu of out-of-school suspension is
obtained from many different sources. The most common funding mechanism is through the
school’s budget. Occasionally, districts allocate teacher units to schools for ISS or detention.
School Academic Improvement (SAI) funds may also be used, but more often these funds are
earmarked for academic remediation. Some districts have received grants from the Florida
Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) as part of their efforts to prevent entry of students into the
juvenile justice system; these grants previously have been prevalent but currently are less
available to school districts. In the past, dropout prevention funds were allocated to districts
through a weighted cost factor that supported some of the costs of the programs, but these funds
no longer are available. More recently, federal 21
st
Century grants have been used to fund
alternatives to OSS. Occasionally schools have had to delete ISS staffing from their budgets in
favor of other priorities.
MIS Data Elements
The purposes of this section of the report are to:
(1) describe current data being collected for Dropout Prevention Program Evaluation,
(2)
suggest supplementary information that
?
might be useful in the evaluation of
alternatives to out-of-school suspension, and
(3) describe a longitudinal tracking system pilot project.
1.
?
Data Currently Collected for Dropout Prevention Program Evaluation
The Florida DOE organizes the data elements in its Automated Student Information System into
formats or collections of data elements intended for specific applications. The Dropout
Prevention Program has its own format for program evaluation that consists of the following data
elements (see Table 11), all of which are submitted by school districts at the end of the school
year (August).
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
?
Page 52
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
Table 11
Dropout Prevention Program Data Elements
Data Element
Number
District Number, Current Enrollment
115225
School Number, Current Enrollment
172825
Student Number Identifier, Florida
175625
Dropout Prevention/Juvenile Justice Programs
115680
Dropout Prevention, Length of Prescribed Program
115660
Dropout Prevention, Length of Program Participation
115662
District Number, Current Instruction/Service
115325
School Number, Current Instruction/Service 172875
Dropout Prevention Program Enrollment Date
115675
Dropout Prevention Program Withdrawal Date
115685
Mentoring Program Participant
147425
Mentoring Program Participant’s Days of Contact
147475
These data elements can be used to establish the provision of alternatives to suspension services
and then matched to academic (e.g., FCAT) indicators of success. For evaluation purposes it
would be necessary to also identify similar students who were actually suspended in order to
make more relevant comparisons.
2. Supplementary Data Elements
In addition to the data elements listed in the preceding section, there are others that could be used
to supplement academic measures and perhaps provide a more comprehensive description of the
impact of suspension alternatives, as displayed in Table 12. It would be important to know if
there were subsequent disciplinary/referral actions that took place after placement in a
suspension alternative program. A student’s withdrawal code could provide information about
dropping out of school. Days present and absent could be used to compare attendance patterns
between those who were placed in suspension alternatives and those who were not. Grade
promotion status would indicate promotion or retention at the end of the school year. Grade
point average could be used to supplement other academic (e.g. FCAT) information.
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
Page 53
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
Table 12
Additional Related Data Elements
Data Element
Number
Disciplinary/Referral Action Code
114425
Duration, Disciplinary Action
115855
Withdrawal Code, PK-12
188425
Days Present Annual
113225
Days Absent Annual
112025
Days Present Summer Terms
113250
Days Absent Summer Terms
112050
Grade Promotion Status
126425
Grade Point Average State, Cumulative
125625
From the perspective of forming appropriate comparison groups of students who were given
suspension alternatives versus those who were not, it would be important to know something
about students’ demographic and background characteristics (see Table 13). Such information
could include students’ gender, race, economic background and whether or not they were
exceptional students or Limited English Proficiency. These are common demographics that need
to be considered in the analysis of differences between groups of students. It would also be
important to know about students’ relative age in grade. From the Student Discipline/Referral
Action format, it would helpful to know if students had any substance abuse, weapons or gang
related involvement. In theory, at least, this source of information would be more
comprehensive than that available about specific incidents in the School Environmental Safety
Incident Report format.
The ultimate purpose of having student background information would be to form a
demographically similar comparison group of students who were actually suspended versus
those given a suspension alternative. All of these data elements would have to be matched to the
Dropout Prevention Program Evaluation format, using the common student identifier or alias.
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
Page 54
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
Table 13
Program Data Elements for Use in Comparison Studies
Data Element
Number
Gender 173625
Racial/Ethnic Category
168025
Lunch Status
146025
Exceptionality, Primary
118575
English Language Proficient, PK-12
144025
Birth Date
104025
Grade Level
124025
Student, Use of Alcohol
175635
Student, Use of Drugs
175640
Student, Involved in Hate Crime
175210
Student, Weapon Use
175645
Student, Involved in Gang
175200
3. Longitudinal Tracking
What is clearly missing from the previous lists of supplementary data elements is any indication
of recidivism. The extent to which students do or do not have repeat disciplinary actions or
referrals is in itself an important evaluation outcome. At present, the most logical way of
obtaining recidivism data (short of adding a data element) would be to match records across
years. The feasibility, however, of the longitudinal tracing option needs to be examined. Is it
possible to accurately track students involved in suspension alternatives and their
demographically similar cohorts who were actually suspended from school? Perhaps the best
way to answer this question would be to establish a longitudinal tracking pilot project that
would:
i)
identify a set of students who received a suspension alternative,
ii) identify a group of demographically similar students who were actually suspended,
and
iii) track their subsequent school experience using data from the DOE’s Automated
Student Information System.
The primary objective would be to assess the degree to which students could be tracked across
years. If successful, the pilot project would also examine student outcomes in terms of academic
performance, supplementary outcomes and repeat disciplinary actions/referrals in the suspension
alternative and comparison groups.
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
Page 55
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
Brief Summary of Initial Study Findings
Major program models examined included:
♦
?
Prevention Programs
. Students who are disruptive or for some other negative reason come to the
attention of teachers or administrators may be referred to school-based intervention teams, social
skills, conflict mediation or character education classes, time out in another teacher’s class or in the
principal’s office, or a behavioral specialist may be hired or contracted to work with individual
students or with teachers in creating behavior management strategies. These strategies are designed to
redirect the student’s behavior and avoid suspension. These techniques may often be employed with
ESE students and are designed to occur within the regular school day.
♦
?
In school.
Students attend school within structured programs such as an alternative classroom often
with academic instruction; students are assigned to work detail under the supervision of an adult; or
students are assigned to a special class designed for suspended students
♦
?
Before/After School.
Students can make up academic work under supervision at the school site
before and/or after regular school hours.
♦
?
Saturday School.
Students make up academic work in classes or participate in work details on the
school campus with adult supervision on Saturdays.
♦
?
Community-Based.
Students attend a program operated by a community-based agency such as
YMCA through a district wide or individual school contract with the agency.
♦
?
Special Program/Setting.
Students are re-assigned to alternative school placements within the
district.
A brief summary of major findings included:
♦
?
Principals are the primary decision-makers for determining what delivery models are used for
alternative programs to out-of-school suspension and the ways in which they operate (87% and 75%,
respectively)
♦
?
The two most prevalent factors considered in selecting delivery models are available funds and
staffing resources (75% and 69% of districts, respectively)
♦
?
The most prevalent delivery models are in-school programs (96%), special programs (68%),
prevention programs (655), and before/after school programs (63%).
♦
?
The most frequently used components within programs are parent involvement (66%), Character
Education classes (64%), and individualized or group counseling (62%).
♦
?
The least frequently used program components were Restorative Justice Model, Service Learning, job
shadowing or internships, and volunteering.
♦
?
A specific academic curriculum was reported as used in 32% of the alternative schools or off-site
locations, but less than 10% of the Saturday school, before/after school, or community-based
programs.
♦
?
Parent involvement was reported as employed in over one-third of the prevention programs and
alternative schools or off-site locations, but in less than 15% of the Saturday school and before/after
school programs.
♦
?
Staffing for all programs examined varied widely, with little consistency noted for any of the program
models. Staffing for any of the models may be provided by classroom teachers, teachers with special
supplements, administrators with or without supplements, paraprofessionals, guidance counselors,
volunteers, school resource officers, contracted staff, or any combinations of these and other staff.
♦
?
Very few districts conduct formal or informal evaluations of the effectiveness of the various
alternative programs to out-of-school suspension.
♦
?
Funding for these various program models to serve students in lieu of out-of-school suspension is
obtained from many different sources. The most common funding mechanism is through the school’s
budget.
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
?
Page 56
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
Issues
?
During the course of the initial phase of this extended research effort, several issues were
identified that need continued exploration.
♦
Some districts continue to use corporal punishment as an alternative to out-of-school
suspension.
♦
Some severe offenses (e.g. fighting) result in automatic out-of-school suspension, even in
schools that have in-school suspension programs.
♦
Very few instances were noted of counseling or behavioral interventions included as a
component in any of the alternative programs.
♦
?
Most districts rely on the Code of Student Conduct to define the policies and procedures
for programs serving as alternatives to out-of-school suspension. Few examples were
noted in which the districts defined the components of and procedures for these programs
for standard implementation in schools or other sites.
♦
Principals and school staff determine what components/features to implement for most
programs.
♦
The models being used are reflective of the staffing and resources available in the
schools.
♦
Using the term “prevention” resulted in confusion with the myriad of academic programs
targeted.
♦
Virtually no programs were noted in Florida or in the national literature that had
outcomes-based evaluations.
♦
Schools collect and maintain data on attendance, but little or no follow-up or tracking is
conducted to see what happens with the students after participation.
♦
Schools and districts seldom analyze the data that they have collected to determine the
effectiveness of program alternatives or any other purpose.
♦
ESE students are included in some programs, excluded from others, and some programs
intentionally do not collect data on which students may be ESE to avoid liability.
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
?
Page 57
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
Recommendations for Continuation Activities
?
Based on the results from Phase I of the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension,
the following
recommendations are made for continuing the research through the 2004-05 school year through
these activities:
1.
Conduct Site Visits to Ten Additional Districts.
2.
Conduct Pin-Point Research on Selected Promising Practices.
3.
Generate Evaluation Template for Program/District/State Use.
4.
Generate Final Report for Phase II.
1.
Conduct Site Visits to Ten Additional Districts.
During Phase I, site visits to six school districts were conducted to gain more indepth
knowledge about the programs serving as alternatives to out-of-school suspensions and
interview in person the people most directly involved with these programs. For Phase II, an
additional ten school districts should be visited that will bring the total visited to 16 out of 67
(24%). Districts should be selected to represent promising practices that have proven success
records; seek to include large, medium-sized, and small districts; and represent the
geographical diversity of the state. Further examination should also be conducted of districts
that have been funded for Title IV local programs to capture those programs that appear to be
having the greatest impacts.
2.
Conduct Pin-Point Research on Selected Promising Practices.
Phase I of the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
demonstrated that virtually none of the
alternative programs have evaluation components that track the success of students after
leaving the program or demonstrate successful program outcomes. Most relevant outcomes
for these programs are reduced recidivism, increased school attendance, increased earned
credits, and remaining in school longer. Site visits revealed that some of these data may be
available in districts through district or state databases, but districts and programs have little
or no incentive or resources to compile and use these data.
Up to ten promising programs should be identified for which data are currently available and
pin-point research conducted on the outcomes of the programs. Examples are programs in
which attendance for the last two years has been maintained that includes a student ID
number that can be linked to the state database, programs that have conducted follow-up
surveys of students to determine their subsequent status, and programs for which formal
evaluations are in progress or contain useful outcome measures. Key to this aspect of the
study will be the cooperation of the school district and access to the district’s database to
track individual student academic success over time. The result of this activity will be
outcome evaluations for up to ten programs. Evaluation designs should be created for each
selected program, and plans made to collect and analyze the data and generate a written
report that will be in a format that will be publishable.
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
Page 58
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
3.
Generate Evaluation Template for Program/District/State Use.
Although Phase I of the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
demonstrated that virtually
none of the alternative programs conduct outcome evaluations that track students exiting the
program or compare results with students not participating in the program, local program
managers expressed considerable interest in being able to document the successes of their
programs. An evaluation template should be generated that will be usable by local program
managers in organizing and conducting outcomes-based program evaluations. This template
should be in a format that districts can use for multiple programs or that the state can use to
conduct statewide outcome evaluations. Included in the template should be the following
components:
♦
rationale, logic, and design of outcomes-based evaluations,
?
♦
specific data collection processes for the major types of programs,
?
♦
uses of comparison groups or longitudinal data to isolate the impact of the
?
program efforts,
♦
appropriate data summarization and analysis techniques and methods,
♦
methods and templates for reporting results and recommendations on timing and
sequencing of reports, and
♦
uses of results for improving programs and dissemination to key stakeholders and
decision-makers.
The result of this component will be a template or set of templates with explanatory materials
for use at the program, district, or state levels to plan, conduct, and use outcomes-based
evaluations.
4.
Generate Final Report for Phase II.
A final report should be generated that cumulates results from Phases I and II of the study.
Included should be updated descriptions of district programs, specific details on at least ten
promising programs that can be used by districts to set up and replicate these programs,
results from the pin-point outcomes-based research on ten programs, and the templates for
outcomes-based evaluation. The report should summarize the findings of all of the study
activities to date. The final report of the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
should include
an executive summary, methods, findings, interpretations, conclusions, and recommendations
for ongoing improvements in Florida’s alternatives to out-of-school suspension programs and
further outcomes-based evaluations of their efforts.
For a pdf copy of the full report, refer to the publications section of the Evaluation Systems
Design, Inc. website at http://www.esdi.cc/.
For further information concerning the complete
study, contact Dr. Constance C. Bergquist at Evaluation Systems Design, Inc. (esdi@talstar.com
or 850-893-9504).
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
Page 59
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
Appendix A
Literature Review
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
Page 60
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF E
STUDY OF A
SUSPENSION
Back to top
LITERATURE REVIEW
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
DUCATION
Back to top
LTERNATIVES TO
Title:
?
Administrative Sanctions, Classroom Management, and Intervention
Strategies: Building Blocks for School-Wide Discipline. CASE/CCBD
Mini-Library Series on Safe, Drug-Free, and Effective Schools.
Author:
Evans, Cal
Source:
ISBN-0-86586-950-2, 48p. 2002
Accession Number: ED466866
Abstract: Part of a series of monographs on safe, drug-free, and effective schools, this
monograph discusses the new discipline requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act and the role of administrators in developing a range of intervention strategies to
manage the behavior of students with behavior problems. Following an introductory chapter,
Chapter 2 explores discipline, punishment, and behavioral interventions. It describes
administrative sanctions for misbehavior, disciplinary alternatives to suspension, and disciplinary
removals. The benefits and shortcomings of alternative sanctions are listed and it is concluded
that alternative sanctions provide school administrators with some viable choices. Chapter 3
focuses on classroom management and describes strategies for creating a positive classroom
environment; a motivating, individualized curriculum; good classroom rules; and positive
reinforcements that promote appropriate behavior. The importance of implementing a feedback
loop to home is stressed, and steps for administrators and teachers to follow in implementing a
Daily Home Note are provided. Chapter 4 describes a continuum of behavioral intervention
procedures for use in special education classrooms, including preliminary strategies, positive
behavioral change through functional assessment, and use of a hierarchy of behavioral
interventions. Positive intervention procedures, mildly intrusive contingent procedures, and
moderately intrusive contingent procedures are explained.
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
?
Page 61
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
Title:
Schools, Discipline, and Students with Disabilities: The AFT
Responds.
Author:
Bader, Beth D
Source:
21p. Apr 1997.
Accession Number: ED408737
Abstract: This position paper of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) addresses
issues related
to
the discipline of students with severe behavior disorders or other disabilities. It
specifically considers: (1) placement of disruptive and/or dangerous students; (2) cost issues of
alternatives to suspension and expulsion; (3) legal parameters under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act; (4) staff issues (teachers have a right not
to
be verbally or physically
assaulted by students); and (5) minority issues (since minority students have been
disproportionately represented among suspended and expelled students). The paper encourages a
focus on prevention and early intervention through use of discipline codes, improved classroom
management, low-level classroom interventions, and behavior specialists. It also recommends a
continuum of alternative placements including in-school crisis centers, in-school suspension, and
longer-term alternative settings. The paper reaffirms AFT's position favoring alternative schools.
Attached is a resolution on the issue of alternative schools passed by the AFT at its 1996
Convention; an outline of prevention and intervention strategies; and guidance on the law
surrounding the discipline of students with disabilities.
Title:
?
Taking a Stand against Violence. Leadership and Responsibility: One
School's Quest to Create a Safe Harbor.
Author:
Nor, Laksmi; And Others
Source:
Schools in the Middle; v5 n4 p14-17 May-Jun 1996
Accession Number: EJ524908
Abstract: Details how one urban middle school took an active stand against violence by
establishing programs in student leadership, conflict resolution, peer mediation, and violence
prevention. Highlights benefits, student participation and training, and several innovative
alternatives to suspension and traditional school discipline measures of the program, now in its
fourth year.
Title:
Toward Prescriptive Alternatives to Suspensions: A Preliminary
Evaluation.
Author:
Morgan-D'Atrio, Cindy; And Others
Source: Behavioral
Disorders; v21 n2 p190-200 Feb 1996
Accession Number: EJ524417
Abstract: Analysis of data on discipline problems and suspensions at a large urban high
school found a high frequency of disciplinary referrals and suspensions and poor correspondence
between school disciplinary policy and disciplinary actions. Students with recurrent suspensions
were found to be a very heterogeneous group. Implications for developing proactive treatment
alternatives to suspension are discussed.
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
?
Page 62
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
Title:
P.A.S.T.: Positive Attitude Student Training.
Corporate Author: Putnam County School Board, Palatka, FL.
?
Source:
39p. [ 1996].
?
Accession Number: ED407612
?
Abstract: Some students need help in solving their daily challenges. The program described
here teaches students to function more efficiently in the school environment and the community.
Various strategies provide students with alternatives to suspension /expulsion, and encourage
parental and community involvement with "at-risk" youth. The program is designed to help
students in the school system, who have been referred according to the discipline guidelines, to
alternate class, suspension, expulsion, special placement, or who have been referred by their
parents. This prevention/enrichment program provides a sequence of classes that are attended by
students and their parents. Community volunteers with different areas of expertise lead the
classes. Two-hour sessions are scheduled weekly and cover such topics as law education and
juvenile justice, impulse control/anger management /parenting skills, substance abuse, and study
skills and time management. A prison tour and attendance at a court during a criminal sentencing
are also part of the program. The manual includes the different forms (in English and Spanish)
used for the program. Survey information provides participant comments on the program's
effectiveness.
Title:
Making a Difference for Students at Risk. Trends and Alternatives.
Author:
Wang, Margaret C Ed; Reynolds, Maynard C Ed
Source:
Report: ISBN-0-8039-6189-8. 238p. 1995.
Accession Number: ED380519
Abstract: Papers in this collection were commissioned for a conference entitled, "Making a
Difference for Students at Risk," to serve as springboards for discussion. Discussions and
recommendations from conferees were incorporated into the versions presented in this volume.
The two topics that dominated discussion at the conference were: basic forces that affect
development and schooling of at-risk children and adolescents, and innovative initiatives that
apply research and practical knowledge. Papers are: (1) "Introduction: Inner-City Students at the
Margins" (Margaret C. Wang, Maynard C. Reynolds, and Herbert J. Walberg); (2) "Twice
Victims: The Struggle to Educate Children in Urban Schools and the Reform of Special
Education and Chapter 1" (Marleen C. Pugach), commentaries by Kenneth K. Wong and Martin
E. Orland; (3) "The Plight of High-Ability Students in Urban Schools" (Joseph S. Renzulli, Sally
M. Reis, Thomas P. Hebert, and Eva I. Diaz) with commentaries by Barbara L. McCombs and
Brenda Lilienthal Welburn; (4) "Street Academies and In-School Alternatives to Suspension"
(Antoine M. Garibaldi), commentaries by Harriet Arvey and Edmund W. Gordon); (5)
"Alternatives and Marginal Students" (Mary Anne Raywid), commentaries by Ann Masten and
Pauline Brooks; (6) "The Impact of Linguistic and Cultural Diversity on America's Schools: A
Need for New Policy" (Eugene E. Garcia), commentaries by Richard Ruiz and Kris D. Gutierrez;
and (7) "Epilogue: A Summary of Recommendations" (Maynard C. Reynolds, Margaret C.
Wang, and Herbert J. Walberg). Appendixes list participants and give the conference agenda.
Each paper contains references.
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
Page 63
Evaluation Report for the
Study of Alternatives to Suspension
Title:
Reduction of School Violence: Alternatives to Suspension.
Author:
Johns, Beverly H; And Others
?
Source:
Report: ISBN-0-934753-08-3. 150p. 1995.
?
Accession Number: ED394177
?
All administrators and teachers face the challenge of implementing discipline procedures that are
effective, particularly for special-education students. This book provides an array of practical
solutions to everyday problems, primarily for use with special-education students who challenge
discipline techniques. The techniques described are based on the authors' practical experiences.
Chapter 1 reviews literature on suspension that shows that black students and special-education
students are disproportionately affected by suspension policies. Chapter 2 offers guidelines for
changing to an approach that sets high standards for behavior and teaches students how to
develop appropriate social behaviors. One option is to create a climate committee, comprised of
students, staff, and parents, that acts as an informal court. The third chapter offers guidelines for
"precision planning," a systematic process in which the administrator provides leadership to
ensure the implementation of procedures for creating a safe and productive environment.
Practical strategies for encouraging appropriate student behavior are outlined in the fourth
chapter. Chapter 5 describes techniques to prevent behavior problems: developing effective rules
and expectations; communicating with students; accentuating the positive; and managing
educators' stress. Sample behaviors and effective interventions are offered in chapter 6. One
figure and an index are included. References accompany each chapter. Appendices contain
sample forms.
Title:
School Violence. Report of the Superintendent's Task Force.
Corporate Author: Arizona State Dept. of Education, Phoenix.
?
Source:
31p. Jan 1994.
?
Accession Number: ED381704
?
Abstract: The Task Force on School Violence was convened to generate recommendations
to key state policy makers to stem the rising tide of violence on school campuses. This report
presents the task force's conclusions in two sections: (1) Findings; and (2) Recommendations. In
their findings, the task force identified some key elements of prevention strategies: coordination
of community services/site-based social services, adult mentoring/parent involvement, training in
social skills and conflict resolution, community service and jobs for youths, alternative to
suspension, non-violent messages in the media, and smaller schools or schools within schools.
The task force also outlined elements of effective intervention strategies in the school. These
included: caring, knowledgeable, trained staff; a controlled, disciplined environment; physical
training/teamwork; accelerated learning/high expectations; character education, ethics education
and self-discipline; adult role models/parent involvement; and community service/job training.
Successful educational alternatives outside public schools are also discussed. The task force's
recommendations targeted the legislature, the state board of education, the state superintendent,
and local governing boards. Some of these recommendations included increased consequences
for possession or use of weapons, alternatives to suspension or expulsion, increased
governmental responsibility, increased funding for alternative programs, promote student
involvement, more information on successful parenting, and better communication between the
home and school. Citations of current statutes and recommended changes are included. Contains
15 references.
Evaluation Systems Design, Inc.
Page 64
