{"id":320,"date":"2024-05-20T22:20:17","date_gmt":"2024-05-20T22:20:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/?p=320"},"modified":"2024-05-20T22:20:17","modified_gmt":"2024-05-20T22:20:17","slug":"inequity-in-schooling-discipline","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/2024\/05\/inequity-in-schooling-discipline\/","title":{"rendered":"Inequity in Schooling Discipline"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

INTRODUCTION<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In November 2023, the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights released its 2020-21 Student Discipline and School Climate in U.S. Public Schools<\/a> report. The discipline compliance review revealed discriminatory disciplinary practices in K-12 education. It found<\/a> that Black boys were nearly twice as likely as white boys to receive an out-of-school suspension or expulsion in K-12 public schools. Additionally, Black girls were nearly two times more likely to receive one or more in-school suspensions, one or more out-of-school suspensions, and expulsions than white girls.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Behind this data are individual stories of discrimination\u2014many from North Carolina. For example, in 2022, two Black students filed suit<\/a> in District Court, alleging racially discriminatory discipline practices. Despite engaging in the same\u2014if not worse\u2014conduct, a white student was not disciplined, whereas two Black students were suspended and removed to alternative schools. The District Court denied in part the school district\u2019s motion to dismiss, finding that the Black children had raised a sufficient claim under Title VI alleging racial discrimination. Subsequent actions in the suit can be tracked here<\/a>.\u202f <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another local case was resolved in September 2023, when the U.S Department of Education Office for Civil Rights reached an agreement<\/a> with the Winston-Salem\/Forsyth County School District to resolve its Title VI discipline policies. The Office for Civil Rights had conducted a compliance review of Winston-Salem\/Forsyth County Schools that examined whether the school district discriminates against Black students by disciplining them more frequently and more harshly than similarly situated white students. The review<\/a> found that during the 2022-23 school year Black students received 57.2% of discipline resulting in in-school or out-of-school suspensions while only making up 29% of district students. By contrast, white students made up 34% of district students but only received 14.2% of such discipline. The agreement reached between the U.S. Department of Education Officer for Civil Rights and the Winston-Salem\/Forsyth County Schools includes a series of actions<\/a> to be taken by Winston-Salem\/Forsyth County Schools to administer necessary school discipline without any discrimination on the basis of race and to ultimately eradicate inequitable disciplinary practices completely.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Against this federal and local backdrop, understanding the implications of suspension, and approaching a solution to discriminatory disciplinary practices is particularly pertinent.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

LEGAL BACKGROUND & WHAT IS AT RISK <\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The implications of both in-school and out-of-school suspensions are harsh, drastic, and often lead to removal to alternative schools. Where Black students are disproportionately removed and placed in separate schools\u2014like the data indicate is happening\u2014school districts engage in de facto school segregation. This practice flies in the face of Brown v. Board\u2019s <\/em>mandate that effectively overturned the \u201cseparate but equal\u201d doctrine, leading to the desegregation of public schools in the United States. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

ALTERNATIVES TO SUSPENSION<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Biases that Drive Inequity in Punishment<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

A study<\/a> conducted by Dr. Walter Gilliam analyzed how preschool teachers\u2019 implicit bias around race and gender leads to behavior expectations and disproportionate recommendations for suspensions and expulsions.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The study utilized an eye tracking device, that tracked the eyes of the preschool teachers while they watched videos of four children (one black girl, one white girl, one Black boy and one white boy) playing at a table. The instructions were to watch the children interact and the teachers were tasked with identifying challenging behaviors before they became too problematic. When the teachers saw behavior problems that would likely escalate, they were told to hit a button. However, what the teachers did not know is that no child would misbehave in any of the videos shown. All of the children were child actors that were hired to sit at a table and play quietly. The study was designed to identify where the teachers\u2019 biases took their eyes when they were anticipating misbehavior. In the midst of watching these 6-minute-long videos, the four children\u2019s faces would flash on the screen paired with a letter. The teachers were then asked to enter the letter of the child they believed they had to watch the most.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The study found that teachers significantly watched the Black children, particularly the Black boys, the most. The degree to which teachers were focusing more on black children was about the same, regardless of the race of the teacher. Dr. Gilliam explains that this is due to the fact the bias is implicit\u2014not something that is intentionally done or thought, but due to the teacher\u2019s expectations shaped by American society. For example, what is seen on the television or news tells teachers what to expect from each child.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The second part of the study provided the same teachers with a story that detailed a child\u2019s problematic and disruptive behaviors. Some stories provided additional background information about the child\u2019s home environment that could perhaps explain the child\u2019s behavioral problems such as facts about their parents or socioeconomic status. This additional information only worked if the teacher and the child were of the same race. In these instances, teachers became more accepting of the behavioral problem and rated the behavioral problems less severe and able to be remedied. However, if the teachers were of a different race, the additional information made the teacher view the behavior as more problematic and the teacher was less likely to believe that intervention would improve the situation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pre-school, a school level originally understood to be an environment where students learn to stand in a line, cooperate with others, and listen, is now understood to be a place where students at 3-4 years old are expected to already know how to do those things. In fact, children expelled from preschool programs are expelled at a rate<\/a> more than three times than kids expelled in grades K-12 combined and Black children are experiencing the brunt of these expulsion recommendations. The long-term repercussion from these implicit biases is the role that race plays in student expectations, teacher\u2019s empathy and ultimately Black children receiving harsher punishments.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Georgetown Law Professor, Kristin Henning, further expands on the concept of the criminalization of Black students and the role race plays in the inequities present in school discipline in her book The Rage of Innocence<\/a>. The book, published in 2021, draws on her experiences during her time working in the Juvenile Unit at the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia. The book outlines the manufactured fears of Black youth which ultimately denies Black youth the same freedom to test boundaries and determine who they want to be that is afforded to white youth. Instead, Black students are seen as a threat and are denied healthy adolescent development. These inequities are reinforced by the school to prison pipeline<\/a>. The school-to-prison pipeline is a phenomenon where students from marginalized communities are pushed out of schools and into the criminal justice system due to harsh disciplinary policies, zero-tolerance approaches, and the presence of police in schools. The disproportionate application of these policies has a greater impact on minority students, perpetuating a cycle of incarceration rather than fostering discipline that facilitates rehabilitation and education attainment.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

To combat these trends identified in Dr. Gilliam\u2019s study and Professor Henning\u2019s book, schools need to engage in less punitive practices and instead implement solutions that reach contributory factors.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

One Approach <\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

One contributory factor to a student\u2019s ability to positively participate in the classroom is food security<\/a>. Free or reduced lunches provide meals at school for students who are part of food insecure families. Students qualify<\/a> for free or reduced meals if their households are below the 130% federal poverty level or receive SNAP\/Food Stamps or TANF. Black children are more likely<\/a> to experience food insecurity than children of other races. In 2022<\/a>, 29% of Black children lived in food insecure households. This means one in three Black children did not have reliable access to food. Further, Black individuals made up 20.1% of the population in poverty but only 13.5% of the total population, meaning that the Black population was overrepresented<\/a>. Food insecurity impacts Black children at a disproportionate rate, directly compounding the inequity of Black children successfully being able to participate and perform in the classroom.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Students enrolled in free or reduced-price lunch programs are suspended from school at nearly double<\/a> that of their more affluent peers. New research<\/a> suggests that one way to lower discipline rates is by providing meals at school for all students regardless of their families\u2019 income. While the racial makeup of the students who qualify for free or reduce lunch is not available locally, in 2018 one in five kids in North Carolina lived in poverty<\/a>. In 2017, 21.1% of Black North Carolinians lived below the federal poverty line compared with 9.8% of white North Carolinians. During the 2019-2020 school year, 57.7%<\/a> of students qualified for a free or reduced-price lunch program.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In North Carolina, \u201c[t]o apply<\/a> for free or reduced-price meals, house\u00adholds must complete the application and return it to the school or to the School Nutrition Office within the school district, charter school, non-public school or other institution participating in the National School Lunch Program.\u201d Anecdotally, Dr. John Shepard, principal of North Henderson High School, has stated that the application is \u201ccumbersome<\/a> and challenging for parents\u201d\u2013requesting information that families are often reluctant to share. Additionally, \u201c[a]ll applications<\/a> for free and reduced-price meal benefits are subject to verification of income at any time during the school year by school or other program officials.\u201d This means that while free or reduced-price meals may be approved at the outset of the year, any change in a household income that thrusts a household above the income limit disqualifies a child from participating in a free or reduced-price meal program. The problem with this is that households that rely on hourly wages are directed to report what they \u201cnormally<\/a>\u201d make, not what they make month-to-month. This includes in situations of job loss<\/a>. Additionally, households stuck on the cusp of qualifying or not for free or reduced meals are perpetually stuck in being qualified or not. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Providing school lunches not only addresses the individuals who float around the qualifying mark, it eradicates the stigma<\/a> around kids who qualify for free and reduced-price lunches. The way schools distribute free and reduced-price meals makes it easy to pick out which kids come from families who qualify and leads to lower qualifying students enrolling. This stigma is carried with students throughout the school day<\/a>.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thurston Domina, Associate Dean of the UNC School of Education and one of the authors of the Stigma Free Lunch: School Meals and Student Discipline study, believes<\/a> that suspension and exposure to exclusionary discipline in school is largely the interaction of two different things: what the student does and how the teacher perceives what they do.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The study compared schools in Oregon that started offering universal free school meals through the federal school meals program\u2019s community eligibility provision to those who did not. The researchers were able to determine<\/a> that in the schools that offered universal free meals, suspensions declined.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2022, the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction presented before the COVID Subcommittee<\/a> of the Joint Legislative Commission on Governmental Operations. Lead school nutrition official, Senior Director Lynn Harvey, asked state leaders to: (1) write a letter to NC\u2019s Congressional Delegation requesting that the Waivers [implemented during COVID] be extended and maximum federal reimbursement funds to continue into the next school year and possibly beyond; and (2) consider state funding to support the School Nutrition Program to: per meal supplement, provide funding for meals at no cost to students in elementary schools, and provide funding for support staff.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Harvey noted that \u201cchronic hunger and prolonged food insecurity impact a child\u2019s physical, mental, social and emotional health and well-being and directly correlates with their classroom and academic performance.\u201d Providing no-cost meals<\/a> will alleviate food insecurity issues that may impact academic performance.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

While providing school meals only addresses one aspect of the whole child, it is an example of how to begin fashioning a solution that addresses the causation of behavioral problems. Ultimately, this solution may prevent the need to rely on such aggressive forms of school discipline.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

CONCLUSION<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

While an orderly classroom is essential to fostering a learning environment, disproportionate discipline practices that result in suspension, expulsion, and\/or the removal of Black students from the classroom at a disproportionate rate is also a reality. Instead of villainizing students, secluding them through suspensions and alternative school transfers, and tasking students with solving their own behavioral problems, approaches that nurture the whole child should be a primary focus.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Approaches that focus on the whole child, regardless of race or socio-economic status, refocus the discussion on the cause of behavioral problems, and ultimately, push back against the \u201cquick fix\u201d of suspension and expulsion.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kiah Stith<\/strong>  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Class of 2025, Staff Member  <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

INTRODUCTION  In November 2023, the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights released its 2020-21 Student Discipline and School Climate in U.S. Public Schools report. The discipline compliance review revealed discriminatory disciplinary practices in K-12 education. It found that Black boys were nearly twice as likely as white boys to receive an out-of-school suspension …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[9],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/320"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=320"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/320\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":321,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/320\/revisions\/321"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=320"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=320"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=320"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}