Indicator: Positive behavior (discipline)
Definition
Students display behaviors that support their learning and that of their peers; they are not engaged in behaviors that lead to suspension, expulsion, or other types of exclusionary discipline such as restraint or seclusion.
RECOMMENDED METRIC(S)
Percentage of children who do not experience any of the following: in-school suspensions, out-of-school suspensions, disciplinary use of restraint and seclusion, or expulsions
Type(s) of Data Needed
Administrative dataWhy it matters
Being subjected to disciplinary action in school is negatively related to a host of academic outcomes that are key to student success, including attendance, course passing, standardized test achievement, high school graduation, and college enrollment. Because it is a strong predictor of later outcomes, student behavior—most commonly measured by disciplinary actions—is a component of many early warning indicators, along with attendance and course grades (these three primary predictors are known as the ABCs of early warning).
However, measuring the incidence of exclusionary discipline reflects more than just student behaviors; it also can signal school behavior, such as overly punitive approaches to discipline, or indicate the existence of bias in the system—for example, based on race, ethnicity, gender, or ability. Black and Latino students, students experiencing poverty, and students with disabilities experience suspensions at disproportionate rates. For instance, Black students are nearly four times as likely to receive an out-of-school suspension than White students. Black and Latino students are also more likely than White students to be expelled for similar behavior. There is evidence that racial disparities in suspension rates are larger in counties with higher racial bias, as measured by data on implicit and explicit bias from 1.6 million respondents across the country. Racial disparities in exposure to exclusionary discipline start early on: Black preschoolers are 3.6 times as likely to receive one or more suspensions as White preschoolers. Consequently, we also recommend measuring equitable discipline practices as an indicator of system conditions.
What to know about measurement
Although the absence of exclusionary discipline is not a perfect measure of positive behavior, we recommend using the proposed metric as the most feasible proxy given the widespread availability of discipline data and their value in predicting future academic outcomes. As a system condition, we also recommend monitoring disproportionality in suspensions and other disciplinary actions (equitable discipline practices) to address potential systemic bias. Systems might also consider looking at the mean number of incidents experienced by students, which could highlight how some students receive disproportionately severe disciplinary actions due to potential system bias (based on race, gender, or ability).
Schools regularly collect discipline data as part of their normal operations, as the Civil Rights Data Collection requires tracking and reporting in-school suspensions, out-of-school suspensions, expulsion, restraint, and seclusion. Although suspensions and expulsions are generally defined and tracked comparably, there are opportunities for states to apply more consistent definitions in determining what counts as physical restraint and seclusion. They can do so by adopting the revised federal definitions proposed by the Office of Civil Rights (see Arundel for a discussion of the challenges in defining and reporting restraint and seclusion in schools).
Given concerns over potential systemic bias in administrative discipline data, framework users might also consider observational assessments or self-reports to develop a more complete picture of behavior patterns within a school. Several validated teacher- and parent-administered instruments exist to measure pre-K and K–12 students’ social skills, adaptive behaviors, and antisocial behaviors; validated teacher- and student-administered instruments exist to measure the relationship between teachers and students. However, these assessments can be burdensome to administer and they measure constructs that overlap with other recommended indicators, including self-management, social awareness, and students’ perceptions of teaching. Therefore, we recommend measuring exclusionary discipline using administrative data alongside related indicators of social-emotional and behavioral well-being to have a comprehensive understanding of behavior practices.
E-W Case Studies
Source frameworks
This indicator appeared in eight source frameworks reviewed for this report. Several frameworks mention “disciplinary action,” including the P-16 Framework, the Center on Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes (CEELO) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) Birth to Grade 3 framework, and the National Education Association’s (NEA) Great Public Schools Indicators Framework. Research by CORE Districts, Council of the Great City Schools, and the Urban Institute also include measures of suspension and/or expulsion rates.
References
The framework's recommendations are based on syntheses of existing research. Please see the framework report for a list of works cited.