Fairfax County Public Schools

Transcription

1 Fairfax County Public Schools Annual Discipline Analysis Report: Year Three April 2015 Fairfax County Public Schools Office of Program Evaluation

2 Fairfax County Public Schools Annual Discipline Analysis Report - Year Three Table of Contents Executive Summary... 4 Introduction... 1 Organization of the Report... 2 Section 1: School Safety... 4 What percentage of FCPS students report feeling safe at school?... 4 Section 2: Discipline Violations... 5 What percentage of students commit discipline violations?... 5 Section 3: Discipline Consequences... 6 How do school-assigned consequences differ by discipline offense category?... 8 How do post-hearing consequences differ by discipline offense category?... 9 How are the number of days suspended associated with different disciplinary consequences? Section 4: Student Outcomes How does recidivism differ by discipline consequence? How does student attendance differ for students receiving different discipline consequences? How does high school GPA differ for students receiving different discipline consequences? How does being on track for high school graduation differ for students receiving different discipline consequences? Section 5: Parent Data How do parents feel about the hearings process? Section 6: Summary of Key Report Findings Areas of Improvement Areas of Decline or Negative Impact Areas of No Change... 26

3 Fairfax County Public Schools Annual Discipline Analysis Report - Year Three Table of Figures Figure 1. Discipline Monitoring Data Collected Before and After August 2011 Changes to FCPS' Discipline Process... 2 Figure 2. Percent of FCPS Students Reporting Feeling Safe at School... 4 Figure 3. Percent of Disciplined Middle and High School Students by Type of Offense at Baseline and Two Years After Changes... 6 Figure 4. Percent of Disciplined Students in Each Offense Category Receiving Different School- Administered Consequences at Baseline and Two Years After Changes... 8 Figure 5. Percent of Disciplined Middle and High School Students, Receiving Different Post-Hearing Consequences at Baseline and Two Years After Changes Figure 6. Percent of Disciplined Middle and High School Students, in Each Offense Category Receiving Different Post-Hearing Consequences at Baseline and Two Years After Changes Figure 7. Median and Range of Days Suspended by Assigned Discipline Consequence at Baseline and Two Years After Changes,, Figure 8. Percent Distribution of Days Suspended for Students Recommended for Expulsion at Baseline and Two Years Following Changes Figure 9. Recidivism Rates for Students Receiving a School Consequence for First-Time Offenses at Baseline and Two Years After Changes, by Type of School Consequence Figure 11. Comparison of Attendance Rates Prior to and Following Discipline Incident Year for Student Offenders at Baseline and Two Years After Changes, by School-Administered Consequence Figure 12. Comparison of High School GPA Prior to and Following Discipline Incident Year at Baseline and Two Years After Changes, by School-Administered Consequence Figure 13. Comparison of On Track for Graduation Prior To and One Year Following Incident at Baseline and Two Years After Changes, by School-Administered Consequence Figure 14. Percent of Parents who Rated Resources Helpful or Very Helpful in Preparing for the Hearings Process Figure 15. Percent of Parents Responding Yes to Item about the Hearings Process... 24

4 Fairfax County Public Schools Annual Discipline Analysis Report - Year Three Executive Summary Since 2011, Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) has been has been engaged in efforts to improve the disciplinary process it uses with students. Two series of changes, driven by input from various stakeholders, have been implemented across FCPS. The first, implemented beginning August 2011 (SY ), and the second, implemented beginning August 2013 (SY ), are explained more fully on page 1 of the full Annual Discipline Analysis Report. This report addresses data related to the first set of changes, which had been in effect for at least two years at the time they were collected for this report. This executive summary lists the main findings from each of five areas described in the full report: 1) School Safety, 2) Discipline Violations, 3) Discipline Consequences, 4) Student Outcomes, and 5) Parent Data. Findings in sections 2, 3, and 4 focus on students who committed discipline offenses during SY , which is the second year in which the first set of changes to the FCPS student discipline process were implemented. The term Baseline throughout this summary (and the remainder of this report) refers to data from SY and/or SY ; these years represent information about FCPS and students committing offenses prior to any changes to the discipline process. Findings in sections 1 and 5 focus on data from SY which is the third year since the first set of changes were instituted. Readers looking for further details and/or context about findings described in this summary should refer to the related section. Section 1: School Safety What percentage of FCPS students report feeling safe at school? The discipline process, in part, ensures the safety of all students in FCPS. Changes implemented in August 2011 would, therefore, be expected to maintain or improve levels of school safety as reported by students. As such, differences in data between Baseline and those following the August 2011 changes (SY , SY , and SY data on school safety) should be consistent. SY student survey data, collected in Fall 2013, indicates that the majority of FCPS students (Grade 6: 94 percent; Grade 8: 85 percent; Grade 10: 84 percent, Grade 12: 89 percent) continue to report feeling safe while at school. Perceptions of school safety have remained steady since Baseline for all but Grade 10 students who dropped four percentage points. For students in Grades 6,8, and 12, the percentages of students who reported perceiving their schools as safe environments in Fall 2012 was approximately equal to the percentages from SY , SY , and the Baseline year (SY ), with only minor fluctuations of one to three percentage points from the prior year. Section 2: Discipline Violations What percentage of students commit state-reportable discipline violations? Changes implemented in August 2011 were not expected to impact whether students committed statereportable discipline violations. Therefore, this section is intended only to provide context for the discussion on the consequences and student outcomes that follow: ES-iv

5 About 95 percent of FCPS middle and high school students were not involved in state-reported discipline violations in the second year following the August 2011 changes (SY ). This percentage is similar to the Baseline data. Patterns of students committing violations after the August 2011 changes mirror findings from the Baseline years. Similar to the findings from the Baseline years, in SY , following the August 2011 changes, the majority of discipline violations committed by the five percent of middle and high school students with state-reported offenses were categorized as Other Offenses, rather than as more severe Weapons, Assaults or Drugs & Alcohol offenses. Section 3: Discipline Consequences How do school-assigned and post-hearing consequences differ by discipline offense category? How are the number of days suspended associated with different disciplinary consequences? Changes implemented beginning in August 2011 targeted reducing the length of time students recommended for expulsion were suspended and, therefore, missing instructional time, as well as an increased emphasis on keeping students in their enrolled schools, when practicable. Consequently, one would expect that for students going through the hearings process in SY , the number of days suspended would be smaller than those in the Baseline years. The changes also could lead to a higher percentage of students being allowed to return to their enrolled schools after hearings. SY patterns of school-assigned consequences received by students mirror patterns found in the Baseline years. More severe school-assigned consequences (e.g., Recommended Expulsion) were related to Weapons, Assaults, and Drugs & Alcohol offenses than All Other Offenses. Offenses falling into the All Other Offenses category more commonly received less severe consequences, such as in-school suspension, parent notification, alcohol or drug seminar, etc. For students going through the hearings process as a result of a recommendation for expulsion in SY , an overwhelming majority were allowed to return to FCPS for educational services; less than one percent were expelled without services. o The majority of students going through the Hearings Office in SY were reassigned to an alternative educational setting (Middle School: 55 percent; High School: 58 percent), as had been the case in the Baseline year. o Matching the division s increased emphasis on keeping students in their enrolled schools when practicable, large percentages of students going through the hearings process were allowed to return to their enrolled schools than in the Baseline year. The percentage of students allowed to return to their enrolled schools more than doubled for middle and high school students (increase of 18 and 12 percentage points, respectively). In the two years of suspension data monitored after the August 2011 changes began, the number of days of instruction missed as a result of suspensions for students involved in the Hearings Process suspended has continued to trend downward. For SY , the maximum number of days students have been suspended as a result of post-hearing consequences has decreased since the Baseline year with the largest drop equal to 48 percentage points for students receiving Long- Term Suspension. Therefore, the discipline process changes had their intended impact on decreasing the number of days that students who entered the hearings process were suspended. ES-v

6 Section 4: Student Outcomes How do recidivism, attendance, GPA, and being on track for high school graduation differ by discipline consequence? As part of the changes implemented in August 2011, extended academic and emotional support was provided in SY and SY to students involved in cases handled by the Hearings Office. So, while under suspension, students going through the hearings process received instructional support from FCPS to keep them learning and engaged with school. Consequently, it s possible that rates of recidivism, attendance, high school GPA, and being on track for graduation may be better for these students than for students who had gone through the hearings process in the Baseline years. Recidivism (committing another reportable offense within the same school year): Overall, about onethird of students committed multiple reportable offenses in SY , consistent with observations in previous years both before and after the August 2011 changes were implemented. Fewer students who reenroll in their base school and those who attend another regular school commit another reportable offense in the same school year than when sent to an alternative educational setting following a hearing. Moreover, for students whose first infraction was handled solely within the school, students were more likely to commit another state-reported offense within the same school year when they received an Other Consequence than when they received Short-term Suspension. Attendance: Analysis of the attendance of middle and high school students disciplined during SY reveals that all students had lower attendance rates one year following the discipline violation compared to the year prior to the violation. Additionally, the difference in attendance rates from the year before the incident to the year after is also larger for all students meaning that the drop in attendance rate is bigger for students disciplined in SY compared to Baseline. High School GPA: Patterns of changes in High School GPA from the year prior to the discipline incident year to the year after the incident were consistent with what was found at Baseline. Students committing an offense in SY who received either an Other Consequence or Short-term Suspension (and who on average missed between 0 and three days of instructional time as seen in Figure 7), the average end-of-year GPA one year following the discipline incident was statistically equivalent to the year prior to the incident (2.01 to 2.03 and 1.95 to 1.89, respectively). For students receiving Recommended Expulsion, who averaged over 14 days of missed instruction during the infraction year, there was a small increase in GPA which was negligible, however, in terms of achievement. Accordingly, missed instructional time did not seem to hinder student performance. These findings mirror those for students involved in discipline infractions during each of the Baseline years. On track for high school graduation: Approximately 13 percent or fewer high school students involved in discipline violations during SY fell off track for meeting high school graduation requirements between the year prior to the incident to the year following the incident (11 percent decrease for Other Consequence, 15 percent decrease for Short-Term Suspension, 12 percent decrease for Recommended Expulsion students). This matches findings observed for students committing offenses in SY and is slightly lower than at Baseline, suggesting that OSS may help more students remain on track for graduation the year after an incident. Still, data suggest the biggest benefit may be experienced by students recommended for expulsion than those receiving schooladministered consequences. ES-vi

7 How do parents feel about the hearings process? Section 5: Parent Data As part of the changes implemented in August 2011, expanded discipline-related data collection and monitoring were put into place. FCPS began soliciting voluntary feedback from parents who go through the hearings process. While there are no Baseline data for comparison, data from the years following the August 2011 changes are reported here through SY All families attending a hearing received a survey. Ninety-eight of approximately 582 families returned surveys during SY (17 percent response rate). While the 17 percent may shed light on parent s views, this percentage is too low to draw conclusions or generalizations from the data. Overall, parents who responded to the survey reported satisfaction with available resources and the hearings process experience during SY The full report, which follows, provides detailed information about the statements provided in this executive summary. Readers can access additional data, thorough explanations, and graphical depictions of the findings in the full report. ES-vii

8 Fairfax County Public Schools Annual Discipline Analysis Report - Year Three Introduction Since 2011, Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) has been engaged in efforts to improve the disciplinary process it uses with students 1. Through these changes, FCPS can better balance the interests of individual students and the division s responsibility to maintain a safe environment for all students. Two series of changes, driven by input from various stakeholders, have been implemented across FCPS. The first, implemented beginning August 2011 (SY ), is the basis of this monitoring report. These changes included: 2 1. Improved communication, particularly in the Student Rights and Responsibilities (SR&R) Grades K-12 Handbook; 2. Extended academic and emotional support for students involved in cases handled by the Hearings Office; 3. Adjusted Hearings Office processes; and 4. Expanded discipline-related data collection and monitoring. With the intent to engage the community and gather additional input in discipline process improvements, FCPS implemented additional changes effective August 1, 2013, 3 which are not covered by this monitoring report. This Year Three report represents the final year of monitoring the August 2011 changes. As indicated by asterisks on Figure 1, the Baseline report included Violations, Consequences, and Student Outcome data from SY , as well as School Safety data from SY (all prior to the August 2011 changes). These data served as the first year of Baseline data. The subsequent Year One report included an additional year of Baseline data regarding Violations, Consequences, and Student Outcome data from SY , as well as School Safety and Parent data from SY subsequent to the August 2011 changes (all of which are indicated by "+" on Figure 1. The Year Two report contained the first year of Violations, Consequences, and Student Outcome data, and the second year of School Safety and Parent data since the August 2011 changes to FCPS discipline process were implemented (indicated on Figure 1 with "^"). Figure 1 highlights the data included in this Year Three report with blue bold font, which reflect the second year of Violations, Consequences, and Student Outcome data, and the third year of School Safety and Parent data since the August 2011 changes. 1 The following FCPS website chronicles the events and decisions that have occurred since 2011: 2 More information on the SR&R changes that were effective August 1, 2011 can be found here: 3 Changes implemented effective August 1, 2013 include but are not limited to: 1) faster parental notification processes by school administrators, 2) expedited review of the written record for first-time marijuana possession and for first-time possession of certain weapons, 3) adjustments to FCPS regulation due to statutory changes regarding Weapons offenses, 4) reduction of offenses with mandated recommendations for expulsion, and 5) new options for principals to recommend a student s reassignment to an alternative program, rather than recommend expulsion. Additional details on the changes implemented in SY can be found here: 1

9 Figure 1. Discipline Monitoring Data Collected Before and After August 2011 Changes to FCPS' Discipline Process The purpose of this report is to present student discipline data (violations and consequences) from SY , as well as additional discipline-related data from SY , and to discuss emerging patterns comparing the recent data with data before the August 2011 changes (SY and SY , referred to as Baseline throughout this report 4 ). The sources for the discipline data reported in this document include the FCPS Hearings Office and Department of Information Technology (DIT) (which also provided student outcome data). 5 In addition, the Hearings Office distributed Parent Surveys at student disciplinary hearings; completed surveys were sent directly to the Office of Program Evaluation (OPE). Additional details about data sources and methodology used in this report are available in Appendix A. Organization of the Report The Annual Discipline Analysis Report - Year Three is organized into five data sections and a summary: o Section 1: School Safety - focuses on student perceptions of school safety based on the Fairfax County Youth Survey administered in SY ; o Section 2: Discipline Violations - presents discipline offenses committed during SY that required reporting to the Virginia Department of Education (VDOE); 4 Starting with the Year Two report, baseline data from SY and SY were averaged to allow for more stable Baseline data and more straightforward comparisons of data from before the August 2011 changes were implemented to the two school years after the August 2011 changes were implemented. 5 This report is designed as a comprehensive report on discipline in FCPS. Therefore, it includes Hearings Office data presented in the SY Hearings Office Annual Report (i.e., expulsion cases). However, this report extends beyond Hearings Office cases to a broader spectrum of discipline violations (both those requiring a hearing, as well as those reported by DIT to the VDOE that result in Short-Term Suspension or Other Consequences). The non-hearing violations comprise the majority of data included in this report. 2

10 o Section 3: Discipline Consequences - describes discipline consequences assigned by schools and through the hearings process, including the number of suspension days, to students committing state-reported offenses in SY ; o Section 4: Student Outcomes - tracks recidivism, attendance, high school GPA and being on track for graduation in the year subsequent to discipline for students committing state-reported offenses during SY ; and o Section 5: Parent Data describes FCPS parent data about the hearings process based on surveys distributed and received during SY o Section 6: Summary of Key Report Findings summarizes areas where FCPS demonstrated improvements, declines or negative impacts, and no change. Discussion of the first five sections is organized around critical questions that FCPS leadership approved as the focus of the annual discipline monitoring reports. Responses to each question include brief background or contextual information, followed by major findings on the question. Additional data evidence, as well as information on data sources and methodology, is provided in Appendix A. In reviewing this report, the reader should be aware of several limitations: o FCPS has instituted additional changes to the discipline system beyond the August 2011 changes of interest in this set of monitoring reports. Thus, the data presented in this final report may not reflect the current state of the FCPS discipline system. In particular, the Violations, Consequences and Outcome data for students committing discipline offenses in SY , which is the core of this report, precede the August 2013 changes to the discipline process. SY data included in this report (i.e., School Safety and Parent data) may more accurately represent current functioning as they were collected subsequent to the August o The number of students considered for some analyses is small either due to a focus on subgroups of students (e.g., those committing a certain offense or receiving a certain consequence) or due to loss of students as a result of looking at student outcomes over multiple years. When fewer than ten students were available within a group, data were replaced with the designation TS to represent that the group was too small for reporting purposes. o The report considers only primary offenses for each violation reported to the VDOE. In many cases, a second or third offense is recorded for the same incident and may factor into the type of consequence issued. o The analyses are mostly descriptive rather than inferential. That is, while the report describes patterns of behavior, staff were not asked to collect additional data to explain why the patterns exist. Without such additional data, observed differences cannot be causally linked to any of the August 2011 changes. 3

11 Section 1: School Safety What percentage of FCPS students report feeling safe at school? Changes implemented in August 2011 were expected to maintain or improve levels of safety as reported by students. Overall, the vast majority of students in FCPS reported feeling safe while at school during all four years examined for this report (both before and after changes) indicating the changes did not impede students' overall sense of safety in school. Data from the Fall 2013 Fairfax County Youth Survey were collected from all FCPS students in grades 6, 8, 10 and 12. Figure 2 shows the percentages of students in each grade who reported feeling safe at school. As these data show, a high percentage of FCPS students reported in Fall 2013 (red bars) that they feel safe at school (94, 85, 84, and 89 percent for grades 6, 8, 10, and 12, respectively). Thus, the percent of students reporting feeling safe continued to be high in Fall Overall, these findings suggest that FCPS maintains a sufficiently effective disciplinary framework in its schools to allow the vast majority of students to perceive the schools they attend as safe environments. Additional student survey data are available in Appendix B. When comparing levels of safety reported in Fall 2013 to those reported in the baseline year (black bars), students in three of the four grade levels (6, 8, 12) reported feeling safe at approximately equivalent levels (within three percentage points 6 ) as during the baseline year (Fall 2010). The percentage of grade 10 students reporting that they feel safe at school was four percentage points lower than at baseline. In comparison to the prior year (fall 2012), the levels of reported safety found in Fall 2013 demonstrated approximately equivalent performance at two of the four grades (6 and 12) and a downward trend of three percentage points at the other two grades (8 and 10). Figure 2. Percent of FCPS Students Reporting Feeling Safe at School 6 This approach to pass rate differences is used in FCPS to interpret year-to-year changes in Student Achievement Goal data. It is not based on statistical significance, but instead represents a general rule of thumb that accommodates expected small levels of variation either up or down over time. 4

12 Note: While the previous section was based on student perceptual data, the next three sections (Discipline Violations, Discipline Consequences, and Student Outcomes) are based on factual data (e.g., discipline offense counts, discipline consequences, attendance, GPAs, etc.). Section 2: Discipline Violations 7 This section presents data on students involved in discipline incidents in SY that FCPS was required to report to the VDOE. State-reported discipline violations are a subset of those that schools document in student records, since some discipline information recorded in student records is not required to be reported to the VDOE. The discipline offense cases that form the basis of the data provided here typically do not result in a hearing. Rather, the vast majority of cases covered in this report are discipline offenses that are handled by schools with Short-Term Suspension or other, lesser consequences. The changes implemented in August 2011 were not specifically targeted towards changing the number of students involved in discipline violations. As a result, we did not expect great differences in data between Baseline years and the years following the August 2011 changes. What percentage of students commit discipline violations? The number of middle school students who committed state-reported discipline violations during SY represents five percent of all FCPS middle school grade students (1,403 of 28,414) that year. Similarly, the number of high school grade students who committed such violations during that school year represents five percent of all FCPS students in grades 9 through 12 (2,596 of 55,001). Though the percentage is approximately the same as at baseline (when it was six percent of the middle and high school population), the number of students involved in state-reported discipline offenses has decreased since the Baseline years (when it averaged 1,614 students for middle school and 3,104 students for high school over the two Baseline years). Also consistent with Baseline data, the majority of students committing discipline violations were involved in only one incident (68 percent at the middle school level and 63 percent at the high school level). The remaining one-third were involved in multiple incidents in the same school year. Slightly less than one-fifth of middle and high school students committed multiple offenses in multiple years (17% (n=700) in SY ; 16% (n=639) in SY ). This is similar to the percentage of students committing multiple offenses in multiple years found during Baseline. While the VDOE has a framework for categorizing discipline offenses (see Appendix C for details of the VDOE framework and related FCPS data), FCPS has developed its own framework for categorizing offenses. The FCPS framework separates three types of high-interest offenses (Weapons, Assaults, Alcohol and Drugs) from Other Offenses. This approach allows, for example, the separation of offenses such as bringing a toy gun to school from use of a bomb device (which, under the VDOE categorization framework, are both lumped into a single Weapons category). The FCPS framework reflects the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook (Regulation 2601) and is also used by FCPS Hearings Office to report annually on student discipline offenses that have gone through the hearings process. Figure 3 reflects this framework for considering all reportable discipline violations committed by middle and high school grade students in SY (see Appendix D for a list of offenses falling into each category). Using this 7 For the purposes of this report, discipline violations refers to offenses committed by students that FCPS is required to report to the VDOE. The Code of Virginia requires the reporting of certain discipline offenses regardless of consequences. Federal laws such as the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994 (GFSA) and Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) require annual reporting of the number of students suspended or expelled or, in the case of students with disabilities, sanctioned an in-school suspension. Disciplinary offenses reported to VDOE are a subset of those that schools document in student records; additional disciplinary offenses are reported in school records as required by the SR&R or at the discretion of school administrators. 5

13 framework, the large majority of both middle and high school students fell within the All Other Offenses category, following the same trend observed at Baseline. In SY , 91 percent of middle school students and 85 percent of high school students involved in discipline incidents committed an Other offense. Assaults represented the most common category among the high-interest offenses committed by middle school students but were nonetheless only a small percentage (eight percent) of students during SY For high school students, drug and alcohol offenses were the most common high-interest category of offense committed (15 percent). Weapons offenses were the least common offenses at both the middle and high school level (two and one percent, respectively). Figure 3. Percentages of Disciplined Middle and High School Students 8 by Type of Offense at Baseline 9 and After Changes (SY , SY ) Middle School: Baseline (n=3,227), SY (n=1,425), and SY (n=1,403) High School: Baseline (n=6,207), SY (n=2,716), and SY (n=2,596) Section 3: Discipline Consequences Discipline consequences are sanctions imposed on students for discipline violations with the intention of holding students accountable for their behavior and preventing discipline problems from occurring again. The SR&R Handbook, which is FCPS Regulation 2601, provides guidelines about which consequences should be applied to different offenses. As outlined in this document, some offenses require mandatory consequences, while other offenses allow discretion in the outcomes assigned. Discipline consequences discussed in this report are divided into consequences assigned by schools and consequences assigned by FCPS Hearings Office or School Board. All students committing discipline 8 The number of students (n) listed reflect the number of unique students who committed any of the offenses. Therefore, students who committed multiple violations are counted once for every different category of violation committed, and percentages will sum to more than 100%. 9 Baseline consists of data averaged across two years (SY and SY ). While the Baseline data presented in the figure are calculated averages, the number of students reported is the sum of students across each of the Baseline years. Please refer to the Year One Discipline Monitoring Report to see the data from SY and SY reported separately. 6

14 violations receive a school-assigned consequence. There are three groupings of school-assigned consequences listed here in increasing order of severity: (a) Other Consequences (such as ATOD seminars, detention, parent conference), (b) Short-Term Suspension (i.e., suspension of ten or fewer days), and (c) Recommended Expulsion. Students who have been assigned a Short-Term Suspension or Recommended Expulsion end up missing school. In accordance with the Code of Virginia, some offenses, (e.g., some Weapons and Drug & Alcohol offenses) require a recommendation for expulsion. Students receiving the most severe school-assigned consequence, Recommended Expulsion, must subsequently enter the hearings process overseen by FCPS Hearings Office. 10 Students recommended for expulsion are not typically permitted on FCPS property without prior written permission of the Division Superintendent, unless the school principal expressly permits the student to attend an Alcohol & Drugs seminar. Ultimately, the Hearings Office or the School Board assigns a final post-hearing consequence based on a review of the case. Post-hearing consequences fall into six possibilities: return to enrolled school, reassignment to another regular school, reassignment to an alternative setting, expulsion with services, expulsion with no services (i.e., expelled for 365 days without FCPS educational services) and long-term suspension (i.e., suspension for longer than ten days). The first five post-hearing consequences are in increasing order of severity. The final post-hearing consequence (long-term suspension) cannot be placed on the severity continuum since it is primarily assigned at the end of the school year when sending a student back into a school site for a few days is not feasible. Sometimes the final placement of students going following a hearing differs from the consequence assigned to the student via the hearing process. 11 For example, during SY , approximately two percent of students experienced consequences different from the consequence assigned by the Hearings Office or School Board. The rest of this report will focus on the post-hearing consequence actually experienced by the student. Changes implemented in August 2011 targeted reducing the length of time students recommended for expulsion were suspended, and therefore missing instructional time, as well as keeping students in their enrolled schools when possible. As a result, one would expect that for students going through the hearings process in SY , the number of days suspended would be smaller than those in the Baseline years. The changes also could lead to a higher percentage of students being allowed to return to their enrolled schools after hearings. 10 The Hearings Office will handle a case when a student is given the school-assigned consequence of being recommended for exclusion, reassignment or expulsion. This report, however, only looks at the cases where a student is recommended for expulsion. 11 Most typically, the assigned consequence is altered for Special Education students whose individual education plan (IEP) team decides an alternative location is better aligned with the students educational needs. 7

15 How do school-assigned consequences differ by discipline offense category? In keeping with different consequences being assigned for different types of offenses, the severity of consequences assigned to students differed considerably by the category of the discipline offense. Similar to baseline years, the majority of offenses resulted in Short-Term Suspensions and the majority of Recommended Expulsion cases stemmed from Weapons, Drugs & Alcohol and Assault violations. Figure 4 shows that in SY , the percentage of middle school students receiving the school-assigned consequence of Short-Term Suspension ranged from 23 percent (Drugs & Alcohol) to 67 percent (Assaults), while the percentage of students receiving the school-assigned consequence of Long Term Suspension ranged from two percent (Other Offenses 12 ) to 72 percent (Drugs & Alcohol). Data for high school students showed a similarly diverse range of varying school-assigned consequences by category. The category Other Offenses captured the large majority of discipline cases during SY , and the most frequent consequence for these offenses was Short-Term Suspension (55 percent). The least frequent consequence for the Other Offenses was Recommended Expulsion at both middle (2 percent) and high school (3 percent). Figure 4. Percent of Disciplined Students 13 in Each Offense Category Receiving Different School- Administered Consequences at Baseline 14 and Two Years After Changes 12 See Appendix D for a list of discipline offenses considered as All Other Offenses. 13 The number of students (n) listed reflects the number of unique students who received any of the consequences. Therefore, students who committed multiple violations and subsequently received different types of consequences are counted once for every different consequence received. 14 Baseline consists of data averaged across two years (SY and SY ). While the Baseline data presented in the figure are calculated averages, the number of students reported is the sum of students across each of the Baseline years. Please refer to the Year One Discipline Monitoring Report to see the data from SY and SY reported separately. 8

16 How do post-hearing consequences differ by discipline offense category? 15 The percentage of students who were allowed to return to their enrolled school more than tripled for middle school students and more than doubled for high school students, compared to Baseline. Four hundred and sixty-nine students were reported to the VDOE as receiving Recommended Expulsion in SY and subsequently received a consequence after a hearing had been completed. Consistent with prior years, this group of students represents less than one percent of FCPS middle and high school students during SY The Code of Virginia requires the Hearings Office and/or the School Board to consider a variety of factors, including the student s overall school record, when determining the appropriate consequence. Similar to the previous years, less than one percent of students involved in the hearing s process were expelled from FCPS without services following the hearing; instead, the vast majority of students were allowed to return to FCPS for educational services. As depicted in Figure 5, students were most often reassigned to an alternative education setting at both the middle and high school levels (55 percent and 58 percent, respectively). 17 The next most frequent post-hearing consequence was returning to their enrolled schools. The percentage of students who returned to their previously enrolled schools fell slightly in comparison to SY However, the percentage of students returning to their schools was still much higher than the baseline year. As in the previous year, students were rarely reassigned to other regular schools (middle school: seven percent, high school: five percent). Few students received long term suspensions (middle school: four percent, high school: seven percent; typically used only where there are few days left in the school year, so the student remains suspended through the end of the school year). 15 This report contains most but not all cases handled by the Hearings Office. Only students recommended for expulsion by schools and committing state-reported offenses are included. Other Hearings Office cases are not included. 16 The 469 students were involved in 489 Hearings Office cases. Some students were involved in multiple incidents. 17 Most students assigned to an alternative setting or other regular school can request to return to their base school following a specified period of attendance at the reassignment location; many students reassigned to another regular school are permitted to return to their base school beginning with the next school year as part of the original Hearings Office decision and, thus, do not need to make any such request. 9

17 Figure 5. Percent of Disciplined Middle and High School Students 18, 19 Receiving Different Post-Hearing Consequences at Baseline 20 and Two Years After Changes 21 Figure 6 shows similar results for students receiving different post-hearing consequences across the four types of offenses. The percentage of students allowed to return to their enrolled school decreased slightly from SY for most offenses. The largest drop occurred for middle school weapons violations, which fell by 44 percentage points. Across students from both school levels and all offense types, the percentage of students expelled without services fell from the previous year. The largest drop occurred for high school assault violations, which fell by 8 percentage points. 18 The number of students (n) listed reflects the number of unique students who received any of the consequences. Therefore, students who committed multiple violations and subsequently received different types of consequences are counted once for every different consequence received. 19 Students who withdrew from FCPS after participating in the hearing s process are not typically mandated to withdraw. Reasons for withdrawing vary. (n=47 in SY and n=35 in SY ). 20 Baseline consists of data averaged across two years (SY and SY ). While the Baseline data presented in the figure are calculated averages, the number of students reported is the sum of students across each of the Baseline years. Please refer to the Year One Discipline Monitoring Report to see the data from SY and SY reported separately. 21 Percentages less than three have been removed from the bars in the figure to make it easier to read. 10

18 Figure 6. Percent of Disciplined Middle and High School Students 22, 23 in Each Offense Category Receiving Different Post-Hearing Consequences at Baseline 24 and Two Years After Changes The number of students (n) listed reflects the number of unique students who received any of the consequences. Therefore, students who committed multiple violations and subsequently received different types of consequences are counted once for every different consequence received. 23 Students who withdrew from FCPS after participating in the hearing s process are not typically mandated to withdraw. Reasons for withdrawing vary. (n=47 in SY and n=35 in SY ). 24 Baseline consists of data averaged across two years (SY and SY ). While the Baseline data presented in the figure are calculated averages, the number of students reported is the sum of students across each of the Baseline years. Please refer to the Year One Discipline Monitoring Report to see the data from SY and SY reported separately. 25 Percentages less than three have been removed from the bars in the figure to make it easier to read. 11

19 How are the number of days suspended associated with different disciplinary consequences? For students involved in the discipline process, minimizing the time they must be out of school is important because out-of-school time is generally associated with loss of instructional time. While students receiving only a school-assigned suspension have a maximum of 10 days allowable under the SR&R, students who enter the hearings process have no such maximum dictated. Moreover, other factors, (e.g., parental requests to delay hearings, procedures related to students with disabilities, student detention or incarceration, appeals of Hearings Office decisions, etc.) can prolong the suspension. For students involved in the Hearings process, the number of days suspended reflects the sum of days suspended prior to the hearing and those given as part of the hearings consequence decision. Therefore, reducing the number of days between an incident and the hearing would result in fewer total days suspended. As part of the changes implemented in August 2011, Hearings Office processes were adjusted to make the process faster, thereby reducing the time that students miss instruction. Consequently, one would expect that the number of days suspended would be shorter in the year following the August 2011 changes compared to the Baseline years. Findings reveal that the number of days suspended have continued to trend downward since Baseline in the two years following the changes. Final post-hearing consequences assigned to students (back to enrolled school (c-i), reassignment to another school (c-ii), reassignment to an alternative school (c-iii), and long-term suspension (c-iv) demonstrated a varying range of days suspended, from a low of zero days to a high of 73 days. While the max has increased for c-ii, c-iii, and c-v since last year, the median (midpoint) has decreased indicating that the average duration of suspension is down overall for those groups. Further, they still remain lower than the maximum observed at Baseline. The median number of days of suspension resulting from each of the five possible post-hearing consequences varied between 11 and 13 days, depending on the post-hearing consequence applied); meaning half of all post-hearing consequences resulted in 13 or fewer days of suspension [Figure 7]. For SY , the maximum number of days students have been suspended as a result of post-hearing consequences has decreased since the Baseline year with the largest drop equal to 48 percentage points for students receiving Long-Term Suspension. In the two years of suspension data monitored after the August 2011 changes began, the number of days of instruction missed as a result of suspensions and the Hearings Process capped at 73, thirty days below the maximum observed at Baseline (prior to the changes). The overwhelming majority of students received suspensions between 0 and 20 days, unlike Baseline where the majority missed between 11 and 30 days. 12

20 Figure 7. Median and Range of Days Suspended 26 by Assigned Discipline Consequence at Baseline 27 28, 29, 30 and Two Years After Changes Range Median 26 For Baseline data (SY and SY ), values for days suspended used for Hearings Office cases is an estimate based on the first day of suspension and the date of the Hearings Office s final letter (stating the consequence assigned to the student). This computation resulted in an estimate of zero for some students whose cases ran beyond the end of the school year. For SY , these students were removed from the analyses for figures 7 and 8 (c-i: 5 students; c-ii: 7 students; c-iii: 30 students; c-iv: TS; c-v: 4 students). Beginning in SY , an accurate count of days suspended was used for all students, including those in the hearings process, rather than an estimate. 27 Baseline consists of data averaged across two years (SY and SY ). While the Baseline data presented in the figure are calculated averages, the number of students reported is the sum of students across each of the Baseline years. Please refer to the Year One Discipline Monitoring Report to see the data from SY and SY reported separately. 28 The designation TS on all figures indicates a group considered too small (i.e., number of students is <10) to be reported. 29 Students who withdrew during the hearings process are not included in this analysis (SY , n=47; SY , n=35). 30 Two students in SY and one student in SY who received a school-assigned consequence of Other were removed from the analysis. This data should not be considered typical and was removed from the analysis to give a more accurate picture of FCPS suspension data. 13

21 Figure 8 shows additional information about the amount of time out of school while going through the hearings process. During SY , 244 of 453 recommendations for expulsion (54 percent; red bars in Figure 8) resulted in students being suspended for 11 to 20 school days. Also common while going through the hearings process were suspensions of zero to ten days, which totaled 125 (28 percent; blue bars in Figure 8). Forty-nine suspensions involving the hearings process (11 percent; green bars in Figure 8) resulted in 21 to 30 days out of school. Thirty-one suspensions involving the hearings process (seven percent; orange bars in Figure 8) resulted in 31 to 50 days out of school. Four suspensions (one percent; beige columns in Figure 8) resulted in 50 to 80 days out of school. No suspensions involving the hearings process resulted in more than 80 days suspension. Figure 8. Percent Distribution of Days Suspended for Students Recommended for Expulsion at Baseline 31 and Two Years Following Changes 32 Section 4: Student Outcomes Discipline consequences are intended to bring about positive benefits for schools and students, but they also have the potential to result in negative student outcomes, particularly due to lost instructional time and associated decreased student achievement. Therefore, this section of the report focuses on positive and negative results associated with different discipline consequences. Outcomes include: (a) recidivism (repeat discipline violations), (b) school attendance, (c) cumulative high school GPA, and (d) being on track for high school graduation. 31 Baseline consists of data averaged across two years (SY and SY ). While the Baseline data presented in the figure are calculated averages, the number of students reported is the sum of students across each of the Baseline years. Please refer to the Year One Discipline Monitoring Report to see the data from SY and SY reported separately. 32 Percentages less than three have been removed from the bars in the figure to make it easier to read. 14

22 While recidivism and attendance data are reported for both middle and high school students, GPA and on track for graduation data are reported only for high school students. These data do not suggest that the consequence assigned to the student caused the outcome; rather, the patterns of outcomes associated with all of the students receiving the same consequence are described. SY marked the first year that all students entering the hearings process received instructional and emotional support as well as follow-up from FCPS to help keep up with content and complete assignments. In addition, supports are intended to help students and families establish connections with new settings in cases where students are removed from their enrolled schools as a result of the hearing. As a result, recidivism, attendance, high school GPA, and being on track for graduation findings may be better than that of students who had gone through the hearings process in the Baseline years. Records kept by the Department of Special Services, which oversees the Out of School Support (OSS) program that provide these support services, indicate that the large majority of students who went through the hearings process in SY and SY were contacted and began receiving Out of School Support on or before the third day of suspension. How does recidivism 33 differ by discipline consequence 34? One of the most desirable outcomes for students receiving a discipline consequence is that they not commit additional discipline offenses in the future. The rate of recidivism (committing an offense following experience with a first consequence) is consequently an important outcome. 35 That is, FCPS would hope that the first consequence applied to a student who commits a discipline violation curbs future discipline offenses by the same student. Overall, about one-third of students (32% of middle school students; 37% of high school students) committed multiple reportable offenses in SY , consistent with what was observed in previous years both before and after the changes were implemented. Figures 9 and 10 show recidivism rates for students who receive a school-assigned or post-hearing consequence. Figure 9 shows that students whose first infraction was handled solely within the school were more likely to commit another state-reported offense within the same school year when they received an Other Consequence (49 percent) than when they received Short-term Suspension (33 percent). Moreover, the percent of students who initially receive an Other consequence and who went on to commit another offense, has steadily increased by 10 percentage points since the August 2011 changes were implemented unlike the percent for students receiving Short-term Suspensions, which has remained stable. This finding might suggest that more lenient Other consequences are not as effective at prohibiting reoffending behaviors as the more severe short-term suspensions and that the steady increase in reoffending behavior for students who receive an Other Consequence may be attributable to the August 2011 changes. Figure 10 indicates that among students who had gone through the Hearings process as a result of their first offense during SY , students placed in another regular school had the lowest rate of recidivism 33 Recidivism is defined here as a student committing another reportable offense within the same school year. The analysis does not include nonreportable offenses that may have been recorded in a student s record either before or after reportable offenses. 34 The reader is advised not to compare recidivism rates for consequences determined by schools to those determined by the FCPS hearings process. Students going through the hearings process are, on average, in school fewer days during which they can re-offend and, most frequently, return to an alternative setting, which differs from FCPS regular schools. 35 Additional data on recidivism specific to Drug and Alcohol offenses can be found in Appendix E. 15

23 (0 percent) 36 consistent with before the August 2011 changes. This group also showed a decrease in recidivism of 6 percentage points from baseline. Rates observed for students sent to an alternative setting and those who returned to their enrolled school nearly reversed. Recidivism decreased by nine percentage points for students who were allowed to return to their enrolled school while recidivism for students sent to an alternative setting increased by 7 percentage points since Baseline, making students sent to an alternative setting the most likely to recommit another offense during the same school year. Given that OSS is supposed to provide continuity and connection for students to their post-hearing location, this finding suggests this may not be working as intended or that different supports are needed for this group, but is showing positive impact on students who are allowed to return to their enrolled school. Figure 9. Recidivism Rates for Students Receiving a School Consequence for First-Time Offenses at Baseline 37 and Two Years After Changes, by Type of School Consequence Baseline (n=8,843); SY (n=3,866); SY (n=2,388) 36 Given the atypical data point for this group in SY , it is hard to determine whether the decrease from baseline to SY is reliable. The recommendation is to continue monitoring this area. 37 Baseline consists of data averaged across two years (SY and SY ). While the Baseline data presented in the figure are calculated averages, the number of students reported is the sum of students across each of the Baseline years. Please refer to the Year One Discipline Monitoring Report to see the data from SY and SY reported separately. 16

24 Figure 10. Recidivism Rates for Students Recommended for Expulsion for First-Time Offenses at Baseline 38 and Two Years After Changes, by Post-Hearing Location 39 Baseline (n=527); SY (n=233); SY (n=179) Note: The remaining three analyses required data from the year before the discipline event occurred (i.e., SY ) and the year after the discipline event (i.e., SY ). Only those students with data available at both time points are included in the analyses. For example, a twelfth grade student committing a discipline violation during SY would typically not be included in these analyses since that student would not have data in the year following the discipline event. Therefore, the number of students included in the outcome analyses reported here is smaller than the number of students committing discipline offenses. Additionally, for the following three analyses, improvement is considered: -- an increase in student outcome (i.e., attendance, GPA, on track for graduation) from the year before to the year after the incident that is larger than the difference observed at Baseline, or -- a decrease in student outcome (i.e., attendance, GPA, on track for graduation) from the year before to the year after the incident that is smaller than the difference observed at Baseline. 38 Baseline consists of data averaged across two years (SY and SY ). While the Baseline data presented in the figure are calculated averages, the number of students reported is the sum of students across each of the Baseline years. Please refer to the Year One Discipline Monitoring Report to see the data from SY and SY reported separately. 39 Readers should interpret the percentage for students placed in another regular school in SY (30 percent) with caution. The numbers are too small (3 out of 10) to generalize or consider typical. 17

25 How does student attendance differ for students receiving different discipline consequences? Regular school attendance is considered a precondition for learning and academic achievement. Analysis of the attendance of middle and high school students disciplined during SY reveals that all students had lower attendance rates one year following the discipline violation compared to the year prior to the violation. Additionally, the difference in attendance rates from the year before the incident to the year after is also larger for all students, meaning that the drop in attendance rate is bigger for students disciplined in SY compared to Baseline. This is consistent with what was observed for students disciplined in SY who received a school-assigned consequence. However, for students recommended for expulsion, the data is less conclusive. Though the decrease is higher in SY (second year after changes), it was lower in SY (first year after changes), suggesting that attendance rates for this group are less influenced one way or another by external supports, or that OSS services were more effective after the staff had a year of practice to improve their program. Figure 11 shows the attendance rate was five percentage points lower for students receiving Other Consequence and Short-Term Suspension and nine percentage points lower for students Recommended for Expulsion one year following the incident compared to the year prior to the incident (94 and 89 percent and 94 and 85 percent, respectively). These decreases represent statistically significant differences in student attendance before and after the year in which the discipline offense occurred (p<0.01). Furthermore, these differences represent a small negative effect 40 of either Other Consequence, Short- Term Suspension, or Recommended Expulsion on attendance from the year before the discipline offense to the year following. This pattern of findings and significant differences matches what was observed in the Baseline years for students committing state-reported discipline violations. These findings together indicate that attendance rates are slightly worse in the year following an incident for school-assigned consequences compared to the Baseline years, but they may not be consistent influences positively or negatively for students recommended for expulsion. 40 Effect Size (ES) statistics quantify the size of the difference between two groups or the same group at two time points. Consequently, they measure the meaningfulness of the compared difference. An effect size of 0.8 to infinity is typically considered a "large" difference or effect, around 0.5 a "medium" effect, around 0.2 a "small" effect, and 0 to.1 not meaningful. ES is distinguished from a statistical significance test in that ES estimates the strength of an association (e.g., between AVID participation and SOL performance), rather than simply assigning a significance level reflecting whether the association could be due to chance. (See Jacob Cohen (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd edition).) 18

26 Figure 11. Comparison of Attendance Rates Prior to and Following Discipline Incident Year for Student Offenders at Baseline 41 and Two Years After Changes, by School-Administered Consequence Baseline (n=5,835); SY (n=3,081); SY (n=2,905) How does high school GPA differ for students receiving different discipline consequences? This question addresses the concern about the impact of discipline consequences on student achievement given the loss of the instructional time associated with some consequences. Cumulative GPA is used in this analysis as a general measure of student achievement at the end of a school year to gauge possible impact of discipline violations and consequences on student achievement. Because three years of high school data were required for inclusion in these analyses, most of these students were either in tenth or eleventh grade during the year of the discipline violation. Findings suggest that students involved in State-reported discipline violations demonstrate equivalent or slightly improved achievement as measured by GPA one year following discipline incidents. However, typically these students struggled both before and after the discipline offense (with an average GPA equivalent to approximately the letter grade C at both time points). When looking specifically at the students recommended for expulsion who would be the students receiving the additional support as a result of the August 2011 changes to the discipline process, these students are the only group to show an increase in GPA though it is small and not practically meaningful. This finding is similar to that found in the Baseline reports indicating that high school GPA is not impacted by the August 2011 changes. Figure 12 shows that for students committing an offense in SY who received either an Other Consequence or Short-term Suspension (and who on average missed between 0 and three days of instructional time as seen in Figure 7), the average end-of-year GPA one year following the discipline incident was statistically equivalent to the year prior to the incident (2.01 to 2.03 and 1.95 to 1.89, 41 The number of students reported at Baseline is not consistent with the number of students listed for SY and SY because Baseline consists of data averaged across two years (SY and SY ). Though the values at Baseline are calculated averages, the number of students reported is the sum of students across each of the Baseline years. Please refer to the Year One Discipline Monitoring Report to see the data from SY and SY reported separately. 19

27 respectively). For students receiving Recommended Expulsion, who averaged over 14 days of missed instruction during the infraction year (see Figure 7), there was a small increase in average end-of-year GPA the year after the incident compared to the year prior (p <0.01, ES =.19), though negligible in terms of achievement. Therefore, missed instructional time did not seem to hinder student performance. These findings mirror those for students involved in discipline infractions during each of the Baseline years. Figure 12. Comparison of High School GPA Prior to and Following Discipline Incident Year at Baseline 42 and Two Years After Changes, by School-Administered Consequence Baseline (n=2,694); SY (n=1,520); SY (n=1,950) How does being on track for high school graduation differ for students receiving different discipline consequences? 43 This question addresses the association between various discipline consequences and a student remaining on track for graduation. Specifically, the focus is on gauging whether students were on track for graduation in the school year following the incident relative to their being on track prior to the year the incident occurred. On track for graduation is based on minimum graduation requirements for general education students and differs from more minimal high school promotion requirements, which primarily rely on the overall number of high school course credits earned by a student. Specifically, on track for graduation is defined as: Baseline consists of data averaged across two years (SY and SY ). While the Baseline data presented in the figure are calculated averages, the number of students reported is the sum of students across each of the Baseline years. Please refer to the Year One Discipline Monitoring Report to see the data from SY and SY reported separately. 43 Data analysis for this question did not take into consideration the requirement of being eligible to graduate by August that school year. 44 On track for graduation requirements were developed in conjunction with staff from School Counseling Services in ISD which oversees the communication of high school course and graduation requirements to students. 20

28 End of 9 th grade: 5 total credits earned, including 1 English, 1 social studies, plus 3 credits from any other course (see Course Offerings Handbook); End of 10 th grade: 10 total credits earned, including 2 English (English 9 and 10), 2 social studies, 1 math, 1 science, plus 4 credits from any other course (see Course Offerings Handbook); End of 11 th grade: 15 total credits earned, including 3 English (English 9, 10 and 11), 3 social studies, 2 math, 2 science, 1 Health/PE, plus 4 credits from any other course (see Course Offerings Handbook); End of 12 th grade: 22 total credits earned (i.e., requirement for standard diploma), including 4 English (including English 9, 10 and 11), 4 social studies, 3 math, 3 science, 2 Health/PE, plus 6 credits from any other course (see Course Offerings Handbook). Being off track for graduation does not mean a student will fail to graduate but rather that the student may require additional time and opportunity to meet high school graduation requirements. Findings indicate that a moderate percentage of students were not on track before the discipline violation year in terms of meeting high school course credit requirements, and the percentage off track continued to increase one year following the incident. However, when looking specifically at the students who received Recommended Expulsion (who would be the students receiving the additional support as a result of the August 2011 changes), these students show a decrease in the difference between on track for graduation rates the year before the incident to the year after from that observed at baseline, indicating that the percent of students on track for graduation seems to be positively associated with the changes implemented in August 2011 as evidenced by a smaller percentage of students going off track for graduation compared to Baseline. Figure 13 shows that in SY , about two-thirds or more (67 to 79 percent) of high school students were on track for graduation prior to the incident year (74 percent receiving Other Consequence, 69 percent receiving Short-Term Suspension, 67 percent receiving Recommended Expulsion), and about half to just under two-thirds remained on track for high school graduation in the year following the incident (63 percent receiving Other Consequence, 54 percent receiving Short-Term Suspension, 55 percent receiving Recommended Expulsion). Therefore, approximately 13 percent or fewer high school students involved in discipline violations during SY fell off track for meeting high school graduation requirements between the year prior to the incident to the year following the incident (11 percent decrease for Other Consequence, 15 percent decrease for Short-Term Suspension, 12 percent decrease for Recommended Expulsion students). This matches findings observed for students committing offenses in SY and is slightly lower than at Baseline, suggesting that OSS may help more students remain on track for graduation the year after an incident though data suggest the biggest benefit may be experienced by students recommended for expulsion than those receiving school-administered consequences. 21

29 Figure 13. Comparison of On Track for Graduation Prior To and One Year Following Incident at Baseline 45 and Two Years After Changes, by School-Administered Consequence Baseline (n=2,354); SY (n=1,078); SY (n=1,111) Section 5: Parent Data When a student is recommended for expulsion, 46 that student and his or her parents have the right to participate in a hearing conducted by the Hearings Office. Parents may appeal the ten-day suspension that accompanies the Recommendation for Expulsion to the Hearings Office (and may also appeal decisions made by the Hearings Office to the School Board). During hearings conducted by the Hearings Office, school officials present details of the incident(s) that resulted in the recommendation for expulsion; the student is able to provide his or her version of events; and the parents are invited to share any information they would like the hearing officers to consider. Parents or guardians of students who participate in a hearing with the Hearings Office are asked to complete a survey. FCPS began administering the Discipline Hearings Process Parent Feedback Survey on August 1, 2011 to obtain feedback regarding the helpfulness of available resources for parents getting ready for the disciplinary hearing, as well as parental perception and understanding of the disciplinary process. Hearings officers distribute surveys on a rolling basis to families at the hearings. Parents return completed surveys to the OPE. As part of the changes implemented in August 2011, expanded discipline-related data collection and monitoring were put into place. FCPS began soliciting feedback from parents who go through the hearings 45 Baseline consists of data averaged across two years (SY and SY ). While the Baseline data presented in the figure are calculated averages, the number of students reported is the sum of students across each of the Baseline years. Please refer to the Year One Discipline Monitoring Report to see the data from SY and SY reported separately. 46 The Hearing s Office handles cases when student are recommended for exclusion, reassignment, or expulsion. This report, however, only looks at the cases where a student is recommended for expulsion so only that process is described here. 22

30 process. While there are no Baseline data for comparison, data from the years following the August 2011 changes are reported here. How do parents feel about the hearings process? As of June 30, 2014, parents had returned 98 completed surveys (17 percent response rate from approximately 582 distributed surveys). This is equal to the response rates observed last year and in Year One. While this is a relatively low return rate, it is representative of parents who took the time to provide feedback to FCPS on their thoughts regarding the hearings process. With this caution in mind, the parent data from returned surveys are available below (for more detailed information on the returned Parent Survey data, see Appendix F). Perception of Helpfulness of Resources Prior to Hearing As shown in Figure 14, a large majority of surveyed parents who accessed the resources available to them before the discipline hearing reported that the resources were Helpful or Very Helpful. Similar to previous reports, parents indicated that the Hearings Office staff (99 percent) and a copy of their child s discipline information (96 percent) were the most helpful resources. Overall, fewer parents who accessed the Students Rights and Responsibilities Grades K-12 Handbook in SY found it helpful compared to the initial level in Year One, while the percentages of those reporting on the the other five resources who found them Helpful or Very Helpful increased since Year One. Figure 14. Percent of Parents who Rated Resources Helpful or Very Helpful in Preparing for the Hearings Process Percent of Not Helpful, Somewhat Helpful, and Very Helpful is based on the numbers of survey respondents who accessed the resource. 23

31 Parent Feedback on the Hearings Process Figure 15 reveals parents positive feedback for various aspects of the hearings process in SY The vast majority of parent survey respondents reported that they were given enough time to share information about their child and to ask questions about the process (94 percent), and that they and their child were treated fairly during the hearing (95 percent). These parents also reported understanding what will happen next (91 percent), whom to contact if they have questions (90 percent), and their child s due process rights (96 percent). Compared to SY , parent feedback was slightly less positive with regard to understanding what would happen next (94 percent to 91 percent in SY ) and having enough time to share information about the child and ask questions about the process (96 percent to 94 percent in SY ). Figure 15. Percent of Parents Responding Yes to Item about the Hearings Process Section 6: Summary of Key Report Findings This Year Three report has presented monitoring information focused around the August 2011 discipline process changes implemented by FCPS. The results presented represent the discipline landscape in FCPS during SY , the second school year following the implementation of the August 2011 changes. However, OPE cautions the reader against direct causal linkage of the results described throughout the report to the August 2011 changes, since this investigation did not consider implementation of the changes or how they relate to outcomes. The report included five categories of discipline-related information: (1) school safety, (2) student discipline violations, (3) student discipline consequences, (4) student outcomes, and (5) parent perceptions of FCPS hearings process. School safety information described student perceptions of school safety. Student discipline violations and consequences delved 24

32 into state-reported discipline offenses committed by FCPS secondary students and the consequences received by these students. The student outcomes sections looked at four areas (recidivism, attendance, high school GPA, being on track for graduation) in the year following the discipline violation. Lastly, survey data gathered from families whose students were referred to the Hearings Office describe their perceptions of the FCPS hearing process. The School Board s initial motivation for making changes to the disciplinary process was to, above all else, maintain the safety of the students in FCPS, including those students who commit discipline violations. Two of the biggest concerns were that suspended students were missing too many days of school and, therefore, important instructional time, and that students were not being allowed to return to their enrolled schools after committing violations that resulted in a hearing. The following is a summary of the findings for SY grouped by the type of change observed: a) Improvements, b) Declines or Negative Impacts, and c) No Changes. Overall, each of the concerns highlighted above showed improvement in SY following the August 2011 changes. Areas of Improvement o o o o o Median days suspended decreased between five and nine days for students recommended for expulsion across all post-hearing consequences measured compared to Baseline. This decrease is consistent with median suspensions found the prior school year (SY ), which was the first school year after the August 2011 changes. The percentage of students who were allowed to return to their enrolled school has remained consistently higher than at Baseline with the percent more than tripling for middle school students (7 to 25 percent) and more than doubling for high school students (10 to 22 percent). Recidivism rates for students allowed to return to their enrolled schools have been consistently decreasing since Baseline (decrease of nine percentage points in total). Recidivism rates for students placed in another regular school have decreased since Baseline (decrease of six percentage points in total). The data for this group in SY was highly atypical and so comparisons to that data point are not valid. Smaller percentages of students fell off-track for graduation between the year prior to the discipline incident and the year after for students receiving Other Consequences and Recommended for Expulsion, compared to Baseline. This decrease is consistent with smaller percentages falling off-track compared to the year prior (SY ). There was no change for students receiving Short-term suspensions compared to Baseline or the year prior. Areas of Decline or Negative Impact o o o Levels of safety reported by students in Grade 10 dropped by four percentage points (from 88 to 84 percent) compared to Baseline and by three percentage points (from 87 to 84 percent) compared to the prior year (Fall 2012). Recidivism rates for students receiving Other Consequences increased compared to Baseline (increase of 10 percentage points). Recidivism rates among students recommended for expulsion who end up at an alternative school setting increased consistently since Baseline (total increase of seven percentage points). 25

33 Areas of No Change o o o o o o o o o Levels of safety reported by students in Grades 6 and 12 remained consistently high in the three years following the August 2011 changes (between 89 and 94 percent) with no significant differences compared to Baseline or to the prior school year (Fall 2012). Levels of safety reported by students in Grade 8 were approximately equal to that reported at Baseline (85 and 86 percent, respectively). In comparison to the prior school year (Fall 2012), reported school safety dropped by three percentage points (from 88 to 85 percent). Patterns of students committing violations stayed consistent for middle and high school students compared to Baseline (six percent at Baseline and five percent in both years following August 2011 changes). Patterns of school-assigned consequences received by students stayed consistent for middle and high school students compared to Baseline. Most students recommended for expulsion are sent to an alternative education setting, consistent with Baseline. Recidivism among students who received short-term suspensions remained consistent compared to Baseline and the year prior (SY ). On average, students recommended for expulsion as well as those who received Other Consequences had consistently lower attendance rates the year following the discipline incident versus the year before the incident as compared to Baseline and the prior school year (SY ). Patterns of changes in HS GPA were consistent for both school-assigned and post-hearing consequences. Percentages of parents who used available resources and found them helpful remained consistently high in the three years following the August 2011 changes. 26

34 APPENDIX A DATA SOURCES AND METHODOLOGY

35 Data Sources and Methodology Discipline data reported in this document reflect information provided to the Office of Program Evaluation FCPS Hearings Office and Department of Information Technology (which also provided student outcome data). Data Sources Discipline monitoring reports are based on data from multiple sources, including data from the Department of Information Technology (discipline data reported to the Virginia Department of Education (VDOE), attendance data, history of course credits, and end-of-year GPA), the Parent Exit Survey distributed by FCPS Hearings Office upon conclusion of a case, and the Student Youth Survey administered in Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) in collaboration with the Department of Neighborhood and Community Services of Fairfax County. Methodology for Data Analyses Days Suspended For SY and SY data, values for days suspended used for Hearings Office cases is an estimate based on the first day of suspension and the date of the Hearings Office s final letter (stating the consequence assigned to the student). This computation resulted in an estimate of zero for some students whose cases ran beyond the end of the school year. Beginning in SY , for Short-Term Suspension students and students Recommended for Expulsion, the days suspended (captured in the student information system, rather than an estimate) were used. Long-Term Impact on Student Achievement Analyses were conducted to compare the average end-of-year GPAs, attendance rates, and percent of students meeting course credit graduation requirements from the year before the discipline incident to the year after the discipline incident. Analyses were conducted separately based on the school-assigned consequence (Other Consequences, Short-Term Suspension, and Recommended for Expulsion). Each analysis was based on students having data from both school years; thus, the number of students for these analyses was smaller than the entire sample of students with discipline violations during the year under review. A-1

36 APPENDIX B ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS OF STUDENT SURVEY DATA ON TEACHER SUPPORT AND SCHOOL ENGAGEMENT

37 Additional Analysis of Student Survey Data on Teacher Support and School Engagement As indicated in the Year One Annual Discipline Monitoring Report, research suggests that teacher support and school engagement may mitigate discipline problems (e.g., Luiselli, Putman, Handler, Feinberg, 2005). Therefore, data from the Fall 2013 Fairfax County Youth Survey were analyzed to get a sense of student perceptions of teacher support and level of school engagement. For teacher support, the data reported below are based on one survey item (My teacher notices when I am doing a good job and lets me know about it), which is a shift from the data reported in the Baseline report where three teacher support survey items were used to calculate this outcome. School engagement data are based on a composite of three survey items (1. I have lots of chances to be a part of class discussions or activities; 2. In my school, students have lots of chances to help decide things like class activities and rules; and 3. There are lots of chances for students in my school to get involved in sports, clubs, and other school activities outside of class). Figure B-1 Percent of Students 48 Reporting Teacher Support 48 Percentages are based on the number of students who responded to that question. B-1

38 Percent of Students Reporting Teacher Support and School Engagement Figure B-1 presents the percentage of students providing positive responses to the item on teacher support during Fall 2010, 2011, 2012, and Overall, in Fall 2013, nearly two-thirds of the students surveyed in grades 8, 10, and 12 reported feeling supported by their teacher (66, 60, and 63 percent, respectively). Figure B-2 Percent of Students 49 Reporting Engagement in School Figure B-2 presents the average percent of students providing positive responses to items measuring level of engagement at school; a composite measure related to school climate from the Fairfax County Youth Survey. These data are obtained from the Risk and Protective Factors Survey which is collected every other year; therefore, data for this outcome were not obtained in Fall 2011 or Fall Overall, similar to the results in Fall 2010, about three-quarters of the students reported their engagement in school activities. While these findings lend support to an overall positive school climate at middle and high school levels in FCPS, the data collected since 2010 reveal some areas for improvement (e.g., teacher support: more praise from teachers when students are doing well; engagement at school: provide opportunities for students to help decide on things such as class activities and rules). 49 Sixth graders are not asked this question. B-2