Student exclusions in Massachusetts schools rise 15% in 2000-01, a 22% increase since 1998-99; minorities most affected

September 2003

Student exclusions are up dramatically in Massachusetts schools according to a report on student exclusions released by the state's Department of Education on September 30, 2003.  In Massachusetts, student exclusion is defined as the removal of a student from participation in regular school activities for disciplinary purposes permanently, indefinitely or for more than ten consecutive school days.

The most recent DOE report is based on data collected for the school year 2000-01. The report is posted at http://www.doe.mass.edu/infoservices/reports/exclusions/0001/full.pdf. Earlier reports can be accessed from http://www.doe.mass.edu/infoservices/reports/exclusions/.

HIGHLIGHTS:

Student exclusions from Massachusetts schools rose by 15% in 2000-01, the largest one-year increase in the past six years.  The 1,621 student exclusions in 2000-01 (representing a rate of 1.7) is the highest number reported during the past decade.  Exclusions increased by 22% between 1998 and 2000, numbering 1,326 in 1998-99, 1,412 in 1999-00, and 1,621 in 2000-01.   

African American and Latino students disproportionately experience school exclusion.  In 2000-01, Latino students represented 11% of the school population, but 30% of the exclusions. African American students represented 9% of the school population, but 27% of the exclusions.  Exclusion rates for Latino students (4.6) and African American students (5.1) are more than five times the rate for white students (0.9) and nearly five times the rate for Asian students (1.3).

Student exclusions are up in all age groups, but the greatest increase is for students 10 years and under.  Student exclusions in this category quadrupled between 1998 and 2000. Exclusions in this age group numbered 16 in 1998-99, 32 in 1999-00, and 65 in 2000-01.

Student exclusions are up in all race/ethnic groups, but the greatest increase is for African American students, for whom exclusions increased by 70% between 1998-99 and 2000-01.  Exclusions for African Americans numbered 257 in 1998-99, 340 in 1999-00, and 438 in 2000-01.

By grade, exclusion rates are highest - and rising - in grade 9, where exclusions increased by 67% between 1998-99 and 2000-01. Exclusions in this age group numbered 296 in 1998-99, 366 in 1999-00, and 427 in 2000-01.

By district, exclusion rates are highest - and rising - in Springfield, where exclusions doubled between 1998-99 and 2000-01.  Exclusions in Springfield numbered 234 in 1998-99, 358 in 1999-00, and 471 in 2000-1. 

By type of offense, the highest number of exclusions is for possession of an illegal substance in school.  These exclusions numbered 273 in 1998-99, 318 in 1999-00, and 403 in 2000-01, an increase of 48% between 1998-99 and 2000-01. 

Exlusions for "other" reasons increased by 50% between 1998-99 and 2000-01. These unspecified offenses do not involve weapons, illegal substances, assault, or felonies committed outside of school.  They numbered 215 in 1998-99, 328 in 1999-00, and 322 in 2000-01. Exclusion for possession of a weapon on school premises increased by 0.2% in three years. 

In addition, of the 1,621 student exclusions in 2000-01:

-- 67% (1,084) came from only ten districts - Springfield, Boston, Worcester, Holyoke, Lowell, Lawrence, Revere, Quincy, Ware, and Barnstable. 

-- 29% (471) of all exclusions were reported from Springfield. 

-- 87 exclusions were reported from grades K-5. Of these students, 63 were from Springfield, 10 were from Lawrence, 3 were from Holyoke.

-- 85% (1,374) were excluded for more than 20 school days.

-- 29% (470) did not result in students' receiving any form of alternative education, including in-home tutoring. Excluded students receiving alternative education varied by district. 100% of excluded students in Cambridge, New Bedford, and Middleborough received alternative education; in contrast, only 59% of Boston students excluded and 26% of Holyoke students excluded received alternative education.


RECOMMENDATIONS

In Massachusetts, education reform has become synonymous with improving MCAS scores. The use of MCAS score changes as the sole measure of school performance, in turn, distracts educators, parents, the public, and local policy makers from an examination of other indicators of school success.  

Rising student exclusion rates -- along with rising attrition, grade failure, ninth grade dropout rates - indicate that increasing numbers of students in Massachusetts are being placed at risk of dropping out.
Research over many years, including research cited in a 1994 Massachusetts DOE report, reports that students excluded from school are placed at higher risk for later dropping out.

Addressing the needs of all students requires action at the state level and in local districts where high numbers of student exclusions indicate weakening school holding power.  

The Department of Education should request and the legislation should allocate funding for dropout prevention programs, including school-based approaches to reduce exclusions, at the 1995 level.  Schools and districts with high rates of exclusion require resources and leadership to develop alternatives to exclusion. School-based services, including schoolwide peer-oriented conflict mediation programs and school-based health centers are among the programs known to improve school climate, reduce student exclusions. and prevent dropping out.  Massachusetts has not allocated funding for such programs since 1997.  

In the meantime, school-based teams of teachers, parents, community organizations, and students in high-exclusion districts should take steps to reduce school exclusions districtwide and develop school-based alternatives to exclusion.  Schools with high rates of exclusion should work with community-based organizations to assess school climate, develop peer mediation programs and counseling services, and strengthen special education services.

The Massachusetts Department of Education should immediately engage with a team of administrators, school committee members, teachers, parents, community organizations, and students in Springfield to reduce school exclusions in that district. Through the 1990s, a disproportionate number of student exclusions were reported from Springfield. Springfield accounted for 30% of all exclusions in 1993-94, 26% in 1994-95; 26% in 1995-96; 27% in 1996-97; 23% in 1997-98; 18% in 1998-99; 25% in 1999-00; and 29% in 2000-01.   This state-district-community should  identify school policies and practices that contribute to exclusions, and develop school-based alternatives designed to realize a permanent reduction in exclusions across the district. 

The Massachusetts Department of Education should assess all exclusions reported for "other" reasons.  The increase in exclusions based on "other" reasons raises warning signals that some principals may be overstepping their authority in the use of exclusion. The Department should identify the source of these exclusions, by school and district.  Schools with high rates of exclusions for "other" reasons should receive technical assistance and resources to reduce these exclusions.

CONCLUSION

Improving school holding power for vulnerable students is as worthy a goal of education reform as improving test scores.  Achieving this goal requires reversing the growing reliance on student exclusions as a means of addressing conflicts in school.

Although exclusions may be an attempt to improve school climate, concentration of exclusions in particular districts suggests these districts in particular have a limited repertoire of responses to diverse student needs within these districts.  Schools and districts with limited capacity to address the needs of all students may fall back on an over reliance on exclusionary responses to problematic student behavior. 

Punitive and exclusionary responses to problematic student behavior do not necessarily result in a more disciplined or orderly school climate.  Exclusion is no substitute for establishing school routines that develop positive relationships between adults and students, reinforce students self-discipline, and strengthen students' skills in self-discipline while emphasizing that they belong in school. 

Anne Wheelock, Progress Through the Education Pipeline, Boston College