School Suspension: Less is More[PDF]

Recommendations 8

• R1
  Every Marin County school board review amended Education Code 48900.5 and develop a formal written directive, to communicate the other means provision while stating explicitly that suspension is to be used only as a last resort.
• R2
  Each school district create an advisory task force that includes participants from the school board, the superintendent’s office, and each school within the district to study successful suspension intervention programs.
• R3
  Once the task force completes its review (R2), each school board adopt appropriate, comprehensive suspension interventions, such as the restorative practices and alternatives presented in Appendix A.
• R4
  Each high school update Parent-Student Handbooks to include both the Education Code other means requirement and a detailed discussion of suspension alternatives.
• R5
  Administrators of each school review suspension data on a regular basis and provide results of that review, in writing, to the district superintendent and school board as a means to ensure compliance with policy.
• R6
  The County Superintendent of Schools schedule regular sessions with inter-district administrators and school personnel to broaden countywide insight into and implementation of suspension intervention programs.
• R7
  Each Marin County high school district adopt policies to substantially decrease or eliminate entirely suspensions for willful defiance (Section 48900(k) of the Education Code).
• R15-20
  percent of this individual’s time devoted to disciplinary issues, restorative programs are in the planning stages. Consistency of program implementation remains a potential issue. Does every student have equal opportunity to participate? A small number of administrators admitted they are currently constrained by lack of resources such as available and trained personnel. Others stated they choose to exclude students they deem “a waste of time” from alternative interventions. A restorative justice professional observed that, across Marin County schools, “Not every kid gets the opportunity for peer review. It’s still a judgment call.” This person went on to say, “I believe all kids in similar situations should be given access to restorative programs.” Most interviewees suggested that, given more time and resources and less cultural resistance, they would enhance programs, citing specifically restorative practices. In other words, there is a will in search of a more expansive way. Conclusions After an exhaustive study of these trends and issues, the Grand Jury concluded that Marin’s largest high schools have equity issues that mirror much of the state. For similar offenses one child might benefit from suspension-intervention programs while another child may be sent home where no adult is available to provide supervision. The disparity between intervention opportunities exists not only among the three Marin high school districts, Tamalpais, San Rafael, and Novato, but at times between schools in the same district. Some of these differences in disciplinary outcome relate to the serendipity of school boundaries, tougher disciplinarians, or simply wrong place wrong time. The Grand Jury believes that hands-on district-wide approaches would encourage appropriate resource allocation, cooperation between competing interests, and equitable implementation of suspension diversion programs. As a result of this investigation, the 34 “Terra Linda Student Conduct Code, Disciplinary Violations and Consequences,” Terra Linda Student & Parent Handbook, 2013-2014, pp. 22-23, http://tlhs.srcs.ca.schoolloop.com/file/1217027460424/1281197196381/1135646307358714573.pdf. The Grand Jury regards this type of intervention specificity as worthy of county-wide consideration. Grand Jury recommends educational administrators at all levels scrutinize data and policies on a school-by-school basis in an effort to improve disciplinary consistency, especially as it relates to suspension policies. Also recommended is a review of successful programs across the state. To these ends, each district and school should develop a flexible toolkit of alternatives to suspension (as in Appendix A) whenever practical. Implementation of alternatives should be a focus of elected board members, supervisors, principals, assistant principals, teachers, and parents. In recognition of these findings, all Marin school boards, not just the three high school districts in this study, would do well to study formally the pros and cons of available programs. Educators nationally view San Rafael’s Davidson Middle School as a restorative model. Within Davidson, widespread teacher training in Restorative Circles is woven with regular Peer Court sessions and No Bully Solution Teams (see Appendix A). When asked if Davidson-like programs could be duplicated at Marin high schools, one district official answered unequivocally, “Yes.” Another, when asked why programs were not being studied and implemented in a similarly systematic manner, answered, “That’s a good question.” Where programs like this already exist, investigation of their effectiveness would reap dividends. On a more macro-level, inter-district cooperation would contribute additional benefit. With empowerment and funding issues, it is unlikely Marin County will ever consolidate its twenty school districts. But that should not preclude inter-district cooperation in program evaluation and personnel training. Perhaps this is an area where the Office of the Marin County Superintendent of Schools might aid in facilitating or at least encouraging systematic approaches that speed adoption of better practices. With an investment in time, curiosity, focus, and additional hands-on directives, schools will move closer to establishing the same quality outcomes for all students while preserving impressive recent gains in suspension reduction. Another administrator said of the Grand Jury suspension review: “Sometimes we need a kick to our backsides.” If so, consider this report a firm pat on the back accompanied by a gentle boot. FINDINGS F1. Marin high school boards failed to communicate effectively to administration and staff changes to the Education Code (Section 48900.5) requiring schools to try other means before suspending for nonviolent offenses. F2. There is a lack of written, specific, and emphatic direction (codification) coming from the three high school boards regarding suspension intervention goals and policies. F3. Students are being subjected to inconsistent consequences for similar behavior. F4. Maintaining the recent reductions in overall suspensions at Marin’s high schools will depend upon the support and direction from the district school boards. F5. Parent-student handbooks are not current and do not provide users adequate insight into suspension alternatives (Terra Linda excepted) or the updated Education Code other means requirement. F6. Marin high schools and school boards do not thoroughly analyze suspension statistics seeking verifiable cause-and-effect explanations for yearly variance. F7. Communication among Marin’s school districts, regarding ongoing suspension intervention programs, would help to reduce unnecessary duplication of experience and training. F8. The response to willful defiance, an ill-defined, nonviolent suspendible offense, is inconsistent across Marin’s high schools and districts. RECOMMENDATIONS R1. Every Marin County school board review amended Education Code 48900.5 and develop a formal written directive, to communicate the other means provision while stating explicitly that suspension is to be used only as a last resort. R2. Each school district create an advisory task force that includes participants from the school board, the superintendent’s office, and each school within the district to study successful suspension intervention programs. R3. Once the task force completes its review (R2), each school board adopt appropriate, comprehensive suspension interventions, such as the restorative practices and alternatives presented in Appendix A. R4. Each high school update Parent-Student Handbooks to include both the Education Code other means requirement and a detailed discussion of suspension alternatives. R5. Administrators of each school review suspension data on a regular basis and provide results of that review, in writing, to the district superintendent and school board as a means to ensure compliance with policy. R6. The County Superintendent of Schools schedule regular sessions with inter-district administrators and school personnel to broaden countywide insight into and implementation of suspension intervention programs. R7. Each Marin County high school district adopt policies to substantially decrease or eliminate entirely suspensions for willful defiance (Section 48900(k) of the Education Code). REQUEST FOR RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal code section 933.05, the Grand Jury requests responses as follows: From the following governing bodies: Novato Unified School District Board n Tamalpais Union High School District Board n San Rafael City School Board n The governing bodies indicated above should be aware that the comment or response of the governing body must be conducted in accordance with Penal Code section 933 (c) and subject to the notice, agenda and open meeting requirements of the Brown Act. From the following individual: Marin County Office of Education, Superintendent n The Grand Jury invites responses from the following: The Superintendent of Novato Unified School District n The Superintendent of the Tamalpais Union District n The Superintendent of the San Rafael City District n Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code Section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Civil Grand Jury. The California State Legislature has stated that it intends the provisions of Penal Code Section 929 prohibiting disclosure of witness identities to encourage full candor in testimony in Grand Jury investigations by protecting the privacy and confidentiality of those who participate in any Civil Grand Jury investigation.