Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Discipline Equity topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District data show small absolute exclusion counts but persistent disparities; policy language and training to change
Summary
An administrative report showed that, while absolute exclusion and weapon/drugs counts are small, disparities persist for African American students at some schools. The district plans to change violation language (remove 'insubordination', separate 'fighting' and 'physical aggression'), increase bias-awareness training, and tighten reporting practices.
David Douglas administrators presented a multi-year discipline-disproportionality report at the Sept. 11 board meeting and outlined both data trends and planned operational changes.
The report — produced for secondary schools and focused on five indicators (percent of students with exclusions, drug possession/use, fighting, truancy, and weapons possession) — showed that overall exclusion counts are small in absolute terms but that disparities remain at particular schools for African American students. Presenters cautioned that a single incident can substantially alter disparity ratios when total counts are low.
Administrators said the district will revise offense nomenclature to reduce subjectivity and align with state categories: replace 'insubordination' with 'disruptive behavior', separate 'fighting' as mutual altercation from 'physical aggression', and replace 'truancy' with 'cutting class/leaving without permission'. They also plan professional development on bias and behavior, more frequent PBIS and equity-team reviews at the building level, and an emphasis on reteaching and de-escalation before invoking major discipline.
Questions from board members probed how metrics are weighted and whether the data distinguish in-school from out-of-school exclusions; staff said more exhaustive reports exist and will be shared offline, and that next cycles will show how new offense language affects reporting.
Board members asked for clearer breakdowns (in-school vs. out-of-school exclusions, absolute counts by grade) to understand modifiable factors. Administration emphasized successes such as middle- and high-school students with no exclusions (80–84% for the discussed subgroups) and noted targeted interventions (freshman-house model, expanded literacy coaching) aimed at reducing exclusion drivers such as chronic absenteeism and behavior incidents.
The report included discussion of how data are used at schools to inform PBIS meetings, equity teams and principal-level interventions.
