Part 2: Keeping kids in school… at all costs!
I understand the desire – almost obsession – educators have with keeping as many kids as possible in school and “off the streets.”[1] Those noble efforts often include giving a relatively small number of students second, third, and fourth chances. But, those efforts come with potential costs – on the social and emotional health of students and teachers, on teacher and student attendance, on teacher recruitment and retention, on students’ academic achievement… and, too often, even on the safety of students and adults in schools.
How great is the problem/need?
Since I served as the Chief Accountability and Technology Officer for the Atlanta Public Schools (APS) from 2014-2021, I will use APS and a couple of APS schools as examples. (However, similar examples could be found for any of the large Metro Atlanta school districts or any urban district across the country.)
According to the Georgia Governor’s Office Student Achievement (GOSA) dashboards,[2] in SY2021-22, there were 56,040 students enrolled in the Atlanta Public Schools (APS) and 4,763 (8.5%) APS students were given out-of-school suspensions (OSS) at least once during the school year and 1,121 (2.0%) were given in-school suspensions (ISS) at least once while less than 10 students were expelled.
If we examine the data for just the high schools, overall, 16.6% or 2,156 of the APS high school students were given OSS at least once during the 2021-2022 school year while only 4.7% or 618 students were given ISS. (The APS high school enrollment was 13,019.) Further, when we count all suspensions – i.e., including multiple suspensions of some students – there were a total of 4,402 OSS and 970 ISS… and, again, those only include high school students. If we include all schools, there were nearly three times that number of suspensions.
The 2021-2022 APS Student Handbook[3] provided detailed descriptions of the types, levels, criteria, and possible consequences for virtually every imaginable disciplinary infraction. There were four “levels” but only level 3 and 4 offenses could result in OSS and the maximum penalties range from 3-10 days. The level 3 and 4 descriptions include the following:
“Level 3 offenses are MODERATE acts of misconduct that place students or staff at risk of emotional or physical harm which may include threats to the health, safety, and/or property of others, and other acts of moderate or repeated misconduct.” (Maximum = 3 days OSS.)
“Level 4 offenses are SERIOUS acts of misconduct that place students or staff at risk of emotional or physical harm which may include threats to the health, safety, and/or property of others, and other acts of serious and repeated misconduct.” (Maximum = 10 days OSS.)
While the district level data provides a high-level view, to better understand the issues, it is helpful to look at individual school data. For example, in SY2021-2022, Benjamin Mays High School had an enrollment of 1,396 students and administered out-of-school suspensions (OSS) to 433 students or almost one-third (31%) of the students enrolled in the school. In addition, 103 students or 7.4% were given in-school suspensions (ISS). If we include all the suspensions at the school – including multiple suspensions of some students – there were 1060 OSS and 107 ISS – just from that one school.
During my time in the district, Thomasville Heights Elementary was “reconstituted” because it was consistently one of the lowest performing elementary schools in the state. In SY2021-2022, Thomasville Heights Elementary had an enrollment of only 310 students and administered out-of-school suspensions (OSS) to 18 students (6%). Only 1 student was given an in-school suspension (ISS). If we include all the suspensions at the school during that year, there were 31 OSS and, again, only 1 ISS.
The point here is simple. Whether we are looking at high schools, middle schools, or elementary schools, there is an overwhelming need for ongoing expert services for students experiencing serious mental health issues and students with serious disciplinary issues.
What is the solution? As I wrote last week, the challenges of student’s mental health and disruptive and dangerous behavior require more than a one-size-fits-all solution. The goal here is to help clarify what is working, what is not, and, more importantly, what is possible.
“Alternatives” Programs and Schools
A recent AIR study “found that more severe exclusionary discipline does not serve as a deterrent to students’ future reported behavior… has a consistent negative effect on many other long-term educational outcomes for students… has no effect on the behavior, academic outcomes, or attendance of peers… nor does it have effects on students’ or teachers’ perceptions of school climate.”[4]
Of course, the findings are not surprising. Roughly translated, they mean that “kids who get in the most trouble – i.e., expelled and suspended out-of-school – tend to continue to get in trouble and they tend to not perform well in school.” Nevertheless, the findings are still discouraging. Do they mean that schools should never suspend a student or recommend an alternative placement? Of course not. Do they mean that the challenges are too big for our schools to manage? Perhaps. Do they mean that our schools need more funding for alternative programs and to recruit and retain additional professional personnel to work with “at-risk” children? Absolutely!
However, first, it should be acknowledged that many “alternative” programs and schools literally do life-changing work. But, how many times have we (educators) complained – quite rightly – that our schools are asked to do too much, if not the impossible? Yet, at the same time, educators obsess about keeping kids in school – as if they know how to help our most troubled children, adolescents, and young adults.
Why? Because we see no alternative but to try to help them. However, if we hope to significantly “disrupt the school-to-prison pipeline,” we must have better alternatives… And, yes, more and better alternatives will cost more.
In-School Suspension (and Restorative Justice Practices)
Of course, for less severe disciplinary actions, less “exclusionary” approaches are needed and appropriate. According to Dickinson and Miller (2006), in-school suspension (ISS) is “a mechanism for removing disruptive students from the traditional classroom while allowing them to stay in their school. ‘The goal is to remediate behavioral concerns while also working to reconnect students to their traditional classroom’ (Connecticut State Department of Education, 2010).”[5]
In EdSource (2019), Carolyn Jones reported that “in an effort to improve campus climate and reduce behavior problems in the classroom, some schools have taken ambitious steps toward providing in-school suspension programs that include counseling, academic help and restorative justice practices… in which students talk with other students about their disruptive behavior, its causes and consequences.”[6] Importantly, according to Brenda Alvarez (NEA News), “Restorative justice practices center on relationships, from building healthy relationships and repairing damaged ones to reaffirming them by helping to develop students’ social and emotional skills.”)[7]
An AASA Child Defense Fund (2014) report stated that “Each student in ISS should meet with a school counselor, school psychologist, school social worker or other qualified school mental health professional to explore the root causes of their misbehavior… If students have more significant mental or behavioral health needs, ISS can be a way to provide appropriate services.”[8]
The “caseloads” of counselors and social workers will be discussed below but, clearly, to provide the services recommended by AASA will require districts to increase school budgets – funds many district leaders are likely to argue are not available. To overcome this “reluctance,” school leaders must believe the work and costs will pay dividends. They must have a vision of what success looks like – a vision that includes the benefits to both the “at-risk” students and the school as a whole.
If they don’t, as a number of experts have pointed out, while schools may intend for the programs to be “therapeutic” or “academic,” too often, the programs will continue to be simply “punitive” – little more than “baby sitting.”
Out-of-School Alternatives
In the districts in which I have worked, there were several types of “out-of-school” alternative programs and schools (although they varied among the districts). They included schools for adjudicated youth, “at-risk” students, students with “severe emotional, social, and behavioral challenges,” students who are “medically fragile or who need intensive behavioral support” and for “Expectant and Parenting Students.”[9]
By law, all the districts were required to provide services for incarcerated youth and, understandably, the options for those young people were always limited. For example, in DC, the educational services for “adjudicated youth” were provided in what we literally referred to as “the jail school” which was part of the D.C. Central Detention Facility – i.e., “the DC Jail.” To meet increasing demand for space, a separate 88-bed Youth Services Center (YSC) was opened in 2004 to serve youth placed in “secure detention by court order.”
Here, the focus is on alternatives for non-incarcerated “at-risk” students and, again, often the options are limited. In general, educators talk about two types of schools for “at-risk” students. The first typically serve students who have previously dropped out, have a history of academic difficulties, or are experiencing social or emotional difficulties (e.g., bullying).[10] Often, the smaller environment of this type of school is seen as critical for students who have struggled in a “traditional” school setting. One such school is Garza Independence High School in Austin ISD (Texas). According to the school’s website, Garza has “an award-winning educational program that offers students personalized pathways to graduation through self-paced curriculum.”
However, schools like Garza usually do not serve students who have more serious disciplinary issues or who have committed criminal offenses. In Austin ISD (AISD), for example, there is one such school. The Alternative Learning Center (ALC) is “a school community built on second chances” and “the placement setting for students who are removed from the traditional school setting for disciplinary actions.”[11]
The capacity at the ALC is only about 110 and is typical of schools for “at-risk” students – one small school for a district where according to the 2022 Texas Academic Performance Reports (TAPR), 821 secondary students or 2.3% of the middle and high school students in AISD were disciplined for “violent and/or criminal offenses.”[12] And, the ALC is typical in that most of the students are expected to commute across the city, where they know almost no one, and where all the students are there because they have been “removed from the traditional school setting for disciplinary actions.” That is a formula for poor attendance, high dropout rates, low achievement… and “exclusionary discipline that does not serve as a deterrent.”
School-within-School Alternatives
In most districts, available space is limited (i.e., seats). So, additional “regional” alternative programs would likely need to be co-located in “traditional” schools. Such arrangements maximize the use of space and minimize the operational costs. A “school-within-school” model would formalize the arrangement. Typically, a school-within-school operates largely autonomously of the larger school although the principal of the “host” school retains authority over issues such as school safety.
Again, ideally, the alternative school enrollments should be small (e.g., around 100 students). The available research suggests that smaller schools provide a better chance to build relationships between the students and the adults. Consistent with restorative justice practices, smaller schools can focus on “relationships – from building healthy relationships and repairing damaged ones to consistently reaffirming them by helping to develop students’ social and emotional skills.”)[13] In turn, the research suggests that smaller schools have advantages in terms of student attendance, school climate and culture, and school safety.[14]
While ISS are typically for very short periods, usually less than two days, out-of-school suspensions (OSS) for more serious disciplinary actions often require students to be placed in “alternative” placements for longer periods. However, even in OSS, districts try to return students to their “base” school as quickly as possible. But, is that realistic? Is ten days out-of-school at an alternative location sufficient to help students who have serious mental health issues or are using and/or selling drugs or are defiant, threatening, or have other serious disciplinary or behavioral issues or are repeat offenders? Probably not. As a result, for many “at-risk” students, the cycle simply continues – suspensions, under-resourced and/or poorly implemented alternative programs, and reentry into the “traditional” school.
While locations, organization size, or duration are important issues, the most critical factors are still the quality of the services provided and, critically, that includes resources and services for the students upon reentry into their “traditional” school. Just as in ISS programs, to have a chance of success, a sufficient number of well-trained counselors, school psychologists, school social workers, tutors, and speech and language pathologists must be available to work with students.
Locations
To develop additional “alternative” options, district leaders will likely have to overcome a number of “political” hurdles to create a system that is equitable, effective at meeting both the students’ and schools’ needs, and accepted by the school communities. Among those hurdles would be the selection of locations. While many districts have under-enrolled schools, in the more “popular” (e.g., affluent) urban communities, school enrollments often exceed 100% of the “building capacity.” However, placing the “alterative” programs/schools only in schools that have space available might be viewed as an equity concern by some community leaders. On the other hand, “rezoning” schools that are at 100% of “capacity” so they have additional space for “alternative” programs would likely be opposed by many parents in those communities.
Staffing
As noted, to more effectively serve the most “at-risk” students – students with serious mental health issues, severe disciplinary issues, and those who have committed criminal offenses – will require additional well-trained professional personnel. Unfortunately, recruiting and retaining professional staff for our urban public schools is a serious problem that is only getting worse. Not only is there an ever increasing shortage of “regular” teachers, there are major shortages in areas such as special education, social work, counseling, speech and language, and psychologists. For example, in NYC, “of the 612 schools reporting the most violent incidents in the 2016-17 school year, 218 (36%) had no full-time social worker on staff. Of those that did have a social worker on staff, caseloads averaged over 700 students – well above the minimum recommended level of one social worker for every 250 students.”[15] Similarly, in California, the student-to-counselor ratio is 708 to 1, according to the American School Counselor Association.[16]
What would it cost to adequately fund the facilities, personnel, and resources services needed? Surprisingly, the costs may not be as high as some might expect. For example, in most districts, four regional alternative school-within-school locations of 75-100 students each – staffed at one (1) special education teachers, counselor, social workers, speech and language specialists, and psychologists for every 25 students – would cost about $5-8 million. For most large urban districts, that is a modest expenditure and, given the cost of not taking aggressive action, a small price to pay.
Conclusions
Today, many children attend schools in communities where poverty, drugs, gangs, and crime are the norm. Many “at-risk” children have language and literacy deficits that were not addressed effectively in the critical early learning grades. As a result, the norm at the secondary level is too many adolescents and young adults academically unprepared for the more challenging curriculum – curriculum many see as “irrelevant” to their lives. At the same time, urban schools face an almost impossible dilemma. They want “all” their kids in school so they can learn and are not out on the streets “getting in trouble.” So, urban public schools welcome kids who have serious mental health issues, those who are disruptive and defiant, and those who committed serious disciplinary and/or criminal offenses back into their schools over and over again.
There are no perfect solutions. But, there are clear steps for improvement. As I have written many times before, those steps begin with early literacy and numeracy. However, we must also have better options for students who need mental health services and for the schools who are trying to serve the social, emotional, and academic needs of thousands of children, adolescents, and young adults. Restorative justice practices must be key components of all these efforts.
Yet, clearly, there are situations where students must be removed from their classes or schools either because they are consistently so disruptive that teachers are unable to teach or because they have “crossed over” into threatening, dangerous and/or criminal behavior.
In the past, I have argued that many critical turn-around practices are not expensive. That is not the case regarding secondary reforms. Significantly more alternative options and services for the students who require them will require districts to fund additional programs and/or schools. Providing one alternative school for the thousands of students given OSS is not nearly good enough.
Further, for alternative schools/programs to be effective and help as many students as possible successfully transition back to a “traditional” school, the schools/programs must be fully staffed with well-trained teachers, counselors, social workers, psychologists, speech and language pathologists, and administrators – professionals who specialize in working with “at-risk” youth. For districts the size of those where I have served – Atlanta, Austin, DC, Baltimore, and St. Louis – the cost of multiple OSS locations (staffed at one social worker, counselor, psychologist, special educators, and speech and language pathologist for every 25 students) would range from about $5-8 million or about 1/2 of one percent of the average urban district’s budget – expenditures routinely made for many other initiatives.
Finally, school leaders must rethink the length of suspensions and the strategies and services for students when they return to their traditional classes or school. Simply repeating the current cycle of student suspensions, expulsions, under-resourced and/or poorly implemented alternative programs, and reentry into traditional schools is not a solution – for anyone. Further, giving kids who have serious mental health and behavior issues ISS or OSS for one, two, five, or ten days with little support or follow-up when they return to their traditional classes or school is a formula for failure.
Our schools cannot eliminate the poverty, drugs, or crime in their communities and it is certainly unreasonable and unrealistic to expect the public schools to reverse, resolve, or overcome all the serious social and emotional issues many children bring with them to school. Still, our public schools, including hundreds of schools for “at-risk” students, have achieved many great successes. In fact, alternative programs and schools around the country literally do life-changing work every day. However, to meet the ever-growing mental health needs of our children, districts will have to do (and spend) even more.
Unfortunately, today, in the case of urban secondary schools, I believe district and school leaders have become accustomed to low performance, poor attendance, low graduation rates, low expectations, disorder, and disruptive behavior. That is “the new normal” and that mindset must change. All change begins with a vision of what is possible and it is possible to dramatically improve our mental health services for the kids who need them and, at the same time, our city schools.
--------------------------------
Dear Subscribers,
I hope you find the information and ideas in my newsletters compelling and useful. They are informed by over 40 years of experience working with twenty superintendents, dozens of future superintendents, hundreds of senior administrators, and thousands of principals. On almost a daily basis, I listened to their hopes, doubts, complaints, excuses, and promises… and discussed and debated priorities, philosophies, theories, programs, and plans. (A short Bio is provided below.)
If you find the newsletters valuable, please share them with friends and colleagues. Only by informing school board members, educators, parents, and community leaders can we finally create the great schools every child and family deserves. If you have questions or comments, those are also very welcome.
Best Regards!
Bill Caritj
President and CEO
Capital Schools Consulting (CSC)
https://www.capitalschoolsconsultinggroup.com/
------------------------
Links to recent newsletters:
Mental Health, Safety, and School Culture
Part 1: The New Normal
(April 6, 2023)
“Practical” turn-around strategies
(March 6, 2023)
The Most Important Things I learned in 2022
(January 26, 2023)
Keep Your Eyes on the Prize!
(December 27, 2022)
The Answer is… In Your Own Backyard!
(December 8, 2022)
Where is the Outrage?
(November 8, 2022)
------------------------------
Bio/Introduction
For forty years, I was fortunate to lead the assessment, evaluation, and accountability departments of nine public school districts, including six of the largest in the nation – Washington, DC, Baltimore, St. Louis, Austin, Atlanta, and the Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA). In almost every instance, my position was relatively independent of the internal and external “politics.” As a result, I am not biased toward or against any particular specialty, theory, philosophy, or program. My only bias is to results.
Over the years, I have had a wide range of responsibilities including state and local test development, accountability, research and evaluation, standards alignment, school improvement, information technology, and instructional technology. From 2014-2021, I supervised the Atlanta Public Schools (APS) Information Technology, Instructional Technology, Assessment, Research, Evaluation, and Data and Information divisions. Over that period, our teams were credited with restoring the integrity and public trust in the district’s assessment, accountability, and data and information systems after the cheating scandal of 2008. During the COVID pandemic, these outstanding teams also did amazing work to enable and support (and, in many cases, develop) the high-quality virtual programs provided each day to over 50,000 students who were forced to receive their daily instruction at home.
Since “retiring” from the Atlanta Public Schools, I’ve been very busy – working on a book, How to Fix Our City Schools, publishing a monthly newsletter (of the same name), and launching the Capital Schools Consulting Group (CSCG). CSCG services include executive coaching, training, evaluation, and data analytic services to district leaders and school boards. How to Fix Our City Schools is part memoir and part handbook and while I am very excited about finally completing a final draft, the process has made me even more acutely aware of the disappointment I feel about the missed opportunities and failures of the last forty years and my fear that they will continue indefinitely for future generations of poor and disadvantaged children.
----------------------------------------------------------
Capital Schools Consulting (CSC)
https://www.capitalschoolsconsultinggroup.com/
· Data analysis and reporting
· Board training – data analytics, planning, and goal setting
· Executive coaching for new school board members
· Executive coaching and support for new superintendents’ transition teams
· Planning and monitoring district reforms
· Logic model and strategy map development
· Major program implementation audits
[1] https://www.kvue.com/article/news/education/austin-isd-discipline-policies/269-9b4a4db2-8d74-47b4-aa77-198f47a3ab69
[2] https://public.gosa.ga.gov/noauth/extensions/DisciplineDashV1/DisciplineDashV1.html
[3] Atlanta Public Schools, Student Handbook, 2021-22,
https://www.atlantapublicschools.us
[4] An Empirical Examination of the Effects of Suspension and Suspension Severity on Behavioral and Academic Outcomes, Christina LiCalsi, David Osher, Paul Bailey, American Institutes for Research, August 2021.
[5] In-School Suspension: Strategy Brief, Jenna Strawhun, Reece L. Peterson, Scott Fluke and Ana Cathcart, University of Nebraska-Lincoln. March, 2015.
[6] In-school suspensions the answer to school discipline? Not necessarily, experts say, Carolyn Jones, October 29, 2019, https://edsource.org/2019/in-school-suspensions-the-answer-to-school-discipline-not-necessarily-experts-say/619083
[7] School Suspensions Do More Harm than Good, Brenda Alvarez, NEA Today, September 10, 2021. https://www.nea.org/advocating-for-change/new-from-nea/school-suspensions-do-more-harm-good
[8] Best Practices: In-School Suspension, AASA Children’s Defense Fund, 2014.
[9] https://vermontcarepartners.org/vermont-care-partners-therapeutic-schools/; https://www.austinisd.org/schools/rosedale; https://dcps.dc.gov/page/expectant-and-parenting-students.
[10] See Garza High School, Austin ISD, https://www.austinisd.org/schools/garza
[11] https://www.austinisd.org/schools/alternativelearningcenter
[12] https://www.austinisd.org/cda/state-accountability/district-tapr.
[13] School Suspensions Do More Harm than Good, Brenda Alvarez, NEA Today, September 10, 2021. https://www.nea.org/advocating-for-change/new-from-nea/school-suspensions-do-more-harm-good
[14] Schools-Within-Schools Model, ERIC Digest, McAndrew, Tobin and Anderson, Wendell, 2002.
Schools within Schools: Possibilities and Pitfalls of High School Reform, https://www.edweek.org/leadership/schools-within-schools-model-seen-yielding-trade-offs/2007/09
[15] Safe and Supportive Schools: A Plan to Improve School Climate and Safety, NYC Comptroller, June 2018.
[16] In-school suspensions the answer to school discipline? Not necessarily, experts say, Carolyn Jones, October 29, 2019, https://edsource.org/2019/in-school-suspensions-the-answer-to-school-discipline-not-necessarily-experts-say/619083
Let's talk about the partnership with At Promise Centers in Atlanta that is a model for support. Did much with the Special Education dept but not sure how they moved forward after I left. And the partnerships with MH providers. Big lift but systems that are consistent really are necessary