Subjective Discipline Grade: : 2019 Ohio School Discipline Report Card

Details: By Vernellia Randall; Parent Category: School-to-Prison Pipeline; Category: RJN! 2019 Ohio School Discipline Report; 23 April 2019; Hits: 16410

Article Index

Page 2 of 9

Reasons for Exclusions

The subjective discipline grade is the percent of subjective behavior discipline. Exclusions are the combination of expulsions, out-of-school suspensions, Emergency Removal by District Personnel and removal by hearing officers.

In 2019, the articulated reasons for exclusions fit into four categories:

(1) Subjective Behavior,
(2) Violence to the person or Property,
(3) Drug, Alcohol and Tobacco and
(4) Truancy.

Subjective Behavior Exclusions

For exclusions, that are more readily impacted by implicit bias and consequently are difficult to assess the application.[3]

The following rationale for exclusions (reported by Ohio schools) are defined as subjective behavior:

Disobedient/Disruptive Behavior,
Harassment/Intimidation and
Unwelcome Sexual Conduct

Of the 880 districts that reported the rationale for exclusions, half the schools had more than 55.6% of their exclusions based on explanations defined by this report as subjective behavior.

The average was 54.9% of exclusions based on subjective behavior; the lowest was 0, and the highest was 100%.

The mean for Community (charter) schools (57%) was higher than the mean for Public Districts (54%). This difference was statistically significant (p=.02). Which means that there is less than a 2% chance of this difference occurring by chance alone.

There was a difference based on the typology of public districts. Urban schools had a higher percentage of their exclusions based on subjective behavior (61.7%) than suburban districts (50.3%). This difference was statistically significant (p=.00). Which means that there zero chance of this difference occurring by chance alone.

Percentage of Exclusions Based on Subjective Behavior By Organizational Type
Organizational Type	N	Mean	Median	Minimum	Maximum
Community (Charter) School	274	57.0	58.7	0	100
Public District	606	54.0	54.9	0	100
Total	880	54.9	55.6	0	100
ANOVA Table
Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
1730.356	1	1730.36	5.21	0.02

Percentage of Exclusions Based on Subjective Behavior By Typology of Public Districts
	Number of Districts	Mean	Median	Minimum	Maximum
Type 1: Rural - High Student Poverty & Small Student Population	123	54.9	55.7	0	100
Type 2: Rural - Average Student Poverty & Very Small Student Population	105	51.1	52.9	0	100
Type 3: Small Town - Low Student Poverty & Small Student Population	110	52.1	54.3	0	85
Type 4: Small Town - High Student Poverty & Average Student Population Size	89	57.2	56.4	17	83
Type 5: Suburban - Low Student Poverty & Average Student Population Size	77	54.6	55.2	27	71
Type 6: Suburban - Very Low Student Poverty & Large Student Population	46	46.0	45.7	8	69
Type 7: Urban - High Student Poverty & Average Student Population	47	60.1	58.5	43	100
Type 8: Urban - Very High Student Poverty & Very Large Student Population	8	63.2	61.1	45	96
Total	605	53.9	54.8	0	100
ANOVA Table
Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
7732.223	7	1104.603	4.633	0.000

Violenceto the Person or Property Exclusions were:

False alarm/Bomb threats
Fighting/Violence
Serious Bodily Injury
Theft
Use/Possession of explosive/incendiary/poison gas
Use/Possession of a Gun
Use/Possession of weapon other than gun/explosive
Vandalism
Firearm Look-a-like

Violence to the person or property was not included in the Subjective Discipline Grade.

Of the 880 districts that reported, the median percentage of discipline based on violence to the person or property was 33.3%. The average was 34.5%; the lowest was 0 and the highest was 100%.

The mean for Community (charter) schools (38.3%) was higher than the mean for Public Districts (32.8%). This difference was statistically significant (p=.00). Which means that there zero chance of this difference occurring by chance alone.

There was a difference based on public school typology. Small town districts had a higher percentage of their exclusions due to violence (34.3%) than suburban districts (30.5%). This difference was statistically significant (p=.00). Which means that there zero chance of this difference occurring by chance alone.

Percentage of Exclusions Based on Violence to Person or Property By Organizational Type
Organizational Type	Number of District	Mean	Median	Minimum	Maximum
Community (Charter) School	274	38.3	36.7	0.0	100.0
Public District	606	32.8	32.5	0.0	100.0
Total	880	34.5	33.3	0.0	100.0
ANOVA Table
Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
5627.715	1	5627.715	18.546	0.000

Percentage of Exclusions Based on Violence to Person or Property By Typology of Public Districts
	Number of Districts	Mean	Median	Minimum	Maximum
Type 1: Rural - High Student Poverty & Small Student Population	123	33.945	32.258	0.0	100.0
Type 2: Rural - Average Student Poverty & Very Small Student Population	105	30.700	32.143	0.0	96.3
Type 3: Small Town - Low Student Poverty & Small Student Population	110	34.854	33.333	0.0	82.9
Type 4: Small Town - High Student Poverty & Average Student Population Size	89	33.652	34.965	8.6	63.9
Type 5: Suburban - Low Student Poverty & Average Student Population Size	77	31.645	31.494	9.5	73.1
Type 6: Suburban - Very Low Student Poverty & Large Student Population	46	29.470	28.874	5.9	53.0
Type 7: Urban - High Student Poverty & Average Student Population	47	33.787	33.770	0.0	51.6
Type 8: Urban - Very High Student Poverty & Very Large Student Population	8	33.885	34.921	2.7	54.1
Total	605	32.9	32.6	0.0	100.0
ANOVA Table
Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
1818.886	7	259.841	1.290	0.253

[Back to Top]

Tobacco, Alcohol, and Drugs Exclusions:

Use/Possession of alcohol
Use/Possession of other drugs
Use/Possession of tobacco

Tobacco, Alcohol, and Drug behavior were not included in the Subjective Discipline Grade.

Of the 880 districts that reported, the median percentage of exclusions based on Tobacco, Alcohol or Drug behavior was 5.1%. The average was 9.2%; the lowest was 0, and the highest was 100%.

The mean for Community (charter) schools (3.5%) was lower than the mean for Public Districts (11.8%). Public Districts were almost four times more likely to have an exclusion based on tobacco, alcohol, or drugs. This difference was statistically significant (p=.00). Which means that there zero chance of this difference occurring by chance alone.

There was a difference based on the Typology of Public School. Suburban districts had a higher percentage of their exclusions due to tobacco, alcohol, and drugs (17.5%) than Urban districts (3%). This difference was statistically significant (p=.00). Which means that there zero chance of this difference occurring by chance alone.

Percentage of Exclusions Based on Use/Possession of Tobacco, Alcohol or Drugs By Organizational Type
	N	Mean	Median	Minimum	Maximum
Community (Charter) School	274	3.5	0.0	0.0	100.0
Public District	606	11.8	8.9	0.0	100.0
Total	880	9.2	5.1	0.0	100.0
ANOVA Table
Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
13118.209	1	13118.209	95.556	0.000

Percentage of Exclusions Based on Use/Possession of Tobacco, Alcohol or Drugs By Typology of Public Districts
	Number of Districts	Mean	Median	Minimum	Maximum
Type 1: Rural - High Student Poverty & Small Student Population	123	10.7	8.0	0.0	55.6
Type 2: Rural - Average Student Poverty & Very Small Student Population	105	14.9	11.2	0.0	100.0
Type 3: Small Town - Low Student Poverty & Small Student Population	110	11.9	10.5	0.0	53.3
Type 4: Small Town - High Student Poverty & Average Student Population Size	89	8.2	6.7	0.0	25.4
Type 5: Suburban - Low Student Poverty & Average Student Population Size	77	12.1	11.0	0.0	44.3
Type 6: Suburban - Very Low Student Poverty & Large Student Population	46	23.7	20.4	0.0	69.2
Type 7: Urban - High Student Poverty & Average Student Population	47	4.1	3.0	0.0	12.3
Type 8: Urban - Very High Student Poverty & Very Large Student Population	8	1.6	1.5	0.6	3.4
Total	605	11.8	8.9	0.0	100.0
ANOVA Table
Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
12476.493	7	1782.356	13.337	0.000

[Back to Top]

Truancy Exclusions

Of the 880 districts that reported, the median percentage for truancy was 0.0%. The average was 1%; the lowest was 0 and the highest was 100%.

The mean for Community (charter) schools (1.3%) was higher than the mean for Public Districts (.9%). This difference was statistically significant (p=.0269). Which means that there less than 5% probability that this difference occurred by chance alone.

There was a difference based on public school typology, Urban districts had the highest percentage of their exclusions due to truancy (1.5%), and rural districts (.4%) had the lowest. This difference was not statistically significant.

Percentage of Exclusions Based on Truancy By Organizational Type
	Number of Districts	Mean	Median	Minimum	Maximum
Community (Charter) School	274	1.3	0.0	0.0	100.0
Public District	606	0.9	0.0	0.0	23.8
Total	880	1.0	0.0	0.0	100.0
Anova Table
Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
22.271	1	22.271	1.221	0.269

Percentage of Exclusions Based on Truancy By Typology of Public Districts
	Number of Districts	Mean	Median	Minimum	Maximum
Type 1: Rural - High Student Poverty & Small Student Population	123	0.469	0.000	0.0	15.1
Type 2: Rural - Average Student Poverty & Very Small Student Population	105	0.383	0.000	0.0	23.8
Type 3: Small Town - Low Student Poverty & Small Student Population	110	1.148	0.000	0.0	15.0
Type 4: Small Town - High Student Poverty & Average Student Population Size	89	0.896	0.000	0.0	14.7
Type 5: Suburban - Low Student Poverty & Average Student Population Size	77	1.638	0.873	0.0	11.1
Type 6: Suburban - Very Low Student Poverty & Large Student Population	46	0.848	0.000	0.0	5.8
Type 7: Urban - High Student Poverty & Average Student Population	47	1.954	1.361	0.0	7.8
Type 8: Urban - Very High Student Poverty & Very Large Student Population	8	1.233	0.307	0.0	5.3
Total	605	0.943	0.000	0.0	23.8
ANOVA
Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
151.777	7	21.682	4.431	0.000

Copyright Notice

Race, Racism and the Law
Vernellia R. Randall
licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Fair Use Notice

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, some material on this website is provided for comment, background information, research and/or educational purposes only, without permission from the copyright owner(s), under the "fair use" provisions of the federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed for other purposes without permission of the copyright owner(s). In general, the copyright owner is the author of the article.