NOTES from January 17 meeting - Parkway C-2

Date: January 17, 2012
Time: 9:30 – 11:30
Place: ISC Room A
Action Team Leaders: Kathy Blackmore, Marie Burke, Steve Colombo
Action Team Members: See Team List
Minutes By: Barb Pohle
Agenda Item:
Update from December meeting regarding Roles/Responsibilities:
Steve Colombo updated the Team on the Roles/Responsibilities progress. After the December meeting,
the overwhelming scope of this task became evident. Marie, Steve and Kathy Muehlrath will begin to
develop the framework by starting with the Special Educators’ job descriptions as outlined by SSD.
(It was requested that Marie post this information on the website – that will be coming soon)
The structure of roles/responsibilities will be easier to build from here, as the special educators are the
focal point. Marie, Steve and Kathy will be meeting to begin this process and will have an update by the
February meeting.
Discipline data – examine further the data relating to discipline of students receiving
spec ed services:
Due to John Barrow not being available for the meeting, Martha Leader presented the data and led the
Team in discussions.
Objective: To gain a district-wide consensus on problem definition.
Each area coordinator group reviewed the data on the first 4 slides relating to suspension data. The
slides are:
1. Percentage of student population with and without IDEA disability
2. Percentage of all out of school suspensions by disability status
3. Number of all out of school suspension incidents-district
4. Number of all out of school suspension incidents by building level
Each group’s discussion followed predicting, observing, and inferring the data.
Student Discipline Data
Problem-Solving Process
MIDDLE SCHOOL Participants:
Greg Bergner
Amy Spears
Lori Maddox
Toby McQuerrey
Carol Kohnen
Jason Kozdron
Lauri Cahmberlain
Jennifer Stanfill
Phase 1: Predict
I predict the rate of suspensions specifically for male, African-American students with IEPs will
be higher.
I wonder if the same students are responsible for the majority of the suspensions. My
prediction is they probably are. I also wonder if it is for the same behavioral offense.
I wonder if you looked at repeat offenders if there is an escalation in the behaviors.
I wonder if escalating behaviors are in response to the interventions put into place.
I wonder how much of this behavior is related to the disability that the child has.
I wonder if repeat offenders have a conduct disorder?
Do students who have difficulty communicating fit into the group of repeat offenders?
Phase 2: Observation
Data Set #1
 Percentage of students who with disabilities have remained constant.
 Percentage of OSS has remained consistent between both students with disabilities and
students without disabilities.
 Students with disabilities are responsible for almost half of our suspensions, yet they don’t
make up half of our student population.
 Incidences increase in middle and high school. Is this related to the rigorous curriculum placed
upon students?
 When you look at the data separated by grade level, there is more of an extreme difference for
those students without disabilities.
 Do we have more students with IEPs at the elementary, middle or high school level?
 We are struck by the discrepancy in the fourth chart (number of all out of school suspension
incidences by building) at the high school level.
 I notice that the number of suspensions by district is going down over the past three years for
both groups.
 There was a drop in middle school suspensions in 2011.
Data Set #2
 I am struck that there are 48 superintendent suspensions at the middle school level for last year
(I would have thought it would have been higher).
 In 2011, there are the same number of superintendent suspensions for students with and
without disabilities at the middle school level.
 There is a higher level of suspensions for students without disabilities at the high school level.
 Elementary had no superintendent suspensions for students with or without disabilities in
 Spike in 2009 suspensions and a decline in 2010 for middle school. This is not consistent with
other grade levels.
Phase 3: Infer/Question
 Has the 8-period day or daily physical education been an effective intervention at the middle
school level?
 How many of our suspensions are made up of students who are not diagnosed or had a late
diagnosis in middle or high school?
 Are there trends by geographic area? And will it be the same or different after the re-districting
occurs next year?
 I wonder, at the elementary level, if it is proportionate across the elementary schools or are the
numbers coming from a certain school?
What are the unintended consequences of looking at data by building or geographic area?
I think the suspensions are decreasing at the middle school levels because we are being as
creative as possible and that was not necessarily the case 10 years ago.
I think PBIS or character education programs are contributing to a decrease in middle school
suspensions because people are looking at data and using it to make decisions.
Is the move from special education classes to general education classes impacting students as
they proceed from middle school to high school?
Are the inherent pressures of high school contributing to the increase in behaviors?
We have to know who these kids are, why they are getting suspended, etc. so we can determine
causes of the behaviors causing suspensions.
Where are the 5 kids from elementary now? Are they part of the 48 students who were
suspended at the middle school level? Was there an intervention that could have helped them
over time?
What is the role of enrollment history/mobility on the rate of suspensions for a particular
student? Curricular demands in Parkway are greater than in neighboring school districts.
Large high schools/learning communities could be the cause of high school suspensions (is
there a need for smaller learning communities?)
Are the high school suspensions concentrated in ninth grade because of difficulty in the
transition from 8th to 9th grade?
African-American boys and girls with IEPs probably make up the majority of the suspensions at
the middle school level due to physical fights. Is that a societal or cultural “thing”?
Problem Statement
Currently, 17.8% of our middle school students are responsible for 38.7% of our suspensions.
We would like the number of middle school students with a disability suspended to decrease by
5% by May 2013.
Laura Bedo (SSD Facilitator), Sue Cambell (SSD – NH, FRH), Jodie Wildhaber (SSD – WH, CH), Nikki Shrum
(SSD Literacy Coach), Rebecca Langrall (ISC), Terry Martinez (WH), Wendy Jensen(SSD – Deaf and Hard
of Hearing), Rob Gaugh (NH)
Data Dialogue
Stage 1: Predictions and Wonders
 We predict 40 - 50% of suspensions district-wide per year are of students with IEPs.
 We predict a decrease in suspensions district-wide as students age (due to interventions,
Stage 2: Observations
 In 2010 – 2011, the population of students with IEPs is about 17%
 In 2010 – 2011, 43% of the suspended students have IEPS.
 The older the student, the more severe the suspension.
 We are struck by the rate of recidivism of students with IEPs who have suspensions (e.g., in
2011, 183 HS suspensions with IEPs occurred among 119 suspended students with IEP; MS 128
suspensions of those with IEPS spread among 74 students)
Stage 3: Infer/Questions
More data we would like:
 We wonder if there are trends in the type of disability connected to misconduct.
 We wonder if there’s a correlation between suspensions of students with IEPs that are more
skill vs content-based.
 Need to locate which students are repeaters re: suspensions with IEPs. Wonder how many
students re-appear over the years not just within a year.
 What do principal interventions look like? How do they differ from building to building? How
are the triggers to escalate to a superintendent’s intervention similar or different within each
 How does the number and nature of disabilities of a student with IEP figure into the type of
principal suspension a student receives?
 Where is the location for the disruptive behavior? Gen Ed versus SpEd versus Hallway setting.
Wonder if unstructured time is most often the setting for disruptive behavior.
 Wonder where the superintendent suspension rate would be if drug and alcohol offenses were
 Wonder how the rate of suspension of students who live in the city with IEPs and those who
live in the county with IEPs compare and how these numbers compare with the general
population minus these students.
 How well implemented are the Behavior Intervention Plans in each school?
 Data comparing suspension rates with students’ longevity in Parkway.
 Wonder how the work we do with SpEd students can/will impact work we do with general ed
students regarding behavioral supports.
HS Problem Statement
In 2010 – 2011, 655 students were suspended, 327 of which were at the HS
level. Of those 327, 208 did not have disabilities, while 119 did. We would like
to have at least a 20% decrease in suspensions per year for all students going
Possible Root Causes
 Quality of academic support
 Social skill development support
 Staff development on behavior management.
 Need for shared guidelines for treating similar infractions district-wide
 Increased need for intervention changes when the first doesn’t work for repeat offenders
[Functional Behavior Analysis (FBA)/Behavior Intervention Plan (PIB).]
 Check out incentives from Freakonomics that change behavior.
 Quality of intervention monitoring
Access to resources outside the building (e.g., drug counseling. Check the BJC re: a county grant
for a counselor who specializes in addressing suspected/confirmed drug use; intensive
Use PMI meetings within the building, to monitor the biggest discipline concerns, not just
academic concerns. Collect information from PMI teams to inform SEAT’s work at the district
Phase 1
Prediction –
 suspension rates for students with IEPs are higher than their non-disabled peers
 Most problematic behavior – school disruption
 Sub groups – city students will have higher suspension rates
 Students labeled as ED will have the greatest number of out of school suspensions
 Do suspensions increase as students get older, what if he created a percentage based on
the number of students enrolled in elementary, middle, and high school; middle school
most likely has the least number of student enrolled yet is ranked middle in the number of
I wonder –
 Younger students, students who have not gone through the dx process, what are their
suspension likes
 If we are suspending students for behaviors that are a manifest of their disability (short
term suspensions); if it is unrelated to their disability is should be treated like a nondisabled student
 If schools with specialized programs have an increased rate of suspensions
Observations after reviewing the data
 Suspensions for students with disabilities have decreased over the past 3 years
 17% of the students (students with disabilities) equal 56% of the suspensions
 In 2010 students without disabilities increased while students with disabilities decreased
 As students move to middle and high school suspension increase
Phase 2
 The number of superintendent’s suspensions show a higher number of suspensions for
non-disabled students then students with disabilities
 The same students are getting suspended repeatedly
 The majority of students are either getting a superintendents hearing or a principals, not
Phase 3
More data I would like
Suspension related to the disability verse suspension unrelated to suspensions (both
long term suspensions and short term suspensions)
 What are the dx for students who are suspended
 What were the offensives were that resulted in the suspensions
 Suspension by grade level
 Suspension by school – help identify specialized programs where there are more
behaviors that could result in suspensions
I suspect we would find
 Disrespect, school disruption are the most common reasons for suspensions
 If the majority of the suspensions are related to a student’s disability then we would want
to start looking at a process for reviewing and revising IEPs and creating BIPs for
students (non-superintendent hearings)
 If the majority of suspensions are for behaviors that are unrelated to their disability then
we could look at more of a school wide character education program
Problem statement – Proportionately elementary students with disabilities are suspended at a
higher rate than students without disabilities. We would like for suspension rates to be
proportionately between students with disabilities and students without disabilities.