MSU LIBRARIES .-,—. ' RETURNING MATERIALS: “ace in 50'? drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if 550E is returned after the date stamped below. A STUDY OF THE PRACTICE OF SCHOOL TRANSFERS AS A DISCIPLINARY ACTION By Patricia A. Isom A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partiai fquiIiment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educationai Administration 1986 ABSTRACT A STUDY OF THE PRACTICE OF SCHOOL TRANSFERS AS A DISCIPLINARY ACTION By Patricia A. Isom School administrators commonly employ a number of disciplinary options when handling serious or persistent behavioral problems of students. 'The purpose of this investigation was to examine the effect of one such option. a lateral transfer. which is used at the secondary level in larger school districtS. A lateral transfer is the involun- tary movement of a student from one regular school to another for disciplinary reasons. This action is most typically taken when stu- dents have a personality clash with staff members. need a fresh start in a new environment free from a negative reputation. or are likely to benefit from the shock value that such a placement might have on their future thinking and subsequent behavior. A descriptive approach combining data from school documents and direct interviews with transferred students and their parents was used in this investigation. Specific questions were formulated to address various aspects of the transferred students' total growth in school. including personal and social relationships and academic progress. Patricia A. Isom In general. the major findings indicated that lateral transfers may help reduce the number of subsequent suspensions particularly for students at the senior high level and for those suspended for nonvio- lent actions. There is some indication. however. that the transfer does not have a positive effect on students' academic achievement as evidenced by an overall decline in students' grade point averages and performance on standardized tests following the transfer. In contrast. the students generally expressed positive views of their subsequent behavior and performance in school. Their parents. however. generally expressed negative concerns and feelings about the transfer. As has been reported in other studies about the effect of various disciplinary actions on students. the transferred student sample contained a disproportionate percentage of males and ethnic minority students when compared to the representation of these groups in the total secondary student population. For the transfer to be more effective for students. it was recom- mended that provision be made for specific academic and counseling support to assist the student in the period following the transfer. Patricia A. Isom In general. the major findings indicated that lateral transfers may help reduce the number of subsequent suspensions particularly for students at the senior high level and for those suspended for nonvio- lent actions. There is some indication. however. that the transfer does not have a positive effect on students' academic achievement as evidenced by an overall decline in students' grade point averages and performance on standardized tests following the transfer. In contrast. the students generally expressed positive views of their subsequent behavior and performance in school. Their parents. however. generally expressed negative concerns and feelings about the transfer. As has been reported in other studies about the effect of various disciplinary actions on students. the transferred student sample contained a disproportionate percentage of males and ethnic minority students when compared to the representation of these groups in the total secondary student population. For the transfer to be more effective for students. it was recom- mended that provision be made for specific academic and counseling support to assist the student in the period following the transfer. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The help and encouragement of the following persons are grate- fully acknowledged: Dr. James Costar. whose encouragement and support were unwaver- ing throughout the writing of this dissertation. ' The members of my committee. Drs. Lawrence W. Lezotte and Robert Chamberlain. and Stanley Hacker. whose assistance was greatly appreciated. [ha Grace Iverson and the members of the Evaluation Department. who provided technical assistance whenever needed. Dr. William Webb. Assistant Superintendent for Instruction in the Lansing School District. who provided the impetus for beginning the doctoral program and guidance throughout this undertaking. LIST’OF LIST OF Chapter I. II. III. TABLE OF CONTENTS TMLES O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O I O FIGURES O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O INTRODUWION O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O 0 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Need for the Study . . . . . . . . . . . Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . Questions to Be Answered in the Study . Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . Limitations and Delimitations of the Study DefinitionofTerms Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . Extent of the Discipline Problem . . . Philosophical Approaches to Discipline General Classroom Management . . . . Out-of-Classroan Approaches . . . . . . . Legal Issues Influencing Various Disciplinary Actions 0 O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O sma ry O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O 0 METHODS MD PRfiDUREs O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Selection of the Population and Study Site Procedures Used in Data Collection . Interview Format . . . . . . . . . Design and Methodology . . . . . . Questions Addressed in the Study . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 10 11 12 14 15 16 16 17 26 29 33 42 48 48 53 58 6O 61 62 Page IV. FINDIms I O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O 63 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Adjustment in School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Relationships With Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Personal Reactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 V. SUMMARY. FINDINGS. CONCLUSIONS. AND RECOMMENDAIIONS . . 99 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l03 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lOS Discussion and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . l06 Recommendations for Further Research . . . . . . . . . llB APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 A. PERMISSION LETTERS AND FORMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 B. INTERVIEW SCHEDULE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 C. ETHNIC DISTRIBUTION OF SUSPENDED STUDENTS . . . . . . . 127 BIBLImRAmY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O 129 iv Table 1.1 1.2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 3.1 3.2 3.4 3.5 4.1 LIST OF TABLES Record of Disciplinary Transfers in the Lansing School District. 1958-59 Through l983-84 . . . . . . . . . . . . Satisfactory Adjustment Following Lateral Transfer: Garrison and Lansing School District Pupil Personnel Department Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ways in Which Lansing Voters Said School Quality Was Dec11lllng O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Misbehaviors of Most Concern to Teachers in a 1964 NEA Stu dy O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O Behaviors Ranked Highest by Teachers on Frequency of Observation 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Behaviors Rated Highest by Administrators on Frequency of Observat1on I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Lansing School District Suspensions. 1969-70 Through 19$-“ 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Reasons for Suspensions Found in CDF Survey . . . . . . . . Distribution of Lansing School District Students According to Ethnic Group. l982-l984 . . . . . . . . . . Secondary School Enrollment. Total Suspensions. and Number of Disciplinary Transfers. 1982-83 and 1983-84 . . . . . Breakdown of Secondary Lateral Transfers by School Level. 1982-8&nd193-84................... Breakdown of Secondary Lateral Transfers by Gender and SCh001 LOT/61. 1982-8 alld 19$-“ 0 o o o e o o o o o o o smaw Of InteW1m Rmuests O O O O O O O O O O O O O O . Cemparison of Suspensions Before and After the Transfer . . Page 19 24 25 36 38 49 52 52 52 57 64 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 Comparison of the Total Number of Suspensions Before and After Student Transfer. Based on Precipitating Offense . Comparison of Students' GPAs Before and After Transfer. by Qua rt1 II 8 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Canparison of Students' SAT Total Reading Scores Before and After Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Camparison of Students' SAT Math Scores Before and After Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Students' Self-Report Concerning School Work Before and After the Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Students' Self-Report Concerning Grades Before and After the TranSfer O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Students' Self-Report Concerning Their Understanding of School Rules Before and After the Transfer . . . . . . . Students' Self-Report Concerning Obeying School Rules Before and After the Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . Students' Self-Report Concerning Their Involvement in Extracurricular Activities Before and After the Transfer Students' Self-Report Concerning Relationships With Friends Before and After the Transfer . . . . . . . . . Students' Self-Report Concerning Relationships With Peers Before and After the Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . Students' Self-Report Concerning Relationships With Teachers Before and After the Transfer . . . . . . . . Students' Self-Ratings Concerning Relationships With the School Principal and Assistant Principal . . . . . . . . Students' Self-Ratings Concerning Relationships With Counselors Before and After the Transfer . . . . . . . . Students' Responses Concerning Problems Encountered in the Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Students' Responses Concerning Benefits of the Transfer . vi Page 66 67 69 69 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 8O 81 4.21 4.22 4.23 4.24 4.25 4.27 4.28 4.29 4.30 4.31 4.32 Students' Opinions About the Practice of Disciplinary Transfers Students' Opinions About Disciplinary Transfers Making a Difference in Student Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . Students' Opinions Concerning Whether Knowledge About the Use of Disciplinary Transfers Makes a Difference in StUdent Beh aVIOr O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O 0 Students' Opinions Concerning Disciplinary Practices That Would Work Better Than Transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . Parents' Perceptions of Events Contributing to Their Child's School Disciplinary Problems . . . . . . . . . . Parents' Responses Regarding Students' Understanding of School Rules Before and After the Transfer . . . . . . . Parents' Opinions of Their Youngsters' Adherence to School Rules Before and After the Transfer . . . . . . . Reasons Parents Were Given for Their Youngsters' Transfer to Another School Parents' Perceptions of the Actual Reasons for Their Child's TranSfer O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O 0 Parents' Opinions About the Practice of Disciplinary Transfers Parents' Opinion of the Transfer Having an Effect on StUdenth‘aVIOroooooooooooooooo’oooo Parents' Responses to Disciplinary Practices That Would Work Better Than Transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grade-Level Breakdown of Transferred Students comparison of Suspension Numbers by School Level. Before and After the Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Transferred Students and the Secondary Student Population in Terms of Gender vii Page 87 88 89 89 91 92 94 94 95 Page 4.33 Comparison of Transferred Students and the Secondary Student Population in Terms of Ethnic Background . . . . . 96 4.34 Comparison of Transferred Students and the Secondary Student Population in Terms of Family Composition. 97 Parental Education. and Free School Lunch . . . . . . . . LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1.1 Distribution of Theorists Along a Continuum From a No-Control to a Strict and Completely Controlled Classroom Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION mm Both the general public and educators recognize discipline as an important element of the educational process. Students are expected to acquire from their schooling not only specific knowledge and skills but also the ability to function as citizens in society. Enforcing basic standards of behavior in school provides an atmosphere that promotes learning and fosters development of lifelong self-discipline skills. In the Lansing School District. this philosophy of discipline has been summarized in local school board policy as follows: Discipline together with due process is an integral part of the overall educational process. That is. its purpose is to help 'students adjust to standards and structures that they might encounter in community life. as well as in school. Its application shall be positive in all cases. with emphasis given to the value of self-discipline as the chief characteristic of responsible citizen- ship in a free society. (Lansing School District. 1982. p. T) In most Michigan school districts. expectations for student behavior and consequences for rule violations are set forth in written student codes of conduct. School districts have developed such regula- tions under specific provisions in the School Code. which was enacted by the Michigan legislature (Michigan State Board of Education. 1984). The School Code empowers local school boards to make regulations that are reasonable for the "proper establishment. maintenance. management and carrying on of the public schools . . . including regulations relative to the conduct of pupils" (Michigan General School Laws. Rule 3m.l300. sec. 1300). The School Code specifically identifies three major disciplinary actions--suspension. expulsion. and corporal pun- ishment--as permissible under appropriate circumstances (Rule 380.l300. sec. l3ll). These three types of disciplinary techniques have received a great deal of public attention. In reality. however. school personnel commonly employ a myriad of other. less widely discussed options. These include disciplinary actions that teachers use directly in the classroom. and others so serious in nature that they are imposed only by school district administrators. One of the latter techniques. which was the focus of this investigation. is the transfer of a student from one school to another for disciplinary purposes. The issue of school discipline has been addressed from many different perspectives. In a study by Howard (l980). middle school teachers indicated that they expected personally to handle less-serious discipline problems. such as verbal disruptions and arguments between students. while referring to the building administrator more serious concerns. such as possession of weapons. extortion. and fighting. To manage less-serious discipline problems. teachers commonly employ such classroom interventions as changing seats. clarifying rules. conferring with parents. and talking directly with the student. Teachers also depend on assistance from various support personnel. if available. or on referral to community resources for counseling if the problem is not resolved through classroom interventions. The more serious or per- sistent behavior problemsmthat are referred to the building adminis- trator may be handled similarly; However. building administrators may also use more severe disciplinary sanctions. such as short- and long- term suspensions. transfers to other buildings. referral to alternative programs if available. and. in the most serious cases. permanent exclu- sion or expulsion. Whereas school administrators' use of suspension and expulsion has generated a great deal of controversy and litigation. other less frequently used but serious disciplinary actions such as transfers to other buildings (lateral transfer) have received much less exposure. A document published by the Pennsylvania State Department of Education (1977) described student transfer as a disciplinary technique that should be considered when something in the environment is contributing to the problem. It was assumed that the change to a new setting would lead to different behavior patterns on the student's part. A report by the Children's Defense Fund (l975) also mentioned the use of student transfers as an alternative to repeated suspensions or exclusions. It noted that a transfer to a new teacher or building may be particularly appropriate in cases of personality clashes between students and staff. However. the report also stated that the practice of transferring students should not be undertaken lightly. A change of teacher or school may provide some students an oppor- tunity to be rid of a "disruptive" reputation. However. this practice should be used with care. Students should not be moved around from school to school without ever receiving the kind of attention. services or follow-up that might be needed to help» Too often transfers have been used as a step prior to throwing a child out of school. and school records label children so negatively that a new chance is effectively frustrated to a child who is trans- ferred. (p. 97) It is difficult to assess the degree to which lateral transfers are actually used as a disciplinary method because most school dis- tricts generally monitor only the number of student suspensions and expulsions. Records on the number of students who have been trans- ferred from one school to another for disciplinary reasons are not routinely summarized. However. there is some indication that the technique is in common use at least in larger school districts. where it is imposed in addition to a building suspension. To support the student's total growth in the personal and social as well as academic areas. it is important that disciplinary methods be assessed to determine the degree to which their use con- tributes to the attainment of the stated goals. not only for the indi- vidual student but for all students. A careful review of the effect of such actions on students. their families. and school personnel can lead to a more informed choice of disciplinary options. W In the Lansing School District. as in many other medium-size or large districts. administrators use a variety of methods to handle student disciplinary problems with which classroom teachers or building resource personnel such as the school counselor cannot contend. Methods range from short-term suspension to placement in various in-building detention programs. Students who present more serious or persistent problems may also be transferred from the home school to another school (lateral transfer). transferred to an alternative pro- gram. or permanently expelled. Records are not kept on the various types of disciplinary options short of suspension. but accurate data are recorded on the number of out-of-building suspensions and their final disposition. In the Lansing School District during the 1983-84 school year. building administrators imposed 4.900 separate suspensions on 2.802 students. These suspensions were handled either on a building or district level. as defined in the Lansing School District Code of Student Conduct (1982). Building-level suspensions. which result from less-serious infractions of the building discipline code. range from one to three days and require a parent/guardian conference with the building admin- istrator before the student may return to schooL. The vast majority of suspensions are handled in this manner. A district-level suspension is referred to the Student Services Office for disposition. The Student Services Office has disciplinary authority over behaviors that are considered districtwide infractions of the Lansing School District discipline code. Such infractions typically include arson. assault. major theft. and so on. Students who are suspended to the Student Services Office for such infractions may be returned to the home~school. transferred to another school or an alternative program. and/or referred to an appropriate community agency. In general. the student service administrator's disposition of each case is based on past practice and a recommendation from the building administrator who is most familiar with the student. In the 1983-84 school year. of the 646 students suspended to the Student Services Office. 451 were returned to the home school. 151 were transferred to alternative programs. and 44 were transferred to another school. No student was expelled from the district. Of the students reassigned to another school. 15 were in high school. 19 in junior high school. and 10 in elementary school. Although records could not be found for sameryears. the number of students transferred from one building to another from 1958 through 1984 indicates that lateral transfers have consistently been used as a disciplinary action throughout the past 26 years (see Table 1.1). Table 1.l.--Record of disciplinary transfers in the Lansing School District. 1958-59 through 1983-84. School Year Senior High Junior High Elementary Total 1958-59 32 S4 9 95 1959-60 17 45 6 68 1961-62a 1962-63 16 21 37 1963-64 5 30 4 39 1964-65 23 41 64 1965-66 21 41 62 1966-67 29 33 1 63 1967-68 20 43 63 1968-69 27 48 75 1969-70 14 36 50 1970-71 9 30 39 1971-783 1978-79 8 25 7 40 1979-80 41 39 3 83 1980-81a 1981-82 13 35 9 57 1982-83 7 27 8 42 1983-84 15 19 10 44 aData not available for these years. As previously noted. very little information is available on either the use or the effectiveness of transferring students from one school to another as a disciplinary measure. Stallworth (1977) exam- ined the use of permanent suspensions in the Detroit Public Schools over a five-year period and sought teachers' and administrators' per- ceptions about the practice. In Stallworth's study. permanent suspen- sion was defined as any disciplinary action in which the student was not allowed to return to his/her own school. This included suspensions that actually excluded the student from any further educational program and suspensions that resulted in the student's transfer to another school. Of the 7.691 students who were permanently suspended during this five-year period. 5.137 were transferred to another school. The major reasons cited for the suspensions and subsequent reassignment to other buildings were gross misbehavior. illegal behavior. and fighting. The majority of the teachers and administrators surveyed felt that lateral transfer was beneficial for the following reasons: 1. The student was removed from an environment made hostile by his/her own behavior. 2. The student was removed to an environment in which he/she did not have previous prejudicial experience. 3. The shock value of removal and disruption would make the student reconsider the effects of his/her own actions. To help ease the transition to a new school. the transferred student was evaluated by a school counselor and placed with more experienced teachers. Membership in school clubs and/or work-study programs in the new setting were strongly encouraged. Although there was no specific review of transferred students' grades or attendance in the new setting. teachers generally felt that there was improvement in students' behavior following such a transfer. This relatively positive view of transfers was in sharp contrast to Inore recent accounts by teachers and students in the same district. who complained that ”the districtfis policy of exporting problem students from school to school" (Rizzo. 1984. p. 38) is not really a punishment for the student. Rather. they felt that it presents unnecessary extra work for teachers to enroll transferred students and help them catch up in cl ass. particularly when the student typically becomes truant and requires another referral. This shift in attitude may reflect changes in that school environment or in overall societal views of what consti- tutes proper discipline. but the impression is left that the transfer burdens teachers and does not appear to help students. particularly if truancy subsequently becomes a behavioral issue. In another study. Jones (1984) surveyed students in Baltimore City. Maryland. to determine their opinions about the use of suspension as a disciplinary method. One hundred forty-five high school students were asked a series of questions about suspension. one of which related to whether suspended students should be transferred to another school. Approximately 86% of the students either disagreed or strongly dis- agreed with that question. The students' perceptions were not sig- nificantly different when broken down by suspended or nonsuspended students. sex. grade level. or curriculum. It is interesting that the majority of the senior high suspended students in Baltimore City (61%) were transferred to other schools as a result of the suspension and that drug abuse (17%)iand assault (17%) were the major reasons for the suspensions. In 1965. Garrison conducted an assessment of the success of lateral transfers that had taken place in the Lansing School District from 1962 through 1964. Building administrators evaluated transferred students as having satisfactory or poor adjustment in the reassigned school. Satisfactory adjustment was measured by the absence of further disciplinary action in the new school. Poor adjustment was defined as continued problematic behavior leading to suspension or eventual voluntary withdrawal from school. A similar survey was conducted internally by the Lansing School District Pupil Personnel Department for the 1958 and 1959 school years. The data from both surveys are reported by student level in Table 1.2. Table 1.2.--Satisfactory adjustment following lateral transfer: Garrison and Lansing School District Pupil Personnel Department surveys. Pupil Personnel Depariment Survey Garrison Survey School Level 1958 1959 1962 1963 n 5 n S n x n 1 Junior high 43 80 23 50 5 24 15 50 Senior high 21 67 8 47 4 25 o o 10 Of the 54 junior high transfers made in 1958. 43 or 80% were judged satisfactory. Of the 32 senior high transfers. 21 or 67% were rated satisfactory. For the years surveyed. junior high students typicale had a somewhat more satisfactory adjustment in the new school than did senior high students. Several problems existed with the data gathered from these surveys. Adjustment was rated only by the building administrators. Satisfactory adjustment was simply defined as no need for further disciplinary action. Academic changes were not assessed. nor was there any evaluation of the types of disciplinary problems students encoun- tered in the new setting. A student's adjustment may have been judged unsatisfactory. even though there may have been an actual improvement in the numbers or types of disciplinary problems he/she presented following the transfer. As in the Stallworth and Jones studies. rea- sons for the success or failure of the new placement were not examined. EummLtbeitudx The disciplinary action of lateral transfer is often used in conjunction with short-term suspension. These two together are viewed to be of less consequence than the more serious sanctions of long-term suspension or exclusion. Students may be transferred who have commit- ted serious infractions of discipline codes but. in the judgment of school administrators. are capable of following rules given a new setting. perhaps apart from the negative influence of certain peers. 11 However. concerns about the impact and effectiveness of this alternative raise questions about when such decisions should be made. Previous investigations conducted in the Lansing School Dis- trict indicated that some transfers were more successful than others. solely in terms of fewer subsequent behavior problems in the trans- ferred students. The factors that led to either success or further problems were not examined to determine under which circumstances this alternative would be most likely to succeed for an individual student. Therefore. the purpose of the present investigation was to explore the effectiveness of transferring students from one school to another as a disciplinary action. The study results should enable school adminis- trators to better evaluate their use of this method in light of other available option 5. W The major purpose of this investigation was to determine the degree to which the lateral transfer is an effective disciplinary method for dealing with secondary school discipline cases. The basic objective of the transfer is ultimately to improve the student's total growth in school--persona1 and social. as well as academic. To determine the effect of the transfer. and the various factors that may have contributed to its relative success or failure. the following main questions were addressed: 1. What effect. if any. did the transfer have on the number and frequency of disciplinary suspensions of individual transferred students? 12 2. Does the type of disciplinary problem precipitating the trans- fer affect the comparative effectiveness of a lateral transfer? 3. What difference. if any. was there in the grade point average and the standardized achievement test scores of individual students following a lateral transfer? 4. From the student's perspective. what effect did the transfer have on his/her subsequent behavior? 5. Did the parent or guardian perceive the lateral transfer as effective in changing the student behavior or attitude that led to disciplinary action? Related questions of less interest were also analyzed. They are: 6. Is there a difference in the relative effectiveness of the transfer for junior high/middle school students and for senior high school students? 7. Is the number of transferred students proportionate with respect to gender and ethnic background of the total school district population? Meibodclmy All Lansing School District secondary school students who were transferred in the 1982-83 and the 1983-84 school years were included in this investigation. A total of 22 senior high school and 46 junior high/middle school students were transferred during this two-year period. Elementary students were not included in the study for two reasons. First. relatively smaller numbers of elementary than junior and senior high school pupils are transferred. Second. elementary transfers are mainly parent initiated. whereas secondary student trans- fers are recommended primarily by building assistant principals. A descriptive approach. combining data gathered from school documents and direct interviews with transferred students and their parents. was used in this investigation. School documents such as 13 individual studentsfl'transcripts containing grades and credits earned and suspension records for the types and number of suspensions were reviewed for all transferred students during the two-year period. Interviews were attempted only for those students who were transferred during the 1983-84 school year. The specific interview format is outlined in Chapter III. MW A descriptive design was used to gather and analyze data regarding a topic that has had little previous study. The following limitations and delimitations were recognized in the research design. 1. The study site was limited to the Lansing School District. a medium-sized urban school district with a student population of approximately 24.000. 2. Only those secondary students who were transferred in the two-year period. 1982-1984. were included in the population. Although some elementary students were transferred for disciplinary reasons during that period. they were not involved in any aspect of this study. 3. The effect of the transfer was evaluated with respect to the individual student involved. No determination was made of the transfer's effect on other students in the schools from or to which the transfer was made. 4. Effectiveness of the lateral transfer compared to other disciplinary alternatives such as referral to an alternative education program or frequent suspension was not evaluated. 14 5M Only those students who were laterally transferred through the Student Services Office were included in this study. This excluded special education students who were transferred through the Individual- ized Educational Planning Committee process and perhaps for disciplin- ary reasons. as well. 6. The descriptive design that was used in this investigation included a review of school documents and use of an interview schedule with students and parents. Although using the interview was important to obtain attitudinal information available only from the respondents. its self-reporting format and retrospective nature might have led to some response bias. 7. The effectiveness of the transfer was evaluated through a number of indicators that were available from student records and attitudinal information from the student. Additional factors that may have influenced the outcome could not be assessed through this design. W The following terms are defined in the context in which they are used in this dissertation. ‘Expu151QD--Permanent withdrawal of a student from all educa- tional programs. .Lgtenalgtnansfen-Disciplinary transfer of a student by a school administrator from one nondisciplinary school to another. ‘ngal_bgann_g£_enuga11gn--The legal entity that has the respon- sibility for developing rules and regulations to manage a local school district. 15 .Eenmanent_suspensign-Permanent removal of a student from all school programs by board action--in effect. an expulsion. Suspension-Temporary removal of a student from school for one to three days by a school administrator as a result of disciplinary action. mm In Chapter II. the review of related literature is presented. This chapter provides a general review on the topic of school discipline. Included is information on other student disciplinary options. such as suspensions and placement in alternative education programs. Procedures and methodology of the study are reviewed in Chapter III. A detailed description of the population and study site. data- gathering methods. and the interview schedule used to address the major and minor questions posed in the investigation is given. Chapter IV contains a presentation and analysis of the data gathered in the study. Each research question is restated. and the findings regarding the questions are presented. The conclusions of the study and their implications are pre- sented in Chapter V. This chapter also contains recommendations that may be useful in considering issues of student management in secondary schools. CHAPTER II REV IEW OF LITERATURE Intmductlcn Probably no other single issue in education has generated as much consistent public concern as student disciplinet In reviewing the literature»on this topic. little specific information was found on transferring students for disciplinary reasons. However. numerous articles. books. opinion surveys. and studies have been concerned with the general issue of student discipline. The material ranges from articles sensationalizing student violence in the schools ("Terror in the Schools." 1976) to those focusing on institutional mistreatment of pupils ("An Interview." 1974). Various conceptual frameworks have also been used in analyzing and attempting to resolve student discipline problems. Because of the lack of specific information on student transfers. this chapter provides a more general review. for background purposes. on the issue of student discipline. The chapter is organized into the following three sections: (a) extent of the discipline prob- lem. (b) philosophical and theoretical approaches to discipline. and (c) legal issues influencing various disciplinary actions. 16 17 n D n P Part of the difficulty in addressing the issue of student discipline is that definitions of what constitutes the problem vary greatly. depending on one's perspective. To the general public. student discipline may be viewed as a somewhat undefined but growing problem. particularly when violent incidents of student conduct are reported in the media. 'Teachers and administrators have a different perspective. as previously noted. In the classroom. the teacher is faced with the immediate need to maintain order so that teaching and learning can take place. whereas building administrators are faced with the task of maintaining the overall learning environment. Conse- quently. the definitions of and solutions to discipline problems vary according to the perspective of the person facing such a problem. In this section. various views on the extent of the problem are presented. The general pubrhfls attitude concerning discipline has been reflected annually by results of the Gallup Poll. Respondents to the Fifteenth Annual Poll (Gallup. 1983) ranked discipline at the top of a list of 25 possible problems facing local schools. Respondents did not place major blame for this situation on the public schools. Rather. they identified a general lack of discipline and respect in the home and society as major contributors to the current state of affairs. The following excerpts from responses to the poll provide someeinsight into public perceptions of the problem: Many people say that discipline is one of the major problems of the public schools today. Would you please look over this list and tell me which reasons you think are most important to explain why there is a discipline problem? 11. 18 Lack of discipline in the home (72%). Lack of respect for law and authority throughout society (54%). Students who are constant troublemakers often canFt be removed from school (42%). Some teachers are not properly trained to deal with discipline problems (42%). The courts have made school administrators so cautious that they don't deal severely with student misbehavior (41%). Viewing television programs that emphasize crime and violence (39%). Punishment is too lenient (39%). Decline in the teaching of good manners (37%). Teachers themselves do not command respect (36%). Failure on the part of teachers to make classroom work more interesting (31%). One-parent families (26%). (p. 5) A similar concern about student discipline was expressed locally in a survey of registered voters in the Lansing School District (Michigan Department of Education. 1983). although Lansing respondents were generally more positive than statewide respondents in their over- all perceptions of the quality of education. Lansing respondents (15%) who felt school quality was getting worse were asked. "In what ways?" As shown in Table 25b discipline problems were again ranked at the top of the list. 19 Table 2.1.--Ways in which Lansing voters said school quality was declining. 15% of 15% of 16% of Non- All Public School Public School Respondents Households Households Discipline problems 33% 31% 33% Don't teach basic skills 32 31 33 Teacher quality declining 30 31 29 Lack of finances. cuts 12 12 14 Poor management. admin- istration 7 -- 9 Students lack individual attention 5 12 2 Tao many "frills" 5 6 5 Students not prepared 3 -- 5 Miscellaneous reasons 12 6 14 Source: Michigan Department of Education. "Opinions and Attitudes of Voters in the Lansing Public School District" (Lansing: Michigan Department of Education. 1983). p. 7. The general although somewhat vague perception about school discipline problems that is reflected in the opinion polls has led some parents to place their children in private or nonpublic school set- tings. Frechtling and others (1981) conducted a study in the Mont- gomery County Public Schools in Rockville. Maryland. to determine reasons for the steady decline in the county's public school enroll- ment. Over a five-year period. there was a 10% increase in nonpublic school enrollment in contrast to a 17% decrease in public school enrollment. Parents who had removed their children from the public schools were surveyed to determine their reasons for this action. Fifty-three percent of the parents indicated discipline was the primary 20 factor in their decision. followed by rel igion/val ues (43.5%) and class size/individualization (37.5%). Although the poll data reflect national concern about disci- pline problems in the public schools. the polls have not identified the type of behavior that has caused the most alarm. In several federally sponsored investigations. concern has been expressed about behavior that surpasses the bounds of general classroom management and extends into the realm of criminal activities. In April 1975. the Senate Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency released a preliminary report on the extent of problems in the schools. entitled "Our Nationks School s--A Report Card: 'A' in School Violence and Vandalism." Two other documents. "Nature. Extent and Cost of School Violence and Van- dalism" and "School Violence and Vandalism: Models and Strategies for Change." were later released. which contained more than 1.600 pages of testimony and articles concerning the extent of vandalism and violence in the nation's schools (Bayh. 1978). The subcommittee reported that information from school systems. as well as testimony from teachers. administrators. students. parents. and other interested parties. led to the conclusion that growing numbers of schools throughout the country are faced with serious levels of violence and vandalism. A typical statement excerpted from a teacher's testimony is as follows: The past few years have seen violence and vandalism become an almost daily occurrence on school grounds. Students and school personnel have become numbed to these acts: a subdued anger. frustration. and acquiescence seems to pervade the system. (Bayh. 1978. p. 300) 21 In 1977. the National Institute of Education (1978) conducted a systematic. comprehensive study of the extent of violence and vandalism in schools. Surveys were sent to more than 4.000 principals nation- wide. and in-depth interviews were conducted with a smaller sample of the group. The following observations were made: 1. From the 19605 to the early 19705. incidents of violence and property destruction increased but leveled off thereafter. Princi- pals felt that there had been no overall changes in the extent of problems from 1971 through 1976. 2. School presents the greatest risk for youngsters from ages 12 through 15. Students spend 25% of their time in school. and 50% of all assaults and 68% of robberies within this age group occur during school hours. For all students. 36% of assaults take place in school. 3. The majority of principals (75%) indicated that school violence and vandalism was not a major problem in their schools. However. 17% of the principals rated it a moderate problem. 6% felt it was a serious problem. and 2% indicated it was a very serious problem in their schools. 4. Major problems reported by teachers and secondary students during a one-month period were: Students Iaacbens Theft (over $1.00) 11% (l in 9) 12% (l in 8) Assault 1.3% (l in 80) .5% (l in 167) Robbery .5% (1 in 200) .5% (l in 200) Although the reported percentages of violent behavior toward staff are relatively small and perhaps "resemble the kinds and levels 22 of victimization elsewhere in society" (School Research Forum. 1984. p. 69h.it.is this type of student behavior that receives primary emphasis in the publicfis minds and is of growing concern to teachers. According to a 1983 National Education Association poll (School Research Forum. 1984). the percentage of teachers who reported being physically attacked during the preceding year increased 53% between 1977 and 1983. Malicious damage and personal property loss increased by 63% during the same period. Twenty-five percent of the teachers said pupil violence caused severe stress. which significantly affected their health. Anderson and Watson (1982) also reported that lack of administration backing in handling disciplinary matters has led many teachers actu- ally to leave the profession. Upon reviewing these statistics. the Cabinet Council on Human Resources Working Group on Student Violence/ Discipline (School Research Forum. 1984) stated. "What may not be fully understood. however. is the extent to which the disorder in Americaus public schools now transcends the routine difficulties of focusing a child's attention on learning" (p. 10). Illegal or criminal activities on the part of students cause grave concerns to students. teachers. administrators. and the community in general. However. when teachers and administrators are asked to rank their primary disciplinary concerns. a far different list of top- ranked problems results. In a 1964 National Education Association (NEA) study (Williams. 1979). when teachers were asked to rank the misbehaviors of most concern to them. the primary problems were not violent acts. as shown in Table 2.2. 23 Table 2.2.--Misbehaviors of most concern to teachers in a 1964 NEA study. Percent Misbehavior Reporting 1. Lack of responsibility for assignments. duties. or commitments 32.2% 2. Cheating on tests 22.1 3. Swearing. vulgar language 16.8 4. Theft (small items of little value) 16.5 5. Impertinence and discourtesy to teachers 14.5 6. Destruction of school property 13.3 7. Fighting 5.6 8. Theft (serious nature--money. etc.) 5.5 9. Carrying dangerous weapons 0.9 Source: John W. Williams. "Discipline in the Public Schools: A Problem of Perception?" Eh1_flelta_§appan 60 (January 1979): 385-87. The NEA study was somewhat limited in that teachers were given only nine misbehaviors to rank. but a more recent and comprehensive study conducted with a random sample of teachers and administrators in Indiana schools produced similar results (Camp & Bourn. 1979). In that study. teachers were asked to rank 101 possible student misbehaviors as to their frequency of occurrence and severity. Some differences were observed between the.judgments of teachers and administrators in terms of specific rankings. but general agreement existed in most areas. For example. both groups perceived violent behavior such as threatening a teacher or possession of weapons as serious offenses. but neither group listed those types of misbehaviors in the top ten actual problems either in the individual classroom or in schools. Instead. the 24 behaviors observed most often by both teachers and administrators were "passive rather than active offenses and [implied] lack of motivation on the parts of the offending students rather than destructiveness or aggressiveness" (p. 12). (See Tables 2.3 and 2.4.) Table 2.3.--Behaviors rated highest by teachers on frequency of observation. Mean Rank Behavior Rating l Ambivalence (doesn't care attitude) 2 Not paying attention in class or trying not to learn 3 Not following instructions 4 6 wwwwwwwwww wwwwthsbm cowu00anmo Failing to bring books. paper. etc. 5- Idleness . Running in the halls 7 Inattentiveness (daydreaming. etc.) . 8 Failing to do homework . 9-10 Squirming. fidgeting Tardiness to class Source: William G. Camp and Lawton P. Bourn. Jr.. "Student Disci- plines: An Analysis of Teacher and Administrator Perceptions" (paper presented at the Second International Congress on Education. Vancouver. British Columbia. June 17-20. 1979). p. 13. 25 Table 2.4.--Behaviors rated highest by administrators on frequency of observation. Mean Rank Behavior Rating 1 Infraction of school rules/policies 3.75 2 Tardiness to school 3.67 3 Abusing privileges (hall. bathroom. office. etc.) 3.63 4 Squirming. fidgeting 3.62 5 Not following instructions 3.60 6 Tardiness to class 3.59 7-9 Failing to do in-class assignments 3.54 Failing to do homework 3.54 Failing to turn in homework when due 3.54 10 Talking without permission 3.40 Source: William G. Camp and Lawton P. Bourn. Jr.. "Student Disci- plines: An Analysis of Teacher and Administrator Perceptions" (paper presented at the Second International Congress on Education. Vancouver. British Columbia. June 17-20. 1979). p. 13. Duke (1978) reported similar findings concerning the most pressing discipline problems for 200 principals in New York and California. Respondents ranked skipping class. truancy. and tardiness to class as the three most pressing problems from a list of 12 possible choices. The least pressing problems varied by each subgroup (i.e.. urban versus suburban) surveyed. but in general these were fighting. disruption. profanity. and drug use. As in the National Institute of Education study. no support was found for differences between rural and urban schools. Although teachers. administrators. and the public differ in their perceptions about the nature and extent of the discipline 26 problem. there is enough evidence to indicate that both relatively minor and more serious problems persist to a degree in many schools. Although they do not present physical threats to other students or staff. "it is the minor misbehaviors that create the greatest barrier to effective education: time spent misbehaving or goofing off is time not spent in active learning" (Brookover et al.. 1982. p. 175). and it is the strain of general classroom management rather than violent misbehaviors that has led to teacher stress and burnout. The lost instructional time arising from such relatively minor misbehavior was recognized in a 1981 report entitled Nat19n_a1_Bisk::Ihe_meena: MW (National Commission on Excellence in Edu- cation. 1983). in which it was recommended that significantly more time be devoted to learning the "new basics." The report stated that. to implement this recommendation. the burden on teachers for maintaining discipline should be reduced through the development of firm and fair codes of student conduct that are enforced consistently and by considering alternative classroom programs and schools to meet the needs of continually disruptive students. (p. 29) In the following section of the literature review. various theories about methods of resolving the discipline problem are explored. W The current concern about discipline is not new. but approaches to resolving the problem have changed drastically over the years. America's public school system had its beginning in the Puritan 27 colonies. when it was directed that a system to teach children to read and write be developed after there were 50 children in a township (Ladd. 1973). Discipline was quick and harsh for members of the commu- nity who did not conform. Students who were not orderly. quiet. and obedient might be subjected to the following disciplinary process: On the event of his first infraction of any school rule. the student should be harshly reprimanded and verbally shamed by the teacher or headmaster. The benevolence of the school can then be shown to the youngster by granting him a second chance. On his second offense. the student should be made to wear a sort of pillory for a full school day. The pillory consists of a log weighing four to six pounds and attached around the offenderus neck by a length of rope. The pupil is allowed to take his seat. then once. and once only. to place the pillory behind his neck resting it upon his shoulders. Thereafter. the slightest movement will cause the pillory to slip off his shoulders and fall either down his back or forward onto his chest. Regardless. the weight must then be supported for the remainder of the sentence by the rope around the student's neck. The student will quickly learn how to sit still. By committing a third offense. the youngster is beginning to appear to be a troublemaker and should be dealt with more harshly. In addition to wearing the pillory. the offender should have his ankles shackled. A shackle consists of a piece of wood approxi- mately six inches in length with holes drilled near each end. Through each hole a piece of rope is passed and knotted. The shackle is then tied to the ankles of the offender. It is obvious that. thus impeded. the student can walk only with difficulty and then only very slowly. The offender. pilloried and shackled. should be made to walk around the classroom until he is exhausted and has sincerely repented his immoral behavior. If a student fails to mend his ways by now. the fourth offense earns him a trip to the bird cage. The offender is placed in a large sack which is tied by one end of a strong rope. The other end of the rope is passed over a rafter in the school room roof. The "bird" is then hoisted into the air and left to dangle as an example to his less mischievous friends. {An alternative to the sack would be a large basket. much like a laundry hampen. The sack is more discomfbrting to the student but the basket allows his peers to observe the student's punishment more clearly. (Lancaster. 1805; quoted in Camp. 1981. pp.‘42-43) The Puritan concept of acceptable and unacceptable behavior strongly followed society's concept that human nature is basically 28 tainted and inclined toward evil. Teaching moral conformity was a prime responsibility of the teacher and the educational process. I can find but one means of disarming the native savageness and of preventing the probable future venality of this mass of our own . . . population: that is by having a law that shall compel every child to go to school and then by having moral nature secured to every pupil. (quoted in Duke. 1978. p. 416) Duke (1978) indicated that this early view of children and education lasted until the late 18005. when educators "began to manifest as much interest in the reasons why students misbehave as in punitive measures for correcting misbehavior" (p. 417). The belief in imposing discipline for "purposes of retribution and punishment" was replaced with concepts of proportionate punishment. protective punish- ment. reformatory punishment. and finally prevention. which is the "major characteristic of modern discipline" (Hart 8. Lordon. 1978. p. 69). Hart and Lordon (1978) noted two additional developments that have affected the current state of discipline--the permissive. laissez- faire school of thought reflected in the 19605 and the current public backlash against the permissive era. which has resulted in a public call for discipline to be based on a law-enforcement model. emphasizing security hardware and personnel. In reviewing the actual and perceived extent of discipline problems. a clear distinction is made between two types of student misbehaviors--those that are for the most part classroom based and primarily affect classroom instruction and those that are serious and in many cases illegal acts. 'The latter actions also affect classroom instruction but occur much less frequently and are of less day-to-day 29 concern to teachers. The remainder of this section is divided into two parts: general classroom management techniques/theories used by teachers and comnmnidisciplinary practices used by administrators outside the classroom. W In general. the majority of disciplinary concerns are handled by the teacher through a combination of management techniques. Howard (1980) reported that teachers who were selected by administrators as good instructional managers basically handled common misbehavior through direct teacher-student interaction. Reemphasizing rules. expressing feelings. restating expectations. and physical proximity were common approaches. Howard concluded that teachers' "preferred techniques reflect a sense of normalcy about annoying classroom behavior" (p. 157). Much of the literature still reflects a "how to" or common- sense approach to discipline. but a number of authors have developed systematic approaches to disciplinary issues. Curwin and Mendler (1980)'viewed the work of most modern theorists along a continuum from a no-control to a strict and completely controlled classroom environment. as shown in Figure 2(L They stressed that each approach to discipline has its values. For example. the Summerhill approach views learning as intrinsically rewarding; therefore. the role of the school should be limited to keeping in touch with individual needs and promoting growth potential. The emphasis on promoting individual 30 .ucoEcoL_>cc eoccmmm_u co_—6Lucoo >_ouo_aeou cam uu_Lum m CH .cLucoouOc m EOE» E::c_uccu m mac—m mum_coc;u mo co_u:n_cummonl._.~ 0L:m_u .m:c_>_cc_ cmzu ucmuccaE_ >u_co:u:m Lo anoLm cmzu ocoE >u_co;u:m cc anoLo ucmucoae_ «cos .m:c_>_cc_ .oLucoQ .mcccuxm cum—ascu cam uu_Lum _cLuc6u .ccccuxm oz >amcoch co_umu_w_voz >amconp m_m>_mc< coccucou co_>mnom >u__mom .mco_uummcmch mc:x_cco Taco—.9 _ _ c _ L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ c a _ _ 4 q _ T _ _ Lo_>m:om mc_commcm mc_c_mch co_umu_m_cm_u . yucc_w ___:LOEE:m _cLucou .mcoz mmocm>wuuommm mo:_m> \zc_mmz cu mmsco Locumoh 31 growth and talents is an important value. However. the practicality of allowing children to come and go to school as they please or to "stay away .... for years" if they want to would be difficult to implement in today's school systems (p. 80). Curwin and Mendler stressed that teachers should be aware of the various disciplinary approaches and methods and integrate them with their own "values. attitudes. and needs" (p. 78). Teachers who are knowledgeable about possible choices can develop their own plan to prevent. act on. and resolve problems if they occur. A different system or classification was described by Tanner (1978). who defined three approaches to discipline: 1. Static--an older concept that stressed use of the pupils' energy to control themselves. Discipline was divorced from educational goals. 2. Established--training and behavior-modification models fall into this category. The focus of these models is on an automatic response to the situation. 3. Emergent-- a. Psychodynamics--Goals for this model are mainly thera- peutic. It is often difficult for teachers to receive much class- room help from this model because emphasis is placed on emotional reasons for misbehavior. Few practical classroom techniques to manage behavior are offered. b. Group dynamics--Classroom control is seen as an inte- gral part of instruction. In giving directions. explaining. 32 questioning. and correcting mistakes. teachers are managing their classrooms and teaching at the same time. Successful managers know what is going on in their classrooms and communicate this knowledge to pupils. They are also able to tend to two things at once ("overlapping"). Kounin's "withitness" is an example of a tech- nique that can be taught that discourages opportunities for misbe- havior. c. Personal-social growth model--The goal of this model is self-management. Teachers may follow a developmental guide for discipline. which indicates the typical behavior at each stage and the teacher's role in helping students to develop to that level. Tanner stressed that curriculum is a key to classroom disci- pline and that this includes attitudes. values. and behavior as well as formal subject matter. skills. and concepts. "When activity is directed towards the goals of the task. pupils are behaving appropri- ately" (p. 62). One of the most complete reviews of various classroom- management theories was provided by Brophy and Putnam (1978L They included information from social psychology. developmental psychology. and socialization research to establish principles of creating an effective learning climate and a positive classroom atmosphere. They asserted that "a positive general classroom atmosphere and a good working relationship between the teacher and each individual student" are more important than the "presence or absence of any specific tech- nique" (p. 35). Second. they summarized major theories by individual 33 authors such as Glasser. Kounin. and Gordon. who outlined specific methods of classroom management. Brophy and Putnam emphasized that "all techniques must be compatible with the teacher's personal prefer- ences" (p. 36). WW Problems associated with students who have chronic emotional and adjustment difficulties have led teacher organizations to consider including special provisions for dealing with such cases in teacher contracts. Commonly requested provisions include: expulsion and/or suspension of students; creation of special classes with special teachers within a building; creation of special school buildings and special faculties; increased numbers of guards within each building; small class sizes; smaller school buildings; special personnel to be liaisons with local courts. agencies. and the police; additional personnel to deal with the increased use of drugs. alcohol. and violence; training of present personnel to cope with the individual problems creating individual discipline cases; increased numbers of specialists such as school psychologists. social workers. and guidance counselors. (Jascourt. Dietz and Hummel (1978) indicated that "at the present time education has no more answers for the serious problems than do other parts of society which also face the same types of serious diffi- culties." However. a review of various state department of education publications indicated that attention has been given to student- management issues beyond the scope of the individual teachen. These documents indicated a progressive series of steps that may be consid- ered for students who do not respond to curricular types of interven- tions. 34 The Pennsylvania State Department of Education (1977) summar- ized the major disciplinary techniques to school districts in their state as: (a) punishment--suspension. detention. withholding of privi- leges; (b) parental involvement--conferences. deficiency reports; (c) individualized counseling. referral; (d) adjustment of educational offerings--including schedule changes and transfers to a new building or alternative sites; and (e) behavior-modification programs. including contracting and rewards for appropriate behavior. Similar alternatives. with an emphasis on progressive disci- pline. were described in a publication by the State of Hawaii (1977). According to that publication. if a problem develops the first step is individual counseling; if the problem is not resolved at that level. the next steps to be taken are individual conferences. contracts. detention. suspension. and finally exclusion. In Michigan. the Governor's Task Force on School Violence and Vandalism (1977) advocated that: Schools should make an immediate effort to substitute corrective discipline in place of punitive discipline measures. Such changes would necessarily involve development and use of alternatives to suspensions such as: a. peer counseling b. cool-off rooms c. behavior contracts d. intensive individual counseling e. guided group interaction f. parent-student committees to devise alternatives in lieu of suspensions. Nevertheless. the Task Force recognized that suspension and expulsion should be used for students who pose a continuing danger to persons or property. 35 In a working document. the Michigan State Department of Educa- tion (1978) also set forth a progressive strategy for resolving disci- pline problems: When student misconduct first presents itself. teachers. support service staff. administrators. and parents should collaborate to initiate early intervention and remediation strategies to modify the unacceptable behavior. These strategies may include: altering the student's educational environment. initiating counseling serv- ices. modifying the instructional approach. referring to community agencies. or initiating a referral for possible placement in a special education progranu Communication and follow-up should involve school personnel. the parents. and student. as appropriate. When efforts have been unsuccessful. the school district may need to consider suspension or expulsion. (p. 6) The Michigan State Board of Education's "Blueprint for Action" (1984) further recommended that. in cooperation with community agencies. alternative programs be developed for disruptive students. to help prevent or reduce discipline problems. Even though many educators think suspension is not an approp- riate punishment. it is still commonly used. In an analysis of percep- tions concerning school suspensions. Gordon (1984) cited a 1976 study of 293 Maryland secondary school administrators. which indicated that suspension was the primary disciplinary action they used to restore order and promote a positive school. Statistics compiled over a lS-year period in the Lansing School District indicate that even though the student population has declined by approximately one-third. the actual number of disciplinary suspensions has nearly quintupled (see Table 2.5). 36 Table 2.5.--Lansing School District suspensions. 1969-70 through 1983-84. School Junior High/ K-12 Year Elementary Middle School Senior High Total Population 1969-70 96 514 638 1.248 32.701 1970-71 106 891 507 1.504 32.579 1971-72 94 1.346 716 1.156 32.994 1972-73 167 2.147 963 3.277 32.216 1973-74 115 2.641 1.353 4.109 31.037 1974-75 85 2.666 1.194 3.945 31.401 1975-76 32 2.263 1.081 3.376 30.527 1976-77 218 1.881 1.145 3.244 29.988 1977-78 139 1.936 1.256 3.331 28.870 1978-79 184 2.473 935 3.592 27.633 1979-80 339 2.417 1.044 3.800 26.059 1980-81 360 2.441 1.486 4.287 26.828 1981-82 379 3.089 1.261 4.729 24.253 1982-83 469 3.018 1.068 4.555 23.854 1983-84 499 2.353 2.048 4.900 23.580 presented by the Children's Defense Fund (CDF) (1975). A number of arguments against the use of suspension were Analyzing data from the Office of Civil Rights. the researchers found that a dispro- portionate number of minority children across the country were sus- pended. To gather more information on student suspensions. the CDF conducted its own survey and found that disproportionately more males than females were suspended. Suspended students were primarily from low-income. single-parent families. Vincent (1978). and Stallworth (1977) added to this profile students who are attendance problems. academically lagging. have low grade point averages. and are not involved in extracurricular activities within the school. 37 According to the CDF study. the major reason principals cited for using suspension was to "force a crisis to get the parent in" (p. 16). Other commonly mentioned reasons were to force the student to comply with school rules and regulations. to provide a cooling—off period for the student and school. and to help the student learn acceptable behavior. Although recognizing that students who pose a serious and immediate threat to other students. staff. or property should be temporarily suspended. the CDF indicated that many suspen- sions are actually unrelated to dangerous acts. as shown in Table 2.6. The CDF report asserted that suspensions cause harm to students by (a) taking away educational time from youngsters who often need it the most; (b) labeling students as problems/troublemakers; (c) denying children help available in school. such as the counselor; and (d) putting children in the streets. possibly to become involved in further problems in the community. To avoid these situations. the CDF recom- mended that suspension be used only for incidents that pose an unme- diate threat to students or school personnel. Other disciplinary matters should be handled through a flexible curriculum and alterna- tives within the school. such as detention. behavior contracts. peer- group counseling. teacher training. and counseling centers. Discipline policies should be written and disseminated to all staff. students. and parents. Suspension should be considered a last resort even for vio- lent students. who should be referred to the courts for longer-term handling. 3E3 .m~m_ .m.uc_ .uuomoLa zucnomua caumc_;mo3 ecu 50 team uncouuo m.cocv__cu on“ >n ucoooxv pcocv__;wwwc_a_oz xosh oL< unco_mcoom:m .oo:um .vcau encomoa n.cuLv._zu "oucaow m co.uac_vcon:mc. .m m. ucocaun . :ouZ— u.cmuov LOLUQOF: .3 o g. mm . _ :oe=u_uu. can: .n N maooco__06m_t m . . m. use me.uu< N N _o£ou.o one manta m mmm u c so oLn Lo >o o . n movou mmuco .: m. _ _ .4 _ z a _ o. >uLoaoLo mo co_uuacumuo .m .mso_noL¢ Lo_>a;un 4~ team—ocuucosgm_c:m .N . - . m :N huh mm "mmuwummmcohuo o. couuo oou >ecoh .m .m mac—u cu >ucnh .n m ans—u we use cox—o3 .o ma mm m :2 E 95:.) .m _ use: m muse: .oocum can ucocaum Locuo mc___mu .9 mcmcav mezzoLm .0636m ace; .3 m mucovaum coozuoa unusamc< .m _ >_Luu .oo;un um»; .m m Locumou um oLozm .3 m: mum—u usu .N o. Locumou ;u_z ucosoocmcm_o .m on >xoo; vu>o_m .— m Acozumou Lo .oamuc.cov 0L:u_w "ovum—0L mmuc_vcou one >ucmach >u_Lo:uan mo uuoamoLm_o .N ”N some cc,x_.u "Amc.u;mwc m.om mew ccmv LuzonUu mc_u_:mc. ._ _ man :0 u;m_w "Amco.uoucomeou .nnco>v mucosamc< mcwuLeun co comauu< Av _ man :0 m:_uzm_u Au w.m— .bm - AnnoLm _c_unc _ co_mm_Ecoo ucocouu_ov ucovaum usagu_z coca. cu ace) .m. Lozuo ;u_3 m:_u;m_u an _ xmuv m.cocumou co mc_u_L: .4— mm. ucovnun N Locomuu Lozuo cu.) mc_u;m_u an >9 :comauum >_um:mc:: .m— nucovzun _ an“. sues. c. oc_uu=u .N. Lasso 58.: m=_u;m_a .N _ uE_u mcoLI as man .oo;um c. .__ N Locumuu m eo_.oa :cco m=_.oou: sauce: .0. mc_ae=q to eonauua an _ note: can ouoL) .m a Lucunou gum: mc_unm_u Au m cc_mcau .w .uuo .n_oo_uc_co . awn—u c. o>nucouuoc. .m .mcocucou cu.) mc_uzm_u .— o. Loccmou vo>030m_a .o "Auuoucou .nu~n>zov mc_u;m_u mco_mcoamam vovcoamam mco_mccamam vvccoomam .ouo» co coLo__zu :o_mcoam:m Lo» cameo: .mu0h mo coco—.59. co_ncoom:m Lem cemauz ucoucom mo consaz ucoucom mo Loose: .>o>L:n uou :— ease» mac—accomam Lo» acemmozuo.o.~ o_n~h 39 Much of the information on student suspensions is concerned with the opinions of teachers and administrators or statistical reviews. Vincent (1978) and Jones (1984) surveyed student perceptions about suspensions. Vincent found that both suspended and nonsuspended students were negative about being suspended repeatedly for violations of different rules and regulations. Nonsuspended students expressed a fear of short-term suspension. However. once a student was suspended. the deterrent value seemed to be lost. Vincent concluded that sus- pension appears to be of value as a control factor for maintaining an orderly school but that if a short-term suspension does not remedy the problem. strategies to increase attendance and academic standing might be more helpful than repeated suspensions in changing behavior. Students in Jones's study agreed that suspension is a necessary device but thought it should be reserved for major offenses such as assaults. possession of weapons. drug use. and vandalism. Incidents of fighting and failure to report to class were thought to be best handled by an administrative warning or. at most. a three-day suspension. The students reflected the general publicfls view that the major causes of problems arise in the home. However. they went on to indicate elements in the school operation itself that can lead to problems. For example. students felt that overly strict rules may actually cause increased numbers of suspensions. Respondents also felt that if students knew the rules. there would be fewer suspensions. Duke (1978) reinforced this assertion by recommending that school rules and regulations be taught and tested as a part of the general school curriculum. 40 To avoid the negative consequences of student suspensions. a number of schools have adopted various alternative programs. either on site or at a central location. for students who would otherwise have been suspended. Garibaldi (1979) identified the three models of in- school alternatives that seem to be used most frequently: (a) the time-out room. (b) an in-school suspension center. and (c) counseling/ guidance programs. The time-out room is of limited duration; the intention is to return the student to his/her assigned classroom as soon as possible. Students are typically assigned to the in-school suspension center for one to three days. Instruction is usually pro- vided by a teacher assigned to staff the room. In some situations. the student may also receive extra counseling or social-work services. The third type of program does not typically involve assignment to a room. but rather placement in an intensive counseling progrant Garibaldi suggested that the last alternative is "based on the readiness of the students to see that their misbehavior has interfered with the class- room instruction of their peers" n» 100). After conducting a comprehensive review of both in-school and out-of-school alternative programs in the greater Houston. Texas. area. Mendez (1979) indicated that alternative programs serve to (a) meet administrative needs. (b) satisfy various legal requirements. (c) pro- tect the educational environment. and (d) provide comprehensive resources not available in school. Administrators surveyed in the research were positive about the programs in general and felt that they were effective in preventing suspensions (81%). served as a deterrent 41 to future misbehavior (73%). helped to establish communication with parents (89%). decreased student alienation (65%). and were rehabilita- tive rather than strictly disciplinary (62%). Mendez and Garibaldi both indicated that the ideal program can effectively serve the referred student and reduce the number of school suspensions. However. there is a danger that the programs may substi- tute for other actions that are more appropriate for both the student and the teacher. The CDF report also expressed caution about these programs: "The danger of proliferating programs designed specifically for troubled children is the temptation to label and place ever- increasing numbers of children in them" (p. 97% Mendez found there was increased student absenteeism following assignment to alternative programs. as well as a large number of repeat placements. To make the most efficient and effective use of alterna- tive programs. Mendez recommended that: 1. Alternative programs should emphasize remedial reading particu- larly since most of the assigned students were below grade level in their work. 2. Attendance problems should be followed closely. 3. A counseling process should be provided in the program and as a follow-up to prevent repeat assignments. 4. Criteria should be developed for the programs. which would ensure that students are appropriately placed. 5. Transportation should be provided as to the regular program. 42 Given these conditions. alternative programs can effectively serve as an additional method of managing disruptive behavior in school. W School discipline policies and practices have been affected not only by educational theories. but also by a number of court decisions resulting from various challenges to existing disciplinary practices. One of the most important cases affecting school discipline practices and procedures. Goss v. Lopez. was decided by the United States Supreme Court in 1975. This case was brought on behalf of nine Ohio high school students who claimed that they had been suspended from their school for up to ten days without a hearing during a period of wide- spread student unrest. In addition to being suspended. two of the students also were transferred to another school in the district. These disciplinary actions had been taken without benefit of a hearing. which the students alleged violated their due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In a 5-4 decision. the Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the lower courts in favor of the students. The court ruled that both property and liberty interests had been affected by the actions of the school district employees. Although Ohio state law permitted suspen- sions. it also provided for a free education for students from ages 6 through 21. Since the State of Ohio had entitled students to a public education. it then became a property interest that could not be taken away without minimum due process procedures. The Court stated that a school district could not arbitrarily "withdraw that right on grounds 43 of misconduct. absent fundamentally fair procedures to determine whether the misconduct has occurred" (419 U.S. 574). Quoting from an earlier decision in the case of Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969). the court restated that students do not "shed their constitu- tional rights" at the school house door (419 U.S. 574). The school district had argued that a suspension of ten days was not serious enough to require a hearing. Rejecting this argument. the court noted: A short suspension is. of course. a far milder deprivation than expulsion. But. "education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments." Brown v. Board of Education. 347 115.1483. 493 (1954). and the total exclusion from the educational process for more than a trivial period. and certainly if the suspension is for 10 days. is a serious event in the life of the suspended child. Neither the property interest in educational benefits temporarily denied nor the liberty interest in reputation. which is also implicated. is so insubstantial that suspensions may constitutionally be imposed by any procedure the school chooses. no matter how arbitrary. (419 U.S. 576) The court held that a student facing a suspension of ten days or less must be "given oral or written notice of the charges against him and if he denies them. an explanation of the evidence the authori- ties have and an opportunity to present his side of the story" (419 U.S. 581). The court recognized that there need not be a delay between the notice and the actual hearing. which may be informal. Students pre- senting an immediate threat to the school or persons within the school could be immediately removed. pending a hearing at a practicable time. Rights to have legal counsel. to call witnesses. and to cross-examine witnesses were not required for the following reasons: 44 To impose in each such case even truncated trial-type procedures might well overwhelm administrative facilities in many places and. by diverting resources. cost more than it would gain in educational effectiveness. Moreover. further formalizing the suspension process and escalating its formality and adversary nature may not only make it too costly as a regular disciplinary tool but also destroy its effectiveness as part of the teaching process. (419 U.S. 583) Writing in dissent. Justice Powell posed a counter-argument that short-term suspensions do not affect the studentfls educational record or reputation. He cited testimony from school records that indicated no damages had occurred to the students' reputations as a result of their suspension. Further. Justice Powell predicted that "no one can foresee the ultimate frontiers of the new 'thicket' the court now enters" (419 (LS. 597) in seeming tauinclude as protected interests a number of discretionary decisions in the educational process. such as: how to grade the student's work. whether a student passes or fails a course. whether he is to be promoted. whether he is required to take certain subjects. whether he may be excluded from interscho- lastic athletics or other extra-curricular activities. whether he may be removed from one school and sent to another. whether he may be bused long distances when available schools are nearby. and whether he should be placed in a "general." "vocational." or "college-preparatory" track. Following this decision. as predicted. several specific cases were brought to trial in which the practice of school transfers was challenged. In these cases. the issue was not whether the practice of school transfers was educationally sound. Courts have been extremely reluctant in general to overrule the wisdom of school administrators in making various disciplinary decisions. Instead. their focus has been the administrator's adherence to correct due process procedures. 45 The first case. Everett v. Marcuse (1977) was decided at the federal-trial-court level. The court determined that lateral transfers were subject to due process protection of notice and hearing. Such transfers were recognized as a serious disciplinary action that should not be imposed until the hearing process was completed. Although the court recognized the school district administration's authority to use this disciplinary action. remarks made in the court opinion indicated serious concerns about its use: As shown by the evidence taken during the hearings. a transfer during the school year has. at least to many pupils. a serious adverse impact upon their educational progress. 'The terminology of a "disciplinary transfer" suggests punishment. Even though such transfers may in certain specific instances be for the good of the pupil as well as the transferring school. it nonetheless leaves the stigma of punishment. (p. 400) The court did not indicate the number of students involved in lateral transfers. but it was noted that a substantial number of such transfers took place each year in the Philadelphia School District. The second case. Zamora v. Pomeroy (1981). was decided in the federal circuit court of appeals. In that case. suit was brought to prevent a lateral transfer of a student recommended for transfer after marijuana had been found in his locker. In this case. the court held that the transfer was not an extreme sanction like an expulsion; therefore. federal court action was not warranted "regardless of the nature of the incident or the reason for the disciplinary action" (639 F. 2d 669). The court noted that the only penalty directly resulting from the transfer was a loss of athletic eligibility. In contrast to the obvious concerns about the inherent problems in the use of lateral 46 transfers as expressed in Everett v. Marcuse. the Zamora court indi- cated that the school district "went to some’length to impose a sanc- tion which would guarantee that he could continue his school work so that he could graduate" (639 F. 2d 669). At least one author (Hoffman. 1982) has expressed concern that school administrators might use lateral transfers as a means to "circumvent the procedural requirements of notice and hearing" (p. 541) required for students who are suspended or expelled. Although school districts must follow certain minimum standards of due process for student suspensions. Hoffman felt that these procedural guarantees could be avoided in student transfer cases. particularly since this disciplinary method was not specifically included in the Goss v. Lopez decision. The'author emphasized that. when using this action. school administrators should make every effort to satisfy the due process requirements. To ensure that this process occurs. he recommended that New York's education law be changed to require due process protection for students who are laterally transferred. No legislation has yet been proposed by the New York legislature to require such action. Summary The literature reviewed in this chapter reflected concerns not only about disciplinary problems in the schools. but also about various methods that have been used to resolve these problems. A number of writers have suggested classroom-intervention strategies that have proven successful in preventing or reducing the minor types of problems encountered in these settings. The consensus seems to be that many of 47 these approaches can reduce misbehavior because teachers are com- fortable with them and that they embody basic concepts for understand- ing human behavior. Disciplinary decisions and controls for serious behavior problems are more problematic. According to the literature. school administrators have traditionally relied on suspension and expulsion to control persistent and chronic misbehavior. Advocates of this approach feel that its primary effectiveness is in forcing a parent contact. which it is hoped will lead to a change in student behavior. Opponents of the use of suspensions and other out-of-building disciplinary methods argue that suspensions should be limited to those who engage in truly violent or illegal behaviors and that behavioral change can be accomplished more effectively through other means. such as intensive counseling or student contracts. In many larger districts. student suspension has been coupled with a transfer to another school or. more recently. assignment to an alternative program. Since disciplinary decisions are made in real situations. it would be extreme1y difficult to set up a controlled study to evaluate the various disciplinary options available to school administrators so that a particular method might be used in certain circumstances. It is hoped the present investigation will add to an understanding of the consequences of at least one choice of disciplinary option. CHAPTER I I I FETHODS AND PROCEDURES W19 The population involved in this investigation was all Lansing School District secondary students who had been suspended from one school and transferred to another regular school over a two-year period from 1982 to 1984. The Lansing School District is a middle-sized urban school district in Michigan with a diverse student population. During the 1982 through 1984 school years. approximately 21% of the K-12 student enrollment received financial aid from Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). More than 30% of the secondary students lived in one- parent rather than two-parent homes. The student population consisted of American Indian. Hispanic. black. Asian. and white students. In 1973. the Lansing School District was placed under a federal court order to implement a desegregation plan. which involved mandatory busing. All current school assignments and boundaries are established in accordance with that plan. Any changes must be approved by the court. For the two years under investigation. the distribution of students according to ethnic group was as shown in Table 3.1. 118 49 Table 3.1.--Distribution of Lansing School District students according to ethnic group. 1982-1984.a American School Year Indian Black Asian Hispanic White Tetal 1982-83 N 239 5.725 567 2.409 14.914 23.854 % 1.0 24.0 2.4 10.0 62.5 1983-84 N 331 5.850 592 2.345 14.431 23.549 % 1.4 24.8 2.5 10.0 61.3 aFor ethnic distribution of suspended students. see Appendix C. The K-12 student enrollment peaked at 32.994 in 1971-72. Since that time. it has followed the pattern of student enrollment decline experienced by many Michigan districts. which has resulted in a number of school closings and consolidations throughout the district. In the 1983-84 school year. partially due to the enrollment decline. the district's grade-level configuration was changed from its previous elementary (K-6). junior high (7-8). and senior high (10-12) program to a new middle school concept. which resulted in K-S. 6-8. and 9-12 groupings. The change was phased in. beginning with the 1983-84 school year. by placing all ninth graders in the senior high schools. One sector of the district. representing approximately one-fourth of the elementary schools and one junior high. was converted to the new K-5 and 6-8 middle school configuration that same year. As a result of the change. sixth graders from this middle school were included in the secondary student sample. The transferred sixth graders who attended elementary schools were excluded from this investigation because those 50 transfers were initiated primarily by parents rather than administra- tors. In addition to the regular school programs. the district oper- ated an alternative program for students who presented behavioral problems that could not be managed in the secondary schools. This program consisted of four one-room scattered-site houses. each capable of enrolling 20 junior high students. and four senior high programs also with 20 students. These units were staffed with a teacher and an aide and were referred to as re-entry sites. The purpose of the re- entry sites was to help students modify their behavior so that they could eventually return to the regular school setting. In addition to the one-room sites. the district also operated an alternative high school program that enrolled 120 students. ‘This program was geared primarily toward dropout prevention and to students with school attend- ance problems. Assignment to both the re-entry and alternative high school programs was based on a joint determination by the building and Student Services administrators. generally following a suspension to the Student Services Office. Although student transfers have been recorded in Lansing School District files as a disciplinary action for more than 27 years. the two-year period from 1982 through 1984 was chosen for this investigation. The most important reason for limiting the sample to secondary students who had been transferred during this time period was availability of students and their records. In general. building disciplinary records are kept only while the student is attending the 51 school. Disciplinary files are not kept in the student's cumulative folder. which is commonly referred to as the CA-60. The official school record is the CA-60. and only those documents contained in it are sent to another building in the event of voluntary or mandatory student transfer. either internal or external to the district. Suspen- sion records containing individual student names. various demographic data. reasons for and length of the suspension. and final disposition (building parent conference or referral to the Student Services Office) are maintained centrally in the Student Services Office. Central suspension records are kept for three years. Since 1982-83. records on final disposition have been expanded to indicate whether the suspension resulted in a transfer to another building or to an alternative pro- granu Individual students who had been transferred before the 1982-83 school year could not be identified by central data banks. Another reason for limiting the period of the investigation was the relatively high mobility of students and their families. Some of the demographic information needed for the study could be obtained from permanent school documents. which are maintained on all students. However. suspension statistics. which were limited and served only to address certain questions in the investigation. were just available for a three-year period. Other information could be obtained solely through direct parent and student interviews. Therefore. limiting the years of the study helped to ensure that the maximum number of students and parents would be available for interviews. 52 Table 3.2 contains a summary of the secondary student enroll- ment data. number of suspensions. and number of disciplinary transfers for the 1982-83 and 1983-84 school years. A specific breakdown of the secondary disciplinary transfers by grade level and gender is given in Tables 3.3 and 3.4. 1 Table 3.2.--Secondary school enrollment. total suspensions. and nunber of disciplinary transfers. 1982-83 and 198-84. Total Total Secondary School Year Secondary Secondary Disciplinary Enrollment Suspensions Transfers 1982-83 11.266 4.086 34 1983-84 11.651 4.401 34 Table 3.3.--Breakdown of secondary lateral transfers by school level. 1982-E and 1983-84. School Year Middle School Senior High Total 1982-83 27 7 34 1983-84 19 15 34 Table 3.4.--Breakdown of secondary lateral transfers by gender and school level. 1982-8 and 1983-84. Middle School Senior High Total School Year Mal e Female Mal e Female Mal e Female 1982-83 17 10 5 2 22 12 1983-84 15 4 12 3 27 7 Totals 32 14 17 5 49 19 53 WW Before collecting any data. the researcher obtained written approval from the Lansing School District to conduct the investigation in the district. Any research conducted in the Lansing School District must be approved the Office of Evaluation and Research Services. An application detailing the scope of the investigation and the extent to which student records and/or student and staff time would be involved was submitted for consideration by a district panel. In general. projects are critically reviewed for several factors. including their relationship to board of education goals and potential value to the district. Because results of this investigation would have a direct effect on school district procedures and practices. the panel readily gave its approval to conduct the research. In addition to local district approval. it was also necessary to receive approval from Michigan State University's University Commit- tee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS). This committee must review any study or investigation involving personally identifiable data on human subjects to ensure that the subjects' rights are pro- tected. Of particular interest to the committee was the types of data to be collected and the nature of the consent forms to be used in the investigation. Although several members of the committee initially expressed concern about the voluntary nature of the parent and student consent in this investigation. particularly as the investigator was an employee of the Lansing School District's Student Services Office. final approval was given after minor modification of the consent form. 54 A descriptive approach combining data from school documents and personal interviews was used in this investigation. School documents consisted of students' cumulative folders (CA-60) and central school district disciplinary information. Records in the Office of Student Services were reviewed to obtain the names of secondary students who had been transferred for disciplinary reasons during the 1982-3 and 1983-84 school years. Student Services records also were used to gather suspension data on these students. including the number of suspensions in the calendar years before and after the transfer. the reason for and length of the suspension. and final disposition. Basic demographic information on each of the transferred students was compiled from individual school records. When a student is first enrolled in the Lansing School District. parents are asked to complete a basic enrollment form. which includes the student's full name. address. birth date. gender. racial-ethnic background. parents' education. and family composition (with whom the student resides). Although such information is requested. the only information actually required for enrollment is proof of age. residency. and compliance with imunizati on statutes. Therefore. some of the requested information may have been missing from an individual student's file. The only information available on students' economic status was obtained from school records of students who had applied for free and reduced-price lunches and met federal government eligibility standards. As parents and students may voluntarily choose not to apply for such assistance. the number of low-income students identified by this variable may be 55 underreported. AFDC records can also be used to determine low income levels. Although it was possible to obtain a district and building average of the number of students who were receiving AFDC assistance. the Michigan Deparbnent of Social Services does not release individual students' names. Therefore. AFDC data were not used in this investi- gation. In addition to the basic demographic data. an academic profile of grade point average. enrollment history in the Lansing School District. and grade level at ti me of transfer were obtained from the basic student file. Additional information concerning the student's academic progress was obtained from scores on the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT). 7th edition. which is administered annually to all students in the Lansing School District. For comparison purposes. scores on the Total Reading and Total Mathematics batteries were obtained on each of the students before and after the transfer. An interview to gather additional data not available from student records was developed for use with students and their parents. (See Appendix 8.) Because of family mobility and the length of time between imposition of the transfer and administration of the interview (up to 18 months). only those students and their parents who had been transferred in the 1983-84 school year were selected for interviews. A letter explaining the purpose of the investigation and requesting an opportunity to interview the student and parent(s). along with a per- mission form. was sent to all parents or guardians of students trans- ferred during the 1983-84 school year. (See Appendix A.) Letters 56 containing the same infonmation were sent directly to the students instead of the parents. as records indicated they were now 18 years old. 'The permission form for students under 18 years of age contained space for two signatures. those of the parent and the student. It also provided space for the parent to indicate the most convenient time and pl ace for the interview. To accommodate working parents and students. evening hours were available for the interviews. Parents could also indicate whether they preferred their youngster to be interviewed during or after school hours. Thirty-three letters representing 34 students were sent in the initial mailing. (One family who had had two students transferred in the same year was sent permission forms for both youngsters in the same enveloped . The initial response to the first mailing was lower than expected. Only two letters were returned with signed permission slips and suggested times for interviews. One letter was returned as unde- liverable because the house at the given address was unoccupied. One irate parent telephoned the researcher. not only refusing to be inter- viewed but also expressing bitterness about the entire experience with the Lansing School District. Two weeks after the introductory letters and permission forms were mailed. telephone contacts were initiated to nonrespondents. Information similar to that contained in the letter was restated in the phone conversation. Parents who could not be reached by phone were sent a registered letter. again requesting an interview. This procedure had the advantage of ensuring that the researcher had contacted as many of the target families as possible. 57 Through this process. 15 interviews were scheduled with both students and their parents. 8 with parents only. and 2 with students only without the corresponding parent interview. In nine cases. no interview could be scheduled with either the parent or the student. Thus 50% of the students and 70% of the parents who were contacted consented to personal interviews. Table 3.5 contains a summary of the interviews completed. as well as reasons given for nonparticipation. Table 3.5.--Summary of interview requests. Parent and student 15 completed interviews Parent only 8 completed interviews Reasons for student nonresponse: None given 2 Incarcerated out of area 1 Sent out of state due to problems 2 Moved out of home: little contact 2 Student wanted to "put it behind her" 1 Student in military now 1 Student only 2 completed interviews Reasons for parent nonresponse: No time 1 No reason given 1 Reasons for 9 no-scheduled Family moved out of area 3 interviews: No response to letters or calls 3 Refused--no reason given 1 Disagreed that transfer was for disciplinary reasons 1 Student a runaway; parent refused interview 1 58 Most of the parent and student interviews were held in the home. A few took place in the Office of Student Services or the student's present school at the parents' or students' request. Two student interviews were held with parent and caseworker permission at the Ingham County Juvenile Home. where these students had been placed for non-school-related misbeh avi or. W To obtain information not contained in school records. the researcher developed an interview schedule for this investigation. The personal interview was chosen rather than a questionnaire for several reasons. First. the return rate of written questionnaires is generally low (Best. 1981). Second. respondents are not likely to reveal in a questionnaire what may be considered negative information about them- selves or their feelings toward others (Borg 8 Call. 1971). Third. the interview format is particularly suitable for obtaining information from individuals with limited reading ability. Therefore. the nature of the personal information that was sought from the respondents and the possibility of their having limited reading skills made the inter- view the most appropriate data-collection method for this study. An interview schedule was developed to ensure that the needed information was requested in a consistent manner. Basic considerations in framing the interview questions included avoiding ambiguous lan- guage. avoiding leading questions. determining the degree to which the question might influence respondents to show themselves in a good light. and avoiding queries that the respondents might not have been 59 able to answer (Borg 8 Gall. 1971: Isaac and Michael. 1971). Basic information that was available from student records was not requested in the interview; The final interview schedule basically followed a semi-structured format. Some of the questions were designed to elicit an unstructured response. whereas for other questions respondents were given certain response options (i.e.. excellent. good. average. fair. poor); this enabled the interviewer to note the response on a check- list. The researcher developed the first draft of the interview schedule in cooperation with the Office of Evaluation and Research Services. Ihis interview was pilot tested on five students and their parents; these students had received disciplinary transfers in the 1984-85 school year and therefore were not part of the study sample. The investigator recorded the interview responses; respondents did not appear to be negatively influenced by note-taking during the interview. Based on the results of these interviews. several questions were reworded to clarify their meaning. A few questions were added to accommodate relevant information supplied by the pilot group. The final interview. which was used for both students and parents. was designed to take approximately 20 minutes. Because of the relatively small number of interviews. the investigator was able to'conduct them all herselfi. This eliminated the need to train interviewers and helped to standardize the manner in which the interviews were conducted and responses recorded. 60 The final interview schedule comprised four parts. The first part included questions designed to have students reflect on their school work and behavior. relationship with others both in and out of school. and involvement in extracurricular activities before the transfer. The second part contained questions related to the students' understanding of the reasons for the transfer. subsequent problems that may have occurred during that time. and initial adjustment to the new school. ‘The third section included questions similar to those in the first part. emphasizing school work and behavior and relationships with others in the new school. The final section contained open-ended questions designed to elicit students' and parents' opinions of the effect of lateral transfer as a disciplinary option. A complete copy of the questionnaire is contained in Appendix B. Wolsey A descriptive approach was used in this investigation. As Best (1981) indicated. the descriptive approach is "particularly appropriate in the behavioral sciences. because many of the types of behavior that interest the researcher cannot be arranged in a realistic setting" (p. 94). The purpose of this investigation was to study the effect of the practice of transferring students from one school to another for disciplinary reasons. Disciplinary referrals to the Student Services Office are reviewed individually. and decisions are made on a case-by- case basis. It would be impossible to design an experimental study that could manipulate the specific type of disciplinary action to be imposed for certain behaviors. Instead. it is possible to increase the 61 understanding of behavior by observing and describing what has already occurred. The descriptive method is ideal for beginning research on topics that have had little previous investigation. such as the trans- fer of students for disciplinary reasons. The major purpose of this study was to determine the effect of transferring students from one school to another for disciplinary reasons. Specific questions were formulated to address various aspects of the student's total growth in school--personal. social. and aca- demic. School documents. which contained demographic information as well as pretransfer and posttransfer data on standardized test scores. suspension records. and academic grades and credits were reviewed to determine the effect of the transfer on the students in the sample. Interview information was used to provide an attitudinal component from both parents and students. which was not available in the school docu- ments. Where appropriate. the data were analyzed using frequencies or percentages. In Chapter IV. the findings are reported in tabular form for clarity of presentation. MW Thermajor purpose of this investigation was to determine the degree to which the lateral transfer is an effective method of disci- plining students. Five main questions were addressed: 1. What effect. if any. did the transfer have on the number and frequency of disciplinary suspensions of individual transferred students? 2. Does the type of disciplinary problem precipitating the trans- fer affect the comparative effectiveness of a lateral transfer? 3. 62 What difference. if any. was there in the grade point average and the standardized achievement test scores of individual students following a lateral transfer? From the student's perspective. what effect did the transfer have on his/her subsequent behavior? Did the parent or guardian perceive the lateral transfer as effective in changing the student behavior or attitude that led to disciplinary action? Two related questions of less interest were also posed. They are: 6. Is there a difference in the relative effectiveness of the transfer for junior high/middle school students and for senior high school students? Is the number of transferred students proportionate with respect to gender and ethnic background of the total school district population? 53mm: The descriptive method described in this chapter was used to answer the question concerning the effect of transferring students from one school to another for disciplinary reasons. Selected documents were reviewed for those students who'had been transferred during the 1982-83 and 1983-84 school years to determine the effect of the transfer on these students' subsequent suspension rates and academic progress. .An interview schedule was developed to obtain attitudinal information from students and parents. The findings from the document review and interviews are presented in Chapter IV. GMFERIV FINDINGS The study findings are contained in this chapter. as are other related findings. The questions addressed in the research were designed to determine the degree to which a lateral transfer is an effective disciplinary method for students. To that end. suspension statistics. standardized test data. and grade point information were reviewed to determine the effect of the transfer on the students' school adjustment. Questions were also posed in an attempt to determine parents'iand students' perspectives about the transfer. Finally. additional questions were asked to reflect on certain demographic variables. such as gender and ethnic background. because some disciplinary actions are frequently imposed disproportionately on particular ethnic groups and genders. In the following pages. each major question is restated. followed by the findings for that question. Results W. What effect. if any. did the transfer have on the number and frequency of disciplinary suspensions of individual transferred students? To obtain a base for comparison purposes. the number of suspen- sions in the calendar year preceding the transfer was compared to the number of suspensions in the calendar year after the transfer. 'Twenty 63 64 of the 68 students in the sample were excluded from this comparison for the following reasons: 1. Student was not in district for one year preceding transfer--5 cases Student moved within one year after transfer--3 cases Student graduated within one year after transfer--1 case Student was transferred to an alternative education program within one year after transfer--5 cases 5. Student dropped out of school--4 cases 6. Student was incarcerated--l case 7. Student was placed in a treatnent facility--l case punk) 0 O The suspension records of the remaining 48 students were grouped into two categories: nonviolent or violent offenses. For this investigation. a nonviolent offense was defined as any incident that was not injurious to other people or property. This included such behaviors as truancy. smoking. tardiness. minor misconduct. and sub- stance abuse. Violent offenses included such incidents as fighting. extortion. assault. and arson. Table44J indicates the number of offenses in each category. before and after the transfer. Table 4.l.--Comparison of suspensions before and after the transfer. Number of Suspensions Type of Offense Differ- % Differ- Pretransfer Posttransfer ence ence Nonviolent 87 78 - 9 -10 Violent 26 13 -13 -50 Total 113 91 -22 -19 65 Table 4.1 indicates that. in the one year preceding the trans- fer. the 48 students in the sample had a total of 113 suspensions. Of those incidents. 87 were considered nonviolent. whereas 26 were of a violent nature. Following the transfer. the same students had a total of 91 suspensions. 78 of which were nonviolent and 13 violent. When compared by type. there was a 10% reduction in the number of nonviolent offenses and a 50% reduction in violent offenses. Overall. there was a 19% reduction in suspensions following the transfer. ‘Questign_2, Does the type of disciplinary problem precipitating the transfer affect the comparative effectiveness of a lateral transfer? Eight major types of offenses precipitated the disciplinary transfer. Suspensions of the 48 students who had been in the district for one calendar year preceding and following transfer were cate- gorized. based on the offense precipitating the transfer. The total suspensions in each offense category. before and after the transfer. were compared. Table 4.2 reflects the results of this comparison. As shown in Table 4.2. the total number of suspensions decreased in almost all categories except possession of weapons and major theft. Those students who were transferred for weapons posses- sion had 15 suspensions before the transfer and 22 the year following transfer. an increase of 46.7%. The two students transferred for major theft had a total of one suspension before the transfer and two follow- ing. The largest decline was in the truancy category. The 18 students transferred for truancy had a total of 16 offenses before the transfer and 9 following it. for a reduction of 44%. The smallest reduction 66 (-l9.5%) was in the general-misconduct category. Overall. there was a 28.6% reduction in suspensions among those students originally sus- pended for nonviolent offenses. Students suspended for violent offenses had a 4.7% reduction in suspensions following transfer. Table 4.2.--Comparison of the total number of suspensions before and after student transfer. based on precipitating offense. No. of Suspensions Type of Offense No. of Differ- % Differ- Students Pre- Post- ence ence transfer transfer NQDXIQISLQI Truancy 8 l6 9 -7 -44.0 Substance abuse 9 13 8 -5 -38.0 Misconduct 16 41 33 -8 -l9.5 Subtotal 33 7O 50 -20 -28.6 11.91%: Fighting 6 17 ll -6 -35.3 Assault 2 10 6 -4 -40.0 Weapons 4 15 22 +7 +46.7 Arson l 0 O O 0 Major theft 2 l 2 +1 +50.0 Subtotal 15 43 41 -2 -4.7 TOtal 48 113 91 -22 -19.0 67 W. What difference. if any. was there in the grade point average and the standardized achievement test scores of individual students following a lateral transfer? Grade point averages (GPAs) for the semesters before and after the transfer were obtained for 51 of the students in the sample. GPAs were not available for those students who had transferred out of the district. had dropped out of school. or had attended an elementary school before the semester of transfer. In some cases. GPAs had not been recorded for students who had attended an alternative program the semester preceding or following transfer. At that time. alternative program grade reports were not maintained in the central computer files and were therefore not always recorded in the students' files. GPAs are calculated on the average of grades received in each class. with A = 4.0. B = 3.0. C = 2.0. D = 1.0. and E = 0. Table 4.3 is a compari- son of students' GPAs before and after the disciplinary transfer. Table 4.3.--Conparison of students' GPAs before and after transfer. by quartile. Average GPA Quartile No. of Differ- % Di ffer- Stu dents Pre- Post- ence ence transfer transfer 0.0-0.9 13 .5 100 +049 +9700 100-109 22 104 102 -017 -1204 2.0-2.9 14 2.3 1.3 -l.0 -43 .5 3 .0-4.0 2 3 .7 1.8 -l .9 -51.4 Tota1 5 1 68 In general. the students had fairly low GPAs; 35 out of 51 students had below a 2.0 or C average. Only 2 of the 51 students in this comparison had a 3.0 or better GPA. Overall. there was an average decline in the GPA from before to after the transfer for students within each of the quartiles except the lowest one. There was a slight improvement in the average GPA of students in the lowest quartile. Scores on the Total Reading and Total Mathematics batteries of the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT). 7th edition. were obtained and compared for the 68 students in the sample. More than half of the students were eventually excluded from this comparison because they did not have complete test scores before and after transfer. SAT scores were not available for some students who had transferred from other districts not using the same standardized tests. Also excluded were students who had not taken the test because they voluntarily drapped out of school or graduated. Other students simply had been absent on the day of the test and had missed scheduled retakes. Thus 30 trans- ferred students were included in the comparison of Total Reading scores on the SAT. and 24 students were included in the Total Math score comparison. Tables 4.4 and 4.5 reflect the findings of the SAT Reading and Math score comparisons. respectively. As shown in Table 4.4. of the 30 students included in the comparison. 16 scored in the bottom quartile on the reading portion of the SAT. Overall. there was an average decline in the scores of the students within each quartile from before to after transfer. although this decline was minimal in the lowest quartile. The greatest 69 percentage of decline was in the third quartile. but this involved just three students whose combined average decline was 2943 points or 50%. Table 4.4.--Comparison of students' SAT Total Reading scores before and after transfer. Average SAT Reading Percentile Quartile No. of Differ- % Differ- Students Pre- Post- ence ence transfer transfer 0-25 16 13.6 13.2 -.4 0 26-50 6 39.3 30.0 -9.3 -23.7 51-75 3 58.0 28.7 -29.3 -50.0 76-100 5 91.8 83.8 -8.0 -8 7 Total 30 Table 4.5.--Comparison of students' SAT Math scores before and after transfer. Average SAT Math Percentile Quartile No. of Differ- % Differ- Students Pre- Post- ence ence transfer transfer 0-25 14 16.4 15.1 -l.3 -7.9 26-50 5 38.0 30.0 -9.3 -23.7 51-75 0 0 0 O 0 _ 76-100 5 86.2 74.8 -ll.4 -l3.2 Total 24 70 As shown in Table 4.5. 14 of the 24 students in the SAT Math score comparison were in the bottom quartile on the Math portion of the SAT. When the SAT Math scores of the transferred students were com- pared by quartiles. an average loss was noted in each category from before to after the transfer. The greatest loss occurred among the five students in the top quartile. whereas the test scores of students in the bottom quartile changed the least. W From the student's perspective. what effect did the transfer have on his/her subsequent behavior? In the interviews. students were asked questions designed to have them reflect on the effect the transfer had had on their behavior with respect to school and personal relationships. Students were asked to compare their school work. grades. and involvement in extracurricu- lar activities before and after the transfer. They were also asked to compare their relationships with friends. peers. and school staff. Finally. the students were asked to specify any problems they had encountered with the transfer and their recommendations concerning the future use of disciplinary transfers. Their answers are presented below. It should be noted that not all students responded to every question. (See Appendix B for a complete copy of the interview sched- ule.) AdjustmentJnjsbml Specific questions were asked concerning the students' view of their performance in school work. as well as their grades before and after the transfer. Students were also asked about their understanding 71 of and adherence to school rules. Finally. they were asked to indicate their involvement in extracurricular activities Tables 4.6 through 4.10 reflect the students' responses to these questions. Table 4.6.--Students' self-report concerning school work before and after the transfer (Questions 3a and 13a). Pretransfer Posttransfer Rating Number Percent Number Percent Excellent 1 5.9 3 18.8 Good 2 11.7 5 31.3 Average 7 41.2 2 12.5 Fair 1 5.9 2 12.5 Poor 6 35.3 4 25.0 Total 17 100.0 16 100.1 The figures in Table 4.6 indicate that 58.8% of the students responding to this question rated themselves as doing Average to Excellent work in school before the transfer. By comparison. 62.6% of the students said their school work after the transfer was Average to Excellent. The frequency distribution indicates that students were generally more positive about their school work after than before the transfer: 41.2% of the students rated themselves as completing Average work before the transfer. whereas only 12.5% rated their school work as Average following the transfer. In contrast. 11.7% of the students rated their school work before the transfer as Good. compared to 33.3% after the transfer. 72 As shown in Table 4.7. students had a generally more positive view of their grades after than before the transfer. Of the students responding. 37.6% rated their grades before the transfer as Average to Excellent. whereas 66.7% rated their grades following the transfer in those categories. Sixty percent of the students rated their grades after the transfer as Good. in contrast to only 12.5% rating their pretransfer grades as Good. Table 4.7.--Students' self-report concerning grades before and after the transfer (Questions 3b and 13b). Pretransfer Posttransfer Rating Number Percent Number Percent Excellent 1 6.3 O 0 Good 2 12.5 9 60.0 Average 3 18.8 1 6.7 Fair 4 25.0 1 6.7 Poor 6 37.6 4 26.7 Total 16 100.2 15 100.1 Table 4.8 shows the students' responses to the question regard- ing their understanding of the school rules. It can be seen that 76.5% of the students felt they had had an Average to Excellent understanding of the school rules before the transfer. Following the transfer. 87.5% of the students indicated that their understanding of the rules was Average to Excellent. Four students (23.5%) said they had had a Fair 73 understanding of school rules before the transfer; only one student (6.3%) rated his understanding of school rules after the transfer as Fair. Table 4.8.--Students' self—report concerning their understanding of school rules before and after the transfer (Questions 3c and 13c). Pretransfer Posttransfer Rating Number Percent Number Percent Excellent 2 11.8 4 25.0 Good 8 47.1 8 50.0 Average 3 17.6 2 12.5 Fair 4 23.5 1 6.3 Poor 0 0 l 6.3 Total 17 100.0 16 100.1 Students were next asked to rate the frequency with which they obeyed the school rules. before and after the transfer. Table 4.9 reflects the students' responses to this question. Less than half (47%) of the students indicated that. before the transfer. they had followed the school rules either Most or All of the Time. Following the transfer. 62.6% said they followed the school rules in the new setting either Most or All of the Time. Before the transfer. 41.2% of the students followed the school rules Some of the Time. compared to 74 31.3% after the transfer. At least one student indicated he/she had Never followed school rules. either before or after transfer. Table 4.9.--Students' sel f-report concerning obeying school rules before and after the transfer (Questions 3d and 13d). Pretransfer Posttransfer Rating Number Percent Number Percent All of the time 0 O 5 31.3 Most of the time 8 47.0 5 31.3 Some of the time 7 41.2 5 31.3 Never 2 11.8 1 6.3 Total 17 100.0 16 100.2 Tablet4~10 presents the students' responses to the question. "Were you involved in extracurricular activities?" Extracurricular activities included sports and athletics. as well as membership in clubs and participation in school plays. Of the five students responding that they had been involved in extracurricular activities before the transfer. four had been involved in more than one activity. Three of the students had played basketball. Football. track. and swimming were each mentioned twice; drama was mentioned once. After the transfer. only one student indicated he would have liked to become involved in sports again but had been declared ineligible. (At the time of the study. students voluntarily transferred from one school to another or transferred for disciplinary reasons were declared ineli- gible to participate in athletics for one full term following the 75 transfer. Other extracurricular activities. such as drama or member- ship in school-sponsored clubs. were not affected by this rulingJ Table 4.10.--Students' self-report concerning their involvement in extracurricular activities before and after the transfer (Questions 4 and 14). Pretransfer Posttransfer Response Number Percent Number Percent Yes 5 29.4 0 0 No 12 70.6 17 100.0 Tetal 17 100.0 17 100.0 WW Students were asked to rate their relationships with friends. both before and after the transfer. on a precoded scale ranging from No Friends to Excellent. Table 4.11 is a tabulation of their responses. Students rated their relationships with friends both before and after the transfer as positive. Before the transfer. 88.3% of the students' relationships with friends were Good or Excellent. Following the transfer. 81.3% of the students ranked such relationships as Good or Excellent. The two students who indicated they had had no friends before the transfer both said they had made friends after the transfer and that their relationships with these individuals were good. 76 Table 4.ll.--Students' self-report concerning relationships with friends before and after the transfer (Questions 5a and 15a). Pretransfer Posttransfer Response Number Percent Number Percent Excellent 8 47.1 4 25.0 Good 7 41.2 9 56.3 Fair 0 0 2 12.5 Poor 0 O l 6.3 No friends 2 11.8 0 0 Total 17 100.1 16 100.1 Students were also asked to rate their pre- and posttransfer relationships with peers. using a precoded scale ranging from None to Excellent. Table 4.12 shows students' responses to the question concerning their relationships with peers. As shown in the table. 70.6% of the students rated their relationships with peers before the transfer as predominantly Good or Excellent. The students indicated a generally slight improvement in their relationships with peers after the transfer; 81.3% of the students rated these relationships Good or Excellent. No students indicated Poor relationships with peers following the transfer. 77 Table 4.12.--Students' self-report concerning relationships with peers before and after the transfer (Questions 5b and 15b). Pretransfer Posttransfer Response . Number Percent Number Percent Excellent 4 23.5 3 18.8 Good 8 47.1 10 62.5 Fair 4 23.5 3 18.8 Poor 1 5.9 O 0 None 0 O O 0 Tetal 17 100.0 16 100.1 Concerning relationships with school staff. students were asked to rate their relationships with teachers. the principal and assistant principal. and school counselors before and after the transfer. using a precoded scale ranging from Nonexistent to Excellent. Students' responses to these items are summarized in Tables 4.13 through 4.15. respectively. Table 4.13 indicates that 47% of the students rated their pretransfer relationships with teachers as Good or Excellent. Following the transfer. 75% of the students indicated they had Good or Excellent relationships with their teachers. Few students indicated that their relationships with teachers were Poor. either before or after the transfer. 78 Table 4.13.--Students' self-report concerning relationships with teachers before and after the transfer (Questions 5c and 15c). Pretransfer Posttransfer Response Number Percent Number Percent Excellent 4 23.5 4 25.0 Good 4 23.5 8 50.0 Fair 7 41.2 3 18.8 Poor 2 11.8 1 6.3 Nonexistent 0 O O 0 Total 17 100.0 16 100.1 When students were asked to rate their relationships with school administrators. namely the school principal and the assistant principal. they gave a different set of responses. As shown in Table 4.14. 43.8% of the students rated their pretransfer relationship with school administrators as Good or Excellent. in contrast to 31.3% giving this rating after the transfer. Another 37.6% of the students said they had had a Poor relationship with administrators before the trans- fer. whereas 18.8% indicated a Poor relationship with administrators following the transfer. Although none of the students indicated a Fair relationship with school administrators before the transfer. five stu- dents (31.3%) indicated having Fair relationships with administrators after the transfer. Three students (18.8%) said that they had had no relationships with school administrators either before or after the transfer. Only one student said that his relationship with the princi- pal was different from that with the assistant principal; this student 79 indicated he had had a personality conflict with the principal. which did not exist with the assistant principal. Table 4.14.--Students' self-ratings concerning relationships with the school principal and assistant principal (Questions 5d and 15d). Pretransfer Posttransfer Response Number Percent Number Percent Excellent 3 18.8 3 18.8 Good 4 25.0 2 12.5 Fair 0 O 5 31.3 Poor 6 37.6 3 18.8 Nonexistent 3 18.8 3 18.8 Total 16 100.1 16 100.2 The final relationship questions concerned students' contacts with school counselors. Table 4.15 shows the students' responses to these questions. Fifty and one-tenth percent of the students said that their relationships with counselors before the transfer had been Good or Excellent. Following the transfer. 71.4% of the students indicated having Good or Excellent relationships with school counselors. This question had the largest number of responses in the Nonexistent cate- gory of all the relationship questions; 25% of the students indicated they had had no relationship with their school counselor before the transfer. and 2LA% said they had had no such relationship following the transfer. One student did not respond to the pretransfer question. and three did not respond to the posttransfer inquiry. 80 Table 4.15.--Students' self-ratings concerning relationships with counselors before and after the transfer (Questions 5e and 15e). Pretransfer Posttransfer Response Number Percent Number Percent Excellent 2 12.5 1 7.1 Good 6 37.6 9 64.3 Fair 4 25.0 1 7.1 Poor 0 0 O O Nonexistent 4 25.0 3 21.4 Total 16 100.0 14 99.9 We To obtain information on problems the students had encountered because of the transfer. students were asked. "What were the hard parts for you in the transfer?" Responses to this question are summarized in Table 4.16. The primary problem (29.2%) encountered by the students when transferring was finding transportation to the new school. Nor- mally. the school district furnishes transportation to and from school if the student lives more than a mile and a half from school. However. students attending school out of their assigned area are not provided such transportation. In most cases. the sampled students used public buses at a reduced student fee. A few of the older students said they drove themselves to school. and some walked to the new school. General problems of adjusting to a new school (20.9%) and making new friends (16.7%) were cited next in order. Five students (20.9%) indicated they had experienced no problems as a result of the transfer. 81 Table 4.16.--Students' responses concerning problems encountered in the transfer (Question 8). Response Number Percent Transportation 7 29.2 Adjustment problems 5 20.9 Making new friends 4 16.7 Entering new classes 3 12.5 There were no problems 5 20.9 Total 24a 100.2 aSeveral students gave more than one response to this question (total respondents = 17). Students' responses to the question "What were the good things about the transfer?" are included in Table 4.1Z. A number of students (70.6%) found that friendships in the new school were a positive aspect of the transfer. Many of the students retained friends from the previous school and added to their circle of friends from the new school. In at least one case. the student's grades in the new school had suffered because of his interest in new friends who were "fun" rather than academically oriented. Three students (1736%) said that nothing was good about the transfer. 82 Table 4.17.--Students' responses concerning benefits of the transfer (Question 9). Response Number Percent Making new friends 12 70.6 New teachers and administrators 2 11.8 Nothing was good 3 17.6 Tetal 17 100.0 In the remaining open-ended questions. students were asked their opinion about a number of aspects of disciplinary transfers. Students' responses to the question "What is your opinion about the practice of disciplinary transfers?" are summarized in Table 4.18. Two students of the 47.1% who agreed with the practice of transferring students for disciplinary reasons volunteered their reasons for this response. One explained that the student is given a new chance to adjust in another regular school after encountering problems in the first. The other student said that the transfer offered new teachers and school adminis- trators. Of those students who disagreed with the practice of disci- plinary transfers (29A%). four felt that it did not solve problems. Another student said it was difficult to catch up on academic work in the new school. Two of the students who were undecided about the practice indicated that a transfer would be appropriate if the student could not get along in his/her present school. Another felt it would all depend on how well the student liked his/her present schooh. This student thought someone might misbehave in order to be sent to a 83 different school. One student said that even though the transfer had worked out well for him. he had had problems in transferring into the same classes he had taken in the previous school because those classes were full. He ended up taking courses he had already had. in order to save his credits. Table 4.18.--Students' opinions about the practice of disciplinary transfers (Question 17). Response Number Percent Agree 8 47.1 Disagree 5 29.4 Undecided 4 23.5 Tetal 17 100.0 When students were asked. "Do you think that transferring a student for discipline reasons makes a difference in student behavior?" the students answered just as they had responded to Question 17 (see Table 4.19). Students who indicated that the transfer either did or could have an effect on student behavior (4LJ%) gave several overlapping reasons for their response: the shock value of being uprooted from one school to another (six students). new opportunities in a setting with no previous negative reputation (four students). and new friends (three students). Four youths (23.5%) felt that no change would result from the transfer. 84 Table 4.19.--Students' opinions about disciplinary transfers making a difference in student behavior (Question 18). Response Number Percent Yes 8 47.1 No 4 23.5 Undecided 5 29.4 Total 17 100.0 Students were further asked. "Do you feel that knowing about the use of transfers makes any difference in the behavior of other students in the school?" Table 4.20 shows their answers. Students responded to this question just as they did to the two preceding ones. Although nearly half of the students (47.1%) felt that awareness of possible transfer for disciplinary reasons would make a difference in student behavior. a larger number of students (52.9%) were either undecided or felt that such knowledge would have no effect. Table 4.20.--Students' opinions concerning whether knowledge about the use of disciplinary transfers makes a difference in student behavior (Question 23). Response Number Percent Yes 8 47.1 No 4 23.5 Undecided 5 29.4 Tetal 17 100.0 85 Finally. students were asked. "What kinds of things do you think would work better than transfers?" Students' responses to this question are presented in Table 4.21. Almost half of the students (47.1%) indicated that they could think of no disciplinary alternatives that would work better than transferring students from one school to another. Other students mentioned such alternatives as in-school sus- pension (17.6%). counseling (11.8%). and job placement (5.9%). One student. who eventually ended up in the district's alternative educa- tion program. felt that it would have been better for him to have been placed in that program initially. rather than being transferred to a different school. Table 4.21.--Students' opinions concerning disciplinary practices that would work better than transfers (Question 22). Response Number Percent In-school suspension Counseling More warnings Job placement Alternative education Don't know m—l—INNw Total 17 10 .l 911.83.130.5- Did the parent or guardian perceive the lateral trans- fer as effective in changing the student behavior or attitude that led to disciplinary action? Twenty-three parents agreed to be interviewed. The interviews were held primarily in parents' homes and included the same questions 86 students were asked in their interviews. Parents' responses to spe- cific questions about the reasons for the transfer. their youngsters' understanding of and adherence to school rules. and their own reactions to the effect of the transfer are reported in this section. Table 4.22 presents the parents' responses regarding whether any problems had occurred in their child's life just before the transfer that might have led to the disciplinary problems. Many of the parents (43.5%) said they were not aware of any specific problems . facing their children that might have contributed to the school disciplinary problems. Responses of parents who did cite specific concerns fell into three main categories: peer problems (26.1%). school-related issues (TLA%). and family concerns (13%). Three of the parents who indicated that peers had been a problem felt their son or daughter had been associating with the "wrong crode‘ Three other parents indicated that their child just did not get along with the neighborhood crowd and that this sometimes led to trouble in school. The four parents who responded that the problems were school related indicated that their young people did not have any problems outside of school. One of these parents said her son just "didn"t like getting up to go to school." Of the three parents who indicated there were home problems. one felt her son had engaged in negative behavior to gain attention from his step-father. Another parent said she had neglected her son in earlier years and now. when she realized her mistakes in raising him. he was totally disobedient to her and school authorities. One parent indicated deep-seated family problems. which negatively 87 affected all of her children. The parents indicated that their children had more fights (3). a poor attitude (3). truancy (l). or substance-abuse problems (1) in school as a result of these non-school- related concerns. Table 4.22.--Parents' perceptions of events contributing to their child's school disciplinary problems (Question 1). Response Number Percent None 10 43.5 Peers/wrong crowd 6 26.1 School related 4 17.4 Family problems 3 13.0 Total 23 100.0 Like the students. parents were asked to rate their child's understanding of school rules before and after the transfer. Their responses are shown in Table 4.23. The vast majority (95.2%) of the parents responding to this question felt that their children had had an Average to Excellent understanding of the school rules before the transfer. About the same number of parents (90.5%) indicated their children had a similar understanding of school rules following the transfer. Only one parent indicated that the youngster's understanding of school rules had been Poor before the transfer. 88 Table 4.23.--Parents' responses regarding students' understanding of school rules before and after the transfer (Questions 3c and 13c). Pretransfer Posttransfer Response Number Percent Number Percent Excellent 3 14.3 3 14.3 Good 12 57.1 13 61.9 Average 5 23.8 3 14.3 Fair 0 0 2 9.5 Poor 1 4.8 0 0 Total 21 100.0 21 100.0 When asked their opinion of the child's adherence to school rules. half of the parents (50%) felt their sons or daughters had followed the school rules Most or All of the Time before the transfer (see Table 4.24). Two-thirds (66.7%) of the parents said their chil- dren adhered to school rules All or Most of the Time following the transfer. Whereas two parents felt their youngsters had followed the school rules All of the Time before the transfer. four indicated that their young people followed school rules All of the Time after the transfer. In an attempt to ascertain their understanding of the disci- plinary action. parents were asked the reason they had been given for their son or daughter's transfer to another school. Responses to this question are presented in Table 4.25. Parents most frequently cited fighting (20.8%) as the reason for the transfer. The next most frequently mentioned reasons were truancy (16.7%). drugs (12.5%). 89 insubordination (12.5%). and smoking (8.3%). Five parents (20.8%) could not remember the reasons they had been given for their childks transfer. Table 4.24.--Parents' opinions of their youngsters' adherence to school rules before and after the transfer (Questions 3d and 13d). Pretransfer Posttransfer Response Number Percent Number Percent All of the time 2 9.1 4 19.1 Most of the time 9 40.9 10 47.6 Some of the time 11 50.0 7 33.3 Never 0 0 O 0 Total 22 100.0 21 100.0 Table 4.25.--Reasons parents were given for their youngsters' transfer to another school (Question 6). Response Number Percent Fighting 5 20.8 Can't remember 5 20.8 Truancy 4 16.7 Insubordination 3 12.5 Drugs 3 12.5 Smoking 2 8.3 Molesting 1 4.2 Streaking l 4.2 Totala 24 100.0 aSeveral parents gave more than one reason for the transfer (total respondents = 22). 90 When asked why they thought their youngsters actually had been transferred. the parents' answers did not always coincide with the reasons they had been given for the transfer. Parents' responses to this question are shown in Table 4.26. The majority of parents (68.2%) felt the actual reason their child had been transferred was directly related to problems the student had been having in school. 'Two par- ents thought the transfer had been initiated because the school admin- istrators did not like their sons. Another parent believed the school administrator wanted to make an example out of her son's behavior. One parent thought the transfer had been made at the student's request. Another felt the school administration wanted to provide a new chance for her son in a different setting. Two other parents did not remember what they had thought at the time of the transfer. Table 4.26.--Parents' perceptions of the actual reasons for their child's transfer (Question 7). Response Number Percent Related to student problems 15 68.2 Administration didn't like student 2 9.1 Don't remember 2 9.1 Student wanted transfer 1 4.6 New chance for the student 1 4.6 To make an example 1 4.6 Total 22 100.2 91 Responses to the question concerning what the parents thought of the practice of disciplinary transfers are shown in Table 4.27. More than one-fourth (26.1%) of the parents supported the practice of disciplinary transfers. One parent felt the transfer had provided a new opportunity for her son. and another indicated the youngster had made different friends at the new school. Of the parents disagreeing with the practice (43.5%). six stated that the transfer had not solved the problems. whereas one indicated that it had caused further prob- lems. The parents who were undecided about the practice (30.4%) indi- cated that a transfer could be useful if the student needed a fresh start. One other parent felt that disciplinary transfers should only be used as a last resort. Another parent thought such measures should be taken only once. Table 4.27.--Parents' opinions about the practice of disciplinary transfers (Question 17). Response Number Percent Agree 6 26.1 Disagree 10 43 .5 Undecided 7 30.4 Total 23 100.0 When asked whether they thought transferring a student for disciplinary reasons makes a difference in student behavior. 40.9% of the parents said the transfer does make a difference in student 92 behavior (see Table 4.28). Their reasons were related to the new opportunity with no previous negative reputation in the new school. new friends. and perhaps the shock value of the disciplinary transfer. Only three parents (13.6%) indicated that a disciplinary transfer does not affect behavior. Almost half of the parents (45.5%)'were undecided about this question. They indicated that the transfer had presented problems to their children in making new friends. adjusting to new classes and teachers. and finding transportation to the new school. Table 4.28.--Parents' opinion of the transfer having an effect on student behavior (Question 18). Response Number Percent Yes 9 40.9 No 3 13.6 Undecided 10 45.5 Total 22 100.0 When parents were asked if they thought any other disciplinary practice would work better than transfers. 39.1% of them suggested student and family counseling as an alternative (see Table 4.29). At least two of the parents felt that the school should have mandated counseling when problems were occurring. Five parents (21.7%) thought that problems should be handled by some>kind of in-school suspension program. Six parents (26.2%) did not know what might have worked better than transfer; three of them felt they and the school had tried 93 everything to correct the problem but had failed. One parent whose son eventually was placed in alternative education thought that he should have been transferred to that program in the beginning. Table 4.29.--Parents' responses to disciplinary practices that would work better than transfers (Question 22). Response Number Percent Ocunseling/therapy with student 8 parent 9 39.1 In-school suspension 5 21.7 More warnings l 4.4 Job placement 1 4.4 Alternative education 1 4.4 Don't know 6 26.1 Total 23 100.1 .Ouestlgn_6. Is there a difference in the relative effectiveness of the transfer for junior high/middle school students and for senior high school students? To obtain the information for this question. the suspension rates of transferred junior high/middle school students were compared with those of senior high students. Forty-six junior high/middle school students were transferred over the two-year period. During the same time. 22 senior high school students were transferred. The spe- cific grade-level breakdown of transferred students is shown in Table 4.30. Table 4.31 shows the number of suspensions for each group. before and after the transfer. Overall. the reduction in the percent- age of suspensions from the calendar year preceding the transfer to the 94 one following it was greater for senior high than for junior high/ middle school students. There was a reduction of 8 suspensions (38.1%) for the senior high students. compared with a reduction of 14 suspen- sions (15.2%) for the junior high/middle school students. Table 4.30.--Grade—level breakdown of transferred students. Junior High/Middle School Senior High School Grade Number Grade Number 6 2 9 5 7 12 10 5 8 23 ll 9 9 9 12 3 Table 4.31.--Comparison of suspension numbers by school level. before and after the transfer. Number of Suspensions School Level Differ- % Differ- Pretransfer Posttransfer ence ence Junior high/ middle school 92 78 -14 -15.2 Senior high 21 13 - 8 -38.1 Total 113 91 95 7. Is the number of transferred students proportionate with respect to gender and ethnic background of the total school district population? Previous studies of the effect of certain disciplinary actions frequently have reported differences in terms of various demographic characteristics between students who have experienced disciplinary actions and the general student population. Question 7 specifically addressed the disparity between the 68 students who had received disciplinary transfers and the general secondary student population. in terms of gender and ethnic background. As shown in Table 4.32. 72.1% of the transferred students were males. as compared to 51.1% males in the secondary student population. Fewer females (27.9%) had undergone this disciplinary action than were represented in the total secondary population (48.9%). Table 4.32.--Comparison of transferred students and the secondary student population in terms of gender. % of Transferred % of Student Gender Students Populationa Male 72.1 (n = 49) 51.1 Fenale 27.9 (n = 19) 48.9 Total 100.0 (n = 68) 100.0 aData obtained from Pupil Accounting Records. Lansing School District. Table 4.33 shows the ethnic backgrounds of the transferred students as compared to those of the entire secondary student 96 population at the time of the investigation. No American Indian or Asian students were transferred over the two-year period under investi- gation. These two ethnic groups comprised 3.4% of the secondary stu- dent population during that time. Twenty-eight (41.2%) black students were transferred from 1982-83 through 1983-84. They represented 24.4% of the secondary student population. Thirty-five white students com- prised 51.5% of the study sample. whereas 62.3% of the general sec- ondary student population was white. Hispanics constituted 7.4% of the study sample and 9.9% of the total secondary student population. Table 4.33.--Comparison of transferred students and the secondary student population in terms of ethnic background. % of Transferred % of Student Gender Students Population American Indian 0 1.2 Black 41.2 (n = 28) 24.4 Asian 0 2.2 Hispanic 7.4 (n = 5) 9.9 White 51.5 (n = 35) 62.3 Total 100.0 (n = 68) 100.0 Although not specifically addressed in Question 7. other demographic variables. such as with whom student resides. income status. and parent education. are also frequently compared when addressing the effect of disciplinary actions. Table 4.34 is a 97 comparison of transferred students and the secondary student population in terms of these variables. For all three demographic variables. the percentage representation of transferred students was greater than that of the secondary student population. That is. about two-thirds (67.7%) of the transferred students lived in homes headed by one parent. as compared with 30% of the secondary student population. More than half (52.9%) of the transferred students had parents who had not completed high school. as compared to 29% of the secondary student population. Moreover. 55.9% of the transferred students met federal government income standards and received lunch at school. ‘Twenty-one percent of the secondary student population received free lunch during the same period. Table 4.34.--Comparison of transferred students and the secondary student population in terms of family composition. parental education. and free school lunch. % of Transferred % of Student Characteristic Students Population One-parent household 67.7 30.0 Parent has not completed high school 52.9 29.0 Free-lunch recipient 55.9 21.0 Sumanv The data gathered through the document reviews and informa- tion obtained from the student and parent interviews were reported in 98 this chapter. School records were reviewed for all 68 students who had been transferred during the 1982-83 and 1983-84 school years. An attempt was made to interview 34 of those students and their parents; however. only 17 students and 23 parents consented to the interview. Data were presented in response to the five major and two minor questions addressed in the study. The findings were discussed and presented in a tabular format. An overview of the study. findings. conclusions. recommenda- tions. and discussion are included in Chapter V. CHAPTER V SUMMARY. FINDINGS. CONCLUSIONS. AND RECOMMENDATIONS Sumau The basic purpose of this investigation was to examine the effect of lateral transfer. the involuntary movement of a student from one regular school to another for disciplinary reasons. The lateral transfer is one type of serious disciplinary action commonly used in larger school districts. According to the literature. this action is most typically taken when students have a personality clash with staff members in one school. need a fresh start in a new environment free from a negative reputation. or are likely to benefit from the shock value that such a placement might have on their future thinking and subsequent behavior. According to the literature. the issue of student discipline. in general. is of concern to both the general public and school personnel. The media have frequently sensationalized the relative small number of violent or criminal behaviors of students in school. Although such acts alarm school personnel. their major disciplinary concerns actually relate to more general student-management issues. Teachers typically handle disciplinary concerns in their classrooms. but students who present persistent though relatively minor behavioral 99 100 problems and those who commit serious offenses are commonly referred to school district administrators for disciplinary action. In dealing with such students. school administrators employ a number of disciplinary options. One of the most commonly imposed sanctions is suspension from school. Proponents of suspension argue that this option forces the parent to take notice of the studentfls behavior in school and comnnt:to working with the school to resolve the problenu They point to studies that have emphasized the deterrent value of at least the initial suspension. Opponents believe that suspension should be reserved for major. violent offenses. In addition to suspension. a common practice. at least in larger school districts. is to transfer the student from one regular school to another for disciplinary reasons. More recently. alternative education programs have provided other disciplinary options for students who are unsuc- cessful in their regular school placement. Some of these alternative education programs have been conducted in the regular school. and others offer programs at self-contained sites. The services offered and staffing patterns vary greatly. depending on the purpose of the specific program. Some alternative education programs have major coun- seling and remedial components. whereas others simply offer a place for students to spend detention time. Although a great deal has been written about the effect of suspensions and expulsions on students. limited information was found about the practice of transferring students for disciplinary reasons. Several writers described the practice as one of a number of 101 disciplinary options available to school administrators. .A few researchers found that administrators and teachers generally hold positive opinions about the practice. Several court cases were also found in which parents and students challenged a lateral transfer that had been imposed for disciplinary reasons. Presumably. a disciplinary transfer is imposed in addition to the less serious remedy of short-term suspension; together. these measures are of less consequence than such serious sanctions as long- term suspension or exclusion. Students may be transferred who have committed serious infractions of discipline codes but. in the judgment of school administrators. are deemed capable of following rules in a different environment. perhaps apart from the negative influence of certain peers. As little formal research has been done on the lateral transfer technique. the major purpose of this investigation was to determine the effect of a lateral transfer as a disciplinary method. Such information should enable school administrators to evaluate their use of this method in comparison to other available options. To obtain information concerning the effect of a disciplinary transfer on students. a descriptive approach combining data from school documents and direct interviews with transferred students and their parents was used in this investigation. The sample population comprised all 68 Lansing School District secondary students who had been transferred over the two-year period from 1982 through 1984. Specific questions were formulated to address various aspects of the 102 transferred students"total growth in school. including personal and social relationships and academic progress. Individual school documents. which contained demographic information as well as standardized test scores. academic grades and credits. were reviewed to determine whether the transfer had had an effect on the students' school adjustment. Pre— and posttransfer suspensions records from the Office of Student Services were compared to determine whether transferred students experienced fewer disciplin- ary actions following the transfen. Finally. interview responses were used to provide an attitudinal component from both parents and students concerning the effect of the transfen. The interviews were conducted only with those students transferred during the 1983-84 school year (and their parents) because of the time that had elapsed between the disciplinary action and the interview and the availability of families and student records. The specific questions addressed in this investigation were as follows: 1. What effect. if any. did the transfer have on the number and frequency of disciplinary suspensions of individual transferred students? 2. Does the type of disciplinary problem precipitating the trans- fer affect the comparative effectiveness of a lateral transfer? 3. What difference. if any. was there in the grade point average and the standardized achievement test scores of individual students following a lateral transfer? 4. From the student's perspective. what effect did the transfer have on his/her subsequent behavior? 103 5. Did the parent or guardian perceive the lateral transfer as effective in changing the student behavior or attitude that led to disciplinary action? 6. Is there a difference in the relative effectiveness of the transfer for junior high/middle school students and for senior high school students? 7. Is the number of transferred students proportionate with respect to gender and ethnic background of the total school district population? The data were analyzed. where appropriate. using frequencies and percentages. The'findings were presented in tabular form for purposes of the discussion. £111sz The major findings from the student document review and the interviews with students and parents are summarized in this section. 1. When comparing the disciplinary records of the transferred students pre- and posttransfer. there were 113 suspensions before the transfer and 91 following the transfer. for an overall reduction of 22 (19%) suspensions. When the figures were compared by type of offense. there were nine (10%) fewer incidents of a nonviolent nature and 13 (50%) fewer violent offenses during the year following the transfer. 2. There were 20 (28.6%) fewer suspensions following the transfer for students whose placement had been precipitated by nonvio- lent misbehavior. Students transferred for violent offenses had only two (4.7%) fewer suspensions following the transfer. The numbers of suspensions decreased in all categories except possession of weapons and major theft. Students transferred for possession of weapons had seven (46.7%) more suspensions during the year following the transfer. 104 3. The majority of students in the sample had below a 2.0 GPA both before and after the transfer. With the exception of students whose GPA was below 1.0. students' semester GPA declined from the semester preceding the transfer to the one following it. Most students in the sample scored in the bottom quartile on the Total Reading and Total Mathematics batteries of the Stanford Achievement Test. both before and after the transfer. Following the transfer. there was an average decline ranging from 8% to 50% in the test scores of students within each quartile. 4. From the students' perspective. the disciplinary transfer had little effect on their adjustment to school and in their relation- ships with others. These areas were generally perceived as positive both before and after the transfer. Transportation difficulties (29.2%) and adjustment to the new school (20.9%) were cited as the major problems students encountered in the transfer. Eight out of 17 students indicated that they had followed school rules most of the time before the transfer; 10 students said they followed the rules most or all of the time after the transfer. Overall. nearly half (47.1%) of the students interviewed supported the practice of student transfers and felt that the transfer makes a difference in student behavior. 5. The interviewed parents said that their youngsters' disciplinary problems had stemmed primarily from peer relationships (26.1%). school-related concerns (17.4%). or family issues (13%). The majority of parents disagreed with (43.5%) or were undecided about (30.4%) the practice of transferring students for disciplinary reasons. 105 Most of the parents believed that other options than transfers should be used to handle problem behavior. 6. There were eight (38.1%) fewer suspensions during the year following the transfer for senior high students in the sample. compared to 14 (15.2%) fewer suspensions for the sampled junior high/middle school students. 7. When transferred students were compared to the total second- ary student population. it was found that a disproportionate number of males and ethnic minorities were involved in disciplinary transfers. Disproportionate numbers of transferred students were also from house- holds headed by one parent. had parents with less than a high school education. and qualified for free school lunches. Bondsman: The following conclusions were drawn from the findings of this investigation. 1. Lateral transfers help reduce the total number of subse- quent suspensions. particularly for students disciplined for nonviolent misbehavior. 2. Academic performance is not likely to improve as a result of transferring students for disciplinary reasons. 3. Students expressed generally positive perceptions of the disciplinary transfer's effect on their subsequent behavior and per- formance in school. even though other data do not support these 106 opinions. In contrast. parents expressed negative concerns and feel— ings about the transfer. 4. The disciplinary transfer was more effective in contribut- ing to a reduction of suspensions among the sampled senior high school students than among the junior high/middle school students. We The purpose of this investigation was to examine the effect of one disciplinary option. namely lateral transfer. on students' personal and academic adjustment in school. When suspension data were reviewed. there was an overall reduction in the number of suspensions for most of the 68 students in the sample during the year following the transfer. Exceptions were students suspended for possession of weapons and those suspended for major theft; these students had more suspensions follow- ing the transfer. Although the total number of suspensions decreased following transfer. it is somewhat discouraging that there were still almost two suspensions per student after the transfer. Of the 68 students in the sample population. 20 students were not included in this comparison: 11 of them were excluded because of transfer to an alternative education program. involuntary drop from school. incarcera- tion. and placement in a treatment program. Thus the 11 students who were excluded from this investigation had more serious behavior prob- lems that were not reported in this study. The effect of the transfer was examined with respect to school achievement; almost all indicators of academic standing declined following the transfer. Before the transfer. most of the transferred 107 students were in the bottom quartile in GPA and scores on the SAT Reading and Math tests. Following the transfer. an average decline was noted for students in all quartiles except the bottom GPA quartile. Students in this quartile had an overall gain in GPA but still remained at the low end of the academic standard. This information is similar to that obtained in studies of other disciplinary actions such as suspensions. Students experiencing behavioral problems leading to suspension or expulsion often have low academic standing and limited involvement in extracurricular activities in the school. Unfortu- nately. the standardized test data were based on less than half of the students in the sample. Although attendance records were not obtained for this investigation. the primary reason for the lack of test infor- mation is thought to be student absence on the day of the test and during retakes. It was interesting that the academic information obtained from student records contrasted sharply with the students' perceptions of their school performance. Although only 17 students were interviewed. they appeared to be a fairly representative subgroup of the larger sample. Their sel f-reports indicated at least average academic per- formance in school before and a slight improvement after the transfer. Part of the discrepancy might have been due to the tendency of inter- viewees to portray themselves in a better light than is warranted by the facts. It is also possible that these students actually perceived their school performance as being at a standard acceptable to them- selves and to their peers. 108 Nearly half of the interviewed students agreed with the prac- tice of student transfers. They felt the transfer affects subsequent school behavior. primarily because of its shock value and the opportu- nity it provides to begin again without a negative reputation in school. This information was in direct contrast to the Jones (1984) study. in which 86% of the students surveyed disagreed with the prac- tice. In the present study. the transferred students. in general. reported positive benefits from the transfer in terms of relationships with others. Overall. they cited a number of advantages from the transfer. and almost half indicated they would not return to their previous school if given the chance. In contrast. the parent interviewees indicated a number of problems their children had encountered as a result of the transfer. such as transportation difficulties and adjustment to a different school. The transferred students in this investigation were not provided transportation to the newly assigned schools. Yet more than half of those students were from low-income families. Although the public-transportation fare is reduced for students. the reassignment in schools could present a financial burden for some families. On the other hand. providing school district transportation would prove to be almost impossible logistically. If subsequent attendance problems result from lack of access to school. the benefit of the transfer will be reduced. With respect to»the second major problem cited. adjustment to the new setting. it has been reported that teachers in at least one large city school district were concerned about the amount of time it 109 takes to help a transferred student catch up on work in the new class. This problem appears to be a genuine concern. especially considering the low academic performance of these students. With the development of districtwide course expectations and objectives. this concern may become less important. A number of the parents and students cited other alternatives that should be used to reduce behavioral problems. including counseling and in-school suspension programs. Some of the parents felt that counseling should have been required. not only for the students but also for the families. This perception rel ates to the view expressed by some parents--that the students' problems stemmed from interpersonal and family relationships. Although a number of the suspended students reported having good relationships with their school-assigned counse- lor. it may be necessary to consider recommending counseling services outside of the school to resolve the serious types of problems that students who are considered for transfer present. One problem with recommending professional counseling outside of the school is that it would be difficult to require such services unless the school district paid for them. Also. many parents who verbal ize a need for counseling and agree to it fail to follow through with appointments. The recent popularity of various in-school suspension programs may prove to be an immediate disciplinary option. However. these programs can be expensive. depending on the types of services offered. Most advocates of in-school suspension argue that the cost is offset by increased state aid. based on average daily student attendance. In 110 Michigan. state aid is determined by a pupil head count early in the school year and would not be affected by improved attendance through such a program. Therefore. the cost of an alternative program would have to be part of a district's basic operating budget. However val u- able alternative programs prove to be in changing student behavior and attitudes. the issue of funding may limit their actual development and use in many districts. Although the lateral transfer did appear to reduce the nmnber of subsequent suspensions for some students in this sample. in particu- lar senior high students and those suspended for nonviolent actions. the measure did not appear to have much positive effect on the behavior of other students or on any of the transferred youths' general academic performance. If the transfer is to be imposed for the purposes com- monly thought to be of benefit. namely to provide the students with a fresh beginning or to shock them into new patterns of behavior. other factors must be addressed. Because of the poor academic background of these students. some provision should belnade for specific help with academic concerns following the transfer. Basic reading and math skills are sorely in need of improvement. In addition. there should be some form of systematic follow-up for transferred students in the new setting. Counsel ors normally see their assigned students at least once a semester to discuss any con- cerns. Students may then make appointments to see the counselor as needed or as referred. It may be that additional professional counsel- ing assistance beyond what the school is able to provide should be 111 strongly recommended. at least for a short ti me following the transfer. In all cases. administrators who are responsible for student placement should do a semester follow-up to determine if another program. place- ment. or service is needed. The number of transferred students in the Lansing School District is small enough that such a follow-up could be arranged. whereas it might not be feasible for districts in which many students are transferred for disciplinary reasons. In this investiga- tion. a number of students and their parents were interested in talk- ing about the transfer and school in general. A routine follow-up conference in which an immediate crisis is not being discussed might prove to be the ideal time to recommend some long-term measures. such as counseling. 1 It is recommended that disciplinary transfers be made only for those students who actually need a different school environment or would benefit from the shock value of such a move. At least one of the students in the sample had been transferred because the precipitating problem had been particularly offensive to the building disciplinarian. Had the same offense occurred in another school. the student's return to school would have been recommended. Because school administrators. like other professionals. are subject to judgment errors. administra- tors who are responsible for final placement decisions should carefully review each recommendation so that the possibility of misjudgment is minimized. In summary. further consideration should be given to the following reconmendations: 112 1. If disciplinary transfers are used as a disciplinary option. a system should be developed for regular and periodic review of the effect of the transfer on the student's total school adjustment. Such routine follow-up would help to identify needed further assist- ance. such as counseling services or academic tutoring. 2. The recommendation to place a student in another school for disciplinary reasons should be carefully made by building administra- tors. For some students. a placement in an alternative program either within the building or external to the school iSInoreiappropriate than transfer tolanother school with programs similar to the one in which the student initially experienced problems. 3. Some method of providing help with transportation needs to be considered when making placement decisions. If the normal school busing program cannot accommodate the limited number of students who attend school out of their assigned area. it may be possible for a district to provide financial assistance with public transportation expenses. 4. School administrators should periodically review discipli- nary practices to determine if they continue to meet the needs of the students as well as districtwide objectives of maintaining a safe and orderly environment for all students. Such regular review would help administrators to reflect on effectiveness of programs without the immediate issue of making a disciplinary decision for a particular student. 113 WWW Several issues arose as a result of this investigation that may be considered for future study. 1. This investigation was limited to only one disciplinary practice. It would be interesting to consider the same questions with respect to other disciplinary actions. such as student suspension and placement in alternative programs. Most researchers have tended to limit the evaluation of the effect of the disciplinary action to subsequent suspensions. In general. the effect on other areas of the student's life has not been considered. Such a study would help provide alnore complete picture of the effect of certain disciplinary methods. 2. The issue of student attendance was not specifically addressed in this investigation. Attendance data should be included in future research. particularly in light of the numbers of students who were excluded from certain comparisons because they had not taken standardized tests that are administered annually. 3. Another study might focus on school administrators' reasons for choosing a particular disciplinary action to use with a student. School personnel generally agree. at least in practice. that certain offenses. such as use of a weapon. require specific disciplinary action. However. a tremendous amount of individual judgment may actu- ally be employed when making a decision for a specific student. even in 114 districts that have detailed discipline codes. Being aware of the factors involved in making such decisions would help administrators gain a better understanding of their role in this process. APPENDICES 115 APPENDIX A PERMISSION LETTERS AND FORMS 116 117 May 1, 1985 Dear During the 1983-84 school year, your was transferred from one school to another as a result of action through the Office of Student Services. I would appreciate your cooperation in helping this office to look at what happened to as a result of this transfer. I am especially interested in finding out if you and your think that the transfer helped or hindered progress in school. Hopefully your responses will help us in making better disciplinary decisions in the future for youngsters. To gather this information, I would like your permission to interview you and The interviews should take about 20 minutes and will be arranged sometime in May or June. With your permission, can be interviewed either during or after school time. A separate parent interview can be arranged at your convenience. A permission slip and self addressed return envelope giving your permission and preferred times for you and to be interviewed is attached. Your participation in this study is strictly voluntary. Results from these interviews will be used for planning in the,Office of Student Services and reported as a part of a doctoral dissertation on school disciplinary 'practices and procedures. Final results will be made available to parents and students upon request. Should you have further questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at 374-4071. Sincerely, Patricia Isom Director of Student Services dp 118 LANSING SCHOOL DISTRICT Permission Form I give permission for to participate in the Office of Student Services' study of school disciplinary practices. I understand that our cooperation in this study is voluntary and that participation may be discontinued at any time. It is also my understanding that any information which is provided will be kept confidential and will not be personally identifiable in the final report of this study. I would prefer my youngster to be interviewed: During School Hours After school hours Parent Signature Phone Number Student Signature I would prefer the parent interview to be arranged: During the day Evening 119 May 1, 1985 Dear During the 1983-84 school year, you were transferred from one school to another as a result of action through the Office of Student Services. I would appreciate your cooperation in helping this office to look at what happened to you as a result of this transfer. I am especially interested in finding out if you think that the transfer helped or hindered your progress in school. Hopefully your responses will help us in making better disciplinary decisions in the future for youngsters. To gather this information, I would like your permission to interview you. The interviews should take about 20 minutes and will be arranged sometime in May or June. With your permission, you can be interviewed at a mutually arranged time. A separate parent interview can be arranged at their convenience. A permission slip and self addressed return envelope giving your permission and preferred times for you to be interviewed is attached. Your participation in this study is strictly voluntary. Results from these interviews will be used for planning in the Office of Student Services and reported as a part of a doctoral dissertation on school disciplinary practices and procedures. Final results will be made available to parents and students upon request. Should you have further questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at 374-4071. Sincerely, Patricia Isom Director of Student Services dp 120 LANSING SCHOOL DISTRICT Permission Form I agree to participate in the Office of Student Services' study of school disciplinary practices. I understand that my cooperation in this study is voluntary and that participation may be discontinued at any time. It is also my understanding that any information which is provided will be kept confidential and will not be personally identifiable in the final report of this study. I would prefer to be interviewed; Date and time Signature Phone Number APPENDIX B INTERVIEW SCHEDULE 121 122 Interview Schedule Eminansier Think about the days or few weeks just before your transfer. What kinds of things were going on in your life? For example. had there been a death or divorce; had you broken off with your girl/ boyfriend. etc.? If something awful happened in your life Just before you were transferred. what effect did it have on how you behaved and performed in class? Think again about the time before your transfer. I'm going to ask you to rate yourself on some things. Would you say your school work was excellent. good. average. fair. or poor? How about your grades? Were they excellent. good. average. fair. or poor? How about your understanding of school rules? Was it excellent. good. average. fair. or poor? How about your obeying the school rules? Did you obey them all the time. most of the time. some of the time. or never? Were you involved in extracurricular activities? Yes No If so. what kind? Still thinking about the time'before your transfer. how would you rate your relationship with others? What about your relationship with friends? Were the relationships: excellent good fair poor had no friends What about your relationship with other students? Were the relationships: excellent good fair poor nonexistent 123 What about your relationships with teachers? Were the relation- ships: excellent good fair poor nonexistent What about your relationships with the principal and assistant principal? Were the relationships: excellent good fair poor nonexistent What about your relationships with counselors? Were the relation- ships: excellent good fair poor nonexistent 113111111523 9. 10. What was the reason you were given for being transferred? Why do you think you were transferred? What were the hard parts for you in the transfer? What were the good things about the transfer? The next few questions ask you to compare your new school with the school you attended before your transfer. How were the teachers in your new school different from those in your old school? How about the students? 124 How about the principal and assistants? How about the counselors? How about classes? How about school rules? mailman Next we are going to talk about you as you saw yourself in the new school. the school to which you were transferred. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. When we were talking about what was going on in your life before the transfer. you said that . Did anything else happen after you transferred? If anything else major happened in your life after your transfer. how did it affect how you acted in school and how you were doing in classes? I'm going to ask you to rate yourself on how things are going in your new school. Would you say your school work was excellent. good. average. fair. or poor? How about your understanding of school rules? Is it excellent. good. average. fair. or poor? How about your obeying the school rules? Do you obey them all the time. most of the time. some of the time. or never? No Were you involved in extracurricular activities? Yes If so. what kind? And how would you rate yourself on getting along with people in your new school? How about your relationships with friends? excellent good fair poor not at all 125 How well do you get along with other students? excellent good fair poor not at all How about your relationships with your teachers? excellent good fair poor not at all How about your relationships with the principal and assistant principals? excellent good fair poor not at all How about your relationships with your counselors? excellent good fair poor not at all Inflation 16. If you had a chance. would you go back to your original school? (Why) 17. What do you think about transferring students from one school to another as a part of the discipline code? l8. Do you think that transferring a student for discipline reasons makes a difference in student behavior? Yes No Undecided______ 19. 20. 21. 22. 126 What is it about a transfer that affects student behavior? What are some of the difficulties that kids run into when they are transferred? Assume that students will continue to be transferred. What kinds of things should be done to help students during the transfer? What kinds of things do you think would work better than transfers? Do you feel that knowing about the use of transfers makes any difference in the behavior of other students in the school? Yes No Undecided APPENDIX C ETHNIC DISTRIBUTION OF SUSPENDED STUDENTS 127 128 Ethnic Distribution of Suspended Students 1982-83 1983-84 Ethnic Group Number % of Total Number 2 of Total Suspended Suspensions Suspended Suspensions American Indian 50 1.1 73 1.5 Black 1,803 39.6 2,010 “1.0 Asian 1h .3 22 .h Hispanic hhl 9.7 #89 10.0 White 2,2“7 “9.3 2,306 “7.0 T°ta‘ StUdentS h,555 100.0 h,9oo 100.0 suspended BIBLIOGRAPHY 129 BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderson. Gary. and Watson. Hoyt. "Establishing a Climate for Reduc- tion of Tension Between Administrators and Teachers." Paper presented at the National Conference of the Association of Teacher Educators. Phoenix. Arizona. February l3-l7. 1982. Bayh. Birch. "Seeking Solutions to School Violence and Vandalism." .Ehl.Q§lIo.Eonnon 59 (January 1978): 299-307. Best. John W. .Beseanch in Education. 4th ed. Englewood Cliffs. N.J.: Prentice-Hall. 1981. Borg. Walter R.. and Gall. Meredith D. ,Eduoational.flesearcn:.An .lntrgdugtlon. 2nd ed. New York: David McKay Co.. 1971. Brookover. Wilbur: Beamer. Lawrence: Efthim. Helen; Hathaway. Douglas; Lezotte. Lawrence; Miller. Stephen: Passalacqua. Joseph; and Tornatzky. Louis. .Creatlng Ejjegtixe Schools. Holmes Beach. Fla.: Learning Publications. 1982. Brophy. Jere E.. and Putnam. Joyce G. .Qlasszoom Management in the .Gnades. Research Series No. 32. East Lansing: Institute for Research on Teaching. Michigan State University. October 1978. Camp. William G. "Student Discipline Techniques Circa 1800." ,NASSE .Bullgjln (January 1981): 40-44. . and Bourn. Lawton P.. Jr. "Student Disciplines: An Analysis of Teacher and Administrator Perceptions." Paper presented at the Second International Congress on Education. Vancouver. British Columbia. June 17-20. 1979. Curwin. Richard L.. and Mendler. Allen N. Ibo Discipline Books.b Comploio Guide .to School and Classroom anoomsnt. Reston. Va.: Reston Publishing Co.. 1980. Deitz. Samuel M.. and Hummel. John H. Disoinlloo in m Schools; A .Guido to Bsduolng Misbehaxior. Englewood Cliffs. N.J.: Prentice- Hall. 1978. I30 131 Duke. Daniel Linden. "The Etiology of Student Misbehavior and the Depersonalization of Blame." .Bexiew of Educational Research 48 (Summer 1978): 415-37. . ”How Administrators View the Crisis in School Discipline." .Ehi.Dslia.Eannan 59 (January 1978): 325-30. Everett v. Marcuse. 426 F. Supp. 397 (E.D. Pa 1977). Frechtling. Joy A.. and others. "The Declining Enrollment Problem: A Study of Why Parents Withdraw Their Children From the Public Schools." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Research Association. Los Angeles. California. April 13-17. 1981. Gallup. George. "The 15th Annual Gallup Poll of the Public's Atti- tudes Toward the Public Schools." .Ehl Delta fiaooan (September 1983). Garibaldi. Antoine M. "In-School Alternatives to Suspension: Trendy Educational Innovations." .UEhflfl.B§¥1§W 11 (Summer 1979): 97-103. Garrison. R. Kent. "An Evaluation of Disciplinary Transfers by the Pupil Personnel Department. Lansing. Michigan." Lansing: April 1. 1965. Gordon. Edith Sherry. "Student and Teacher Perceptions of School Suspension." Ed.D. dissertation. Temple University. 1984. Goss v. Lopez. 419 U.S. 565. (1965). Governor's Task Force on School Violence and Vandalism. .Benort and .Becommendatlons. Lansing. Mi.: Governor's Task Force. November 6. 1977. Hart. James E.. and Lordon. John F. "School Discipline: Yesterday. Today. and Tomorrow." .Cleaning House 52 (October 1978): 68-71. Hoffman. Scott L. "Involuntary Lateral Disciplinary Transfers-~Are Schools Circumventing Procedural Due Process?" Journal of Law and.£duoation 11 (October 1982): 539-56. Howard. Rose A. "Middle School Discipline. What Do Teachers Prefer?" Clearing House 54 (December 1980): 155-57. "An Interview With Marian Wright Edelman." .flanxand.£duoational .Bgylgw 44 (February 1974). I32 Isaac. Stephen. in collaboration with William B. Michael. .flandbgok .on.BeseaLoh.and.Exaluation. San Diego. Ca.: Edits Publish- ers. 1971. Jascourt. Hugh D. "Should Methods to Deal with Student Discipline Be Negotiated With Teacher Organizations? An Introduction." Jonnnalofiawandfidnoeiioné (l9 ): 63-87. Jones. Susan Sutton. "Perceptions of Suspension by Students in the Comprehensive Senior High Schools of a Large Urban Public School System (Misconducts. Penalties. Discipline)." Ed.D. dissertation. Temple University. 1984. Ladd. Edward T. "Regulating Student Behavior Without Ending Up in Court." .Ehi Delta flannan (January 1973): 24-33. Lansing School Di strict. Lansing £119.91 DJSLELQILS .0919 .91 51m .Conduct. Policy No. 5114. Lansing: Lansing School District. September 2. 1982. Mendez. Roy. "A Comparison of the Effectiveness of Suspension and Expulsion Alternatives at Three Selected School Districts in the Greater Houston Area." Ph.D. dissertation. University of Houston. 1979. Michigan. Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1976. as amended. Michigan State Board of Education. .Better.£dncation.for Michigan Enjdzenss A Bluenrini for Action. Lansing: Michigan State Board of Education. January 1984. . "Opinions and Attitudes of Voters in the Lansing Public School District." Project Outreach of the Michigan State Board of Education. Lansing: Michigan State Board of Education. 1983. _________. Reference Manual for Suspension and Emulsion. Lansing: Michigan State Board of Education. Special Education Services. September 1983. National Commission on Excellence in Education. .A.Nation.at.Bisks.Ihe lmnenaiixe fol: Ednoaiional Reform. Washington. D.C.: U.S. Depariment of Education. April 1983. National Education Association. "NEA Survey Investigates Teacher Atti- tudes. Practices." ,Eh1.Qe1ta.Kaggan (September 1980): 49-50. National Institute of Education (DHEW). ,liolent Schools::§afe Schools. Vol. 1. Washington. D.C.: Government Printing Office. January 1978. 133 Pennsylvania State Department of Education. Anomatjle Disoipflnam Enoocams and menses in Eennsxlianla Schoolsl An Addendum to .Ihe.§u1dfillnfiS.IQ£.§QDQQl.DlSlellne. Harrisburg: Pennsylvania State Department of Education. 1977. Rizzo. Katherine. "Educators Like Old-Fashioned Discipline." .Lansing .Siaie.lou£nal. April 15. 1984. School Research Forum. Discipline .in .the Euhlio Schools: Eduoaio: Besponsesieihefleaoanhdminlsinaiionfiolloles. New York: Educational Research Service. April 1984. SohoolSuspensionsiALelhexhelanoChildLenl AReport by the Children's Defense Fund of the Washington Research Project. Washington. D.C.: Children's Defense Fund. 1975. Stallworth. Robert L. "The Effect of Suspension as a Disciplinary Technique in the Classroom of the 1970's." Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan. 1977. State of Hawaii. .Altennaiixes.19.§uspension. Honolulu: Office of Instructional Services. Department of Education. December 1977. Tanner. Laurel N. Classroom Discipline for Eiteoiiue leaching and .Learnlng. New York: Holt. Rinehart and Winston. 1978. "Terror in the Schools." .015..News.and.flonld.8epont. January 26. 1976. Vincent. James Edward. "The Relationship of Short-Term Suspension to Student Behavior in an Urban Secondary School)‘ IMLD. disserta- tion. University of Nebraska--Lincoln. 1978. Williams. John W. "Discipline in the Public Schools: A Problem of Perception?" .Ehl Delta 532353 60 (January 1979): 385-87. Zamora v. Pomeroy. 639 F. 2d 662 (10th Cir. 1981). LIBR “11111111111111!1111111111111111111 3 12 9 3 0 3 0 6 J 9 450 ARIES