November 13, 2017
Dierk Meirbachtol, Chief Legal Officer
Officer of Superintendent of Public Instruction
PO Box 47200
Olympia, WA 98504-7200
via email to: disciplinerulecomments@k12.wa.us
Dear Mr. Meirbachtol,
The undersigned organizations (which include legal services providers,
education advocates, social service providers, communities of color, disability
rights organizations, and organizations representing parents and students)
submit these joint comments on the proposed school discipline rules.
As the legislature recognized in passing House Bill 1541 in 2016,
reducing suspension and expulsion and engaging families in student supports are
crucial to fulfilling the promise of educational excellence and opportunity for
students.[i] Exclusionary discipline is strongly
correlated with reduced academic achievement and high school graduation rates.[ii] It increases the likelihood that young people
will become involved in the juvenile justice system.[iii]
And exclusionary discipline is
associated with negative school climate and disconnection to school,[iv] even for students who have not been suspended
or expelled. [v] These impacts fall most harshly on students
of color (Black, Latinx, Native American, Pacific Islander, and multiracial students)
and students with disabilities, all of whom are disproportionately disciplined
throughout Washington.
The proposed rules include significant improvements that will help guide development
of better systems to support students. We
appreciate the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction’s (OSPI’s)
efforts to develop clearer and more equitable rules, and to engage stakeholders in
the process (including holding rulemaking hearings throughout the state). We encourage OSPI to modify the proposal in
several crucial ways that will more fully implement the intention of House Bill
1541 and better support students, families and teachers.
Requiring Alternatives to
Suspension and Expulsion: Our
organizations strongly support the use of evidence-based positive and
restorative systems that can improve school climate, school safety, and
academic achievement for all students, without resort to suspension and
expulsion.[vi] In many instances, behavior incidents are
best addressed by targeted supportive school interventions. And, even in the limited circumstances where
temporary exclusion from the classroom or school setting may be necessary,
schools should use supportive interventions to ensure that the student is successfully
reengaged in school. Though the proposed
regulations encourage the use of best practices for behavior, we encourage OSPI
to require the use of best practices and other forms of non-exclusionary
discipline before students are suspended or expelled, and to clarify that
schools should administer discipline in ways that respond to the
holistic needs of the student and support the student in meeting behavioral
expectations. We also encourage OSPI to
limit the use of emergency expulsion to situations that pose a threat to
safety, and use other interventions to prevent disruption to the educational
process.
Culturally Responsive Parent
Engagement and Language Access. Parents
are crucial partners in educational success; when parents and schools communicate,
they share valuable information about children’s behavior and can reinforce
more positive behaviors at home and school.[vii] We appreciate the significant changes to the
regulations to encourage early communication with parents about discipline
issues, and to ensure language access and culturally responsive
communication. To strengthen the rules,
OSPI should require parents to be notified of an initial conference between a
student and school administrator who may impose suspension or expulsion. It should also require that districts provide
language access services to parents for initial conferences with school
administrators.
Classroom Exclusion and Informal
Suspension: Any exclusion from class
undercuts student learning and connection to school. In addition, informal exclusion (like
classroom exclusion and informal suspension) goes unrecorded, limiting efforts
to target supports and interventions where they are most needed. We appreciate that OSPI has adopted
regulations on classroom exclusion. We
encourage OSPI to require districts to collect and report data on classroom
exclusions, to better facilitate early intervention.
Education Services: House Bill 1541 categorically required
comparable, equitable and adequate education services for every student,
recognizing the damaging impact that any exclusion from education could have on
students’ ultimate academic achievement.
We appreciate that the proposed regulations include significant detail
about the considerations that should go into developing educational services. We are concerned, though, that the proposal
does not require sufficient instruction and other supports to keep students in
school and learning. We encourage OSPI
to clarify that students should receive instruction
when they are excluded from their ordinary classes for any length of time, and
that all relevant services and supports must be provided. In addition, we ask that OSPI clarify the
process for parents to provide input on educational services, by requiring
notices of educational services to include contact information for relevant
district coordinators and ensuring notices are provided in the language the
parents understand.
Behavior Agreements: We applaud OSPI for including new rules on
the use of behavior agreements, which are widespread and vary significantly
across the state. Our organizations are
concerned that behavior agreements are often onerous and trap students in a
cycle of punishment, rather than providing supports or resources that promote
improved outcomes. We encourage OSPI to
require that conditions in behavior agreements must be rationally related to
the behavioral violation that gave rise to the agreement (for instance, a
student suspended for bullying should not be required to complete drug testing)
and should incorporate evidence-based strategies. We also encourage OSPI to amend the section
to ensure that students have the full panoply of due process protections if
they are facing suspension or expulsion due to a violation of a behavior
agreement.
Corporal Punishment, Restraint and
Isolation: We are concerned that the
definition of corporal punishment undermines Washington’s law on restraint and
isolation. The current language excludes
from the definition of corporal punishment “reasonable physical force by
[school staff] as necessary to maintain
order,” implying that such force is permissible. Yet, RCW 28.600.485 defines “restraint” as any
physical intervention or force used to control a student, and prohibits the use
of restraint only as necessary to control spontaneous behavior that poses an
imminent likelihood of serious harm.
This is a significantly higher standard than force used to “maintain
order.” We encourage OSPI to remove the
term “maintain order” from WAC 392-400-825 to ensure consistency with restraint
and isolation law.
Students with Disabilities: Finally, we encourage OSPI to consider
opening comprehensive rulemaking on the discipline of students with
disabilities. Students with disabilities are more than twice
as likely as their peers to be suspended or expelled throughout the state. We appreciate that OSPI reaffirmed that the
discipline WACs must be interpreted consistent with state law governing
discipline of students with disabilities (and encourage it to reference federal
law as well). Nevertheless, the
persistent disparities in and recent federal guidance on this issue indicate
the need for a more focused approach.
Conclusion
These changes will ensure that the proposed regulations fully implement
House Bill 1541 and best serve Washington’s students. Thank you for your consideration and your
action on this important issue.
Sincerely,
(Signed by 61 organizations)
[i] http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Laws/House/1541-S4.SL.pdf#page=1
[ii] See, e.g., Robert Balfanz et al, Sent Home and Put Off-Track: The
Antecedents, Disproportionalities, and Consequences of Being Suspended in the
Ninth Grade, Prepared for the Center for Civil Rights and Remedies
(December 2012) (finding based on a longitudinal cohort study of tens of
thousands of high school students that each suspension decreases the likelihood
of graduation or post-secondary education and increases the likelihood of drop
out).
[iii] See, e.g., Christine Christle et al, Breaking the School to Prison Pipeline: Identifying School Risk and Protective
Factors for Youth Delinquency. Exceptionality, 2005. 13: p. 69-88.
[iv]
American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force, Are Zero Tolerance Policies Effective in the
Schools?, American Psychologist (December 2009), p. 854, available at https://www.apa.org/pubs/info/reports/zero-tolerance.pdf.
[v]
Brea L. Perry, The Overuse of Suspension
in American Public Schools Threatens the Success of All Students
(discussing results of a large comparative study), available at http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2015/01/05/the-overuse-of-suspension-in-american-public-schools-threatens-the-success-of-all-students/.
[vi]
Bradshaw, C., Koth, C.W., Thornton, L.A., & Leaf, P.J., (2009). Altering
school climate through school-wide positive behavioral interventions and
supports: findings from a group-randomized effectiveness trial. Prevention
Science
10(2), 100-115; Skiba, R.J. et. al. (2004) Beyond Guns, Drugs, and Gangs: The
Structure of Student Perceptions of School Safety. Journal of School Violence 3: 149-171.
[vii]
El Nokali, N., et. al. (2010). Parent
involvement and children’s academic and social development in elementary
school. Child Development 81(3):
988-1005, available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2973328/
