Final Report: Understanding Racial Inequity in School Discipline Across the Richmond Region

As described in this initial post, I was on the research team of a study of disparate disciplinary practices in Richmond, Virginia, area K-12 public schools being conducted by MERC (Metropolitan Educational Research Consortium ) at my graduate school institution, Virginia Commonwealth University.

I participated in this podcast on the topic and was a third author on this policy brief, entitled, Why do racial disparities in school discipline exist? The role of policies, processes, people, and places. In May 2018, we published another policy brief, which I was first author on, entitled, A Review of Disciplinary Interventions in K12 Public Education.

Well, at long last the final report is out, Understanding Racial Inequity in School Discipline Across the Richmond Region. It is long but well worth the read--very well done. Here is the abstract:

This report comes from the MERC Achieving Racial Equity in School Disciplinary Policies and Practices study. Launched in the spring of 2015, the purpose of this mixed- method study was to understand the factors related to disproportionate school discipline outcomes in MERC division schools. The study had two phases. Phase one (quantitative) used primary and secondary data to explore racial disparities in school discipline in the MERC region as well as discipline programs schools use to address them. Phase two (qualitative) explored the implementation of discipline programs in three MERC region schools, as well as educator and student perceptions of school discipline and racial disproportionality. This report shares findings from both phases of our study and offers numerous implications and recommendations for research, policy, and practice.

I encourage you to read the whole thing. In the meantime Justin Mattingly of the Richmond Times-Dispatch has published this good synopsis of it:

Schools in the Richmond region suspend black students at four times the rate of white students, a gap that exceeds the national average. 

One in five black students in the region received an out-of-school suspension during the 2015-16 school year, according to a new study, compared to 5% of white students. Across the country, it's closer to 15% and 5%, according to federal data. 

The finding is part of a new study from the Metropolitan Educational Research Consortium, the local research arm of Virginia Commonwealth University’s School of Education. The study, conducted over the past four years, analyzed data from seven area school districts and looked at the racial disparities in school discipline. 

What researchers found didn’t surprise them -- inequities in school discipline are common across the state and country -- but their analysis says the problem is slightly worse here; the effort also explored alternative discipline programs and considered how school districts can eliminate the gap.

I'm only the sixth of nine authors but I was so glad to be a part of it. I hope I can do my part now and in the future to help change these disparities and their root causes.

On becoming Dr. Levy

So. . .

At the end of the Summer 2018 semester, I became a doctor.

Much gratitude to Virginia Commonwealth University's School of Education and the Department of Educational Leadership, especially to my adviser, Charol Shakeshaft, on the left, and to my committee members Katherine Mansfield (on the screen), Genevieve-Siegel-Hawley, and Tressie McMillan Cottom (not pictured).

I may have the longest dissertation title ever: The Intersection of Economic Disadvantage and Race and the Expanded Role of Parent-Led School-Supporting Nonprofit Organizations in K-12 Public Schools in the Richmond, Virginia, Metropolitan Area: A Mixed Methods Approach.

Since then, I have served on the faculty as an adjunct professor, teaching a doctoral-level course, The Politics of Education (I will likely post separately about that) and have been on the job market (I will also probably post about that). 

Oh, and I participated in VCU's December graduation ceremony, and got to wear a silly hat for most of the day.

 (Me and some of my former classmates and fellow grads.)

 (Getting hooded by my adviser.)

(Me with my adviser Charol Shakeshaft and one of my other very influential professors, Genevieve Siegel-Hawley.) 

(Me with Jon Becker, a member of my department and the person who got me into this mess.)

Speaking of getting me into this mess, it was via twitter and this blog and his that Jon and I got to know one another.  He encouraged me to apply to the doctoral program in educational leadership and policy at VCU. I did. Once I started the Ph.D. program, I decided to focus my time and energy, and writing efforts, there instead of on the blog and other education writing. I have updated it from time to time, mostly with academic publications but with some other thoughts and efforts, too.

Once I see what happens with the job search, I will decide what to do with the blog, if anything different. For now, I am enjoying being done and am working on trying to achieve my first post-graduation publication.

A Review of Disciplinary Interventions in K12 Public Education

As described in this post, I have been involved on-again, off-again in a study of disparate disciplinary practices in Richmond, Virginia, area K-12 public schools being conducted by MERC (Metropolitan Educational Research Consortium ) at my graduate school institution, Virginia Commonwealth University.

I participated in this podcast on the topic and was a third author on this policy brief, entitled, Why do racial disparities in school discipline exist? The role of policies, processes, people, and places.

This past May, we published another policy brief, which I was first author on, entitled, A Review of Disciplinary Interventions in K12 Public Education:

As a part of the Achieving Racial Equity in School Disciplinary Policies and Practicesstudy from the Metropolitan Educational Research Consortium, this literature brief offers an overview of school discipline interventions in K12 public education. This includes more punitive models that have been used in the past that have contributed to racial disparities in discipline outcomes, including corporal punishment and zero-tolerance policies. Additionally, this brief offers an overview of four prominent alternative approaches to school discipline: Trauma Informed Care, Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports, Culturally Responsive Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports, and Restorative Practices. The literature brief offers the history, theory of action, and evidence of effectiveness for each alternative discipline approach and offers a discussion of how to effectively implement them in schools. Implications for the Commonwealth of Virginia are discussed throughout the brief.

Go here to read the whole thing.

 

Why do racial disparities school discipline in exist? The Role of Policies, Processes, People, and Places.

As I discussed in this post, I am part of a research team at VCU (where I am getting my PhD) with the Metropolitan Educational Research Consortium (MERC) studying racial disparities in disciplinary practices in K-12 public schools. The study specifically looks at this phenomenon in the Richmond, Virginia metropolitan area.

I previously participated in a podcast about the study with other team members.

More recently, I helped to write this brief (third author) associated with the project entitled, Why do racial disparities school discipline in exist? The Role of Policies, Processes, People, and Places.

This brief is part of larger regional study of racial equity in discipline policies and practices conducted by Virginia Commonwealth University’s Metropolitan Educational Research Consortium (MERC). The goal of the broader project is to: (1) analyze racial disproportionality in discipline across the Richmond area, (2) explore various interventions designed to ameliorate disproportionality, and (3) provide recommendations that inform policymaking and practice in the Richmond region. This is the first of two research briefs on racially inequitable school discipline. The subsequent brief will examine the history and theory of action behind different discipline models or interventions, as well as evidence of their impact on racial disproportionality. At the end of this brief, five of the key research studies on this topic are summarized.

Go here for the pdf.

When social media meets the academy

After I started my PhD program, I gave up much of my social media and blogging activity (though not all). This was for reasons of time, energy, but also voice and skills. I read and write so much for school that it's not exactly what I feel like doing when I have free time. In addition, the skills and voice I use for blogging and education writing are different from those needed for scholarly education writing. And, I needed to take some time to learn the later. I have started writing more again recently--more on this here.

This dichotomy came up during a seminar (David L. Clark seminar) for doctoral students I was a participant in at the Annual AERA Meeting this past spring in San Antonio, during a panel discussion entitled "The Role of Education Research Outside of the Academy." On the panel was Morgan Polikoff, a professor of education policy at University of Southern California, who happens to be one of my pre-PhD program #edutwitter pals.

Morgan addressed the confluence of social media and academia. In a nutshell, he said that while it's important to still hold your work to high standards and to make certain stipulations before agreeing to work on non-academic enterprises, activity on social media and doing non-academic writing strengthens, and doesn't supplant, academic writing. It can also help academics to share, articulate, and get feedback/push back on their work and ideas, especially from those in education but outside of academia.

I was glad to see Morgan advocate for academics having a place and presence on social media. I agree: Activity on social media and informal writing can be part of being a public intellectual and is a way for scholars to communicate with other academics and with non-academics in the same field.

But for me, I had a reverse path in that I was active and had a presence on social media before going into academia. While, as afore-mentioned, I took a break, there was no way I was going to walk that back or dismantle the web of connections and relationships I had made via social media and blogging, nor did I want to just discount all of the work and non-academic education writing I had done.

What's been especially tricky is the clashing of diminished power hierarchies on social media (not eliminated, mind you, because I think those hierarchies do reassert themselves) with the rigid hierarchies that exist in academia. Before my PhD program, I was on equal footing on twitter with academics and any other #edutwitter folks. What mattered is what I had to say, not what my status was. When  I started grad school, all of a sudden I wasn't on equal footing.  Previously, I could just speak my mind and now it was kind of like, what do I know, I'm just a grad student.

Now, there is some reason for this that I respect and understand. Expertise in educational research is expertise in educational research and I didn't really have much, which is why I went to grad school, so that I could fully feel like I knew of what I spoke and so that I would gain knowledge about educational research. But it's also been frustrating: Even as the academy is more open socially and in terms of critique and debate of ideas, if you are in it, you are supposed to, you know, Know. Your. Place. Which means you are expected to refrain from critiquing or challenging the ideas of those above you. I luckily have found an adviser who balances addressing my novice expertise with encouraging me that not always knowing my place is one my strengths. (She might change her mind when no one will hire me or when I get fired from my first job out of grad school.) In addition, I have heard from far too many established academics that non-academic writing and social media activity are frowned upon, until you get tenure in which case it will simply be ignored.

Getting back to the seminar and Morgan, this was interesting because, as I said, I was in touch with Morgan before I was a PhD student. Though we like one another, we do not always agree on educational policy and practice, so I probably tweeted at him that I thought he was wrong about something. But all of a sudden at the conference, I was nervous. Am I supposed to call him Dr. Polikoff now? After all, he was on a higher plane that I was. What if he thinks my work stinks? After all, he does have expertise that I don't.

Ultimately, while we should respect our elders and all, many of the students coming to the academy will already have a social media presence that they shouldn't be asked to renounce or give up. The academy is going to have open itself up to social media as a valid place for academics to exchange and debate ideas, and to engage in professional activity. And while that happens, the academy is also going to have to let some of those rigid hierarchies loosen up a bit. Because for people like me, that cat is already out of the bag and we're not putting it back in.

Podcast: Racial Disproportionality in Disciplinary Practices

A big topic in educational policy and practice right now is disparate disciplinary practices. Essentially, black students, especially males, and students with disabilities are subject to disproportionally high rates of exclusionary discipline practices (suspensions and expulsions) and what they are being disciplined for is often subjective behaviors, such as disrespect, versus objective behaviors, such as smoking cigarettes on school grounds. This is an especially big topic in the state of Virginia and in the region of Virginia--central Virginia--where I live and study. See this recent article about it in the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

A congressman has called for a federal investigation of disparities in student treatment within the Richmond region’s schools.

U.S. Rep. A. Donald McEachin, D-4th, requested an investigation by the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights on Monday, the same day that a Richmond Times-Dispatch article detailed higher suspension rates and over-identification of African-American students with disabilities.

The Virginia Department of Education cited Henrico and Chesterfield counties for suspending black students with disabilities at a disproportionately high rate over several years. The department cited Richmond because the city’s African-American students with disabilities have been more likely to be identified as having an “other health impairment” than other students with disabilities.

Chesterfield, Henrico and Richmond are among seven Virginia school districts mandated to set aside federal money received under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act this year to combat the pattern.

This problem is not new at all, for example, see this article from 2012. And, there's lots more where that came from.

How do I know so much about this? How is it that I have read almost every single report, news and journal article about this? Well, I am part of a MERC research team studying the issue in the Richmond, Virginia, area. The Metropolitan Educational Research Consortium (MERC) comprises "a partnership between seven Richmond-area school divisions and the VCU School of Education" that "plans, conducts, and disseminates community-engaged action and applied research."

A few months ago, I took part with other team members in a MERC podcast about the study. If you want to learn more, I encourage you to take a listen.

Book Review: The End of Consensus

I wanted to announce my first official academic publication. Woot, woot!

It's a second-authored book review in Teachers College Record with one of the professors at VCU who I work with, Dr. Genevieve Siegel-Hawley. The book is The End of Consensus: Diversity, Neighborhoods, and the Politics of Public School Assignments by Toby L. Parcel and Andrew J. Taylor.  Here is the first paragraph:

Changes to student assignment policies that determine who goes to school with whom typically engender political controversies around race, class, opportunity and equity. In 2009, North Carolina’s Wake County Public School System (WCPSS), which includes the city of Raleigh, drew national attention as area leaders debated over significant shifts to a student assignment policy long been held up as a model for promoting diversity and equity. In a fast-growing city-suburban district historically committed to comprehensive school desegregation, the tensions between old and new, conservative and progressive and narrowly- and broadly-defined community came to a head. North Carolina State University sociologist Toby L. Parcel and political scientist Andrew J. Taylor take us into the heart of these controversies in their recent book, The End of Consensus. Parcel and Taylor’s principal findings, laid out over seven concise chapters, showcase a tension between those who prioritized heterogeneous schools versus those who prioritized neighborhood schools.

If you want to read the whole thing, I think it might be behind a paywall, though I had somehow thought that the book reviews in TCR were open access.

It's not the science that is junk, it's the measures, Part II

So a day or so after my last post, It's not the science that is junk, it's the measures, I came across this interview of Jesse Rothstein by Rachel Cohen in the American Prospect. There's lots of good stuff in there and it's worth reading. I don't mean to take away from the import of Jesse Rothstein's work (I am a big fan of his work and of Rachel Cohen's work) but a piece of it kind of demonstrates what I was trying to get at in my last post.

Talking about VAM, Rothstein said,

It’s very controversial and I’ve argued that one of the flaws of it is that even though VAM shows the average growth of a teacher’s student, that’s not the same thing as showing a teacher’s effect, because teachers teach very different groups of students. 

If I’m a teacher who is known to be really good with students with attention-deficit disorder, and all those kids get put in my class, they don’t, on average, gain as much as other students, and I look less effective. But that might be because I was systematically given the kids who wouldn’t gain very much.

So, yes, this is a very good point: there is a difference between showing "the growth of a teacher's student" and "showing a teacher's effect."  And yes, according to test scores, and how well students perform on them, teachers can look more effective or less effective, regardless of how good they are at teaching.

The he says, when she asks if he is skeptical of VAM,

I think the metrics are not as good as the plaintiffs made them out to be. There are bias issues, among others. One big issue is that evaluating teachers based on value-added encourages teachers to teach to the state test. 

During the Vergara trials you testified against some of Harvard economist Raj Chetty's VAM research, and the two of you have been going back and forth ever since. Can you describe what you two are arguing about?  

Raj’s testimony at the trial was very focused on his work regarding teacher VAM. After the trial, I really dug in to understand his work, and I probed into some of his assumptions, and found that they didn’t really hold up. So while he was arguing that VAM showed unbiased results, and VAM results tell you a lot about a teacher’s long-term outcomes, I concluded that what his approach really showed was that value-added scores are moderately biased, and that they don’t really tell us one way or another about a teacher’s long-term outcomes.

If you look at this response and then go back to the previous one I pulled out, you see that Rothstein is referencing "growth" and then "bias." That certain types of students won't "gain as much as other students" and that the value-added scores are "moderately biased" and that they don't tell us much about a teacher's "long-term outcomes."

Nowhere in there is there a repudiation of the measures, of the tests themselves, or even a question about their validity. His responses seem to assume that determining a teacher's effectiveness according to test scores is unfair because some students won't perform on them and that these tests can show growth and gains in learning.  Nowhere does he question that the tests themselves might not be reflective of real learning, good teaching, or of quality education.

And then the bias and assumptions critique, that has to do with the model, and not with what is being fed into the model, i.e., test scores. Arguments about the strength of statistical models are worth having but those should start with probing what's being fed into them.

If someone like Jesse Rothstein isn't questioning that, then test-based accountability isn't going away anytime soon. It will forever be a matter of tinkering with models.

It's not the science that is junk, it's the measures

So I recently had occasion to read a whole bunch of studies on charter schools and one type I read was about their effectiveness. I read the CREDO studies and I read critiques of the CREDO studies and I read meta-analyses and I read smaller studies.

Anyway, I want to go back to something I used to say and that I have heard others who are similarly skeptical of Big Ed Reform, and that is the notion of "junk science." A lot of us have called VAM and have called other studies of educational effectiveness "junk science." I know I did, indignantly. But you know what? I didn't really know what I was saying. (This is one reason I went back to get my PhD, so I would have more understanding of these kinds of things.)

And I was reading all of these studies on the effectiveness of charter schools, I remembered reading this post by Matt DiCarlo on the Shanker Blog from over 3 years ago. I remembered that reading it gave me pause about calling what I did "junk science" and I ceased doing so, but even so, I couldn't fully relate to what he was saying:

Now, I personally am not opposed to using these estimates in evaluations and other personnel policies, but I certainly understand opponents’ skepticism. For one thing, there are some states and districts in which design and implementation has been somewhat careless, and, in these situations, I very much share the skepticism. Moreover, the common argument that evaluations, in order to be "meaningful," must consist of value-added measures in a heavily-weighted role (e.g., 45-50 percent) is, in my view, unsupportable. 

All that said, calling value-added “junk science” completely obscures the important issues. The real questions here are less about the merits of the models per se than how they're being used. 

If value-added is “junk science” regardless of how it's employed, then a fairly large chunk of social scientific research is “junk science." If that’s your opinion, then okay – you’re entitled to it – but it’s not very compelling, at least in my (admittedly biased) view.

I am still no statistics expert and I never will be, but I have a much greater appreciation for what these models and analyses can tell us and what they don't tell us and what their limitations are. And these researchers conducting these studies, they may have different ways of conducting the studies and different opinions regarding which factors should be included and which shouldn't, but they know what they're doing, most of them at least, and they go to great pains to be thorough and thoughtful about their design and methodology and to explain the models they're using and to account for the results that these models produce. So the problem is not with the science.

DiCarlo says the problem is in how the models are being used. Yes. But another problem, as far as I could glean, is with the measures they're using. "Student learning” and “student achievement” have come to be represented by test scores. That is not my currency of educational quality, but it is the current currency in educational research and policy. I think many of these tests are of dubious quality and I don't think that they provide a true measure of what students have actually learned and or of the quality of their educational experience. Richer, deeper, more authentic student learning in charter schools, and schools in general, can be measured if we think creatively and holistically about it. But we're not doing that and we're not incentivized to do that. So much of the money for educational research, so much of the recognition, goes to researchers who use these test scores as measures. Because there's not much else. Even researchers who don't agree that they are good measures will say as much in one paragraph and then cite them as evidence of effectiveness or lack thereof in the next. 

To me, it's kind of like chicken nuggets and milkshakes. McFastFood place has a sound process for making chicken nuggets and milkshakes, but once all is said and done, how much actual quality chicken meat and milk come out of the other side? How much actual nutrition? How much actual, recognizable learning and educational quality gets funneled through these tests and comes out of the other side of these statistical analyses that use test scores as measures?

I doubt much.