Punishing the Vulnerable: Exploring Suspension Rates for Students With Learning Disabilities

Abstract

Students with learning disabilities are suspended at disproportionate rates in schools. Although research has shown the ineffectiveness of suspension as a disciplinary tool, school administrators continue to use it to combat behavior infractions. This column presents a review of the literature on suspension for students with learning disabilities, its impact on their academic achievement, and sociodemographic factors that put students with learning disabilities at risk for suspension. Implications are discussed and further areas of research are suggested.

Keywords

disproportionality learning disability suspension

Schools are supposed to create nurturing and welcoming environments for students (Barton & Nishioka, 2014). Students with disabilities, however, often have been excluded from school due to harsh disciplinary measures (Noltemeyer, Ward, & McLoughlin, 2015). These groups of students are suspended at disproportionate rates as compared with their typical peers, thus denying them access to their fundamental right to education (Sullivan, Van Norman, & Klingbeil, 2014; Zhang, Katsiyannis, & Herbst, 2004).

Much of the literature on suspension rates for students with disabilities presents findings under the larger umbrella of all disability categories served under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. A lot of attention has been given to the suspension trends for students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) but not for students with learning disabilities (LD). This column examines suspension trends for students with specific LD. Specifically, trends are viewed through the lens of gender, race, and socioeconomic status (SES) for this disability category. The discussion will conclude with a review of the academic impact of suspensions and offer recommendations for further research.

Suspensions for Students With Disabilities

The literature of suspensions and disparate disciplinary measures tends to focus more on African American and Hispanic students (Vincent, Sprague, & Tobin, 2012). The disproportionate suspension of students with disabilities is well documented (Achilles, McLaughlin, & Croninger, 2007; Allman & Slate, 2012; Blad, 2015; Krezmien, Leone, & Achilles, 2006). For example, Vincent and Tobin (2011) reported that students with disabilities are suspended from the classroom at disproportionate rates in terms of frequency and for longer durations than their typical peers. A report on school discipline issued by the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (2014) focusing on analysis of state-by-state disciplinary data for the 2011–2012 school year found that students with disabilities were more than twice as likely to receive out-of-school suspensions as compared with students without disabilities (Barton & Nishioka, 2014).

Statistics on suspensions confirm the disproportionate suspension rates for students with disabilities. Leone, Mighter, Malmgren, and Meisel (2000) reported that although students with disabilities constituted just 11% of the student population, they accounted for approximately 20% of all suspensions. Leone et al. (2000) explained that students with disabilities lacked proper social skills, good judgment, and ability to conceal offenses, hence their likelihood to be suspended.

Despite the frequent use of suspension by schools as a primary tool for responding to student misbehavior (Achilles et al., 2007; Fenning & Sharkey, 2012), studies have concluded that it is not an effective mechanism for improving student behavior problems (Raffaele Mendez, Knoff, & Ferron, 2002; Skiba, Shure, & Williams, 2012; Zhang et al., 2004). On the contrary, harsh policies that exclude large numbers of students from the classroom at disproportionate numbers only serve to exacerbate the situation, often culminating in grade retentions, school dropouts, delinquency, and contact with law enforcement (Skiba et al., 2012).

Suspension Trends

Disciplinary outcomes and suspension trends for students with EBD are well documented (Kauffman & Landrum, 2009). A few studies, however, have examined disciplinary outcomes for other disability categories including LD (Evans, Clinkinbeard, & Simi, 2015).

Krezmien et al. (2006) analyzed 8 years of statewide suspension data in the State of Maryland with the goal of investigating disparate suspensions of minority students. They examined how suspension rates changed over time and how race and disability affected an individual’s risk of being suspended. They also analyzed how the combination of race and disability impacted the risk of being suspended. Krezmien et al. reported that students with LD and other health impairments had higher chances of suspension than students without disabilities. The researchers reported that students with LD often demonstrate aversion toward academic work and respond to difficult tasks with disruptive behaviors that culminate in disciplinary actions.

Using archival data for the 2008 and 2009 school year from the Texas Education Agency, Allman and Slate (2013) selected a sample of 33,389 students with disabilities including 24,723 students with LD and analyzed the relationship between disciplinary consequences assigned and the impact on academic achievement. They found that suspension impacted the reading and math achievement of students with LD. Students with LD who were suspended had lower reading and math scores compared with other students with the same disability who did not receive disciplinary consequences that removed them from the classroom.

Achilles et al. (2007) hypothesized a higher likelihood of suspension based on student characteristics including race, disability status, socioecological resources, and disability onset and early intervention received. Achilles et al. selected 1,824 participants from Wave 1 of the Special Education Elementary Longitudinal Study (www.seels.net) database and employed logistic regression analyses to analyze multilevel predictors to assist them in identifying factors correlating with the likelihood of suspension. The authors found that students with LD from low socioeconomic backgrounds had a higher risk of suspension. They also reported disproportionate exclusion rates for African American students with LD.

In a similar study, Sullivan et al. (2014) explored patterns and predictors of suspension among students with disabilities. Their aim was to understand how risk of suspension varied by disability category and how students’ sociodemographic variables moderated risk of suspension. They found that students with EBD had the highest rate of suspension. On the other hand, the risk of suspension was higher for students with LD, other health impairments, and intellectual disabilities. They also found that students with LD were suspended along with students with EBD at double or triple the rate of the school population as a whole (Achilles et al., 2007). This trend suggests the need for closer scrutiny to understand why students with LD are suspended at such significantly higher rates.

Sociodemographic Considerations

The disproportionate suspension of students with disabilities and its ramifications are well known (Blad, 2015). Factors that have been suggested for this trend include (a) race (Achilles et al., 2007; Allman & Slate, 2012; Barton & Nishioka, 2014; Blad, 2015; Krezmien et al., 2006; Vincent, Sprague, & Tobin, 2012; Zhang et al., 2004), (b) gender (Barton & Nishioka, 2014; Blad, 2015), and (c) SES (Allman & Slate, 2012; Skiba et al., 2012; Sullivan et al., 2014).

Race/Ethnicity

Of all the risk factors associated with suspensions and disciplinary exclusions from school, racial and ethnic disparities are perhaps the most significant and thoroughly documented in the literature for students with and without disabilities.

For students with LD, the likelihood of being suspended is higher if they are from minority racial backgrounds. Krezmien et al. (2006) reported high odds ratios for students with LD from each racial group they examined (i.e., African American, Asian, Hispanic, and Native American). When desegregated into specific racial groups, however, Krezmien et al. found that the odds ratio was highest for African American students, which was more than double that of the other racial groups, except Native American students. Sullivan et al. (2014) reported that with the exception of speech and language impairment and low-incidence disabilities, having any other disability label including LD increased the possibility of being suspended.

Gender

When comparing different races, Raffaele Mendez and Knoff (2003) found that African American girls faced a greater risk of being suspended than White or Hispanic girls. For students with disabilities, Blad (2015) reported that 34% of all students with disabilities suspended in the 2011–2012 school year were boys from two or more racial backgrounds compared with 27% of girls from similar backgrounds. This is in contrast to 12% of White boys and 6% of White girls who were suspended for the same period.

The trend is not different for students with LD. Researchers have reported statistically significant effects of gender on suspension for students with LD (Sullivan et al., 2014).

Socioeconomic Status

Achilles et al. (2007) reported significant risks of suspension associated with low SES for students with LD. A more recent study by Sullivan et al. (2014) suggested that students with LD were more likely to be disciplined if they were on free and reduced price lunch or if their parents’ highest education level was a high school diploma or less. Similarly, Krezmien et al. (2006) stated that the disproportionate suspension of students with LD and other disability categories is due to their attendance of high poverty and segregated inner city schools where suspension rates are higher.

Impact of Suspensions

Studies examining suspensions, both in school and out of school, have documented the ineffectiveness of such actions at reducing inappropriate behaviors. They have failed to curb inappropriate behaviors or increase student achievement (Allman & Slate, 2012; Raffaele Mendez et al., 2002). On the contrary, suspension of students with LD and other disabilities might actually culminate in poor and negative outcomes (Allman & Slate, 2012). Students with disabilities generally experience academic problems at school and need to be in school to receive supports and services. Students with disabilities lose instruction time associated with suspensions, thus exacerbating their academic problems and deficits. In fact, studies have found that students who experience higher levels of suspensions have lower achievement levels (Raffaele Mendez et al., 2002).

Discussion and Implications

This column on suspension of students with LD reveals a pattern. Students with LD are suspended at rates that are surpassed only by students with EBD. Students from these two categories are suspended at near or equal rates and both groups are disciplined at double or triple rates compared with the general student population (Achilles et al., 2007). Yet, much of the research on disproportionate suspensions for students with disabilities has concentrated on students with EBD, somewhat at the expense of students with LD and other disability categories. Disciplinary outcomes for students with EBD are well documented (Kauffman & Landrum, 2009). Studies documenting disciplinary outcomes for students with only LD are sparse. In addition, studies that adequately “disentangled disability categories to determine the degree to which students in individual categories may be disproportionately affected” (Achilles et al., 2007, p. 34) are few. There is an urgent need for research to document suspension trends and outcomes for this group of students who are disciplined disproportionately. There is also a need for schools, districts, and state and federal agencies to disaggregate data of suspensions not only along racial and ethnic categories, but also by disability categories to assist in documenting disproportionate suspension trends (Skiba et al., 2012; Sullivan et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2004).

The column also suggests that there is a strong association between the sociodemographic variables of race, gender, and SES and the suspension of students with LD. Raffaele Mendez et al. (2002) reported that students who matched all of these variables (e.g., African American, male, low SES) faced the greatest risk of suspension, with nearly 50% of all Black male students at the middle school level getting one or multiple suspensions. Varying explanations have been advanced for this trend. Some researchers (Krezmien et al., 2006) are of the view that the disparate suspension of African American students, with and without disabilities, results from sociocultural mismatch in the classroom and school settings that impact teachers’ decisions to exclude a student from the classroom. Others have also suggested that the trend may be due to large numbers of suspensions in urban inner city schools that typically serve poor and minority students. Some (Skiba et al., 2012) purport that students with disabilities and students from minority backgrounds are victims of differential and subjective disciplinary practices. Researchers have not fully explained how these demographic factors contribute to the disproportionate suspension of students with disabilities, including those with LD.

Recommendations

There is clearly a need to adopt alternate approaches to suspension of students with LD given the negative outcomes associated with the practice (Sullivan et al., 2014). Raffaele Mendez et al. (2002) suggested that educators must adopt an “ecological approach” (p. 50) to help them understand why certain groups are overrepresented in disciplinary actions. Raffaele Mendez et al. also recommended using functional assessments to understand why students misbehave. Other researchers such as Skiba et al. (2012) have suggested the implementation of universal/schoolwide interventions such as schoolwide positive behavior supports, social emotional learning, restorative justice, and other race–culture specific interventions like culturally responsive classroom management.

Students with LD have been known to engage in risky behaviors and show personality traits with negative impacts that put them at risk for suspension (Bender, 2008). In view of this, Bender recommends teaching students with LD self-determination skills, with emphasis on behavior autonomy, self-regulation, psychological empowerment, and self-realization.

Conclusion

Students with LD constitute one of the vulnerable groups of students in terms of academic achievement and socioemotional functioning. Yet, they are suspended at rates that put them at greater risk of academic failure and poor outcomes. Suspension is not the mechanism for building safe and nurturing school environments. If school is supposed to be a safe haven and equitably fulfill the right of all students to get a quality education, alternatives to suspension should be explored and promoted.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Achilles

G. M.

McLaughlin

Croninger

(2007). Sociocultural correlates of disciplinary exclusion among students with emotional, behavioral, and learning disabilities in the SEELS national dataset. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 15(1), 33–45.

Allman

K. L.

Slate

J. R.

(2012). School discipline for students with disabilities: A conceptual analysis. Journal of Education Research, 6(4), 345–368.

Allman

K. L.

Slate

J. R.

(2013). Disciplinary consequences assigned to students with emotional disorder, learning disability, or other health impairment: Effects on their academic achievement. Journal of Education Research, 7(1), 84–101.

Barton

Nishioka

(2014). Discipline disparities: Implications for school practice and policy. Principal’s Research Review, 9(4), 1–7.

Bender

W. E.

(2008). Learning disabilities: Characteristics, identification, and teaching strategies (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Blad

(2015, June). Special students get more than their share of suspensions, expulsions. Education Week, pp. 12–13.

Evans

M. K.

Clinkinbeard

S. S.

Simi

(2015). Learning disabilities and delinquent behaviors among adolescents: A comparison of those with and without comorbidity. Deviant Behavior, 36(3), 200–220.

Fenning

Sharkey

J. D.

(2012). Creating equitable school policies to prevent and address ethnic disproportionality in school discipline practices. In Noltemeyer

A. L.

McLoughlin

C. S.

(Eds.), Disproportionality in education and special education: A guide to creating more equitable learning environments (pp. 237–258). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.

Kauffman

J. M.

Landrum

T. J.

(2009). Characteristics of emotional and behavioral disorders of children and youth (9th ed.). London, UK: Pearson.

10.

Krezmien

M. P.

Leone

P. E.

Achilles

G. M.

(2006). Suspension, race, and disability: Analysis of statewide practices and reporting. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 14(4), 217–226.

11.

Leone

P. E.

Mighter

M. J.

Malmgren

Meisel

S. M.

(2000). School violence and disruption: Rhetoric, reality, and reasonable balance. Focus on Exceptional Children, 33(1), 1–20.

12.

Noltemeyer

A. L.

Ward

R. M.

McLoughlin

(2015). Relationship between school suspension and student outcomes: A meta-analysis. School Psychology Review, 44(2), 224–240.

13.

Raffaele Mendez

L.M.R.

Knoff

H. M

. (2003). Who gets suspended from school and why: A demographic analysis of schools and disciplinary infractions in a large school district. Education and Treatment of Children, 26, 30–51.

14.

Raffaele Mendez

L. M.

Knoff

H. M.

Ferron

J. M

. (2002). School demographic variables and out-of-school suspension rates: A quantitative and qualitative analysis of a large, ethnically diverse school district. Psychology in the Schools, 39(3), 259–277.

15.

Skiba

R. J.

Shure

Williams

(2012). Racial and ethnic disproportionality in suspension and expulsion. In Noltemeyer

A. L.

McLoughlin

C. S.

(Eds.), Disproportionality in education and special education: A guide to creating more equitable learning environments (pp. 89–118). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.

16.

Sullivan

A. L.

Van Norman

E. R.

Klingbeil

D. A.

(2014). Exclusionary discipline of students with disabilities: Student and school characteristics predicting suspension. Remedial and Special Education, 35(4), 199–210.

17.

U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (2014). Civil rights data collection. Data snapshot: School discipline (Issue Brief No. 1). Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/crdc-discipline-snapshot.pdf

18.

Vincent

C. G.

Sprague

J. R.

Tobin

T. J.

(2012). Exclusionary discipline practices across racial/ethnic backgrounds and disability status: Findings from the Pacific Northwest. Education and Treatment of Children, 35(4), 585–601.

19.

Vincent

C. G.

Tobin

T. J.

(2011). An examination of the relationship between implementation of school-wide positive behavior support (SWPBS) and exclusion of students from various ethnic backgrounds with and without disabilities. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 19(4), 217–232.

20.

Zhang

Katsiyannis

Herbst

(2004). Disciplinary exclusions in special education: A 4-year analysis. Behavioral Disorders, 29(4), 337–347.