Subjective Discipline Grade (2019)

Details: By Vernellia Randall; Parent Category: School-to-Prison Pipeline; Category: RJN! 2019 Ohio School Discipline Report; 23 April 2019; Hits: 16375

Article Index

subjective objective The subjective discipline grade is the percent of exclusions based on subjective behavior (that is the number of exclusions based on subjective behavior divided by the total number of exclusions). In this report card, Disobedient/Disruptive Behavior, Harassment/Intimidation, and Unwelcome Sexual Conduct were defined as subjective behavior. Exclusions are the combination of expulsions, out-of-school suspensions, Emergency Removal by District Personnel and removal by hearing officers.

In 2019, the articulated reasons for exclusions fit into four categories: (1) Subjective Behavior, (2) Violence to person or Property, (3) Drug, Alcohol and Tobacco and (4) Truancy.

Discipline-based on subjective behavior is more likely to be impacted by implicit and explicit racial biases. [1] Given the significant long term impact of missing school, exclusions from school for subjective behavior should be kept to a minimum.

The subjective behavior exclusion grade was based on the percentage of total discipline occurrence minus a penalty for exclusion for truancy. Suspending someone for Truancy is to continue to impose risks on a vulnerable population.[2]

Of the 878 schools/districts with reported information, the mean Subjective Behavior Grade was 41.0. Half the schools had grades below 39.8. The lowest grade was -10. And the highest grade was 100.

2019 Ohio School Subjective Behavior Grade
Number of Districts	Mean	Median	Minimum	Maximum
878	41.0	39.8	-10.0	100.0

2019 Ohio School Subjective Behavior Grade Distribution
Grade Assignment	Frequency	Percent
A+ (100)	17	1.9
A (89.5 to 99.4)	5	0.6
B (79.5 to 89.4)	11	1.3
C (69.5 to 79.4)	33	3.8
D (59.5 to 69.4)	68	7.7
F (.445 to 49.4)	726	82.5
F- (0 or less than .444)	20	2.3
Total	880	100.0

Reasons for Exclusions

The subjective discipline grade is the percent of subjective behavior discipline. Exclusions are the combination of expulsions, out-of-school suspensions, Emergency Removal by District Personnel and removal by hearing officers.

In 2019, the articulated reasons for exclusions fit into four categories:

(1) Subjective Behavior,
(2) Violence to the person or Property,
(3) Drug, Alcohol and Tobacco and
(4) Truancy.

Subjective Behavior Exclusions

For exclusions, that are more readily impacted by implicit bias and consequently are difficult to assess the application.[3]

The following rationale for exclusions (reported by Ohio schools) are defined as subjective behavior:

Disobedient/Disruptive Behavior,
Harassment/Intimidation and
Unwelcome Sexual Conduct

Of the 880 districts that reported the rationale for exclusions, half the schools had more than 55.6% of their exclusions based on explanations defined by this report as subjective behavior.

The average was 54.9% of exclusions based on subjective behavior; the lowest was 0, and the highest was 100%.

The mean for Community (charter) schools (57%) was higher than the mean for Public Districts (54%). This difference was statistically significant (p=.02). Which means that there is less than a 2% chance of this difference occurring by chance alone.

There was a difference based on the typology of public districts. Urban schools had a higher percentage of their exclusions based on subjective behavior (61.7%) than suburban districts (50.3%). This difference was statistically significant (p=.00). Which means that there zero chance of this difference occurring by chance alone.

Percentage of Exclusions Based on Subjective Behavior By Organizational Type
Organizational Type	N	Mean	Median	Minimum	Maximum
Community (Charter) School	274	57.0	58.7	0	100
Public District	606	54.0	54.9	0	100
Total	880	54.9	55.6	0	100
ANOVA Table
Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
1730.356	1	1730.36	5.21	0.02

Percentage of Exclusions Based on Subjective Behavior By Typology of Public Districts
	Number of Districts	Mean	Median	Minimum	Maximum
Type 1: Rural - High Student Poverty & Small Student Population	123	54.9	55.7	0	100
Type 2: Rural - Average Student Poverty & Very Small Student Population	105	51.1	52.9	0	100
Type 3: Small Town - Low Student Poverty & Small Student Population	110	52.1	54.3	0	85
Type 4: Small Town - High Student Poverty & Average Student Population Size	89	57.2	56.4	17	83
Type 5: Suburban - Low Student Poverty & Average Student Population Size	77	54.6	55.2	27	71
Type 6: Suburban - Very Low Student Poverty & Large Student Population	46	46.0	45.7	8	69
Type 7: Urban - High Student Poverty & Average Student Population	47	60.1	58.5	43	100
Type 8: Urban - Very High Student Poverty & Very Large Student Population	8	63.2	61.1	45	96
Total	605	53.9	54.8	0	100
ANOVA Table
Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
7732.223	7	1104.603	4.633	0.000

Violenceto the Person or Property Exclusions were:

False alarm/Bomb threats
Fighting/Violence
Serious Bodily Injury
Theft
Use/Possession of explosive/incendiary/poison gas
Use/Possession of a Gun
Use/Possession of weapon other than gun/explosive
Vandalism
Firearm Look-a-like

Violence to the person or property was not included in the Subjective Discipline Grade.

Of the 880 districts that reported, the median percentage of discipline based on violence to the person or property was 33.3%. The average was 34.5%; the lowest was 0 and the highest was 100%.

The mean for Community (charter) schools (38.3%) was higher than the mean for Public Districts (32.8%). This difference was statistically significant (p=.00). Which means that there zero chance of this difference occurring by chance alone.

There was a difference based on public school typology. Small town districts had a higher percentage of their exclusions due to violence (34.3%) than suburban districts (30.5%). This difference was statistically significant (p=.00). Which means that there zero chance of this difference occurring by chance alone.

Percentage of Exclusions Based on Violence to Person or Property By Organizational Type
Organizational Type	Number of District	Mean	Median	Minimum	Maximum
Community (Charter) School	274	38.3	36.7	0.0	100.0
Public District	606	32.8	32.5	0.0	100.0
Total	880	34.5	33.3	0.0	100.0
ANOVA Table
Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
5627.715	1	5627.715	18.546	0.000

Percentage of Exclusions Based on Violence to Person or Property By Typology of Public Districts
	Number of Districts	Mean	Median	Minimum	Maximum
Type 1: Rural - High Student Poverty & Small Student Population	123	33.945	32.258	0.0	100.0
Type 2: Rural - Average Student Poverty & Very Small Student Population	105	30.700	32.143	0.0	96.3
Type 3: Small Town - Low Student Poverty & Small Student Population	110	34.854	33.333	0.0	82.9
Type 4: Small Town - High Student Poverty & Average Student Population Size	89	33.652	34.965	8.6	63.9
Type 5: Suburban - Low Student Poverty & Average Student Population Size	77	31.645	31.494	9.5	73.1
Type 6: Suburban - Very Low Student Poverty & Large Student Population	46	29.470	28.874	5.9	53.0
Type 7: Urban - High Student Poverty & Average Student Population	47	33.787	33.770	0.0	51.6
Type 8: Urban - Very High Student Poverty & Very Large Student Population	8	33.885	34.921	2.7	54.1
Total	605	32.9	32.6	0.0	100.0
ANOVA Table
Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
1818.886	7	259.841	1.290	0.253

[Back to Top]

Tobacco, Alcohol, and Drugs Exclusions:

Use/Possession of alcohol
Use/Possession of other drugs
Use/Possession of tobacco

Tobacco, Alcohol, and Drug behavior were not included in the Subjective Discipline Grade.

Of the 880 districts that reported, the median percentage of exclusions based on Tobacco, Alcohol or Drug behavior was 5.1%. The average was 9.2%; the lowest was 0, and the highest was 100%.

The mean for Community (charter) schools (3.5%) was lower than the mean for Public Districts (11.8%). Public Districts were almost four times more likely to have an exclusion based on tobacco, alcohol, or drugs. This difference was statistically significant (p=.00). Which means that there zero chance of this difference occurring by chance alone.

There was a difference based on the Typology of Public School. Suburban districts had a higher percentage of their exclusions due to tobacco, alcohol, and drugs (17.5%) than Urban districts (3%). This difference was statistically significant (p=.00). Which means that there zero chance of this difference occurring by chance alone.

Percentage of Exclusions Based on Use/Possession of Tobacco, Alcohol or Drugs By Organizational Type
	N	Mean	Median	Minimum	Maximum
Community (Charter) School	274	3.5	0.0	0.0	100.0
Public District	606	11.8	8.9	0.0	100.0
Total	880	9.2	5.1	0.0	100.0
ANOVA Table
Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
13118.209	1	13118.209	95.556	0.000

Percentage of Exclusions Based on Use/Possession of Tobacco, Alcohol or Drugs By Typology of Public Districts
	Number of Districts	Mean	Median	Minimum	Maximum
Type 1: Rural - High Student Poverty & Small Student Population	123	10.7	8.0	0.0	55.6
Type 2: Rural - Average Student Poverty & Very Small Student Population	105	14.9	11.2	0.0	100.0
Type 3: Small Town - Low Student Poverty & Small Student Population	110	11.9	10.5	0.0	53.3
Type 4: Small Town - High Student Poverty & Average Student Population Size	89	8.2	6.7	0.0	25.4
Type 5: Suburban - Low Student Poverty & Average Student Population Size	77	12.1	11.0	0.0	44.3
Type 6: Suburban - Very Low Student Poverty & Large Student Population	46	23.7	20.4	0.0	69.2
Type 7: Urban - High Student Poverty & Average Student Population	47	4.1	3.0	0.0	12.3
Type 8: Urban - Very High Student Poverty & Very Large Student Population	8	1.6	1.5	0.6	3.4
Total	605	11.8	8.9	0.0	100.0
ANOVA Table
Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
12476.493	7	1782.356	13.337	0.000

[Back to Top]

Truancy Exclusions

Of the 880 districts that reported, the median percentage for truancy was 0.0%. The average was 1%; the lowest was 0 and the highest was 100%.

The mean for Community (charter) schools (1.3%) was higher than the mean for Public Districts (.9%). This difference was statistically significant (p=.0269). Which means that there less than 5% probability that this difference occurred by chance alone.

There was a difference based on public school typology, Urban districts had the highest percentage of their exclusions due to truancy (1.5%), and rural districts (.4%) had the lowest. This difference was not statistically significant.

Percentage of Exclusions Based on Truancy By Organizational Type
	Number of Districts	Mean	Median	Minimum	Maximum
Community (Charter) School	274	1.3	0.0	0.0	100.0
Public District	606	0.9	0.0	0.0	23.8
Total	880	1.0	0.0	0.0	100.0
Anova Table
Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
22.271	1	22.271	1.221	0.269

Percentage of Exclusions Based on Truancy By Typology of Public Districts
	Number of Districts	Mean	Median	Minimum	Maximum
Type 1: Rural - High Student Poverty & Small Student Population	123	0.469	0.000	0.0	15.1
Type 2: Rural - Average Student Poverty & Very Small Student Population	105	0.383	0.000	0.0	23.8
Type 3: Small Town - Low Student Poverty & Small Student Population	110	1.148	0.000	0.0	15.0
Type 4: Small Town - High Student Poverty & Average Student Population Size	89	0.896	0.000	0.0	14.7
Type 5: Suburban - Low Student Poverty & Average Student Population Size	77	1.638	0.873	0.0	11.1
Type 6: Suburban - Very Low Student Poverty & Large Student Population	46	0.848	0.000	0.0	5.8
Type 7: Urban - High Student Poverty & Average Student Population	47	1.954	1.361	0.0	7.8
Type 8: Urban - Very High Student Poverty & Very Large Student Population	8	1.233	0.307	0.0	5.3
Total	605	0.943	0.000	0.0	23.8
ANOVA
Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
151.777	7	21.682	4.431	0.000

Final Subjective Behavior Exclusion Grade

Of the 880 districts that reported exclusions, the median Initial Subject Behavior Discipline grade was 44.4. The average was 45.1; the lowest was 0 and the lowest was 100.

The mean for Community (charter) schools (40.0) was lower than the mean for Public Districts (41.0). This difference was not statistically significant (p=.275); That is there is a 27.5% chance that the difference occurred by chance alone.

Type 8 Urban districts had the lowest mean grade (28.0) and Type 6 suburban districts (49.1) had the highest mean grade. This difference was statistically significant (p=.000); That is there is zero probability that the difference occurred by chance alone.

Seventeen of the schools (1.9%) made a grade of 100. Twenty schools (2.3%) made a grade of zero or less.

Subjective Discipline Final Grade
	N	Mean	Median	Minimum	Maximum
Total	880	41.099	39.827	-10.0	100.0

Subjective Discipline Final Grade Distribution
	Frequency	Percent
A+ (100)	17	1.9
A (89.5 to 99.4)	5	0.6
B (79.5 to 89.4)	11	1.3
C (69.5 to 79.4)	33	3.8
D (59.5 to 69.4)	68	7.7
F (.445 to 49.4)	726	82.5
F- (0 or less than .444)	20	2.3
Total	880	100.0

Subjective Discipline Final Grade by Organizational Type
Organizational Type	Number of Districts	Mean	Median	Minimum	Maximum
Community (Charter) School	274	40.0	38.5	-10.0	100.0
Public District	606	41.6	40.0	-6.0	100.0

Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
445.069	1	445.1	1.2	0.275

Subjective Discipline Final Grade by Typology of Public Districts
	Number of Districts	Mean	Median	Minimum	Maximum
Type 1: Rural - High Student Poverty & Small Student Population	123	42.8	41.7	0.0	100.0
Type 2: Rural - Average Student Poverty & Very Small Student Population	105	47.9	45.5	0.0	100.0
Type 3: Small Town - Low Student Poverty & Small Student Population	110	43.6	40.8	14.6	100.0
Type 4: Small Town - High Student Poverty & Average Student Population Size	89	37.9	38.6	6.4	75.0
Type 5: Suburban - Low Student Poverty & Average Student Population Size	77	37.2	35.6	17.4	73.1
Type 6: Suburban - Very Low Student Poverty & Large Student Population	46	49.1	47.2	20.9	91.6
Type 7: Urban - High Student Poverty & Average Student Population	47	29.4	30.2	0.0	55.9
Type 8: Urban - Very High Student Poverty & Very Large Student Population	8	28.0	30.3	-6.0	55.4

Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
18498.829	7	2642.7	9.7	0.000

Penalty for Truancy Exclusions

The penalty for truancy was the actual percentage of exclusions due to truancy plus 10 point. Of the 880 districts, the median penalty for truancy was 0.0; the average was 4.0; the minimum was 0, and the maximum was 110.

The mean for Community (charter) schools (3.0) was lower than the mean for Public Districts (4.5).

Type 7 Urban districts had the highest mean Penalty for Truancy (10.5) and Type 2 rural public districts (1) had the lowest

Penalty for Truancy Exclusions
Mean	Median	Minimum	Maximum
4.0	0.0	0.0	110.0

Penalty for Truancy Exclusions by Organizational Type
	Number of Districts	Mean	Median	Minimum	Maximum
Community (Charter) School	274	3.0	0.0	0.0	110.0
Public District	606	4.5	0.0	0.0	33.8

Penalty for Truancy Exclusions by Typology of Public Districts
	Number of Districts	Mean	Median	Minimum	Maximum
Type 1: Rural - High Student Poverty & Small Student Population	123	2.3	0.0	0.0	25.1
Type 2: Rural - Average Student Poverty & Very Small Student Population	105	1.0	0.0	0.0	33.8
Type 3: Small Town - Low Student Poverty & Small Student Population	110	4.2	0.0	0.0	25.0
Type 4: Small Town - High Student Poverty & Average Student Population Size	89	4.8	0.0	0.0	24.7
Type 5: Suburban - Low Student Poverty & Average Student Population Size	77	8.1	10.9	0.0	21.1
Type 6: Suburban - Very Low Student Poverty & Large Student Population	46	5.0	0.0	0.0	15.8
Type 7: Urban - High Student Poverty & Average Student Population	47	10.5	11.4	0.0	17.8
Type 8: Urban - Very High Student Poverty & Very Large Student Population	8	8.7	10.3	0.0	15.3

Initial Subjective Behavior Discipline Grade

Of the 880 districts that reported, the median Initial Subject Behavior Discipline grade was 44.4. The average was 45.1; the lowest was 0, and the highest was 100.

The mean for Community (charter) schools (43.0) was lower than the mean for Public Districts (45.1).

Type 8 Urban districts had the lowest mean grade (36.8) and Type 6 suburban districts (54) had the highest.

Subjective Behavior Discipline Initial Grade
Mean	Median	Minimum	Maximum
45.1	44.4	0	100

Subjective Behavior Initial Grade by Organizational Type
	Number of Districts	Mean	Median	Minimum	Maximum
Community (Charter) School	274	43.0	41.3	0	100
Public District	606	46.0	45.1	0	100

Subjective Behavior Initial Grade by Typology of Public Districts
	Number of Districts	Mean	Median	Minimum	Maximum
Type 1: Rural - High Student Poverty & Small Student Population	123	45.1	44.3	0	100
Type 2: Rural - Average Student Poverty & Very Small Student Population	105	48.9	47.0	0	100
Type 3: Small Town - Low Student Poverty & Small Student Population	110	47.9	45.7	15	100
Type 4: Small Town - High Student Poverty & Average Student Population Size	89	42.8	43.6	17	83
Type 5: Suburban - Low Student Poverty & Average Student Population Size	77	45.6	44.8	29	73
Type 6: Suburban - Very Low Student Poverty & Large Student Population	46	54.0	54.3	31	92
Type 7: Urban - High Student Poverty & Average Student Population	47	39.9	41.5	0	57
Type 8: Urban - Very High Student Poverty & Very Large Student Population	8	36.8	38.9	4	55

Best School Districts

Seventeen schools (1.9%) made a grade of 100. Nine of the schools (52%) that earned 100 were community (charter) schools. All of the eight public districts that earned a grade of 100 were either rural or small town schools.

IRN	District Name	Organization Type	Typology
000556	A+ Arts Academy	Community (Charter) School
000525	Canton Harbor High School	Community (Charter) School
011468	Columbus Bilingual Academy-North	Community (Charter) School
050625	Edon Northwest Local	Public District	Type 1: Rural - High Student Poverty & Small Student Population
045914	Federal Hocking Local	Public District	Type 1: Rural - High Student Poverty & Small Student Population
048553	Marion Local	Public District	Type 2: Rural - Average Student Poverty & Very Small Student Population
046722	Northeastern Local	Public District	Type 3: Small Town - Low Student Poverty & Small Student Population
012038	Old Brook High School	Community (Charter) School
049387	Ottoville Local	Public District	Type 2: Rural - Average Student Poverty & Very Small Student Population
047076	Pettisville Local	Public District	Type 2: Rural - Average Student Poverty & Very Small Student Population
151035	Pleasant Community Digital	Community (Charter) School
133736	Richard Allen Academy	Community (Charter) School
049817	Russia Local	Public District	Type 2: Rural - Average Student Poverty & Very Small Student Population
016829	South Columbus Preparatory Academy	Community (Charter) School
048587	St Henry Consolidated Local	Public District	Type 2: Rural - Average Student Poverty & Very Small Student Population
151191	The Capella Institute	Community (Charter) School
014864	Toledo Smart Elementary School	Community (Charter) School

Worst School Districts

Twenty schools (2.3%) made a grade of zero or less. This means that for these schools, all of their disciplinary actions were for subjective reasons. Thirteen of the schools (65%) that earned zero or less were community (charter) schools. Of the seven public districts, all were either rural or urban schools. Two schools (Alternative Education Academy and Toledo City) made grades less than 0.

IRN	District Name	Organization Type	Typology
143396	Alternative Education Academy	Community (Charter) School
134122	Autism Model School	Community (Charter) School
000598	Coshocton Opportunity School	Community (Charter) School
000938	East Bridge Academy Of Excellence	Community (Charter) School
047688	East Holmes Local	Public District	Type 1: Rural - High Student Poverty & Small Student Population
000779	Educational Academy For Boys & Girls	Community (Charter) School
142927	Focus Learning Academy Of Southwest Columbus	Community (Charter) School
014091	Hope Learning Academy Of Toledo	Community (Charter) School
049338	Jennings Local	Public District	Type 2: Rural - Average Student Poverty & Very Small Student Population
013962	Liberty Preparatory School	Community (Charter) School
133801	Life Skills Ctr Of Youngstown	Community (Charter) School
000360	Miamisburg Secondary Academy	Community (Charter) School
000162	Newark Digital Academy	Community (Charter) School
000941	Par Excellence Academy	Community (Charter) School
048975	Put-In-Bay Local	Public District
000510	Springfield Preparatory And Fitness Academy	Community (Charter) School
044826	Steubenville City	Public District	Type 7: Urban - High Student Poverty & Average Student Population
044909	Toledo City	Public District	Type 8: Urban - Very High Student Poverty & Very Large Student Population
047472	Vanlue Local	Public District	Type 2: Rural - Average Student Poverty & Very Small Student Population
045971	Waynesfield-Goshen Local	Public District	Type 2: Rural - Average Student Poverty & Very Small Student Population

Searchable Database - Subjective Discipline Grade

This database has two visible pages - list of all records (initially) or records that meet the condition (on search), and a detailed view of the selected record. When you click on any record in the list, a detailed report will be returned for the selected record. This database covers only information related to Subjective Discipline.
For more detail see individual schools/district page.

For More Information on Racial Justice Now and School Discipline: RJNOhio.org

Footnotes

[1] Cheryl Staats, Implicit Racial Bias and School Discipline Disparities Exploring the Connection, Kirwan Institute Special Report ( May 2014) http://kirwaninstitute.osu.edu/implicit-bias-training/resources/ki-ib-argument-piece03.pdf (Last Visited: June 20, 2019).

[2] Kathryn C. Monahan, Susan Van Derhei, Jordan Bechtold and Elizabeth Cauffman, From the School Yard to the Squad Car: School Discipline, Truancy, and Arrest , Journal of Youth and Adolescence 43(7) · February 2014

[3] Cheryl Staats, Implicit Racial Bias and School Discipline Disparities Exploring the Connection, Kirwan Institute Special Report ( May 2014) http://kirwaninstitute.osu.edu/implicit-bias-training/resources/ki-ib-argument-piece03.pdf (Last Visited: June 20, 2019).

Copyright Notice

Race, Racism and the Law
Vernellia R. Randall
licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Fair Use Notice

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, some material on this website is provided for comment, background information, research and/or educational purposes only, without permission from the copyright owner(s), under the "fair use" provisions of the federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed for other purposes without permission of the copyright owner(s). In general, the copyright owner is the author of the article.