Citation
A descriptive study of in-school suspension programs in secondary schools in the state of Colorado

Material Information

Title:
A descriptive study of in-school suspension programs in secondary schools in the state of Colorado
Creator:
Johnson, Nadine Baszler Fuller
Place of Publication:
Denver, CO
Publisher:
University of Colorado Denver
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xiii, 235 leaves : forms ; 28 cm

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Student suspension -- Colorado ( lcsh )
School discipline -- Colorado ( lcsh )
School discipline ( fast )
Student suspension ( fast )
Colorado ( fast )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Thesis:
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Doctor of Philosophy, School of Education and Human Development
Statement of Responsibility:
by Nadine Baszler Fuller Johnson.

Record Information

Source Institution:
|University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
|Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
25717690 ( OCLC )
ocm25717690
Classification:
LD1190.E3 1991d .J627 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF IN-SCHOOL SUSPENSION PROGRAMS
IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN THE STATE OF COLORADO
B. A.
M.A. ,
by
Nadine Baszler Fuller Johnson
, North Dakota State University, 1967
University of Northern Colorado, 1977
A thesis submitted to the
Faculty of the Graduate School of the
University of Colorado in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor Of Philosophy
School of Education
1991


1991 by Nadine Baszler Fuller Johnson
All rights reserved.


This thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy
degree by
Nadine Baszler Fuller Johnson
has been approved for the
School of
Education
by
Bob L.
Date
Sfjd>lUQA^ 1991


Johnson, Nadine Baszler Fuller (Ph.D., Education)
A Descriptive Study of In-School Suspension
Programs in Secondary Schools in the
State of Colorado
Thesis directed by Professor Bob L. Taylor
The problem of this study was to investigate the
characteristics of in-school suspension programs in
public secondary schools in the state of Colorado,
his was a descriptive research study using a survey
technique with a self-administered, structured
questionnaire. The population of this investigation
included all schools listed in the Colorado Education
Directory. 1988-89 as secondary schools, for a total
of 476 schools.
Conclusions from this study follow:
1. Statistical differences were found between
schools having and not having ISS programs
based on school location, size, and grade level
configuration. Middle-level schools of moderate
size in more urban settings had the highest per-
centage of ISS programs.
2. Opposition to ISS programs centered on lack of
money and facilities.
3. Most school personnel were involved to some
extent in the development of ISS programs, with


V
parents and students being involved minimally
or not at all.
4. There was a discrepancy between one of the primary
stated goals of most ISS programs, to modify
inappropriate behavior, and the actual attention
devoted to positive behavior change.
5. Most students were assigned to ISS for just one
day, bringing up the issue of adequate time to
address causes and to make a difference with
students.
6. Noticeably lacking in most ISS programs were
active tutoring and counseling components.
7. Systematic follow-up support with students after
they left ISS was a missing component of many ISS
programs.
8. Systematic evaluation of ISS programs was not well
established in ISS programs.
9. Parent involvement and support for ISS were not
well established in ISS programs.
10. ISS has the potential to become a positive program
to help keep students in school and to help students
become more successful there.


The form and content of this abstract are approved.


CONTENTS
CHAPTER
I. THE PROBLEM................................ 1
Introduction ............................ 1
Statement of the Problem ................ 8
Research Questions Posed in the
Study................................... 9
Significance of the Study............... 10
Definition of Terms..................... 11
Limitations of the Study................ 13
Assumptions............................. 13
Organization of the Study............... 14
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND RELATED
RESEARCH................................ 15
Part I: Organizational Features
Which Affect Student Performance
and Behavior............................. 15
Part II: Suspension..................... 23
Part III: Alternatives to Suspension. 34
Part IV: In-School Suspension .... 49
Rationale.............................. 50
Initiators of In-School Suspension . 57
Designs of In-School Suspension
Programs............................ 58


Vlll
Assessments of In-School Suspension
Programs..............................69
III. DESIGN OF THE STUDY......................73
Questions Posed by the Study............74
Sampling Procedures.....................75
Data-Gathering Techniques...............77
Development of the Questionnaire ... 78
Panel of Experts......................79
Pilot Instrument......................80
Analysis and Treatment of the Data . 81
IV. REPORT OF THE FINDINGS.....................83
Introduction .......................... 83
Description of the Respondents .... 85
Questions Posed by the Study............87
Question 1: To What Extent Do
Public Secondary Schools in
Colorado Utilize In-School
Suspension programs as a Part
of Their Discipline Programs ... 88
Question 2: How Long Have the ISS
Programs Been in Operation?. ... 94
Question 3: What Were the Origins
of the Plan Used?.................96
Question 4: What Were the Reasons
Why the In-School Suspension
Programs Were Developed and
Implemented? ....................... 98
Question 5: What Were the Goals
of the ISS Programs...............98
Question 6: What Intervention
Strategies Were Employed
Prior to Referral to ISS?............103


ix
Question 7: What Were the
Criteria for Placement into
In-School Suspension?...............107
Question 8: What Were the
Organizational Structures for
Developing and Implementing
In-School Suspension Programs? . 110
Question 9: What Were the Key
Components of the Daily ISS
Programs for Students.............115
Question 10: How Were the In-
School Suspension Programs
Staffed?............................119
Question 11: What Was the
Perceived Effectiveness of the
In-School Suspension Programs?
On What Were These Perceptions
Based?..............................120
Question 12. What Were the
Perceived Strengths and
Weaknesses of the In-School
Suspension Programs? ................. 136
Open-Ended Questions and
Respondents' Answers .............. 144
Additional Analyses.....................152
Summary of Findings.....................159
V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS.........................165
Summary.................................165
Conclusions.............................173
Recommendations.........................176
Recommendations for Further Study. . 178
REFERENCES.......................................180


X
APPENDICES.....................................197
A. COLORADO STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
1988 MEMBERSHIP FOR SECONDARY
SCHOOLS BY DISTRICT SETTING.........198
B. SCHOOL DISTRICTS BY SETTING CATEGORIES . 218
C. SCHOOL DISTRICTS BY SETTING CATEGORIES
DEFINITION OF SETTING CATEGORIES ... 220
D. INITIAL COVER LETTER .................... 222
E. QUESTIONNAIRE........................,224
F. FOLLOW-UP COVER LETTER .................. 232
G. LETTER TO PANEL OF EXPERTS............234


TABLES
Table
1. Return Rates................................ 86
2. Comparison of First and Second Mailings
with Respect to ISS Programs.............. 86
3. Status of ISS Programs in Secondary
Schools in Colorado....................... 88
4. Comparison of Schools in Colorado
State Department of Education
District Settings That Responded to
Questionnaire ............................ 90
5. Comparison of Colorado State Department
of Education by District Settings
with Respect to ISS Programs.............. 91
6. Comparison of Schools with ISS Programs
by School Size Categories................. 92
7. Comparison of Schools with ISS Programs
by Grade Level Categories ................ 93
8. Reasons Reported for Not Having
an ISS Program............................ 95
9. Comparison of Schools Based on ISS
Programs and How Long ISS Programs
Have Been in Operation.................... 96
10. Percentage of Respondents Who
Identified Participants Who Aided
in the Development of ISS Programs. . 97
11. Percentage of Respondents Who
Identified These Reasons for
Developing and Implementing ISS
Programs.................................. 99
12. Percentage of Respondents Who
Identified These Goals as Goals
of Their ISS Programs
100


Xll
13. Report of Most Important Goals of
ISS Programs....................... 102
14. Report of Strategies Used in the
Overall Discipline Process at
Respondents' Schools............... 104
15. Report of Strategies Used with
Students Prior to Placement in ISS. . 106
16. Behaviors that Might Result in a
Student's Placement into ISS....... 108
17. Report of the Most Frequent Behaviors
that Resulted in Student's Placement
into ISS........................... 109
18. Average Length of Assignment to ISS . . Ill
19. Average Number of Students Assigned
to ISS at One Time................. 112
20. Activities from Which Students
Assigned to ISS Are Restricted. . . 113
21. ISS Program Evaluated at Least
Annually?.......................... 115
22. Key Components of ISS Programs for
Students........................... 116
23. Parental Involvement in ISS Programs. . 118
24. Personnel Who Staff ISS Programs. . . . 119
25. Staffing for ISS Programs Compared
by Colorado State Department of
Education District Setting......... 121
26. Respondents' Perceptions of
Effectiveness of ISS Programs in
Accomplishing Specific Goals.. 122
27. Significant One-Way Analyses of Variance
Between Three Main Descriptor Variables
and Fifteen Dependent Variables in
Table 16
126


xiii
28. Respondents' Perceptions of Status
of Referrals, Recidivism of
Referrals, and Suspensions Since
ISS Program in Operation................ 134
29. Respondents' Perceptions on
Percentage of Student Population
Involved in ISS Programs During
1988-89 School Year..................... 135
30. Grade Levels That Had More Students
Assigned to ISS Programs................ 136
31. Respondents' Perceptions of Strengths
and Weaknesses of ISS Programs...........138
32. Correlation Matrix of Twenty Items
Regarding Perceived Strengths and
Weaknesses of ISS Programs.............. 143
33. Significant Chi-Square Relationships
between Three Main Descriptor
Variables............................... 156


CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM
Introduction
In the second half of the twentieth century,
schools in the United States have been impacted by
diverse factors. Discipline continues to be a major
concern in public schools. Teachers complain that
discipline and disciplinary referrals consume a large
portion of their instructional time (Hampton & Lauer,
1981, p. 220). In recent Gallup Polls, one of the
public's major concerns with respect to education has
been disciplineviolence and disruption in the school
and the means to control it. In the 18th Annual
Gallup Poll done in 1986 (Gallup, 1986, pp. 43-60),
the public's perception of the biggest problems with
which the public schools have to deal were the use of
drugs, number one, and the lack of discipline, number
two. This was the first year that use of drugs
claimed the number one position; in all other recent
Gallup polls, lack of discipline held the primary
position (Gallup, 1986, pp. 44-45).


2
The Back to Basics movement focused on reading,
writing, and arithmetic in the academic areas but
also on the need to get back to "basic" behavioral
expectations and consequences for students. Reports
on the status of education in the United States in
the late 1970s and early 1980s stressed the need for
accountability on the part of the schools, with
accountability including increased responsibility for
keeping more students in school, for helping all of
them to learn, and for their achievement.
A post-World War II divorce boom changed the
structure of many American families. Consequences of
this included changes in economic status, increases
in the numbers of children who did not live with both
natural parents, increases in the numbers of mothers
who worked outside the home, and increases in homes
headed by females. The feminist and minority equality
movements focused attention on male/female roles and
relationships, equality of opportunity, and equality
of education. The American economic system continued
to move from a rural, agriculture-based economy to an
urban, industrialized economy. In an agricultural
society children were desired and needed; they had a
specific, helping role. In urban, industrialized
societies, children have no specific role and are not


3
needed for the livelihood of the family; instead,
based on the inability of the economy to handle larger
numbers in the work force, childhood had been
extended. Children had become an economic liability.
And, in an industrialized society there was more need
for education, more children than ever before were
expected to continue their education through the high
school level and even further. Added to this was the
mobility caused by the shifting job market; this meant
the loss of the extended family units and hence fewer
support systems for many families.
There were major judicial implications for
schools and their students as a result of court deci-
sions from the 1960s and on. Historically, school
boards, through the state legislatures, have had
almost total authority to establish policies to
control student behavior and to maintain order.
School officials assumed the disciplinary powers given
to the students' parents through the concept of "in
loco parentis" (State ex rel. Burpee v. Burton. 45
Wis. 150, [1878]). These were the bases for the dis-
ciplinary authority in the schools until the 1960s.
In the 1960s the courts began to give new interpreta-
tions in light of students' constitutional rights.
Beginning with the Gault case in 1967, the United


States Supreme Court rendered a series of landmark
decisions which enumerated the substantive and
4
procedural due process rights of students and how
these affected school personnel and the juvenile
justice system as they affected disciplinary
sanctions. The justices stated that juveniles had
been denied Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments
protections of the United States Constitution. The
Tinker decision in 1969 stated that First Amendment
rights did apply to children; it set parameters on
school officials' authority to limit freedom of
expression to legitimate educational and safety
issues. In the Goss v. Lopez decision (Goss v. Lopez.
419 U.S. 565, 95Ct. 729, 42 L.Ed.2d 725 [1975]) in
1975, the United States Supreme Court established
procedural due process for both short- and long-term
suspensions. This case established clear student
property interest in an education. The Wood v.
Strickland decision in 1975 stated that school board
members were not immune from claims of liability if
they acted maliciously or without regard for the
students' constitutional rights. These and other
significant court decisions influenced changes in the
discipline techniques available to school officials.
School officials began to rely on the removal of the


5
disruptive, disobedient students from school, all the
while following due process criteria for short-term
suspensions.
The need for an education in a fast-paced,
industrialized economy, coupled with new awareness
regarding rights of students, brought attention from
civil rights and child advocacy groups who questioned
the disproportionate number of minority children
suspended. Public Law 94-142, the Education for All
Handicapped Children Act of 1975, restricted
school officials' use of consequences if the actions
changed the students' academic programs (individual-
ized educational plans) or if the misbehavior was the
result of the handicapping condition. School
districts became aware of the financial losses
resulting from students who were not in attendance.
The public became aware of the costs to society of
educational interruptionsunsupervised children,
drop-outs, lower paying jobs, loss of income and other
tax revenues, need for welfare support, criminal
activities, increased health problems, and reduced
political understanding and involvement. For the
student, suspension from school could mean falling
behind in work, inability to do the work in progress
when he/she returned, attention turned elsewhere, and


6
misbehavior which set up a cycle of suspension that
reinforced negative behavior and sometimes forced
students out of schools.
In light of these new influences, schools had to
reexamine their discipline policies and procedures
and to assume more responsibility for keeping students
in school. Codes of behavior were now standard in
most schools. Consequences for breaking codes of
behavior were expected to show a reasonable series of
stages which attempted to remedy the problem. These
ranges of consequences sometimes included an alterna-
tive to removing a misbehaving student from his/her
regular class(es) while keeping him/her in school in
order to maintain the school/student contact.
Programs for this purpose had various namesin-
school suspension, in-house suspension, and various
acronyms. These in-school suspension (ISS) programs
usually placed a student in an isolated, small, highly
structured setting for a period of time ranging from
one period to several days. In-school suspension
(ISS) kept the students' academic progress from being
severely disrupted, kept the students off the
streets, maintained the revenues going to the school
districts, gave the opportunity for individualized
attention to the problem and the students in a small


7
setting, and was advocated by society at large and by
parents.
Frith, Lindsey, and Sasser (1980) reported
reductions in out-of-school student suspensions in
the Dothan, Alabama, school system from 878, in 1976-
77, to three in 1977-78, after an alternative program
was implemented (pp. 637-638). Nielsen (1979)
reported that in-school suspension (ISS) programs were
successful techniques for dealing with disruptions and
misbehaviors in schools and that the student could
best be helped by keeping the student in school where
the unacceptable behavior occurred (Nielsen, 1979).
When students were suspended at home, all the parties
withdrew from one another, and this was not conducive
to solving the problem (Dilling, 1979). In-school
suspension (ISS) programs could function as a bridge
instead of a break in the educational process of the
student since they could offer help in modifying the
unacceptable behavior (Harvey & Moosha, 1977).
However, in-school suspension (ISS) programs were
not a panacea for all discipline problems; educa-
tional, economic, and cost effectiveness had to be
considered.
Reaching the goal of a well-disciplined effort
requires honest, committed, and systematic
efforts to uncover new and better methods.
[School administrators] easily can be victims of


8
a tendency toward habit and routine. Schools
should select from a variety of new and emerging
ideas and programs to revitalize the existing
school discipline program. (Grossnickle & Sesko,
1985, p. 2)
In-school suspension (ISS) programs could be one
component of a reexamination of present discipline
practices and a revitalization of them through the
inclusion of some new ideas and practices.
Statement of the Problem
Since the 1970s, school districts in the United
States have been faced with establishing and
maintaining school discipline in the midst of
changing judicial, economic, societal, and family
conditions. Boards of education and school officials
began to examine the large number of suspensions, who
was being suspended, the number and consequences of
the days lost, and the cost of the suspensions. High
interest developed in alternative programs which
removed disruptive or disobedient students from
classrooms but kept the students in school. The
problem of this study was to investigate the
characteristics of in-school suspension (ISS) programs
in public secondary schools in the state of Colorado.
In-school suspension (ISS) programs were defined as
those where a student who is suspended from his/her


9
regular classes is housed in an alternative place in
the school or the school district for a specified
period of time and where the school personnel continue
to assume responsibility for providing educational
experiences and supervision for the student. In-
school suspension (ISS) programs will be referred to
as ISS throughout the remainder of this investigation.
Research Questions Posed
in the Study
The following research questions were posed in
the study:
1. To what extent do public secondary schools
in Colorado utilize ISS programs as a part of their
discipline programs?
2. How long have the ISS programs been in
operation?
3. What were the origins of the plans used?
4. What were the reasons why the ISS programs
were developed and implemented?
5. What were the goals of the programs?
6. What intervention strategies were employed
prior to referral to ISS? f
7. What were the criteria for placement into
ISS?


10
8. What were the organizational structures for
developing and implementing ISS programs?
9. What were the key components of the daily
ISS programs for students?
10. How were the ISS programs staffed?
11. What was the perceived effectiveness of the
ISS programs? On what were these perceptions based?
12. What were the perceived strengths and weak-
nesses of the ISS programs?
Significance of the Study
Data on ISS programs in the state of Colorado
should be of benefit to school administrators,
teachers, school officials, boards of education,
parents, and students. This study could be a resource
for anyone who is interested in providing alternatives
to at-home suspension, to school personnel who may
want to establish and implement an ISS program, to
those who may want to reevaluate their ISS programs
in light of the key components of others' programs,
and to those who may want to have an ISS program with
key components that may help make a difference with
students and their education. This study could
contribute to the theoretical basis for having ISS
programs, to understanding the need for key elements


11
in ISS programs, and to including comprehensive
evaluation components as a part of ISS programs.
Definition of Terms
In order to clarify terms used in the study, the
following definitions are provided:
-ADA is the number of students in attendance on
a daily average in the school district.
-At-home suspension is when a student is sus-
pended from school and is not allowed on school
grounds while the suspension is in effect. It is
the same as "out-of-school" suspension. (See
"suspension.")
-Board of Education is the elected governing
body of the school district.
-Colorado secondary schools are those schools
included in the study and listed in the Colorado Edu-
cation Directory. 1988-89. with any of the following
grade-level configurations: 4-8; 5-6; 5-8; 6-7; 6-8;
6-9; 6-11; 7-8; 7-9; 7-12; 8-9; 9-12; 10-12 grades
-In-school suspension (ISS) is when a student is
suspended temporarily from his/her regular classes
and is housed in an alternative place in a school or
school district for a specified, short period of time
and where the school personnel continue to assume


12
responsibility for providing educational experiences
and supervision for the student.
-School district is a governmental agency of the
state created by the state as an instrumentality
through which the legislature carries out the state
constitutional mandate to provide for a system of
public education (Reutter & Hamilton, 1976, p. 73).
-Student is a person who is enrolled in a school
and who is subsequently subject to all school policies
and procedures.
-Suspension is the temporary removal of a student
from his/her assigned class(es) for a period of not
more than five days, with the superintendent having
the ability to extend it for 10 additional days for
the following reasons:
continued willful disobedience; open and
persistent defiance of proper authority; willful
destruction or defacing school property; behavior
which is detrimental to the welfare, safety, or
morals of other pupils or of school personnel;
serious violations in a school building or on
school property including but not limited to the
possession of a deadly weapon, the sale of a drug
or controlled substance, or the commission of an
act which if committed by an adult would be
robbery or assault. (Colorado School Laws, 1988,
22-33-106, pp. 379.2-381)


13
Limitations of the Study
The study had the following inherent limitations:
-This study was limited to the public, secondary
schools in the state of Colorado only.
-The study was limited to just one alternative
to at-home suspension, that of ISS.
-The generalizability of the findings of the
study to other educational levels and schools is
uncertain.
-The inherent limitations of a questionnaire
methodology are understood (Good, 1972; Hillway, 1969;
Van Dalen, 1973). The extent to which the use of a
questionnaire that limits choices impinges upon the
findings of the study is uncertain.
Assumptions
Some basic assumptions made in regard to this
study were:
1. There would be sufficient literature related
to the study.
2. The questionnaire would be a useful, valid
research tool and would provide the data posed by the
research questions.


14
3. Each person surveyed would be willing to
participate in the study and would provide accurate
information.
4. The compiled data would benefit the field of
education in general and school administrators in
particular.
Organization of the Study
Chapter I includes the introduction, the state-
ment of the problem, questions posed in the study,
significance of the study, methodology, definition of
terms, limitations of the study, assumptions, and
organization of the remainder of the study.
Chapter II includes a review of literature and
related research.
Chapter III includes the research design.
Chapter IV includes a descriptive analysis of
the data collected.
Chapter V includes a summary, conclusions, and
recommendations.


CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND RELATED RESEARCH
This chapter is organized into four parts. The
first covers the organizational features of schools
which may affect student performance and behavior.
The second examines suspension from school and its
consequences. The third reviews the myriad of
disciplinary strategies which are alternatives to
suspension from school. Finally, the fourth is
narrowed to the literature and research on ISS
programs. Rationale for ISS programs, initiators of
ISS programs, designs of ISS programs, and
assessments of various ISS programs are covered.
Part I: Organizational Features Which
Affect Student Performance and Behavior
"I have come to believe that we have designed
schools which, at least in part, create the disci-
pline problems we are then called upon to solve"
(Howard, 1979, p. 64). Howard believed that schools
were "rigged" in the sense that they were patterned on
Prussian and English school systems of the early 1800s
which were structured to produce a certain percentage


16
of losers and failures in order to maintain a highly
rigid class society and to assure an ample supply of
people for physical labor and the military. The nine
ways Howard (1979) believed that schools were "rigged"
were:
1. Graded schoolsstudents are assigned to
classes based on age and are then promoted based on
success or retained or remediated based on failure.
2. Standardized testing programsare designed
to identify winners and losers.
3. Strong emphasis on competitiona way to
screen out the "least fit."
4. Use of artificial rewardsdeprives students
of learning for the right reasons.
5. Letter grading systemforces teachers to
communicate messages of unworthiness and failure on a
regular basis.
6. Grouping and ranking practicesreminds stu-
dents that some are better than others, especially in
ability and homogeneous grouping.
7. Social system among studentsin a highly
structured, rigid hierarchy of cliques.
8. Dumping groundspecial courses for the
less worthy.


17
9. School schedules and programs of classes
segregates winners and losers by limiting choices
regarding what and with whom they study (Howard,
1979).
Rather than better security guards, more rules,
more suspensions, more detentions, more dumping
ground, Howard believed that attention needed to be
focused on "unrigging" schools rather than on continu-
ing to respond to symptoms instead of causes.
Remedies suggested by Howard (1979) were:
1. Create an invigorating school climatehigh
levels of student/staff satisfaction and commitment
to the school.
2. Use individualized instruction, indepen-
dent study, learning laboratories, and action learning
instead of ability and homogeneous grouping.
3. Foster cooperative activities instead of
competitive ones.
4. Interweave vocational education with academic
programs.
5. Create alternative schools to serve students
who learn best in environments which are difficult to
create in a traditional school building.
6. ... [I]mprove discipline and reduce
alienation [by creating] . human places,
places where pupils learn to care about
themselves and one another, where no person is


18
unnecessarily put down, where people learn to
improve themselves without doing so at the
expense of others. (p. 19)
7. Widen the winner's circlegive all students
the respect and dignity they deserve and need in order
to become self-improving human beings.
Wayson (1980) enumerated organizational features
which might cause disruptions in schools. These were
teachers lacking responsibility for that decision
making which would allow them to model appropriate
behavior, cloudiness of communication, authority and
status differentiations, role confusions, lack of
belongingness, the Peter principle of trained
incapacity, and poor scheduling (p. 2).
One study showed that negative labeling by
teachers was more strongly associated with delin-
quent behavior than any other of the 10 factors
examined, including negative labeling by parents
(Brennan & Huizinga, 1975, p. 351). Proctor's (1976)
perception of how society creates its own discipline
problems was a spiral which included awareness of
rejection, isolation, insularity, hostility, with-
drawal from success symbols, acceptance of failure,
and crime and violence. This spiral could be reversed
with one major interventionone individual who cared
enough about the young person to be a major influence


19
in his/her life (pp. 55-57). Looking at disruption
from an organizational theory point of view, Argyris
noted that organizations tended to cause childish and
disruptive behavior; Merton believed it was a part of
the dysfunctions of bureaucracies and unanticipated
consequences of policies and procedures; and,
McGregor's theories suggested that considering
subordinates as inferior caused them to behave in
disruptive ways, while a positive attitude toward
subordinates could produce responsible behavior
(Wayson, 1980, pp. 1-2).
Student absenteeism has been listed as the number
one headache of high school principals since the
survey of American Association of School Admini-
strators began in 1972 (Encyclopedia of Educational
Research, Vol. 4, 1982, p. 1958). Characteristics of
truants include lower socioeconomic status, membership
in a minority ethnic group, and evidence of other
deviant behavior. Student reasons given for truancy
include boredom with school, social adjustment
problems, and academic problems. Moos and Moos found
students tended to be absent from classes they
perceived as high in levels of competition and teacher
control and low in teacher support (Encyclopedia of
Educational Research. Vol. 4, 1982, p. 1959).


20
Since the mid-1960s the national drop-out rate
for high school has begun at about 2.5% in grade nine,
when school attendance is still mandated by state
laws; the drop-out rate increases to 9% by tenth
grade, 10% by eleventh grade, and 25% by twelfth grade
(Encyclopedia of Educational Research. Vol. 1, 1982,
p. 1960). Student reasons given for dropping out of
school included dislike for school, involuntary
exclusion, academic problems, problems with teachers,
marriage, and pregnancy. Consequences of dropping
out were earning less money, greater likelihood of
being unemployed compared to a high school graduate,
and inability to receive post-high school training.
The 10 most common discipline problems identi-
fied in a statewide Georgia study and reported by
Kingston and Gentry (1977) were: truancy, failure to
do assignments, impertinence and discourtesy, use of
profane language, smoking, stealing small items,
obscene scribbling on walls, congregating in halls
and lavatories, destruction of school property, and
lying of a serious nature. The most frequently
utilized discipline procedures were conferences with
parents (95%), suspension (84%), corporal punishment
(70%), extra assignments (66%), restriction (64%),


21
and detention (52%) (Encyclopedia of Educational
Research. Vol. 2, 1982, pp. 1690-1691).
Teachers work with many different students and
may not get to know them. Yet, people react adversely
if they are treated as "numbers" or as "subjects"
rather than as "real people." Rubin and Balow (1971)
pointed out that teachers might be oriented to a
narrow range of expected student behavior which was
much narrower than typical behavior patterns, that
the behaviors which disturbed teachers the most were
those different from their beliefs, and that teachers
resented behavior which interfered with "their"
programs, ideals, and beliefs.
Teacher training institutions have been
criticized for their failure to include extensive and
intensive training in the areas of interpersonal
relationships, classroom management, and discipline.
Behavioral deviancy appears to be in large part
a reflection of the attitudes of the faculty
rather than the behavioral criteria related to
the education or safety of children. (Regal,
Elliott, Grossman, & Morse, 1975, p. 14)
Why are there discipline problems in today's
schools? Jones summarized them as:
1. Schools clinging to old ways.
2. Over-sized classes with too little indi-
vidual attention.


3. Too large schools.
4. Lack of resource services.
5. Irrelevant materials.
6. Mobility of teachers.
7. Lack of continuous inservice training
for the staff.
8. Teachers creating aggressive and hos-
tile behavior through endless talking, dwelling on
the irrelevant, boring the students, and using
inappropriate methods.
9. Teachers' strikes whereby students might
conclude that force is an accepted way to gain
demands.
10. Lack of parental support for school
personnel and their decisions.
11. Defiance of authority by students.
12. Social upheaval and focus on youth by
society, agencies, and the media.
13. More time but fewer jobs available for
youth.
14. Student isolation from their families.
15. Lack of clearly defined behavioral expec
tations for students.
16. Race relations.
17. Increase in legal age for leaving school


23
18. Increase in the minimum wage (Jones, 1973,
pp. 4-8).
Organizational features which might affect student
performance and behavior appear to be large in number
and diverse in nature. Elucidating the potential
causes does not necessarily provoke changes on the
part of the organization.
Part II: Suspension
Suspension was one of the traditional means used
to maintain discipline in schools. Few alternatives
to traditional discipline measures have emerged, so
administrators have continued to rely on the same
traditional methods, especially suspension from
school, as means of maintaining discipline and con-
trol in school. The rationale seemed that a disrup-
tive, disobedient student was suspended and would
begin to conform. Suspension was an initial pun-
ishment in some schools and was utilized as the sole
penalty for most discipline problems in many others,
with the only variation being the length of suspension
(Harvey & Moosha, 1977). In 1978 the American
Association of School Administrators found that 60.3%
of the respondents cited suspension and/or expulsion
as a method used to help students with serious


24
attendance problems (Chobot & Garibaldi, 1982, p.
317). In a random sample of the members of the
National Association of Secondary School Principals,
reasons given for suspension in rank order were:
1. attendance problems
2. smoking
3. nonviolent, disruptive behavior
4. violations of school rules
5. assault, fighting, threat of injury
6. use of drugs/alcohol
7. vandalism, theft, destruction of property.
(Chobot & Garibaldi, 1982, p. 317)
In Justice Powell's dissenting opinion in Goss v.
Lopez. he gave a particular educational philosophy
The educational relationship is one of non-
adversarial unity of interest, a relationship
which combines the school's need to maintain
order with its obligation to its students to
teach them to internalize obedience to
authority. (Goss v. Lopez)
According to this philosophy, suspension was an inte-
gral part of the process. In the same case, the
majority opinion agreed, "Suspension is considered
not only to be a necessary tool to maintain order but
a valuable educational device" (95 S. Ct. at 739)
(Weckstein, 1975, pp. 47-48). The courts have
repeatedly reiterated that school authorities must
have broad discretionary authority in the daily
operations of the public schools.
Grossnickle and Sesko (1985) listed the
advantages of suspension as:


25
1. Other students and teachers do not have
to suffer because someone is not interested
in learning.
2. Everyone recognizes that misbehavior will
not be accepted.
3. This is an opportunity to get parents, the
students, and the staff together to plan
how to improve the student's misbehavior
pattern.
4. Suspension can be a deterrent to others.
The Children's Defense Fund (1974) elicited the
following reasons for suspension from their
investigations on suspension:
1. a tool to get the parents in
2. a tool to shake students up
3. a vehicle to get the student out of school
for a while
4. a process to maintain staff morale.
In the literature, few pretended that suspension
addressed the educational or emotional interests of
the students. It was a means to an endto maintain
the school's authority, to force parents to come to
school, and to relieve teachers of problem children
(Children's Defense Fund, 1974, pp. 121-123).
Suspension has been the focus of studies,
research projects, and investigations. In his


26
research on suspendees, Baskerville (1982) found that
three-or-more-times suspendees reported significantly
lower mean scores than nonsuspendees on the overall
Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory, as well as on the
subscale on "general self," the overall Parent
Perception Inventory, the "school achievement"
subscale, and the "family relations" subscale. He
found that suspendees reported higher frequencies of
friends suspended and of suspensions in previous
years. Nonsuspendees reported more placements in
higher level mathematics and English classes.
In his ethnographic study of suspension
procedures at four predominantly white, middle class,
suburban junior high schools, Comerford (1983) learned
that the administrators, teachers, and both suspended
and nonsuspended students used in his sample over-
whelmingly agreed that suspension was ineffective in
changing disruptive behavior, that alternatives to
suspension were supported by all four groups, that
boys were suspended far more often than girls, and
that students from low income families were suspended
at much higher rates than all other students.
A Florida study (Foster, 1977) asserted that many
administrators stereotyped Black students as
troublemakers and that Blacks were suspended more


27
frequently than Anglos for offenses such as
"disrespect." The Florida Commission recommended
more high school remedial reading programs,
compulsory teacher training on cultural differences
and discipline, development of alternative schools,
study of suspension policies, and establishment of
in-school suspension programs (Foster, 1977).
The Children's Defense Fund (1975) investigated
national data on suspended students. They found that
minority and male students were suspended
disproportionately to females and Anglos. The
offenses that resulted most often in suspension were
tardiness, smoking, truancy, and disrespect; not
damage to people or property. Most suspended students
came from single parent families in which the
parent(s) had less than a tenth grade education;
however, the assumption that these parents did not
value their children's education or attendance was not
substantiated. The final recommendations of the
study were that suspension should be abolished except
for cases of property damage or assault and that
school boards, parents, and teachers should reevaluate
their suspension policies and come up with a number of
alternatives to suspension.


28
In his study of suspension and suspendees,
Beckner (1982) cited a statistically significant
relationship between the suspension status of students
in Virginia and 13 pupil characteristics. A
chronically suspended student tended to be a Black
male in an early high school grade level who had low
IQ test scores, participated in few school activities,
came from a low-income family with a large number of
children and possibly one-parent head of household who
had little educational attainment and low employment
status.
A report of the Southern Regional Council (1973)
entitled The Student Pushout noted the following:
1. In school districts in which 90% of the
national minorities are enrolled, the expul-
sion rates for minority students were 300%
greater than for non-minority students.
2. Suspension and other school discipline
practices appeared to increase in frequency
and harshness wherever desegregation was
required.
3. Discipline practices finally culminated in
the phenomenon of the "pushout" students
who left school permanently because of
intolerable conditions or who through dis-


29
criminatory treatment were excluded from
school (Miller, 1975).
The School Desegregation Project of the Massa-
chusetts Advocacy Center in Boston questioned the
effectiveness of suspension and expulsion as
educational vehicles to improve discipline in schools.
They were convinced that wide use of suspension
increased, rather than decreased, discipline problems
and that exclusion was used as an alternative to
finding solutions. The goal of this project was to
improve due process protections for students in
discipline procedures, to reduce the number of
suspendable offenses, and to increase community
pressures on schools to find alternative measures to
suspension (Miller, 1975, p. 24).
In a study among Black male, junior high school
students, Pharr and Barbarin (1976) examined the
degree to which school suspension was related to
congruence between the student's perception of the
school environment and the school's goals and
expectations. Compared with non-suspended students,
suspended students:
1. demonstrated behavior, problem-solving
strategies, and perceptions of school that were less


30
compatible with the demands of the educational pro-
cess;
2. were generally less satisfied with the
school's interpersonal environment;
3. preferred avoidance or aggressive strategies
for solving problems;
4. relied less on school personnel for solving
problems; and,
5. were less satisfied with the school's mechan-
ism for controlling students.
In general, nonsuspended students demonstrated better
fits with the school environment. The findings sug-
gested that some aspects of the school environment
may pose difficulties for students of diverse cultural
backgrounds and that schools could make adjustments
to minimize poor fits between suspended students and
school expectations (Pharr & Barbarin, 1976).
The Children's Defense Fund (1974, 1975), Lundell
(1982), Meares and Kittle (1976), Seyfarth (1980),
and Weckstein (1975) noted that opponents of
suspension cited the following reasons for working
towards reduction and/or elimination of its widespread
use:


31
1. A student who may already be struggling gets
even further behind and may completely give up due to
loss of instructional time.
2. Suspended students cause problems in the
community while on suspension; suspensions are highly
correlated to juvenile delinquency.
3. Students are suspended from the entire school
program when the difficulty may be only in one area.
4. Students see suspension as a "vacation," not
as a deterrent or a punishment.
5. If it is necessary for parents to return to
school with the students before the student can be
readmitted, the time of the suspension might be
extended.
6. While suspended from school, students are
inaccessible to members of the support services team,
who could provide intervention help to uncover and
remediate causes of misbehavior.
7. Suspension records follow students through
school and beyond school to later academic and/or
employment pursuits. Suspension is a powerful label
that stigmatizes a child while both in and out of
school


32
8. Students' alienation and hostility are
increased by exclusion; suspension does not lessen
discipline problems when they return.
9. Schools do not get state reimbursement for
students who are suspended.
10. The loss of credit for classes missed
through suspension demoralizes students even further.
11. Psychological harms which might flow from
suspension are resentment, fear, withdrawal, loss of
self-esteem, and a sense of powerlessness.
12. Feelings of failure and rejection may lead
to dropping out.
13. There is decreased parental and community
support for suspension and expulsion.
14. There are increases in social welfare costs
resulting from educational deficiencies and unemploy-
ment.
15. Recidivism rates indicate suspension and
expulsion are not effective techniques.
16. School personnel who use these approaches
frequently fail to realize that students exhibit mis-
behavior because they are experiencing little success
in school.
17. It is an admission by school personnel that
they are unable to deal with the problem in the school


33
setting and have "given up" on the student. (Chil-
dren's Defense Fund, 1974, 1975; Lundell, 1982;
Meares & Kittle, 1976; Seyfarth, 1980; Weckstein,
1975).
The conclusions reached by Comerford (1983) about
suspension were that suspension was greatly overused
as a discipline strategy; that suspension failed to
punish students or change behavior; and that for any
discipline system to work, the following criteria
needed to be present:
1. clear, well-defined rules and procedures;
2. rules and procedures consistently and equi-
tably applied;
3. a variety of punitive and therapeutic alter-
natives to suspension;
4. active and concerned parental involvement;
5. the dedication of fair, involved, caring
teachers and administrators (Comerford, 1983).
Given the Supreme Court's justification for use
of suspension, Weckstein (1975) felt that schools
should be required to demonstrate that whatever
disciplinary measures they take must be justified as
serving an educational purpose and not merely a
punitive one. Suspension has little chance of helping
a student unless he/she fears its effects, such as


34
failing a class, disgrace, displacement from friends,
or exclusion from extra-curricular activities. It
could be argued that the deterring effect of
suspension is questionable and that suspension should
be restricted to instances where a student's presence
poses a continuing danger either of causing physical
harm to him/herself or others or of substantially
disrupting the educational process. Only in cases of
continuing danger is suspension actually necessary
for preserving order; and so, only then can a student
be given a reasonable explanation as to why suspension
is necessary (Weckstein, 1975, p. 49). Exclusion
from school can have serious, long-term consequences.
Alternatives to suspension need to be explored and
utilized; they are needed in the public school
setting.
Part III. Alternatives
to Suspension
With the advent of strong opposition to expulsion
came research, studies, projects, programs, and ideas
for use in the area of discipline. Current, common
discipline strategies are:
1. Self conceptAn individual's self-concept
is the most important determination of behavior.
School behavior and achievement will be best improved


35
by students who learn self-discipline while developing
a healthy, positive self-concept. Growth in self-
concept comes from an accepting, warm, empathic,
open, and nonjudgmental environment where the
student is free to explore thoughts and feelings to
solve his own problems (Canfield & Wells, 1976;
Purkey, 1978).
2. Communication skillsSet firm limits on
behavior but not on feelings. Reflect feelings and
provide a symbolic outlet for feelings (Ginott, 1972).
3. Natural and logical consequencesMisbehavior
comes from faulty beliefs about one's self, and these
faulty beliefs lead to personal goals that may result
in misbehavior. Goals for misbehavior are attention
seeking, power, revenge, and display of inadequacy.
To deal with misbehavior, pinpoint the goal and help
the person work through the faulty belief and then
use natural and logical consequences for misbehavior
(Dinkmeyer & Dinkmeyer, 1976; Driekurs, Grunwald, &
Pepper, 1971).
4. Values clarificationThis is a process
whereby children can answer some of their own
questions on values and build their own value system.
Discipline problems are caused by unclear values which
lead to experiences of inner turmoil and by


36
conflicting value positions (Simon, Howe, &
Kirschenbaum, 1972).
5. Teacher Effectiveness TrainingThe aim is to
replace "repressive and power based systems"
(punishing, blaming, shaming, threatening) with a
communication model based on active listening, I-mes-
sages, problem ownership, and negotiation/problem
solving which uses a win/win approach (Gordon, 1974).
6. Transactional Analysis (TA)Discipline prob-
lems are viewed in terms of communication between
people. Problems can be avoided or confronted.
Teachers need to stay in the "adult ego state" when
dealing with students who have problems with author-
ity (Ernst, 1972).
7. Reality TherapyDisruption from students is
caused by their not feeling involved with the schools,
feeling like failures, and not assuming responsibili-
ties for their actions. Schools should try to elimi-
nate failure and increase involvement, relevance, and
thinking. Students learn responsibility through
strong, positive, emotional involvement with a
responsible person, like a teacher (Glasser, 1965,
1969).


37
8. LEAST L Leave it alone.
E End the action without undue
emotion.
A Attend more fully. Get to the
root of the problem.
S Spell out directions clearly.
T Track the student's progress by
using a record of discipline
encounters (Carkhuff & Griffin,
1978).
9. Project TEACHThis is an eclectic approach
which combines many different approaches and philoso-
phies. Skills need to be developed in verbal and
nonverbal communication, positive reinforcement
and behavior modification principles, changing
environment, natural and logical consequences, and
assertiveness (Project TEACH. 1977).
10. Assertive DisciplineThe major emphasis is
on the teacher's control of the classroom. Teachers
must develop strong assertive skills to preserve and
establish order. It implements a system of behavior
modification (Canter, 1976).
11. Behavior ModificationMisbehavior occurs
because it is reinforced by the environment. Change
the child's behavior by changing the environment and


38
thereby reinforce appropriate behavior instead of
inappropriate behavior (Skinner, 1968).
12. Dare to DisciplineThis is a strong,
authoritarian approach where the teacher has "absolute
locus of control." The teacher is to be businesslike,
highly organized, and in firm control. Children will
test limits, so establish them immediately (Dobson,
1971).
13. Rational Emotive EducationThis is based
on a cognitive behavior approach to personal growth.
The emphasis is on a directive role of thought in
guiding behavior, and a specific set of rational and
irrational assumptions are presented to guide each
individual1s thoughts. (Encyclopedia of Educational
Research. Vol. 1, 1982, pp. 448-449).
Programs, ideas, and strategies being used as
alternatives to suspension are:
1. Alternative Schools
-for students who cannot function in traditional
schools
-common elements are individualized instruction,
contingency contracting, and low student/teacher
ratio
-the "right conditions" to make alternative
programs work are:


39
A. teachers who want to work with these kinds
of students and who understand their
strengths and weaknesses
B. careful screening and assignment of stu-
dents who have a good chance for success
and not putting students together who will
feed on each other's misbehavior
C. adequate resources to ensure classes of
eight to 12 students to one teacher, a
good sized room, and adequate materials and
supplies
D. reasonable flexibility to depart from the
school schedule and curriculum to develop
unique programs
E. relevant and worthwhile curriculum in the
eyes of students, parents, and teachers
F. interested and cooperative parents and
administrators (Gorton, 1977)
2. Behavior Clinics
-hours of group counseling in school skills
-referral to physician to see if misbehavior has
physical involvement
-after school behavior clinic designed to help
students control their behavior is instruc-
tional in nature it helps the students to


40
understand values and beliefs, motivations, and
feelings about self and others
3. Buddy System
-pairs students up to help one another succeed
in school
-"parole system" if someone is on the brink of
suspension, draw up a contract with the student
A. day-to-day at teachers' and administrator's
discretion and wisdom during good behavior
B. kids need to know that this is not a right
(the right was forfeited by continued mis-
behavior) but a special privilege or favor,
a favor granted only to those who especially
want to try again, who want to reinstate
themselves
C. terms determined by teachers and adminis-
trators with qualifications on work required,
effort, application, and specifications on
how to act
D. success is dependent upon skillful direction
of a trusted administrator
E. appeals to honor, to fear, to the hope that
the student can make good even after he has
pushed too far
F. takes careful monitoring (Chamberlin, 1971)


41
4. Cooling-off or Time-Out
-contract with a student that whenever he feels
he is going to lose it, he is to leave the class
and is to go to time-out
-angry or upset student is given permission to
leave the class to seek counseling
5. Cooperative Community School Projects
-joint school/community individual and family
counseling program to reduce maladaptive behavior
-help for schools from local mental health and
human relations agencies
6. Corporal Punishment
-judicial reluctance to declare it unconstitu-
tional per se
-attacked on excessiveness, on violation of
parental rights, on physical abuse, on the
realm of protected liberty, on psychological
harm
7. Demerit System
-given set number of points; as points diminish,
consequences are prescribed
-Example: twenty-five offenses with correlating
penalties
10=talk with counselor
20=in-school suspension


42
30=at-home suspension and return only
with parent(s)
50=expelled
8. Denial of Extracurricular Activities
9. Detention
10. Discipline Codes Rights and Responsibilities
-written policies and procedures
-implemented consistently and fairly
-students are always allowed to present their
sides of a case except in cases of imminent
danger
-specific due process procedures
11. Expulsion
-for those who will not respond to ordinary
control and cause constant trouble
12. Group Workshops
-for students to reduce self-defeating behavior
-for teachers on new teaching strategies to
maintain student interest and to respond to the
different modalities of learning
13. Human Relations Programs/Strategies
-strong, effective counseling program
-a human relations staff that advises schools
and parents on discipline problems


43
-school staff/parents/students committee to
identify student offenses most frequently a
problem and to seek solutions
-to develop student responsibility in classrooms,
teachers
A. set and enforce limits of acceptable behavior
and hold students accountable
B. confront students when they fail to stop
disruptive behavior after a warning
C. do not let students exceed acceptable limits
of behavior
D. inform students it is their choice to con-
tinue misbehaving or to stop, and make sure
they understand the decision to continue
misbehaving will result in specific conse-
quences
E. make sure consequences are realistic, reason-
able, and appropriate for the misbehavior
F. concentrate on present rather than past
mistakes
G. accept no excuses for a misbehavior
14. In-School Suspension (ISS)
-an effort to reduce instances of discipline prob-
lems within the school


44
-an alternative school program to help the student
with serious discipline problems within the
school setting so they can receive instruction
-individual counseling might be a component
-provides administrators with a disciplinary
option not as serious as at-home suspension
-keeps students in school where they will have
a chance to identify and change the inappropriate
behavior
-ensures other students a conducive learning
environment by isolating the disruptors
15. Isolated, Quiet Places within the Classroom
16. Lower the Student's Grade
-in recent years, movement away from this practice
due to questionable legality
-questionable practice since it mixes academic
performance and punishment for misbehavior
17. One-to-One Problem-Solving Sessions
-work with the student in problem solving with
reasonable, logical consequences for actions
-find the causes of the misbehavior and find
solutions to them rather than focusing on the
symptoms


45
18. Parent Involvement
-parent conferences are perceived by principals
as the alternative with the highest potential for
success (Wollan, 1983)
-community, parents, students, and staff involved
in developing appropriate behavior guidelines,
action plans, assistance, problem solving problem
areas, resources to prevent further disruption
from identified students; the goal is to develop
programs that foster appropriate student
behavior before it becomes socially and educa-
tionally significant (Knoff, 1984)
19. Peer Counseling/Student Advocate
-school leaders are identified and trained in peer
counseling and student advocacy; used one-to-one
and/or in pairs counseling to heterogeneous
groups of students in the school
20. Physical Restraint
-falls within common law authority of the schools
-teachers may do so to physically control a stu-
dent when the student threatens to harm himself
or others or refuses to obey legitimate requests
21. The "Push-Out" Phenomenon
-students pushed out by intolerable conditions or
discriminatory treatment


46
-the student may be suspended and need a parent
for the re-entry conference; the parent refuses
to accompany the student to school, so the stu-
dent remains out of school
22. Referral for Evaluation
-to get a professional diagnosis and prescription
-to stop punishing the students for exhibiting
their symptoms
-for achievement levels
-to assess strengths and weaknesses
-for the approximate intelligence level
-for learning problems
-for emotional/behavioral problems
-for reading level
23. Reward System
-contingency contracting often used as an alter-
native to suspension with points for appropriate
academic and/or social behavior; rewards for
which points can be exchanged; includes the
setting of goals, written contracts, behavior
counseling, monitoring, and parental involvement
-privileges to give or withdraw
24. Saturday School
-students must work for assigned time


47
-students and parents provide the student's
transportation to and from this program
-based on premise that kids don't want to go to
school on Saturday
25. Schedule Changes, Alternative Experiences, and
Curriculum Changes
26. School Referral Procedure
-well developed, step-by-step procedures of
strategies to be tried by teachers with disrup-
tive students
-referral forms developed for use to document
strategies, tried with a student prior to sending
him/her to the office
27. School Security
-to assist with disruptive and/or potentially
violent students
-to monitor the building in general
28. School Staff as Advocates
-one teacher to a group of students for one or
several years in a small group or advisor group
-SOS (Save One Student) each school person
chooses one disruptive student to counsel and
to support during the year


48
29. Telephone calls
-teachers make telephone calls to parents at the
beginning of the year to introduce themselves
and to discuss expectations
-teachers, counselors, and administrators make
calls to discuss students' problems, potentials,
accomplishments with parents
30. Work details and programs
-work after school, evenings, or weekends to
eliminate misconduct demerits or to serve as
consequence for misbehavior
Discipline has been the most troublesome problem
for public education in the recent past. Public
school officials have been faced with lack of
resources to pursue, study, select, and implement new
discipline strategies while simultaneously being under
pressure from taxpayers, parents, and education
critics to arrive at "quick" solutions to this
diverse, multi-faceted problem. In many cases,
school officials have been left to struggle with
strategies which have been used previously and with
no time or resources for thorough research or local
adaptation. Carefully designed major research efforts
have been in short supply. Teachers have been the
most active proponents of the development of concrete
remedies, calling for crisis intervention and


49
immediate help as they have been bombarded by public
demands, student diversity, and unclear and/or
outmoded policies. They have felt as if there were
little or no time for the development of research or
gradual change; they needed help NOW.
One of the purposes of public education is to
help students adjust normally to their environment.
Schools avoid their responsibilities to educate when
they exclude students who do not adjust naturally to
their environment. Helping such students adjust is
part of the education that schools must provide
(McClung, 1975, p. 70). Public schools will need to
be able to utilize a wide range of alternatives to
maximize effectiveness in meeting the diverse needs
of their students in a complex society.
Part IV: In-School Suspension
"In-school suspension" (ISS) is a relatively new
discipline procedure and strategy.
In such a procedure (in-school suspension),
students for whom suspension from school would
previously have been the normal action are
instead assigned to a closely supervised room
where they are expected to work on their regular
assignments. They may be returned to their
customary freedom of movement when it seems
appropriate. (Encyclopedia of Educational
Research. Vol. 2, 1982, p. 1691)
Factors which led to the advent of ISS programs
were:


50
-court decisions which defined and redefined due
process considerations for students;
-concerns about the negative effects of suspension
and expulsion on students and their education;
-efforts to enlarge the repertoire of discipline
alternatives available to school officials;
-efforts to reduce instances of discipline problems
within the schools while keeping students in the
school environment.
Rationale
Rationales given for the development of ISS
programs in particular schools and districts seem to
be diverse and yet similar in nature. DiScuillo
(1984) noted,
Both the general public and school officials
associate discipline problems (lack of
discipline the number one on the public's atti-
tude toward public schools in the 14th Annual
Gallup Poll) with violations of the schools'
rules and regulations and respect for authority.
Often these violations manifest themselves in
absenteeism, insubordination, drug dealing,
stealing, vandalism, disruption to instruction,
or a combination of the above infractions. . .
the rationale for developing this program (in-
school suspension) grew out of the need to
eliminate the problem of having suspended dis-
ruptive students throughout the community, to
provide proper instruction to suspended students,
to provide for effective communication and public
relations with parents of disruptive students,
and to provide an atmosphere for effective
counseling for the disruptive student.
(p. 328)


51
In 1978, a national congressional study recommended
ISS as a method for dealing with increasing violence
and vandalism (Bayh, 1978).
The rationale for and benefits of ISS centers
have been demonstrated in many programs:
1. protecting the community from vandalism
inflicted by students expelled to the
streets;
2. helping employed parents who cannot supervise
their children during the day;
3. enhancing school finances through average
daily attendance compensation;
4. educating students who would otherwise be
deprived of academic instruction;
5. saving energy and time involved in court
procedures for length out-of-school suspen-
sions;
6. ensuring other students a conducive learning
environment by isolating the disruptors;
and,
7. undermining the attempts of students who
seek home suspension as holidays from school.
([Bornmann, 1976; Brown, 1977; Harvey &
Moosha, 1977; McClung, 1975; Meares &
Kettle, 1976; Mendez, 1977; National School
Public Relations, 1976; Nielsen, 1979a;
Yoakley, 1977; Nielsen, 1979b)
Seyfarth (1980) saw ISS programs as being developed
in recognition of the need for more effective
discipline procedures and as a way of correcting
inherent flaws in traditional suspension. Parents,
students, and school staffs needed to work together in
a team effort to deal realistically in a caring,
confronting posture with behaviors that resulted in
suspension from school. Dilling (1979) noted that
schools needed to deal in more realistic and
accountable ways with the need for the continuing


52
remediation of the suspension-causing behavior within
the very setting in which the misbehavior occurs.
Significantly more students were suspended when there
was an ISS program, but their drop-out and failure
rates were significantly less than for those students
suspended out-of-school (Thweatt, 1980). In selected
Florida public school districts, ISS was the most
common program for alternative education for
disruptive students (Hethington, 1981). Kern (1980)
stated that ISS was a more expensive discipline tool
but that it would continue to be popular in the
1980s; the issue was not really effectiveness but what
the public wanted. There were more working parents
who wanted their children suspended in-school rather
than to have them go unsUpervised. It was important
that the ISS program was seen as a positive program to
help students become successful in school rather than
just a consequence for misbehavior or a form of
punishment (Mosely, 1977; Stressman, 1985).
Lundell (1982) cited the following reasons for
establishing in-school suspension (ISS) programs:
1. In-school suspension (ISS) programs are
effective in reducing misbehavior.
2. In-school suspension (ISS)helps to protect
the community from violence and vandalism.


53
3. Students receive one-to-one assistance with
their school work, resulting in more success
with school work.
4. In-school suspension (ISS) is conducted
within the confines of the school, thus
reducing the need for hearings and other
higher-level legal proceedings.
5. In-school suspension (ISS) programs reduce
students' alienation by keeping them con-
nected to the school and to school personnel.
6. Parents support in-school suspension (ISS)
as a way to continue the educational process,
to focus on remedying the problem, and to
supervise the student during the school day.
7. Schools receive revenues based on student
attendance. In-school suspension (ISS)
programs keep students and the revenues
attached to them in the schools.
8. In-school suspension (ISS) programs help to
keep students in school, to educate them, and
to reduce the financial consequences of
drop-outs (Lundell, 1982, pp. 73-76).
A rationale given for the establishment of in-
school suspension (ISS) has been the need to deal
with school problems in the school environment (Frith,
Lindsey, & Sasser, 1980). One does not change the


54
problem behavior of a student by getting him/her out
of school for a few days. Frith, Lindsey, & Sasser
(1980) studied the Dothan, Alabama, model which was an
alternative school program that kept students with
serious discipline problems within the school
district. The intent was to modify and deter
inappropriate behavior while keeping the offenders
in the normal school environment. They worked to
modify the unacceptable behavior so the student could
function in the regular classroom. A counseling
component helped the students understand their
personal problems through individual and group
counseling (Frith, Lindsey, & Sasser, 1980).
Mendez (1977) stated that the rationale for
discipline was that the action should attempt to
modify the individual's future behavior and must
protect others in the school environment. He believed
that ISS satisfied both and also protected the
community from delinquent behavior that might occur
if a student was out of school. ISS also satisfied
the legal requirements of due process and was
accountable to the community and the parents. It
made the students aware that their actions, not the
school's lack of sensitivity, were responsible for
their situations and that the school would not
tolerate disruptive behavior. Mendez believed we


55
must prevent situations in which we force individuals
to quit.
Harvey and Moosha (1977) stated that ISS leaves
the child in the educational environment where his/her
problem exists and where treatment can address the
causes rather than the symptoms. It allows the school
staff, including the support staff, to work with the
students in a separate environment where individual
problems can receive more attention. ISS allows the
student to remain in school to receive instruction
and to learn, but takes away his/her normal
opportunities for physical mobility and social
interaction; it satisfies the goals of both education
and discipline. It can teach the students to accept
the consequences for their actions and to make them
examine their behavior (Mendez & Sanders, 1981, p.
66) .
Truancy has long been a problem for school
officials. To suspend for truancy seems inane, but
school officials have often resorted to that when
other disciplinary strategies failed to correct the
problem. And yet, the suspension was a reward, a
vacation, and not a deterrent. ISS allows for a
consequence for the truancy, keeps the student in
school, and begins the process of helping the student
to catch up on all of his missed work. It also allows


56
the time necessary for "reattachment" to the school
and to specific school personnel (Grossnickle & Sesko,
1985).
ISS programs have the ability to help students
with discipline problems within the school setting
where they can receive instruction, counseling, and
other resource help (Mosely, 1977). To deprive a
student of instruction is not acting in his/her best
interest. ISS provides students uninterrupted
education opportunities while being disciplined
(Mizell, 1978; Seyfarth, 1980). It keeps the students
from getting behind in their work and from
disassociating with the school and the staff. ISS
programs were established as counseling and/or
academic improvement centers in some schools and
districts for students who would normally have been
suspended at-home for serious disruptive behavior
(Matherson, 1982). When students are kept in school
for their suspensions, their chances for successful
re-entry into classes are greatly increased (Wayson,
1980, pp. 1-2). Preventive and interventive
counseling strategies can give support to students to
change negative behavior patterns and to diagnose
learning difficulties (Grice, 1986).
Discipline, as it relates to handicapped
students, has come under new guidelines. Handicapped


57
students have the right to free, appropriate education
at all times, including those times during a
suspension of more than three days or during
expulsion (Colorado Department of Education, 1988,
pp. 280-301). School districts may use normal
disciplinary procedures for handicapped students in
cases of emergency suspension, but may not use serial
emergency suspensions. If a relationship exists
between the behavior and the handicapping condition,
the handicapped student must be provided with an
alternative setting in which to continue educational
services (Wayson, 1980). ISS programs could be used
as such alternative settings.
Initiators of In-School Suspension
Initiators of ISS programs were predominantly
local school administrators (Chobot & Garibaldi,
1982). Other initiators included individual staff
members, whole staffs of schools, directors of
instruction, counselors, and the whole district
(Matherson, 1982). No matter who initiated the
program, if it was to be successful, the entire staff
had to have a commitment to developing the program,
implementing it, and assessing it for strengths and
weaknesses with commensurate changes.


58
Designs of In-School
Suspension Programs
Several common themes ran through most of the
designs of ISS programs. The programs were designed
to keep students in school instead of suspended out-
of-school.
All have as a core foundation the belief that
maintaining a problem student in the educational
environment is a more effective way of dealing
with inappropriate behavior than out-of-school
suspension. (Winborne, 1980, p. 669)
Consequences for the misbehavior were isolation from
the regular programs and peers, limited or no social
interaction, restricted physical mobility, and
concentration on the performance of academic work.
Mosely stated that ISS was a restricted, nonsocial-
izing school environment in which the student was
given one-to-one assistance with his/her school work,
individual counseling, and an opportunity to modify
his/her behavior in order to move back into the
regular school program successfully (Mosely, 1977,
p. 27) .
A counseling component was present in many of the
ISS programs. This component was considered essential
by those who included it since it is intended to
address the cause of the problem and ultimately the
modification of the unacceptable behavior so the
student can function in the regular classroom setting
(Mendez, 1979). Hochman (1985) found that counseling


59
components of ISS programs had a significant, positive
effect on the self-defeating academic behaviors of
students assigned to ISS programs. Moore recommended
the following for ISS programs:
-more active involvement of support personnel
such as psychologists, aides, and peer
counselors;
-more emphasis on positive, corrective, and
rehabilitative processes;
-inclusion of an academic component;
-written goals and objectives;
-follow-up with students after they leave ISS;
-evaluation based on goals and objectives;
-well-funded program;
-program strongly supported by all school
personnel (Moore, i989, pp. 105-107).
Nielsen (1979a, 1979b) advocated parental
consent, individual records of students' progress,
and use of specific techniques for in-school
suspension. Techniques suggested were educational
games, role playing, contingency contracting, daily
communication slips, use of video tape machines,
individual progress charts publicly displayed, earned
leisure time, peer tutoring, individual instruction,
social conversations with the teacher, and auto-
biographical surveys that familiarized adults with


60
the students' lives. The program consisted of one
hour for group counselling and four hours for
academic work. There was free time at the end of the
day that could be earned by fulfilling the contingency
contract. Communication slips were sent home if the
student was well-behaved.
For accountability and evaluation purposes,
McClung (1975) suggested that the following evaluation
criteria be included in ISS programs:
-Is there real evidence over a period of time
that the number of suspensions are actually
reduced by the use of this program?
-Does the alternative program truly help the
student who would have been suspended? Does it
help solve the problem that led to the discipli-
nary action?
-Is the student making genuine academic progress
at a level which is appropriate for him/her if
he/she participates in this program?
-As a result of the use of this program, does
the student begin to develop greater self-
discipline?
-Does the program infringe on the student's
dignity, privacy, free expression, or other
civil liberties? (p. 65)


61
Other ideas suggested for inclusion included documen-
tation by race, sex, type of offense, and recidivism
rates.
Well-trained, enthusiastic staff and support
personnel set the tone and delivered the program;
caring, accessible, helpful staff members seemed to
be pivotal to the program. A low student/teacher
ratio was considered a critical element (Chobot &
Garibaldi, 1982).
The ISS program described by Dilling (1979)
included six key components:
1. The program was staffed by two teachers.
Each worked in the in-school suspension program for a
three hour block and additionally taught two other
classes.
2. The family, the student, and the counselor
held sessions to determine the causes, goals, and
future educational possibilities; assessment; and
placing of responsibility where they are known and
agreed upon by all concerned in accountable ways.
3. Administrators could suspend for three days,
five days, or longer. Then the family and the student
were offered the option of attending the ATS
(Alternative to Suspension) program or of going home.
4. Students in ATS attended one of two three-


62
hour blocks. They reported after school began and
left immediately after the three hour block ended and
were not allowed on the campus otherwise.
5. If the student remained in the program for
longer than the original terms, there was a gradual
release to one or more classes with hall and social
privileges.
6. Personal and/or group counseling, which
included the counselor, the ATS teacher, the parents,
and the student, occurred before, during, and after
placement in the ATS program. Each adult who lived
in the home was required, as a condition for the stu-
dent's placement into the ATS program, to attend at
least one counseling session while the student was in
the program. These sessions were held in the evenings
and weekends; they focused on the behavior displayed,
home conduct, the goals of education expected by the
home, feelings about home, achievements of the stu-
dent, what the school expected of the student, and
what the school was doing for the student. If the
student was to be enrolled in the program on a longer
term basis, the parent(s) had to continue in the par-
enting class for the student to remain in the program;
if the parent(s) didn't attend, the student was
removed from the ATS program and was changed to an
at-home suspension (Dilling, 1979).


63
HOKIS (Hardin Operation Keep In School) at L. L.
Hardin Junior High School in St. Charles, Missouri,
was intended to keep students in school while they
paid for their misconduct, to give them individualized
instruction, to demonstrate to the student that they
can follow a set of precise rules, to create a
positive image for parents, and to benefit the school
district by maintaining average daily attendance
funds. The students reported directly to the room to
participate in a two-part day. The morning session
(8:00 A.M. to 12:00 noon) was a work session. The
students ate a hot or sack lunch in the room at 12:00
noon; no snacks were allowed. The afternoon session
consisted of films, discussion, and rap session with
the assistant principal, or students could choose to
continue working on their assignments. There were
three breaks per day of five minutes each. Students
could not attend student functions (Bornmann, 1976).
O'Brien (1976) reported the ISS (In-School
Suspension) program as three-fourths education and
one-fourth punishment. The Minnesota program
included:
1. It took severe behavior to get into ISS
(smoking pot, drinking alcohol, or using drugs on
school grounds; perpetual truancy; exhibition of


64
violent behavior).
2. No talking.
3. Use of red ink for questions and black ink
for answers.
4. Eating lunch before other students.
5. Exclusion from extracurricular activities
and pep rallies.
6. Writing of two 500-word essays.
7. Not wanting ISS to be a vacation from their
regular class work.
8. Work based on each individual's ability.
9. Working with other agencies to try to help
the student work out his problems and to give him
reasons to stay in school. The elements of basic
rationality and fairness may have been the reason for
the strong community support for the ISS program
(O'Brien, 1976).
Winborne (1980) studied the King William County,
Virginia, model, the Alternative Citizenship Program,
which was a therapeutic model. It was intended to
help students in grades eight through 12 who would
otherwise be suspended from school; to overcome the
education disadvantages of minority group isolation;
to provide individualized academic and behavioral
intervention and to increase the success of re-entry
into the regular classroom. The two major approaches


65
were punishment in the form of isolation from peers
and academic and/or behavior crisis intervention in
the forms of intensive tutoring, counseling, and
evaluation. When a student had completed his/her
stay, academic and behavior modification plans were
written and sent to the referring teacher and
interested others. Follow-up observations by tutors
were provided at regular intervals to assess the
student's progress. This program was staffed by one
coordinating teacher and three para-professional
tutors who worked one-to-one with students in the pro-
gram and who could be assigned to attend regular
classes with the student after ISS to facilitate re-
entry and implementation of the academic and behavior
modification plan. The coordinator planned
strategies and conducted formal assessments and coun-
seling; the tutors were involved in individualized
instruction, affective listening, and informal
assessments. There were no group activities, only
individual ones. The principal notified the parents,
the coordinator, and the classroom teachers; the
student began the next morning. A social history
from the counselor, an educational evaluation from
the referring teacher, and current educational
objectives from the classroom teacher were requested.
Each student was considered a separate case; the needs


66
of the student determined which phase(s) of the
program (assessment, remediation, continuance of the
current educational objectives, counseling) were
emphasized (Winborne, 1980) .
Chobot and Garibaldi (1982) pointed out that the
smooth functioning of the referral process was crucial
to the success of the ISS program. It provided the
control that kept the program from becoming a dumping
ground and instead reached those who would benefit
most from the program. To facilitate this, the
principal or his/her designee was generally the person
who was in charge of the placement of students into
the ISS program, with teachers referring students'
cases to the principal or his designee for dispensa-
sation. In some cases, students could refer
themselves (Chobot & Garibaldi, 1982).
The Learning Adjustment Center at Knoxville
Junior High School in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, was
established after concern about increasing suspension
rates prompted lowered student-administrator and
student/counselor ratios along with expanded tutorial
and in-service education programs, and these had
failed to curb increasing suspension rates. The LAC
could handle up to 10 students and was monitored by
regular school employees. Students signed a contract,
and a copy was mailed to the parent(s). Results of


67
the LAC indicate students and teachers have cooperated
well. Initially some of the faculty members had
suspicions about the program, but they accepted the
concept. The most important result was that the
suspension rate was reduced by 50 percent (Lundell,
1982, pp. 76-77).
Lundell (1982) studied the In-School Suspension
Program at Bayside Junior and Senior High School in
Virginia Beach, Virginia. The program included
referrals to the program being made by the assistant
principal, with him determining the length of the
student's stay. The program coordinator contacted
the regular teachers for information about the
academic and social behavior of the student. When
the student entered the program, he/she was given the
rules and a contract was signed. The student was
tested to determine his/her interests and academic
skill levels. The student did not receive credit in
his/her regular classroom for work done in the
suspension center. While there, the student worked on
prepared tests and projects kept in folders in the
center. Evaluation of the program indicated
significantly reduced total numbers of suspension and
of repeat offenders. During the first year the number
of student suspensions were reduced by 42% at the
junior high school and by 29% at the senior high


68
school. The number of students suspended four or
more times was reduced by 94% at the high school. It
was a bridge in the educational process, one that
focused on behavior and modifying and channeling
improper behavior into a more positive direction
(Lundell, 1982, pp. 79-80).
In his study of secondary principals in
Pennsylvania, Haupt (1987) concluded that secondary
principals perceived ISS as a useful discipline
strategy. Principals found ISS effective in reducing
disciplinary referrals and suspensions and in
maintaining a productive classroom learning atmosphere
by removing disruptive students.
In 1979-80 in the 32 southernmost counties in
Illinois, Garrett (1981) found ISS programs very
successful in reducing numbers of out-of-school
suspensions, and they were strongly supported by
parents, educators, and boards of education.
However, the evaluation data showed uncertainty as to
whether the program had improved the students'
behavior. Encouragement was given for the supportive
and rehabilitative potential to be built up and for
continued searching for programs and strategies that
reduce out-of-school suspension that cause
significant reductions in student misbehavior.
The William A. Wirt High School Behavior Modi-


69
fication Clinic in Gary, Indiana, was established in
1977 to help students who exhibited inappropriate
behavior to learn positive, appropriate ways of
behavior as they learned that others were not accep-
ted. Activities in decision-making, communication
skills, life skills, consumerism, values clarifi-
cation, and interpersonal skills were conducted to
make the student more aware and respectful of himself
and others; these were supplements to academic activi-
ties and the upgrading of deficient skills (National
School Resource Network, 1981).
Assessments of In-School
Suspension Programs
The effectiveness of ISS programs ranged from
less than effective to very effective. There were
numerous reports in the literature about the successes
of ISS programs, but Collins (1985b) believed that the
failures were also present but less often reported.
Research studies which show the full range of
effectiveness follow:
1. No significant differences in regard to
absenteeism, recidivism, grade, gender, minority
status, family configuration, and achievement levels
between ISS with assignments and ISS without assign-
ments were reported by Lynch (1983).


70
2. Moore questioned whether ISS improved
behavior or whether it was just another form of
punishment (Moore, 1989).
3. In a study of Missouri school districts in
1978-79, the chi-square values were not found to be
statistically significant at the .05 level of confi-
dence with respect to the effectiveness of in-school
suspension programs based on the difference in
behavior of the students who had been assigned to in-
school suspension (Hadd, 1980).
4. Mendez and Sanders (1981) found that claims
of effectiveness of ISS programs were not as expected
or as complete as claimed in some evaluations.
5. Primary focuses on ISS as punishment, with
minimal academic and behavioral components, led Short
and Noblit (1985) to conclude that ISS programs were
not achieving what the literature proposed.
6. Mizell (1978) stated that ISS, just as many
other disciplinary practices, could fail because it
focused on the symptoms instead of the causes for
assignment to ISS.
7. ISS has the potential to significantly
improve student behavior and to reduce out-of-school
suspensions, but this will happen only if ISS is
developed as a supportive, rehabilitate program rather
than just another way to punish (Garrett, 1981).


71
8. There were more students suspended when there
was an ISS program available, but dropout and failure
rates were significantly less than for those suspended
out-of-school (Thweatt, 1980).
9. Benefits of ISS programs were reduction of
suspension, reductions in recidivism and misconduct,
more parental involvement with school personnel,
teacher satisfaction, and improved image of the school
in the community (Bornmann, 1976; Brown, 1977; Clark,
1978a, 1978b; Harvey & Moosha, 1977; National School
Public Relations, 1976; Yoakley, 1977).
10. McMurren's (1980) major finding and
conclusion were that students who received internal
ISS would more likely improve in personal adjustment
than out-of-school suspended students and that
externally suspended students were more likely to
receive subsequent suspension than internally
suspended students. His conclusion was that as an
approach towards reducing disruptive student behavior,
internal ISS was preferable to external, out-of-school
suspension,
11. ISS programs leave the student in the
educational environment, where the problem exists and
where treatment can address the causes rather than
the symptoms. In-school suspension placements force
the students to examine the causes of the in-school


72
suspension placements and to determine for themselves
whether they wish to avoid the situation in the
future, to deal with all areas of academic work, and
to make them do work they would not have done out-of-
school. It is a bridge instead of a break in the
education process. It focuses on behavior and on
modifying and channeling improper behavior into a
more positive direction (Harvey & Moosha, 1977).
12. "Despite the obstacles encountered in estab-
lishing the eight in-school suspension centers, the
benefits for students were overwhelmingly positive"
(Nielson, 1979b, p. 331).


CHAPTER III
DESIGN OF THE STUDY
The problem of this study was to investigate the
characteristics of ISS programs in public secondary
schools in the state of Colorado. This was a
descriptive research study using a survey technique
with a self-administered, structured questionnaire
consisting of 31 items. According to Babbie (1979),
survey research:
is probably the best method available to the
social scientist interested in collecting
original data for purposes of describing a
population too large to observe directly.
Careful probability of sampling provides a group
of respondents whose characteristics may be
taken as representative of those of the larger
population, and carefully constructed
standardized questionnaires provide data in the
same form from all respondents.
These data are useful as a resource for anyone who is
interested in providing alternatives to at-home
suspension, to school personnel who may want to
establish and implement an ISS program, and to those
who may want to re-evaluate their ISS programs in
light of the key components of others' programs.


74
The questionnaire included the following
sections: general information, background informa-
tion, rationale for the ISS program, organizational
structure, delivery of the ISS program, the ISS
staff, and assessment of the ISS program.
Questions Posed bv the Study
These were the questions posed by the study:
1. To what extent do public secondary schools
in Colorado utilize in-school suspension programs as
a part of their discipline programs?
2. How long have the in-school suspension pro-
grams been in operation?
3. What were the origins of the plans used?
4. What were the reasons why the in-school sus-
pension programs were developed and implemented?
5. What were the goals of the programs?
6. What intervention strategies were employed
prior to referral to in-school suspension?
7. What were the criteria for placement into
in-school suspension?
8. What were the organizational structures for
developing and implementing in-school suspension
programs?


75
9. What were the key components of the daily
in-school suspension programs for students?
10. How were the in-school suspension programs
staffed?
11. What was the perceived effectiveness of the
in-school suspension programs? On what were these
perceptions based?
12. What were the perceived strengths and weak-
nesses of the in-school suspension programs?
Sampling Procedures
Each school year the Colorado Department of Edu-
cation publishes the Colorado Education Directory
which identifies all public schools in the state of
Colorado. The population of this investigation
included all schools listed in the Colorado Education
Directory. 1988-1989. as secondary schools, for a
total of 476 schools. Schools which were identified
in this secondary school population included those
with any of the following grade level configurations:
4-8; 5-6; 6-7; 6-8; 6-9; 6-12; 7-8; 7-9; 7-12; 8-9;
9-12; 10-12 grades. The schools were divided into
eight "School District by Setting Categories" by the
Colorado Department of Education. Using the Fall,
1988 Colorado Department of Education membership for


76
Secondary Schools by District Setting, the researcher
determined that there were 28 schools in Setting #1 -
Core City, 106 schools in Setting #2 Denver Metro;
102 schools in Setting #3 Urban/Suburban; 35 schools
in Setting #4 Outlying City; 89 schools in Setting
#5 Outlying Town; 72 schools in Setting #6 Rural;
14 schools in Setting #8 Recreational; and 30
schools in Setting #8 Small Attendance Districts.
The population of each school, as well as the grade
levels represented at each school, were also included
in this membership listing and were utilized in
reporting data from this study. This produced a total
of 476 secondary schools in the state of Colorado.
In an attempt to solicit representative responses
from all Colorado State Department of Education
Settings by district, by size, and by grade-level
categories, the researcher and her thesis committee
made the decision to sample all 476 schools instead
of drawing a random sample from each setting.
A listing of the population of Colorado Schools used
for this survey is included in Appendix A. "School
Districts by Setting Categories" is in Appendix B.
"School Districts by Setting Categories Definition
of Setting Categories" is in Appendix C.


77
Data-Gatherinq Techniques
Principals of Colorado secondary schools were
surveyed by the use of a self-administered question-
naire mailed to them. The mailing included the
following:
1. Cover letter (with an endorsement signature
from the major advisor). The cover letter explained
the purpose of the questionnaire, gave directions for
its return, and thanked the respondent for his/her
cooperation.
2. Questionnaire.
3. A stamped and addressed return envelope.
The cover letter and questionnaire appear in Appen-
dices D and E.
Questionnaires were mailed to the principals of
these 476 schools. The principals were asked to
complete the questionnaire themselves or to ask
someone knowledgeable about the school1s in-school
suspension (ISS) program to do so. The first mailing
was sent on October 24, 1989; a total of 249 question-
naires was returned from the first mailing. The
second mailing was sent on November 28, 1989; a total
of 98 questionnaires was returned from the second
mailing.


78
Records were kept as to the date of instrument
return for the purpose of a follow-up mailing to non-
respondents. The initial mailing resulted in 249
completed surveys, or a 52% return. Six weeks after
the initial mailing, follow-up materials were sent to
the non-respondents. The follow-up packet contained
a second cover letter, another copy of the instrument
and a return envelope. The second cover letter
appears in Appendix F. The return envelope of the
follow-up mailing was coded in a color different from
the first to indicate how many responses were
returned from the first and second mailings. The
follow-up mailing resulted in an additional 98
completed surveys. The total return of completed
surveys was 347, or 73 percent of the population.
Development of the Questionnaire
After an extensive study of research findings
and educational literature, the researcher drafted a
questionnaire for this study. It contained general
information, background information, rationale for
the ISS program, organizational structure, delivery
of the ISS program, the ISS staff, and assessment of
the ISS program. Suggestions from a panel of experts


79
and a pilot test of the questionnaire modified the
questionnaire as needed.
Panel of Experts
A preliminary draft of survey questions was sub-
mitted to a panel of educational experts in order to
gain their reactions and suggestions. This panel
consisted of:
Dr. Albert Aguayo, Assistant Superintendent,
Denver Public Schools, 900 Grant Street,
Denver, Colorado 80203
Mr. Vincent Capillupo, Assistant Principal, Powell
Middle School, Littleton Public Schools,
8000 South Corona Way, Littleton, Colorado 80122
Dr. Rodney Killian, Director of Planning and
Evaluation, Aurora Public Schools,
1085 Peoria Street, Aurora, Colorado 80011
Dr. Tom Maglaras, Director of Middle Schools,
Aurora Public Schools, 1085 Peoria Street,
Aurora, Colorado 800111
Dr. Sam McGowan, Superintendent of Schools,
Paris Union District 95, 414 South Main,
Paris, Illinois, 61944
Mr. Emory C. Oliver, Superintendent of Schools,
Kingston K-14 School District, Box 501,
Cadet, Missouri 63630


80
These panelists were asked to evaluate the survey for
clarity, appropriateness, and comprehensiveness.
They critiqued the survey for the following:
1. Format
2. Inclusion and exclusion of necessary and
unnecessary components
3. Inclusion and exclusion of necessary and
unnecessary details
4. Grammar and syntax
5. Statistical validity
6. Overall improvements of the survey.
Recommendations from the panel of educational experts
were incorporated into the questionnaire. A copy of
the letter sent to each expert panelist is included
in Appendix G.
Pilot Instrument
The Survey of In-School Suspension Programs was
pilot tested with a graduate class of 13 students in
the School of Education at the University of Colorado,
Denver. The graduate students were primarily teachers
who were pursuing administrative certification, with
the remaining students being school administrators.
The purpose of the pilot test was to identify any
potential problems with the survey instrument


81
relative to clarity, appropriateness, and compre-
hensiveness. Each individual was asked to communi-
cate to the researcher any suggestions for
improvement of the instrument. Suggestions from
these individuals were evaluated for relevance and
inclusion into the final instrument.
Analysis and Treatment of the Data
Data from the surveys were collected in the fall
of 1989 and analyzed using descriptive and inferen-
tial statistics. The SPSS/PCT V 3.0, a Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences, was used. Since
many of the questions could have more than one
response, SPSS Tables V 2.0 package was used to
analyze the multiple response and multiple dichotomy
variables. Frequency distributions and percentage
tables showing the responses to each survey item for
the entire sample were developed. A correlation
matrix of the 20 items from a scale within the survey,
perceived strength and weaknesses of ISS programs,
was also generated. Chi-square and analysis of
variance statistical tests were performed as
appropriate to determine if any statistically
significant differences (p < .05) existed.


82
A comparison was made between the initial group
of respondents and the group who responded after
receipt of the follow-up packet. Chi-squares were
used to assess the probability that both groups of
respondents were from the same population.
Additional analyses were performed utilizing the
independent variables of the district classification
as to setting category, school enrollment, and grade
levels to assess the relationships of these variables
to the survey findings. A series of one-way analyses
of variance (ANOVAs) and chi-squares were computed
for each of the independent variables and each survey
variable.
The findings of the study are reported and dis-
cussed in Chapter IV.


CHAPTER IV
REPORT OF THE FINDINGS
Introduction
This chapter reports the findings from the
questionnaire responses. The responses represent
public secondary school educators' perceptions of the
characteristics of in-school suspension programs (ISS)
in the State of Colorado, as well as desired modifica-
tions. The findings are reported in both tabular
form and narrative description. In-school suspension
programs will be identified as ISS.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the
characteristics of ISS programs in secondary schools
of the State of Colorado. This was a descriptive
research study using a survey technique with a self-
administered questionnaire consisting of 31 items.
The questionnaire included the following sections:
general information, background information, goals of
the ISS program, organizational structure, delivery
of the ISS program, the ISS staff, and assessment of
the ISS program. This knowledge is useful as a
resource to anyone who is interested in providing


84
alternatives to at-home suspension, to school
personnel who may want to establish and implement an
ISS program, and to those who may want to re-evaluate
their ISS programs in light of the key components of
others1 programs.
The study sought answers to the following
research questions:
1. To what extent do public secondary schools
in Colorado utilize in-school suspension programs as
a part of their discipline programs?
2. How long have the in-school suspension
programs been in operation?
3. What were the origins of the plans used?
4. What were the reasons why the in-school
suspension programs were developed and implemented?
5. What were the goals of the programs?
6. What intervention strategies were employed
prior to referral to in-school suspension?
7. What were the criteria for placement into
in-school suspension?
8. What were the organizational structures for
developing and implementing in-school suspension
programs?
9. What were the key components of the daily
in-school suspension programs for students?


85
10. How were the in-school suspension programs
staffed?
11. What were the perceived effectivenesses of
the in-school suspension programs? On what were these
perceptions based?
12. What were the perceived strengths and weak-
nesses of the in-school suspension programs?
Description of the Respondents
Questionnaires were mailed to the principals of
the 476 secondary schools in the state of Colorado.
Table 1 presents the return rates for the study.
The respondents from the initial group and those who
were sent a follow-up letter were examined for any
significant differences. As shown in Table 2, the
chi-square yielded a significance value of p < .04;
however, when the Yates Correction for 2x2 tables
was applied, it yielded a significance of p < .056.
There was a significant trend for schools with ISS
programs to respond to the initial mailing more than
schools without ISS programs.
The questionnaires for this survey were completed
predominantly by administrators. Respondents included


86
Table 1
Return Rates
Mailing Percentages of Responses Frequency
First 52% (249)
Second 21% ( 98)
Total Return 73% (347)
No Return 27% (129)
Total 100% (476)
Table 2
Comparison of First and Second Mailinas with ResDect
to ISS Proarams
Mailing ISS Program-YES ISS Program-NO Total
First 69% (171) 31% (78) 100% (249)
Second 57% ( 56) 43% (42) 100% ( 98)
Chi-square 4.13
Chi-square with Yates correction = 3.64
df = 1
Significance = p < .04 Chi-square
p < .056 Chi-square with Yates
correction


87
principals, 190 (56%); assistant principals, 91 (27%);
superintendents, 18 (5%); deans of students, 10 (3%);
administrative assistants, 8 (2%), and others, 24
(7%). Only six cases were not identified by the job
title of the person completing the survey, so they
could not be included in this analysis.
Questions Posed bv the Study
This section presents findings related to the
questions posed by the study. Findings are reported
for the sample as a whole. The questions on the
questionnaire have been identified as they relate to
the research questions and are reported under the
most appropriate research question. The results for
each research question are reported for the respon-
dents to the questionnaire with ISS programs (n =
227) as a total group and represent the bulk of this
section.
Additional chi-square analyses were performed
utilizing the three major descriptor variables
(Colorado Department of Education Setting Categories,
population categories, grade level categories) and
survey questions which produced category data suitable
for chi-square analysis. Significant chi-square
analysis findings are reported on pp. 154 to 159.


Full Text

PAGE 1

A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF IN-SCHOOL SUSPENSION PROGRAMS IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN THE STATE OF COLORADO by Nadine Baszler Fuller Johnson B.A., North Dakota State University, 1967 M.A., University of Northern Colorado, 1977 A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy School of Education 1991

PAGE 2

by Nadine Baszler Fuller Johnson All rights reserved.

PAGE 3

This thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy degree by Nadine Baszler Fuller Johnson has been approved for the School of Education by 4, !99/ /

PAGE 4

Johnson, Nadine Baszler Fuller (Ph.D., Education) A Descriptive study of In-School Suspension Programs in Secondary Schools in the State of Colorado Thesis directed by Professor Bob L. Taylor The problem of this study was to investigate the characteristics of in-school suspension programs in public secondary schools in the state of Colorado. his was a descriptive research study using a survey technique with a self-administered, structured questionnaire. The population of this investigation included all schools listed in the Colorado Education Directory, 1988-89 as secondary schools, for a total of 476 schools. Conclusions from this study follow: 1. Statistical differences were found between schools having and not having ISS programs based on school location, size, and grade level configuration. Middle-level schools of moderate size in more urban settings had the highest percentage of ISS programs. 2. Opposition to ISS programs centered on lack of money and facilities. 3. Most school personnel were involved to some extent in the development of ISS programs, with

PAGE 5

parents and students being involved minimally or not at all. v 4. There was a discrepancy between one of the primary stated goals of most ISS programs, to modify inappropriate behavior, and the actual attention devoted to positive behavior change. 5. Most students were assigned to ISS for just one day, bringing up the issue of adequate time to address causes and to make a difference with students. 6. Noticeably lacking in most ISS programs were active tutoring and counseling components. 7. Systematic follow-up support with students after they left ISS was a missing component of many ISS programs. a. Systematic evaluation of ISS programs was not well established in ISS programs. 9. Parent involvement and support for ISS were not well established in ISS programs. 10. ISS has the potential to become a positive program to help keep students in school and to help students become more successful there.

PAGE 6

vi The form and content of this abstract are approved. I recommend its Si

PAGE 7

CONTENTS CHAPTER I. II. THE PROBLEM. . Introduction Statement of the Problem Research Questions Posed in the Study. . . . . . . Significance of the study . Definition of Terms Limitations of the Study Assumptions . Organization of the Study . REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND RELATED RESEARCH . . Part I: Organizational Features Which Affect Student Performance 1 1 8 9 10 11 13 13 14 15 and Behavior 15 Part II: Suspension 23 Part III: Alternatives to Suspension. 34 Part IV: In-School Suspension 49 Rationale. 50 Initiators of In-School Suspension 57 Designs of In-School Suspension Programs . . 58

PAGE 8

III. IV. viii Assessments of In-School Suspension Programs 69 DESIGN OF THE STUDY 73 Questions Posed by the Study 74 Sampling Procedures. 75 Data-Gathering Techniques 77 Development of the Questionnaire 78 Panel of Experts 79 Pilot Instrument 80 Analysis and Treatment of the Data 81 REPORT OF THE FINDINGS 83 Introduction 83 Description of the Respondents 85 Questions Posed by the study Question 1: To What Extent Do Public Secondary Schools in Colorado Utilize In-School Suspension programs as a Part of Their Discipline Programs Question 2: How Long Have the ISS Programs Been in Operation? . Question 3: What Were the Origins of the Plan Used?. . Question 4: What Were the Reasons Why the In-School Suspension Programs Were Developed and Implemented? . Question 5: What Were the Goals of the ISS Programs. Question 6: What Intervention Strategies Were Employed Prior to Referral to ISS? . 87 88 94 96 98 98 103

PAGE 9

v. Question 7: What Were the Criteria for Placement into In-School Suspension? .. Question 8: What Were the Organizational Structures for Developing and Implementing ix 107 In-School Suspension Programs? 110 Question 9: What Were the Key Components of the Daily ISS Programs for Students. . Question 10: How Were the In School Suspension Programs Staffed? Question 11: What Was the Perceived Effectiveness of the In-School Suspension Programs? On What Were These Perceptions 115 119 Based? 120 Question 12. What Were the Perceived Strengths and Weaknesses of the In-School Suspension Programs? Open-Ended Questions and Respondents Answers Additional Analyses. summary of Findings . SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . summary . conclusions. Recommendations. 136 144 152 159 165 165 173 176 Recommendations for Further Study. 178 REFERENCES. . . 180

PAGE 10

APPENDICES. 197 A. COLORADO STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 1988 MEMBERSHIP FOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS BY DISTRICT SETTING. 198 B. SCHOOL DISTRICTS BY SETTING CATEGORIES 218 C. SCHOOL DISTRICTS BY SETTING CATEGORIES-DEFINITION OF SETTING CATEGORIES 220 D. INITIAL COVER LETTER 222 E. QUESTIONNAIRE . ,224 F. FOLLOW-UP COVER LETTER 232 G. LETTER TO PANEL OF EXPERTS 234 X

PAGE 11

TABLES Table 1. Return Rates. 86 2. Comparison of First and Second Mailings with Respect to ISS Programs. 86 3. Status of ISS Programs in Secondary Schools in Colorado 88 4. Comparison of Schools in Colorado State Department of Education District Settings That Responded to Questionnaire . . 90 5. Comparison of Colorado State Department of Education by District Settings with Respect to ISS Programs. 91 6. Comparison of Schools with ISS Programs by School Size Categories . 92 7. Comparison of Schools with ISS Programs by Grade Level Categories . 93 8. Reasons Reported for Not Having an ISS Program. 95 9. Comparison of Schools Based on ISS Programs and How Long ISS Programs Have Been in Operation. . 96 10. Percentage of Respondents Who Identified Participants Who Aided in the Development of ISS Programs. 97 11. 12. Percentage of Respondents Who Identified These Reasons for Developing and Implementing ISS Programs ...... Percentage of Respondents Who Identified These Goals as Goals of Their ISS Programs 99 100

PAGE 12

13. Report of Most Important Goals of 14. ISS Programs. . . Report of Strategies Used in the overall Discipline Process at Respondents Schools .... 15. Report of strategies Used with xii 102 104 Students Prior to Placement in ISS. 106 16. Behaviors that Might Result in a student's Placement into ISS. 108 17. Report of the Most Frequent Behaviors that Resulted in Student's Placement into ISS. 109 18. Average Length of Assignment to ISS 111 19. Average Number of Students Assigned to ISS at One Time 112 20. Activities from Which Students Assigned to ISS Are Restricted. 21. ISS Program Evaluated at Least 113 Annually? 115 22. Key Components of ISS Programs for students. 116 23. Parental Involvement in ISS Programs. 118 24. Personnel Who Staff ISS Programs. 119 25. Staffing for ISS Programs Compared by Colorado S.tate Department of Education District Setting 26. Respondents Perceptions of Effectiveness of ISS Programs in Accomplishing Specific Goals. 27. Significant One-Way Analyses of Variance Between Three Main Descriptor Variables and Fifteen Dependent Variables in 121 122 Table 16. 126

PAGE 13

28. Respondents' Perceptions of Status of Referrals, Recidivism of Referrals, and suspensions Since xiii ISS Program in Operation. . 134 29. Respondents' Perceptions on Percentage of student Population Involved in ISS Programs During 1988-89 School Year . . . 135 30. Grade Levels That Had More Students Assigned to ISS Programs. 136 31. Respondents' Perceptions of Strengths and Weaknesses of ISS Programs. 138 32. Correlation Matrix of Twenty Items Regarding Perceived strengths and Weaknesses of ISS Programs. 143 33. Significant Chi-Square Relationships between Three Main Descriptor Variables . . . 156

PAGE 14

CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction In the second half of the twentieth century, schools in the United states have been impacted by diverse factors. Discipline continues to be a major concern in public schools. Teachers complain that discipline and disciplinary referrals consume a large portion of their instructional time (Hampton & Lauer, 1981, p. 220). In recent Gallup Polls, one of the public's major concerns with respect to education has been discipline--violence and disruption in the school and the means to control it. In the 18th Annual Gallup Poll done in 1986 (Gallup, 1986, pp. 43-60), .the public's perception of. the biggest problems with which the public schools have to deal were the use of drugs, number one, and the lack of discipline, number two. This was the first year that use of drugs claimed the number one position; in all other recent Gallup polls, lack of discipline held the primary position (Gallup, 1986, pp. 44-45).

PAGE 15

2 The Back to Basics movement focused on reading, writing, and arithmetic in the academic areas but also on the need to get back to "basic" behavioral expectations and consequences for students. Reports on the status of education in the United States in the late 1970s and early 1980s stressed the need for accountability on the part of the schools, with accountability including increased responsibility for keeping more students in school, for helping all of them to learn, and for their achievement. A post-World War II divorce boom changed the structure of many American families. Consequences of this included changes in economic status, increases in the numbers of children who did not live with both natural parents, increases in the numbers of mothers who worked outside the home, and increases in homes headed by females. The feminist and minority equality movements focused attention on male/female roles and relationships, equality of opportunity, and equality of education. The American economic system continued to move from a rural, agriculture-based economy to an urban, industrialized economy. In an agricultural society children were desired and needed; they had a specific, helping role. In urban, industrialized societies, children have no specific role and are not

PAGE 16

3 needed for the livelihood of the family; instead, based on the inability of the economy to handle larger numbers in the work force, childhood had been extended. Children had become an economic liability. And, in an industrialized society there was more need for education, more children than ever before were expected to continue their education through the high school level and even further. Added to this was the mobility caused by the shifting job market; this meant the loss of the extended family units and hence fewer support systems for many families. There were major judicial implications for schools and their students as a result of court decisions from the 1960s and on. Historically, school boards, through the state legislatures, have had almost total authority to establish policies to control student behavior and to maintain order. School officials assumed the disciplinary powers given to the students' parents through the concept of "in loco parentis" (State ex rel. Burpee v.Burton, 45 Wis. 150, [1878]). These were the bases for the disciplinary authority in the schools until the 1960s. In the 1960s the courts began to give new interpretations in light of students' constitutional rights. Beginning with the Gault case in 1967, the United

PAGE 17

4 States Supreme Court rendered a series of landmark decisions which enumerated the substantive and procedural due process rights of students and how these affected school personnel and the juvenile justice system as they affected disciplinary sanctions. The justices stated that juveniles had been denied Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments protections of the United States Constitution. The Tinker decision in 1969 stated that First Amendment rights did apply to children; it set parameters on school officials' authority to limit freedom of expression to legitimate educational and safety issues. In the Goss v. Lopez decision (Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 95Ct. 729, 42 L.Ed.2d 725 [1975]) in 1975, the United States Supreme Court established procedural due process for both short-and long-term suspensions. This case established clear student property interest in an education. The Wood v. Strickland decision in 1975 stated that school board members were not immune from claims of liability if they acted maliciously or without regard for the students constitutional rights. These and other significant court decisions influenced changes in the discipline techniques available to school officials. School officials began to rely on the removal of the

PAGE 18

5 disruptive, disobedient students from school, all the while following due process criteria for short-term suspensions. The need for an education in a fast-paced, industrialized economy, coupled with new awareness regarding rights of students, brought attention from civil rights and child advocacy groups who questioned the disproportionate number of minority children suspended. Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, restricted school officials' use of consequences if the actions changed the students' academic programs (individualized educational plans) or if the misbehavior was the result of the handicapping condition. School districts became aware of the financial losses resulting from students who were not in attendance. The public became aware of the costs to society of educational interruptions--unsupervised children, drop-outs, lower paying jobs, loss of income and other tax revenues, need for welfare support, criminal activities, increased health problems, and reduced political understanding and involvement. For the student, suspension from school could mean falling behind in work, inability to do the work in progress when he/she returned, attention turned elsewhere, and

PAGE 19

misbehavior which set up a cycle of suspension that reinforced negative behavior and sometimes forced students out of schools. 6 In light of these new influences, schools had to reexamine their discipline policies and procedures and to assume more responsibility for keeping students in school. Codes of behavior were now standard in most schools. Consequences for breaking codes of behavior were expected to show a reasonable series of stages which attempted to remedy the problem. These ranges of consequences sometimes included an alternative to removing a misbehaving student from hisjher regular class(es) while keeping himjher in school in order to maintain the schooljstudent contact. Programs for this purpose had various names--inschool suspension, in-house suspension, and various acronyms. These in-school suspension (ISS) programs usually placed a student in an isolated, small, highly structured setting for a period of time ranging from one period to several days. In-school suspension (ISS) kept the students' academic progress from being severely disrupted, kept the students off the streets, maintained the revenues going to the school districts, gave the opportunity for individualized attention to the problem and the students in a small

PAGE 20

7 setting, and was advocated by society at large and by parents. Frith, Lindsey, and Sasser (1980) reported reductions in out-of-school student suspensions in the Dothan, Alabama, school system from 878, in 1976-77, to three in 1977-78, after an alternative program was implemented (pp. 637-638). Nielsen (1979) reported that in-school suspension (ISS) programs were successful techniques for dealing with disruptions and misbehaviors in schools and that the student could best be helped by keeping the student in school where the unacceptable behavior occurred (Nielsen, 1979). When students were suspended at home, all the parties withdrew from one another, and this was not conducive to solving the problem (Dilling, 1979). In-school suspension (ISS) programs could function as a bridge instead of a break in the educational process of the student since they could offer help in modifying the unacceptable behavior (Harvey & Moosha, 1977). However, in-school suspension (ISS) programs were not a panacea for all discipline problems: educa-tional, economic, and cost effectiveness had to be considered. Reaching the goal of a well-disciplined effort requ1res honest, committed, and systematic efforts to uncover new and better methods. [School administrators] easily can be victims of

PAGE 21

8 a tendency toward habit and routine. Schools should select from a variety of new and emerging ideas and programs to revitalize the existing school discipline program. (Grossnickle & Sesko, 1985, p. 2) In-school suspension (ISS) programs could be one component of a reexamination of present discipline practices and a revitalization of them through the inclusion of some new ideas and practices. Statement of the Problem Since the 1970s, school districts in the United States have been faced with establishing and maintaining school discipline in the midst of changing judicial, economic, societal, and family conditions. Boards of education and school officials began to examine the large number of suspensions, who was being suspended, the number and consequences of the days lost, and the cost of the suspensions. High interest developed in alternative programs which removed disruptive or disobedient students from classrooms but kept the students in school. The problem of this study was to investigate the characteristics of in-school suspension (ISS) programs in public secondary schools in the state of Colorado. In-school suspension (ISS) programs were defined as those where a student who is suspended from his/her

PAGE 22

regular classes is housed in an alternative place in the school or the school district for a specified 9 period of time and where the school personnel continue to assume responsibility for providing educational experiences and supervision for the student. In-school suspension (ISS) programs will be referred to as ISS throughout the remainder of this investigation. Research Questions Posed in the Study The following research questions were posed in the study: 1. To what extent do public secondary schools in Colorado utilize ISS programs as a part of their discipline programs? 2. How long have the ISS programs been in operation? 3. What were the origins of the plans used? 4. What were the rea.sons why the ISS programs were developed and implemented? 5. What were the goals of the programs? 6. What intervention strategies were employed prior to referral to ISS? 7. What were the criteria for placement into ISS?

PAGE 23

10 a. What were the organizational structures for developing and implementing ISS programs? 9. What were the key components of the daily ISS programs for students? 10. How were the ISS programs staffed? 11. What was the perceived effectiveness of the ISS programs? On what were these perceptions based? 12. What were the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the ISS programs? Significance of the Study Data on ISS programs in the state of Colorado should be of benefit to school administrators, teachers, school officials, boards of education, parents, and students. This study could be a resource for anyone who is interested in providing alternatives to at-home suspension, to school personnel who may want to establish and implement an ISS program, to those who may want to reevaluate their ISS programs in light of the key components of others' programs, and to those who may want to have an ISS program with key components that may help make a difference with students and their education. This study could contribute to the theoretical basis for having ISS programs, to understanding the need for key elements

PAGE 24

in ISS programs, and to including comprehensive evaluation components as a part of ISS programs. Definition of Terms 11 In order to clarify terms used in the study, the following definitions are provided: -ADA is the number of students in attendance on a daily average in the school district. -At-home suspension is when a student is suspended from school and is not allowed on school grounds while the suspension is in effect. It is the same as "out-of-school" suspension. (See "suspension.") -Board of Education is the elected governing body of the school district. -Colorado secondary schools are those schools included in the study and listed in the Colorado Education Directory. 1988-89, with any of the following grade-level configurations: 4-8; 5-6; 5-8; 6-7; 6-8; 6-9; 6-11; 7-8; 7-9; 7-12; 8-9; 9-12; 10-12 grades -In-school suspension (ISS) is when a student is suspended temporarily from his/her regular classes and is housed in an alternative place in a school or school district for a specified, short period of time and where the school personnel continue to assume

PAGE 25

12 responsibility for providing educational experiences and supervision for the student. -School district is a governmental agency of the state created by the state as an instrumentality through which the legislature carries out the state constitutional mandate to provide for a system of public education (Reutter & Hamilton, 1976, p. 73). -student is a person who is enrolled in a school and who is subsequently subject to all school policies and procedures. -suspension is the temporary removal of a student from hisjher assigned class(es) for a period of not more than five days, with the superintendent having the ability to extend it for 10 additional days for the following reasons: continued willful disobedience; open and persistent defiance of proper authority; willful destruction or defacing school property; behavior which is detrimental to the welfare, safety, or morals of other pupils or of school personnel; serious violations in a school building or on school property including but not limited to the possession of a deadly weapon, the sale of a drug or controlled substance, or the commission of an act which if committed by an adult would be robbery or assault. (Colorado School Laws, 1988, 22-33-106, pp. 379.2-381)

PAGE 26

13 Limitations of the Study The study had the following inherent limitations: -This study was limited to the public, secondary schools in the state of Colorado only. -The study was limited to just one alternative to at-home that of ISS. -The generalizability of the findings of the study to other educational levels and schools is uncertain. -The inherent limitations of a questionnaire methodology are understood (Good, 1972; Hillway, 1969; Van Dalen, 1973). The extent to which the use of a questionnaire that limits choices impinges upon the findings of the study is uncertain. Assumptions Some basic assumptions made in regard to this study were: 1. There would be sufficient literature related to the study. 2. The questionnaire would be a useful, valid research tool and would provide the data posed by the research questions.

PAGE 27

3. Each person surveyed would be willing to participate in the study and would provide accurate information. 14 4. The compiled data would benefit the field of education in general and school administrators in particular. Organization of the Study Chapter I includes the introduction, the statement of the problem, questions posed in the study, significance of the study, methodology, definition of terms, limitations of the study, assumptions, and organization of the remainder of the study. Chapter II includes a review of literature and related research. Chapter III includes the research design. Chapter IV includes a descriptive analysis of the data collected. Chapter V includes a summary, conclusions, and recommendations.

PAGE 28

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND RELATED RESEARCH This chapter is organized into four parts. The first covers the organizational features of schools which may affect student performance and behavior. The second examines suspension from school and its consequences. The third reviews the myriad of disciplinary strategies which are alternatives to suspension from school. Finally, the fourth is narrowed to the literature and research on ISS programs. Rationale for ISS programs, initiators of ISS programs, designs of ISS programs, and assessments of various ISS programs are covered. Part I: Organizational Features Which Affect Student Performance and Behavior "I have come to believe that we have designed schools which, at least in part, create the discipline problems we are then called upon to solve" (Howard, 1979, p. 64). Howard believed that schools were "rigged" in the sense that they were patterned on Prussian and English school systems of the early 1800s which were structured to produce a certain percentage

PAGE 29

16 of losers and failures in order to maintain a highly rigid class society and to assure an ample supply of people for physical labor and the military. The nine ways Howard (1979) believed that schools were "rigged" were: 1. Graded schools--students are assigned to classes based on age and are then promoted based on success or retained or remediated based on failure. 2. Standardized testing programs--are designed to identify winners and losers. 3. Strong emphasis on competition--a way to screen out the "least fit." 4. Use of artificial rewards--deprives students of learning for the right reasons. 5. Letter grading system--forces teachers to communicate messages of unworthiness and failure on a regular basis. 6. Grouping and ranking practices--reminds students that some are better.than others, especially in ability and homogeneous grouping. 7. Social system among students--in a highly structured, rigid hierarchy of cliques. 8. Dumping ground--special courses for the less worthy.

PAGE 30

17 9. School schedules and programs of classes--segregates winners and losers by limiting choices regarding what and with whom they study (Howard, 1979). Rather than better security guards, more rules, more suspensions, more detentions, more dumping ground, Howard believed that attention needed to be focused on "unrigging" schools rather than on continu-ing to respond to symptoms instead of causes. Remedies suggested by Howard (1979) were: 1. Create an invigorating school climate--high levels of student/staff satisfaction and commitment to the school. 2. Use individualized instruction, indepen-dent study, learning laboratories, and action learning instead of ability and homogeneous grouping. 3. Foster cooperative activities instead of competitive ones. 4. Interweave vocational education with academic programs. 5. Create alternative schools to serve students who learn best in environments which are difficult to create in a traditional school building. 6. . [I]mprove discipline and reduce alienation [by creating] human places, places where pupils learn to care about themselves and one another, where no person is

PAGE 31

unnecessarily put down, where people learn to improve themselves without doing so at the expense of others. (p. 19) 18 7. Widen the winner's circle--give all students the respect and dignity they deserve and need in order to become self-improving human beings. Wayson (1980) enumerated organizational features which might cause disruptions in schools. These were teachers lacking responsibility for that decision making which would allow them to model appropriate behavior, cloudiness of communication, authority and status differentiations, role confusions, lack of belongingness, the Peter principle of trained incapacity, and poor scheduling (p. 2). One study showed that negative labeling by teachers was more strongly associated with delin-quent behavior than any other of the 10 factors examined, including negative labeling by parents (Brennan & Huizinga, 1975, p. 351). Proctor's (1976) perception of how society creates its own discipline problems was a spiral which included awareness of rejection, isolation, insularity, hostility, withdrawal from success symbols, acceptance of failure, and crime and violence. This spiral could be reversed with one major intervention--one individual who cared enough about the young person to be a major influence

PAGE 32

19 in his/her life (pp. 55-57). Looking at disruption from an organizational theory point of view, Argyris noted that organizations tended to cause childish and disruptive behavior; Merton believed it was a part of the dysfunctions of bureaucracies and unanticipated consequences of policies and procedures; and, McGregor's theories suggested that considering subordinates as inferior caused them to behave in disruptive ways, while a positive attitude toward subordinates could produce responsible behavior (Wayson, 1980, pp. 1-2). Student absenteeism has been listed as the number one headache of high school principals since the survey of American Association of School Administrators began in 1972 (Encyclopedia of Educational Research, Vol. 4, 1982, p. 1958). Characteristics of truants include lower socioeconomic status, membership in a minority ethnic group, and evidence of other deviant behavior. Student reasons given for truancy include boredom with school, social adjustment problems, and academic problems. Moos and Moos found students tended to be absent from classes they perceived as high in levels of competition and teacher control and low in teacher support (Encyclopedia of Educational Research, Vol. 4, 1982, p. 1959).

PAGE 33

20 Since the mid-1960s the national drop-out rate for high school has begun at about 2.5% in grade nine, when school attendance is still mandated by state laws; the drop-out rate increases to 9% by tenth grade, 10% by eleventh grade, and 25% by twelfth grade (Encyclopedia of Educational Research, Vol. 1, 1982, p. 1960). student reasons given for dropping out of school included dislike for school, involuntary exclusion, academic problems, problems with teachers, marriage, and pregnancy. Consequences of dropping out were earning less money, greater likelihood of being unemployed compared to a high school graduate, and inability to receive post-high school training. The 10 most common discipline problems identified in a statewide Georgia study and reported by Kingston and Gentry (1977) were: truancy, failure to do assignments, impertinence and discourtesy, use of profane language, smoking, stealing small items, obscene scribbling on walls, congregating in halls and lavatories, destruction of school property, and lying of a serious nature. The most frequently utilized discipline procedures were conferences with parents (95%), suspension (84%), corporal punishment (70%), extra assignments (66%), restriction (64%),

PAGE 34

21 and detention (52%) (Encyclopedia of Educational Research, Vol. 2, 1982, pp. 1690-1691). Teachers work with many different students and may not get to know them. Yet, people react adversely if they are treated as 11numbers11 or as 11subjects11 rather than as 11real people.11 Rubin and Balow (1971) pointed out that teachers might be oriented to a narrow range of expected student behavior which was much narrower than typical behavior patterns, that the behaviors which disturbed teachers the most were those different from their beliefs, and that teachers resented behavior which interfered with 11their11 programs, ideals, and beliefs. Teacher training institutions have been criticized for their failure to include extensive and intensive training in the areas of interpersonal relationships, classroom management, and discipline. Behavioral deviancy appears to be in large part a reflection of the attitudes of the faculty rather than the behavioral criteria related to the education or safety of children. (Regal, Elliott, Grossman, & Morse, 1975, p. 14) Why are there discipline problems in todays schools? Jones summarized them as: 1. Schools clinging to old ways. 2. Over-sized classes with too little indi-vidual attention.

PAGE 35

3 0 Too large .schools. 4. Lack of resource services. 5. Irrelevant materials. 6. Mobility of teachers. 7. Lack of continuous inservice training for the staff. a. Teachers creating aggressive and hos-tile behavior through endless talking, dwelling on the irrelevant, boring the students, and using inappropriate methods. 9. Teachers' strikes whereby students might conclude that force is an accepted way to gain demands. 10. Lack of parental support for school personnel and their decisions. 11. Defiance of authority by students. 12. Social upheaval and focus on youth by society, agencies, and the media. 13. More time but fewer jobs available for youth. 14. student isolation from their families. 15. Lack of clearly defined behavioral expectations for students. 16. Race relations. 17. Increase in legal age for leaving school. 22

PAGE 36

23 18. Increase in the minimum wage (Jones, 1973, pp. 4-8). Organizational features which might affect student performance and behavior appear to be large in number and diverse in nature. Elucidating the potential causes does not necessarily provoke changes on the part of the organization. Part II: Suspension Suspension was one of the traditional means used to maintain discipline in schools. Few alternatives to traditional discipline measures have emerged, so administrators have continued to rely on the same traditional methods, especially suspension from school, as means of maintaining discipline and control in school. The rationale seemed that a disruptive, disobedient student was suspended and would begin to conform. Suspension was an initial punishment in some schools and was utilized as the sole penalty for most discipline problems in many others, with the only variation being the length of suspension (Harvey & Moosha, 1977). In 1978 the American Association of School Administrators found that 60.3% of the respondents cited suspension andjor expulsion as a method used to help students with serious

PAGE 37

24 attendance problems (Chobot & Garibaldi, 1982, p. 317). In a random sample of the members of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, reasons given for suspension in rank order were: 1. attendance problems 2. smoking 3. nonviolent, disruptive behavior 4. violations of school rules 5. assault, fighting, threat of injury 6. use of drugs/alcohol 7. vandalism, theft, destruction of property. (Chobot & Garibaldi, 1982, p. 317) In Justice Powell's dissenting opinion in Goss v. Lopez, he gave a particular educational philosophy-The educational relationship is one of nonadversarial unity of interest, a relationship which combines the school's need to maintain order with its obligation to its students to teach them to internalize obedience to authority. (Goss v. Lopez) According to this philosophy, suspension was an integral part of the process. In the same case, the majority opinion agreed, "Suspension is considered not only to be a necessary tool to maintain order but a valuable educational device" (95 s. ct. at 739) (Weckstein, 1975, pp. 47-48). The courts have repeatedly reiterated that school authorities must have broad discretionary authority in the daily operations of the public schools. Grossnickle and Sesko (1985) listed the advantages of suspension as:

PAGE 38

25 1. Other students and teachers do not have to suffer because someone is not interested in learning. 2. Everyone recognizes that misbehavior will not be accepted. 3. This is an opportunity to get parents, the students, and the staff together to plan how to improve the student's misbehavior pattern. 4. Suspension can be a deterrent to others. The Children's Defense Fund (1974) elicited the following reasons for suspension from their investigations on suspension: 1. a tool to get the parents in 2. a tool to shake students up 3. a vehicle to get the student out of school for a while 4. a process to maintain staff morale. In the literature, few pretended that suspension addressed the educational or emotional interests of the students. It was a means to an end--to maintain the school's authority, to force parents to come to school, and to relieve teachers of problem children (Children's Defense Fund, 1974, pp. 121-123). Suspension has been the focus of studies, research projects, and investigations. In his

PAGE 39

26 research on suspendees, Baskerville (1982) found that three-or-more-times suspendees reported significantly lower mean scores than nonsuspendees on the overall Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory, as well as on the subscale on "general self," the overall Parent Perception Inventory, the "school achievement" subscale, and the "family relations" subscale. He found that suspendees reported higher frequencies of friends suspended and of suspensions in previous years. Nonsuspendees reported more placements in higher level mathematics and English classes. In his ethnographic study of suspension procedures at four predominantly white, middle class, suburban junior high schools, Comerford (1983) learned that the administrators, teachers, and both suspended and nonsuspended students used in his sample overwhelmingly agreed that suspension was ineffective in changing disruptive behavior, that alternatives to suspension were supported by all four groups, that boys were suspended far more often than girls, and that students from low income families were suspended at much higher rates than all other students. A Florida study (Foster, 1977) asserted that many administrators stereotyped Black students as troublemakers and that Blacks were suspended more

PAGE 40

frequently than Anglos for offenses such as "disrespect." The Florida Commission recommended more high school remedial reading programs, compulsory teacher training on cultural differences and discipline, development of alternative schools, study of suspension poiicies, and establishment of in-school suspension programs (Foster, 1977). 27 The Children's Defense Fund (1975) investigated national data on suspended students. They found that minority and male students were suspended disproportionately to females and Anglos. The offenses that resulted most often in suspension were tardiness, smoking, truancy, and disrespect: not damage to people or property. Most suspended students came from single parent families in which the parent(s) had less than a tenth grade education: however, the assumption that these parents did not value their children's education or attendance was not substantiated. The final recommendations of the study were that suspension should be abolished except for cases of property damage or assault and that school boards, parents, and teachers should reevaluate their suspension policies and come up with a number of alternatives to suspension.

PAGE 41

28 In his study of suspension and suspendees, Beckner (1982) cited a statistically significant relationship between the suspension status of students in Virginia and 13 pupil characteristics. A chronically suspended student tended to be a Black male in an early high school grade level who had low IQ test scores, participated in few school activities, came from a low-income family with a large number of children and possibly one-parent head of household who had little educational attainment and low employment status. A report of the Southern Regional council (1973) entitled The Student Pushout noted the following: 1. In school districts in which 90% of the national minorities are enrolled, the expulsion rates for minority students were 300% greater than for non-minority students. 2. Suspension and other school discipline practices appeared to increase in frequency and harshness wherever desegregation was required. 3. Discipline practices finally culminated in the phenomenon of the "pushout" -students who left school permanently because of intolerable conditions or who through dis-

PAGE 42

criminatory treatment were excluded from school (Miller, 1975). 29 The School Desegregation Project of the Massachusetts Advocacy Center in Boston questioned the effectiveness of suspension and expulsion as educational vehicles to improve discipline in schools. They were convinced that wide use of suspension increased, rather than decreased, discipline problems and that exclusion was used as an alternative to finding solutions. The goal of this project was to improve due process protections for students in discipline procedures, to reduce the number of suspendable offenses, and to increase community pressures on schools to find alternative measures to suspension (Miller, 1975, p. 24). In a study among Black male, junior high school students, Pharr and Barbarin (1976) examined the degree to which school suspension was related to congruence between the student's perception of the school environment and the school's goals and expectations. Compared with non-suspended students, suspended students: 1. demonstrated behavior, problem-solving strategies, and perceptions of school that were less

PAGE 43

compatible with the demands of the educational pro-cess: 2. were generally less satisfied with the school's interpersonal environment: 30 3. preferred avoidance or aggressive strategies for solving problems: 4. relied less on school personnel for solving problems: and, 5. were less satisfied with the school's mechanism for controlling students. In general, nonsuspended students demonstrated better fits with the school environment. The findings suggested that some aspects of the school environment may pose difficulties for students of diverse cultural backgrounds and that schools could make adjustments to minimize poor fits between suspended students and school expectations (Pharr & Barbarin, 1976). The Children's Defense Fund (1974, 1975), Lundell (1982), Meares and Kittle (1976), Seyfarth (1980), and Weckstein (1975) noted that opponents of suspension cited the following reasons for working towards reduction andjor elimination of its widespread use:

PAGE 44

31 1. A student who may already be struggling gets even further behind and may completely give up due to loss of instructional time. 2. Suspended students cause problems in the community while on suspension; suspensions are highly correlated to juvenile delinquency. 3. students are suspended from the entire school program when the difficulty may be only in one area. 4. students see suspension as a vacation, 11 not as a deterrent or a punishment. 5. If it is necessary for parents to return to school with the students before the student can be L. readmitted, the time of the suspension might be extended. 6. While suspended from school, students are inaccessible to members of the support services team, who could provide intervention help to uncover and remediate causes of misbehavior. 7. Suspension records follow students through school and beyond school to later academic andjor employment pursuits. Suspension is a powerful label that stigmatizes a child while both in and out of school.

PAGE 45

a. students' alienation and hostility are increased by exclusion; suspension does not lessen discipline problems when they return. 9. Schools do not get state reimbursement for students who are suspended. 32 10. The loss of credit for classes missed through suspension demoralizes students even further. 11. Psychological harms which might flow from suspension are resentment, fear, withdrawal, loss of self-esteem, and a sense of powerlessness. 12. Feelings of failure and rejection may lead to dropping out. 13. There is decreased parental and community support for suspension and expulsion. 14. There are increases in social welfare costs resulting from educational deficiencies and unemployment. 15. Recidivism rates indicate suspension and expulsion are not effective techniques. 16. School personnel who use these approaches frequently fail to realize that students exhibit misbehavior because they are experiencing little success in school. 17. It is an admission by school personnel that they are unable to deal with the problem in the school

PAGE 46

setting and have "given up" on the student. (Children's Defense Fund, 1974, 1975; Lundell, 1982; Meares & Kittle, 1976; Seyfarth, 1980; Weckstein, 1975). 33 The conclusions reached by Comerford (1983) about suspension were that suspension was greatly overused as a discipline strategy; that suspension failed to punish students or change behavior; and that for any discipline system to work, the following criteria needed to be present: 1. clear, well-defined rules and procedures; 2. rules and procedures consistently and equitably applied; 3. a variety of punitive and therapeutic alternatives to suspension; 4. active and concerned parental involvement; 5. the dedication of fair, involved, caring teachers and administrators (Comerford, 1983). Given the Supreme Court's justification for use of suspension, Weckstein (1975) felt that schools should be required to demonstrate that whatever disciplinary measures they take must be justified as serving an educational purpose and not merely a punitive one. Suspension has little chance of helping a student unless he/she fears its effects, such as

PAGE 47

34 failing a class, disgrace, displacement from friends, or exclusion from extra-curricular activities. It could be argued that the deterring effect of suspension is questionable and that suspension should be restricted to instances where a student's presence poses a continuing danger either of causing physical harm to him/herself or others or of substantially disrupting the educational process. Only in cases of continuing danger is suspension actually necessary for preserving order; and so, only then can a student be given a reasonable explanation as to why suspension is necessary (Weckstein, 1975, p. 49). Exclusion from school can have serious, long-term consequences. Alternatives to suspension need to be explored and utilized; they are needed in the public school setting. Part III. Alternatives to Suspension With the advent of strong opposition to expulsion came research, studies, projects, programs, and ideas for use in the area of discipline. Current, common discipline strategies are: 1. Self concept--An individual's self-concept is the most important determination of behavior. School behavior and achievement will be best improved

PAGE 48

35 by students who learn self-discipline while developing a healthy, positive self-concept. Growth in selfconcept comes from an accepting, warm, empathic, open, and nonjudgmental environment where the student is free to explore thoughts and feelings to solve his own problems (Canfield & Wells, 1976; Purkey, 1978). 2. Communication skills--Set firm limits on behavior but not on feelings. Reflect feelings and provide a symbolic outlet for feelings (Ginott, 1972). 3. Natural and logical consequences--Misbehavior comes from faulty beliefs about one's self, and these faulty beliefs lead to personal goals that may result in misbehavior. Goals for misbehavior are attention seeking, power, revenge, and display of inadequacy. To deal with misbehavior, pinpoint the goal and help the person work through the faulty belief and then use natural and logical consequences for misbehavior (Dinkmeyer & Dinkmeyer, 1976; Driekurs, Grunwald, & Pepper, 1971). 4. Values clarification--This is a process whereby children can answer some of their own questions on values and build their own value system. Discipline problems are caused by unclear values which lead to experiences of inner turmoil and by

PAGE 49

conflicting value positions (Simon, Howe, & Kirschenbaum, 1972). 36 5. Teacher Effectiveness Training--The aim is to replace "repressive and power based systems" (punishing, blaming, shaming, threatening) with a communication model based on active listening, !-messages, problem ownership, and negotiation/problem solving which uses a winjwin approach (Gordon, 1974). 6. Transactional Analysis (TA)--Discipline problems are viewed in terms of communication between people. Problems can be avoided or confronted. Teachers need to stay in the "adult ego state" when dealing with students who have problems with authority (Ernst, 1972). 7. Reality Therapy--Disruption from students is caused by their not feeling involved with the schools, feeling like failures, and not assuming responsibilities for their actions. Schools should try to eliminate failure and increase involvement, relevance, and thinking. Students learn responsibility through strong, positive, emotional involvement with a responsible person, like a teacher (Glasser, 1965, 1969).

PAGE 50

a. LEAST -L -Leave it alone. E End the action without undue emotion. A -Attend more fully. Get to the root of the problem. s Spell out directions clearly. 37 T -Track the student's progress by using a record of discipline encounters (Carkhuff & Griffin, 1978). 9. Project TEACH--This is an eclectic approach which combines many different approaches and philosophies. Skills need to be developed in verbal and nonverbal communication, positive reinforcement and behavior modification principles, changing environment, natural and logical consequences, and assertiveness (Project TEACH, 1977). 10. Assertive Discipline--The major emphasis is on the teacher's control of the classroom. Teachers must develop strong assertive skills to preserve and establish order. It implements a system of behavior modification (Canter, 1976). 11. Behavior Modification--Misbehavior occurs because it is reinforced by the environment. Change the child's behavior by changing the environment and

PAGE 51

thereby reinforce appropriate behavior instead of inappropriate behavior (Skinner, 1968). 38 12. Dare to Discipline--This is a strong, authoritarian approach where the teacher has "absolute locus of control." The teacher is to be businesslike, highly organized, and in firm control. Children will test limits, so establish them immediately (Dobson, 1971). 13. Rational Emotive Education--This is based on a cognitive behavior approach to personal growth. The emphasis is on a directive role of thought in guiding behavior, and a specific set of rational and irrational assumptions are presented to guide each individual's thoughts. (Encyclopedia of Educational Research, Vol. 1, 1982, pp. 448-449). Programs, ideas, and strategies being used as alternatives to suspension are: 1. Alternative Schools -for students who cannot function in traditional schools -common elements are individualized instruction, contingency contracting, and low student/teacher ratio -the "right conditions" to make alternative programs work are:

PAGE 52

A. teachers who want to work with these kinds of students and who understand their strengths and weaknesses B. careful screening and assignment of students who have a good chance for success and not putting students together who will feed on each other's misbehavior c. adequate resources to ensure classes of eight to 12 students to one teacher, a 39 good sized room, and adequate materials and supplies D. reasonable flexibility to depart from the school schedule and curriculum to develop unique programs E. relevant and worthwhile in the eyes of students, parents, and teachers F. interested and cooperative parents and administrators (Gorton, 1977) 2. Behavior Clinics -hours of group counseling in school skills -referral to physician to see if misbehavior has physical involvement -after school behavior clinic designed to help students control their behavior -is instructional in nature -it helps the students to

PAGE 53

40 understand values and beliefs, motivations, and feelings about self and others 3 Buddy System -pairs students up to help one another succeed in school -"parole system" -if someone is on the brink of suspension, draw up a contract with the student A. day-to-day at teachers and administrator's discretion and wisdom during good behavior B. kids need to know that this is not a right (the right was forfeited by continued misbehavior), but a special privilege or favor, a favor granted only to those who especially want to try again, who want to reinstate themselves c. terms determined by teachers and administrators with qualifications on work required, effort, application, and specifications on how to act D. success is dependent upon skillful direction of a trusted administrator E. appeals to honor, to fear, to the hope that the student can make good even after he has pushed too far F. takes careful monitoring (Chamberlin, 1971)

PAGE 54

41 4. Cooling-off or Time-Out -contract with a student that whenever he feels he is going to lose it, he is to leave the class and is to go to time-out -angry or upset student is given permission to leave the class to seek counseling 5. Cooperative Community School Projects -joint school/community individual and family counseling program to reduce maladaptive behavior -help for schools from local mental health and human relations agencies 6. Corporal Punishment -judicial reluctance to declare it unconstitutional per se -attacked on excessiveness, on violation of parental rights, on physical abuse, on the realm of protected liberty, on psychological harm 7. Demerit System -given set number of points; as points diminish, consequences are prescribed -Example: twenty-five offenses with correlating penalties lO=talk with counselor 20=in-school suspension

PAGE 55

42 JO=at-home suspension and return only with parent(s) 50=expelled 8. Denial of Extracurricular Activities 9. Detention 10. Discipline Codes -Rights and Responsibilities -written policies and procedures -implemented consistently and fairly -students are always allowed to present their sides of a case except in cases of imminent danger -specific due process procedures 11. Expulsion -for those who will not respond to ordinary control and cause constant trouble 12. Group Workshops -for students to reduce self-defeating behavior -for teachers on new teaching strategies to maintain student interest and to respond to the different modalities of learning 13. Human Relations Programs/Strategies -strong, effective counseling program -a human relations staff that advises schools and parents on discipline problems

PAGE 56

-school staff/parents/students committee to identify student offenses most frequently a problem and to seek solutions 43 -to develop student responsibility in classrooms, teachers A. set and enforce limits of acceptable behavior and hold students accountable B. confront students when they fail to stop disruptive behavior after a warning c. do not let students exceed acceptable limits of behavior D. inform students it is their choice to continue misbehaving or to stop, and make sure they understand the decision to continue misbehaving will result in specific consequences E. make sure consequences are realistic, reasonable, and appropriate for the misbehavior F. concentrate on present rather than past mistakes G. accept no excuses for a misbehavior 14. In-School Suspension (ISS) -an effort to reduce instances of discipline problems within the school

PAGE 57

44 -an alternative school program to help the student with serious discipline problems within the school setting so they can receive instruction -individual counseling might be a component -provides administrators with a disciplinary option not as serious as at-home suspension -keeps students in school where they will have a chance to identify and change the inappropriate behavior -ensures other students a conducive learning environment by isolating the disrupters 15. Isolated, Quiet Places within the Classroom 16. Lower the Student's Grade -in recent years, movement away from this practice due to questionable legality -questionable practice since it mixes academic performance and punishment for misbehavior 17. one-to-One Problem-Solving Sessions -work with the student in problem solving with reasonable, logical consequences for actions -find the causes of the misbehavior and find solutions to them rather than focusing on the symptoms

PAGE 58

45 18. Parent Involvement -parent conferences are perceived by principals as the alternative with the highest potential for success (Wollan, 1983) -community, parents, students, and staff involved in developing appropriate behavior guidelines, action plans, assistance, problem solving problem areas, resources to prevent further disruption from identified students; the goal is to develop programs that foster appropriate student behavior before it becomes socially and educationally significant (Knoff, 1984) 19. Peer Counseling/Student Advocate -school leaders are identified and trained in peer counseling and student advocacy; used one-to-one andjor in pairs counseling to heterogeneous groups of students in the school 20. Physical Restraint -falls within common law authority of the schools -teachers may do so to physically control a stu-dent when the student threatens to harm himself or others or refuses to obey legitimate requests 21. The "Push-Out Phenomenon -students pushed out by intolerable conditions or discriminatory treatment

PAGE 59

46 -the student may be suspended and need a parent for the re-entry conference: the parent refuses to accompany the student to school, so the student remains out of school 22. Referral for Evaluation -to get a professional diagnosis and prescription -to stop punishing the students for exhibiting their symptoms -for achievement levels -to assess strengths and weaknesses -for the approximate intelligence level -for learning problems -for emotional/behavioral problems -for reading level 23. Reward System -contingency contracting often used as an alternative to suspension with points for appropriate academic andjor social behavior: rewards for which points can be exchanged: includes the setting of goals, written contracts, behavior counseling, monitoring, and parental involvement -privileges to give or withdraw 24. Saturday School -students must work for assigned time

PAGE 60

-students and parents provide the student's transportation to and from this program -based on premise that kids don't want to go to school on Saturday 25. Schedule Changes, Alternative Experiences, and Curriculum Changes 26. School Referral Procedure 47 -well developed, step-by-step procedures of strategies to be tried by teachers with disruptive students -referral forms developed for use to document strategies, tried with a student prior to sending him/her to the office 27. School Security -to assist with disruptive andjor potentially violent students -to monitor the building in general 28. School Staff as Advocates -one teacher to a group of students for one or several years in a small group or advisor group -sos (Save One student) -each school person chooses one disruptive student to counsel and to during the year

PAGE 61

48 29. Telephone calls -teachers make telephone calls to parents at the beginning of the year to introduce themselves and to discuss expectations -teachers, counselors, and administrators make calls to discuss students problems, potentials, accomplishments with parents 30. Work details and programs -work after school, evenings, or weekends to eliminate misconduct demerits or to serve as consequence for misbehavior Discipline has been the most troublesome problem for public education in the recent past. Public school officials have been faced with lack of resources to pursue, study, select, and implement new discipline strategies while simultaneously being under pressure from taxpayers, parents, and education critics to arrive at "quick" solutions to this diverse, multi-faceted problem. In many cases, school officials have been left to struggle with strategies which have been used previously and with no time or resources for thorough research or local adaptation. Carefully designed major research efforts have been in short supply. Teachers have been the most active proponents of the development of concrete remedies, calling for crisis intervention and

PAGE 62

49 immediate help as they have been bombarded by public demands, student diversity, and unclear andjor outmoded policies. They have felt as if there were little or no time for the development of research or gradual change; they needed help NOW. one of the purposes of public education is to help students adjust normally to their environment. Schools avoid their responsibilities to educate when they exclude students who do not adjust naturally to their environment. Helping such students adjust is part of the education that schools must provide (McClung, 1975, p. 70). Public schools will need to be able to utilize a wide range of alternatives to maximize effectiveness in meeting the diverse needs of their students in a complex society. Part IV: In-school suspension "In-school suspension" (ISS) is a relatively new discipline procedure and strategy. In such a procedure (in-school suspension), students for whom suspension from school would previously have been the normal action are instead assigned to a closely supervised room where they are expected to work on their regular assignments. They may be returned to their customary freedom of movement when it seems appropriate. (Encyclopedia of Educational Research, Vol. 2, 1982, p. 1691) Factors which led to the advent of ISS programs were:

PAGE 63

-court decisions which defined and redefined due process considerations for students; -concerns about the negative effects of suspension and expulsion on students and their education; -efforts to enlarge the repertoire of discipline alternatives available to school officials; -efforts to reduce instances of discipline problems within the schools while keeping students in the school environment. Rationale 50 Rationales given for the development of ISS programs in particular schools and districts seem to be diverse and yet similar in nature. DiScuillo (1984) noted, Both the general public and school officials associate discipline problems (lack of discipline -the number one on the public's atti-. tude toward public schools in the 14th Annual Gallup Poll) with violations of the schools' rules and regulations and respect for authority. Often these violations manifest themselves in absenteeism, insubordination, drug dealing, stealing, vandalism, disruption to instruction, or a combination of the above infractions the rationale for developing this program (inschool suspension) grew out of the need to eliminate the problem of having suspended disruptive students throughout the community, to provide proper instruction to suspended students, to provide for effective communication and public relations with parents of disruptive students, and to provide an atmosphere for effective counseling for the disruptive student. (p. 328)

PAGE 64

51 In 1978, a national congressional study recommended ISS as a method for dealing with increasing violence and vandalism (Bayh, 1978). The rationale for and benefits of ISS centers have been demonstrated in many programs: 1. protecting the community from vandalism inflicted by students expelled to the streets; 2. helping employed parents who cannot supervise their children during the day; 3. enhancing school finances through average daily attendance compensation; 4. educating students who would otherwise be deprived of academic instruction; 5. saving energy and time involved in court procedures for length out-of-school suspensions; 6. ensuring other students a conducive learning environment by isolating the disrupters; and, 7. undermining the attempts of students who seek home suspension as holidays from school. ([Bornmann, 1976; Brown, 1977; Harvey & Moosha, 1977; McClung, 1975; Meares & Kettle, 1976; Mendez, 1977; National School Public Relations, 1976; Nielsen, 1979a; Yoakley, 1977; Nielsen, 1979b) Seyfarth (1980) saw ISS programs as being developed in recognition of the need for more effective discipline procedures and as a way of correcting inherent flaws in traditional suspension. Parents, students, and school staffs needed to work together in a team effort to deal realistically in a caring, confronting posture with behaviors that resulted in suspension from school. Dilling (1979) noted that schools needed to deal in more realistic and accountable ways with the need for the continuing

PAGE 65

52 remediation of the suspension-causing behavior within the very setting in which the misbehavior occurs. Significantly more students were suspended when there was an ISS program, but their drop-out and failure rates were significantly less than for those students suspended out-of-school (Thweatt, 1980). In selected Florida public school districts, ISS was the most common program for alternative education for disruptive students (Hethington, 1981). Kern (1980) stated that ISS was a more expensive discipline tool but that it would continue to be popular in the 1980s; the issue was not really effectiveness but what the public wanted. There were more working parents who wanted their children suspended in-school rather than to have them go unsupervised. It was important that the ISS program was seen as a positive program to help students become successful in school rather than just a consequence for misbehavior or a form of punishment (Mosely, 1977; Stressman, 1985). Lundell (1982) cited the following reasons for establishing in-school suspension (ISS) programs: 1. In-school suspension (ISS) programs are effective in reducing misbehavior. 2. In-school suspension (ISS)helps to protect the community from violence and vandalism.

PAGE 66

53 3. students receive one-to-one assistance with their school work, resulting in more success with school work. 4. In-school suspension (ISS) is conducted within the confines of the school, thus reducing the need for hearings and other higher-level legal proceedings. 5. In-school suspension (ISS) programs reduce students alienation by keeping them connected to the school and to school personnel. 6. Parents support in-school suspension (ISS) as a way to continue the educational process, to focus on remedying the problem, and to supervise the student during the school day. 7. Schools receive revenues based on student attendance. In-school suspension (ISS) programs keep students and the revenues attached to them in the schools. a. In-school suspension (ISS) programs help to keep students in school, to educate them, and to reduce the financial consequences of drop-outs (Lundell, 1982, pp. 73-76). A rationale given for the establishment of inschool suspension (ISS) has been the need to deal with school problems in the school environment (Frith, Lindsey, & Sasser, 1980). One does not change the

PAGE 67

54 problem behavior of a student by getting him/her out of school for a few days. Frith, Lindsey, & Sasser (1980) studied the Dothan, Alabama, model which was an alternative school program that kept students with serious discipline problems within the school district. The intent was to modify and deter inappropriate behavior while keeping the offenders in the normal school environment. They worked to modify the unacceptable behavior so the student could function in the regular classroom. A counseling component helped the students understand their personal problems through individual and group counseling (Frith, Lindsey, & Sasser, 1980). Mendez (1977) stated that the rationale for discipline was that the action should attempt to modify the individual's future behavior and must protect others in the school environment. He believed that ISS satisfied both and also protected the community from delinquent behavior that might occur if a student was out of school. ISS also satisfied the legal requirements of due process and was accountable to the community and the parents. It made the students aware that their actions, not the school's lack of sensitivity, were responsible for their situations and that the school would not tolerate disruptive behavior. Mendez believed we

PAGE 68

55 must prevent situations in which we force individuals to quit. Harvey and Moosha (1977) stated that ISS leaves the child in the educational environment where his/her problem exists and where treatment can address the causes rather than the symptoms. It allows the school staff, including the support staff, to work with the students in a separate environment where individual problems can receive more attention. ISS allows the student to remain in school to receive instruction and to learn, but takes away his/her normal opportunities for physical mobility and social interaction; it satisfies the goals of both education and discipline. It can teach the students to accept the consequences for their actions and to make them examine their behavior (Mendez & Sanders, 1981, p. 66) Truancy has long been a problem for school officials. To suspend for truancy seems inane, but school officials have often resorted to that when other disciplinary strategies failed to correct the problem. And yet, the suspension was a reward, a vacation, and not a deterrent. ISS allows for a consequence for the truancy, keeps the student in school, and begins the process of helping the student to catch up on all of his missed work. It also allows

PAGE 69

56 the time necessary for "reattachment" to the school and to specific school personnel (Grossnickle & Sesko, 1985). ISS programs have the ability to help students with discipline problems within the school setting where they can receive instruction, counseling, and other resource help (Mosely, 1977). To deprive a student of instruction is not acting in his/her best interest. ISS provides students uninterrupted education opportunities while being disciplined (Mizell, 1978; Seyfarth, 1980). It keeps the students from getting behind in their work and from disassociating with the school and the staff. ISS programs were established as counseling andjor academic improvement centers in some schools and districts for students who would normally have been suspended at-home for serious disruptive behavior (Matherson, 1982). When students are kept in school for their suspensions, their chances for successful re-entry into classes are greatly increased (Wayson, 1980, pp. 1-2). Preventive and interventive counseling strategies can give support to students to change negative behavior patterns and to diagnose learning difficulties (Grice, 1986). Discipline, as it relates to handicapped students, has come under new guidelines. Handicapped

PAGE 70

57 students have the right to free, appropriate education at all times, including those times during a suspension of more than three days or during expulsion (Colorado Department of Education, 1988, pp. 280-301). School districts may use normal disciplinary procedures for handicapped students in cases of emergency suspension, but may not use serial emergency suspensions. If a relationship exists between the behavior and the handicapping condition, the handicapped student must be provided with an alternative setting in which to continue educational services (Wayson, 1980). ISS programs could be used as such alternative settings. Initiators of In-School Suspension Initiators of ISS programs were predominantly local school administrators (Chobot & Garibaldi, 1982). Other initiators included individual staff members, whole staffs of schools, directors of instruction, counselors, and the whole district (Matherson, 1982). No matter who initiated the program, if it was to be successful, the entire staff had to have a commitment to developing the program, implementing it, and assessing it for strengths and weaknesses with commensurate changes.

PAGE 71

Designs of In-School Suspension Programs 58 Several common themes ran through most of the designs of ISS programs. The programs were designed to keep students in school instead of suspended out-of-school. All have as a core foundation the belief that maintaining a problem student in the educational environment is a more effective way of dealing with inappropriate behavior than out-of-school suspension. (Winborne, 1980, p. 669) Consequences for the misbehavior were isolation from the regular programs and peers, limited or no social interaction, restricted physical mobility, and concentration on the performance of academic work. Mosely stated that ISS was a restricted, nonsocializing school environment in which the student was given one-to-one assistance with hisjher school work, individual counseling, and an opportunity to modify his/her behavior in order to move back into the regular school program successfully (Mosely, 1977, p. 27) A counseling component was present in many of the ISS programs. This component was considered essential by those who included it since it is intended to address the cause of the problem and ultimately the modification of the unacceptable behavior so the student can function in the regular classroom setting (Mendez, 1979). Hochman (1985) found that counseling

PAGE 72

59 components of ISS programs had a significant, positive effect on the self-defeating academic behaviors of students assigned to ISS programs. Moore recommended the following for ISS programs: -more active involvement of support personnel such as psychologists, aides, and peer counselors; -more emphasis on positive, corrective, and rehabilitative processes; -inclusion of an academic component; -written goals and objectives; -follow-up with students after they leave ISS; -evaluation based on goals and objectives; -well-funded program; -program strongly supported by all school personnel (Moore, i989, pp. 105-107). Nielsen (1979a, 1979b) advocated parental consent, individual records of students' progress, and use of specific techniques for in-school suspension. Techniques suggested were educational games, role playing, contingency contracting, daily communication slips, use of video tape machines, individual progress charts publicly displayed, earned leisure time, peer tutoring, individual instruction, social conversations with the teacher, and autobiographical surveys that familiarized adults with

PAGE 73

the students' lives. The program consisted of one hour for group counselling and four hours for 60 academic work. There was free time at the end of the day that could be earned by fulfilling the contingency contract. Communication slips were sent home if the student was well-behaved. For accountability and evaluation purposes, McClung (1975) suggested that the following evaluation criteria be included in ISS programs: -Is there real evidence over a period of time that the number of suspensions are actually reduced by the use of this program? -Does the alternative program truly help the student who would have been suspended? Does it help solve the problem that led to the disciplinary action? -Is the student making genuine academic progress at a level which is appropriate for himjher if he/she participates in this program? -As a result of the use of this program, does the student begin to develop greater selfdiscipline? -Does the program infringe on the student's dignity, privacy, free expression, or other civil liberties? (p. 65)

PAGE 74

61 Other ideas suggested for inclusion included documentation by race, sex, type of offense, and recidivism rates. Well-trained, enthusiastic staff and support personnel set the tone and delivered the program; caring, accessible, helpful staff members seemed to be pivotal to the program. A low student/teacher ratio was considered a critical element (Chobot & Garibaldi, 1982). The ISS program described by Dilling (1979) included six key components: 1. The program was staffed by two teachers. Each worked in the in-school suspension program for a three hour block and additionally taught two other classes. 2. The family, the student, and the counselor held sessions to determine the causes, goals, and future educational possibilities; assessment; and placing of responsibility where they are known and agreed upon by all concerned in accountable ways. 3. Administrators could suspend for three days, five days, or longer. Then the family and the student were offered the option of attending the ATS (Alternative to Suspension) program or of going home. 4. Students in ATS attended one of two three-

PAGE 75

62 hour blocks. They reported after school began and left immediately after the three hour block ended and were not allowed on the campus otherwise. 5. If the student remained in the program for longer than the original terms, there was a gradual release to one or more classes with hall and social privileges. 6. Personal andjor group counseling, which included the counselor, the ATS teacher, the parents, and the student, occurred before, during, and after placement in the ATS program. Each adult who lived in the home was required, as a condition for the student's placement into the ATS program, to attend at least one counseling session while the student was in the program. These sessions were held in the evenings and weekends; they focused on the behavior displayed, home conduct, the goals of education expected by the home, feelings about home, achievements of the student, what the school expected of the student, and what the school was doing for the student. If the student was to be enrolled in the program on a longer term basis, the parent(s) had to continue in the parenting class for the student to remain in the program; if the parent(s) didn't attend, the student was removed from the ATS program and was changed to an at-home suspension (Dilling, 1979).

PAGE 76

63 HOKIS (Hardin Operation Keep In School) at L. L. Hardin Junior High School in St. Charles, Missouri, was intended to keep students in school while they paid for their misconduct, to give them individualized instruction, to demonstrate to the student that they can follow a set of precise rules, to create a positive image for parents, and to benefit the school district by maintaining average daily attendance funds. The students reported directly to the room to participate in a two-part day. The morning session (8:00 A.M. to 12:00 noon) was a work session. The students ate a hot or sack lunch in the room at 12:00 noon: no snacks were allowed. The afternoon session consisted of films, discussion, and rap session with the assistant principal, or students could choose to continue working on their assignments. There were three breaks per day of five minutes each. Students could not attend student functions (Bornmann, 1976). O'Brien (1976) reported the ISS (In-School Suspension) program as three-fourths education and one-fourth punishment. The Minnesota program included: 1. It took severe behavior to get into ISS (smoking pot, drinking alcohol, or using drugs on school grounds: perpetual truancy: exhibition of

PAGE 77

violent behavior). 2. No talking. 3. Use of red ink for questions and black ink for answers. 4. Eating lunch before other students. 5. Exclusion from extracurricular activities and pep rallies. 6. Writing of two 500-word essays. 64 7. Not wanting ISS to be a vacation from their regular class work. 8. Work based on each individual's ability. 9. Working with other agencies to try to help the student work out his problems and to give him reasons to stay in school. The elements of basic rationality and fairness may have been the reason for the strong community support for the ISS program (O'Brien, 1976). Winborne (1980) studied the King William County, Virginia, model, the Alternative Citizenship Program, which was a therapeutic model. It was intended to help students in grades eight through 12 who would otherwise be suspended from school; to overcome the education disadvantages of minority group isolation; to provide individualized academic and behavioral intervention and to increase the success of re-entry into the regular classroom. The two major approaches

PAGE 78

65 were punishment in the form of isolation from peers and academic and/or behavior crisis intervention in the forms of intensive tutoring, counseling, and evaluation. When a student had completed hisjher stay, academic and behavior modification plans were written and sent to the referring teacher and interested others. Follow-up observations by tutors were provided at regular intervals to assess the student's progress. This program was staffed by one coordinating teacher and three para-professional tutors who worked one-to-one with students in the program and who could be assigned to attend regular classes with the student after ISS to facilitate reentry and implementation of the academic and behavior modification plan. The coordinator planned strategies and conducted formal assessments and counseling; the tutors were involved in individualized instruction, affective listening, and informal assessments. There were no group activities, only individual ones. The principal notified the parents, the coordinator, and the classroom teachers; the student began the next morning. A social history from the counselor, an educational evaluation from the referring teacher, and current educational objectives from the classroom teacher were requested. Each student was considered a separate case; the needs

PAGE 79

66 of the student determined which phase(s) of the program (assessment, remediation, continuance of the current educational objectives, counseling) were emphasized (Winborne, 1980). Chobot and Garibaldi (1982) pointed out that the smooth functioning of the referral process was crucial to the success of the ISS program. It provided the control that kept the program from becoming a dumping ground and instead reached those who would benefit most from the program. To facilitate this, the principal or his/her designee was generally the person who was in charge of the placement of students into the ISS program, with teachers referring students cases to the principal or his designee for dispensasation. In some cases, students could refer themselves (Chobot & Garibaldi, 1982). The Learning Adjustment Center at Knoxville Junior High School in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, was established after concern about increasing suspension rates prompted lowered student-administrator and student/counselor ratios along with expanded tutorial and in-service education programs, and these had failed to curb increasing suspension rates. The LAC could handle up to 10 students and was monitored by regular school employees. students signed a contract, and a copy was mailed to the parent(s). Results of

PAGE 80

67 the LAC indicate students and teachers have cooperated well. Initially some of the faculty members had suspicions about the program, but they accepted the concept. The most important result was that the suspension rate was reduced by 50 percent (Lundell, 1982, pp. 76-77). Lundell (1982) studied the In-School Suspension Program at Bayside Junior and Senior High School in Virginia Beach, Virginia. The program included referrals to the program being made by the assistant principal, with him determining the length of the student's stay. The program coordinator contacted the regular teachers for information about the academic and social behavior of the student. When the student entered the program, he/she was given the rules and a contract was signed. The student was tested to determine hisjher interests and academic skill levels. The student did not receive credit in his/her regular classroom for work done in the suspension center. While there, the student worked on prepared tests and projects kept in folders in the center. Evaluation of the program indicated significantly reduced total numbers of suspension and of repeat offenders. During the first year the number of student suspensions were reduced by 42% at the junior high school and by 29% at the senior high

PAGE 81

68 school. The number of students suspended four or more times was reduced by 94% at the high school. It was a bridge in the educational process, one that focused on behavior and modifying and channeling improper behavior into a more positive direction (Lundell, 1982, pp. 79-80). In his study of secondary principals in Pennsylvania, Haupt (1987) concluded that secondary principals perceived ISS as a useful discipline strategy. Principals found ISS effective in reducing disciplinary referrals and suspensions and in maintaining a productive classroom learning atmosphere by removing disruptive students. In 1979-80 in the 32 southernmost counties in Illinois, Garrett (1981) found ISS programs very successful in reducing numbers of out-of-school suspensions, and they were strongly supported by parents, educators, and boards of education. However, the evaluation data showed uncertainty as to whether the program had improved the students' behavior. Encouragement was given for the supportive and rehabilitative potential to be built up and for continued searching for programs and strategies that reduce out-of-school suspension that cause significant reductions in student misbehavior. The William A. Wirt High School Behavior Modi-

PAGE 82

69 fication Clinic in Gary, Indiana, was established in 1977 to help students who exhibited inappropriate behavior to learn positive, appropriate ways of behavior as they learned that others were not accep-ted. Activities in decision-making, communication skills, life skills, consumerism, values clarifi-cation, and interpersonal skills were conducted to make the student more aware and respectful of himself and others; these were supplements to academic activi-ties and the upgrading of deficient skills (National School Resource Network, 1981). Assessments of In-School Suspension Programs The effectiveness of ISS programs ranged from less than effective to very effective. There were numerous reports in the literature about the successes of ISS programs, but Collins (1985b) believed that the failures were also present but less often reported. Research studies which show the full range of effectiveness follow: 1. No significant differences in regard to absenteeism, recidivism, grade, gender, minority status, family configuration, and achievement levels between ISS with assignments and ISS without assign-ments were reported by Lynch (1983).

PAGE 83

2. Moore questioned whether ISS improved behavior or whether it was just another form of punishment (Moore, 1989). 70 3. In a study of Missouri school districts in 1978-79, the chi-square values were not found to be statistically significant at the .05 level of confidence with respect to the effectiveness of in-school suspension programs based on the difference in behavior of the students who had been assigned to inschool suspension (Hadd, 1980). 4. Mendez and Sanders (1981) found that claims of effectiveness of ISS programs were not as expected or as complete as claimed in some evaluations. 5. Primary focuses on ISS as punishment, with minimal academic and behavioral components, led Short and Noblit (1985) to conclude that ISS programs were not achieving what the literature proposed. 6. Mizell (1978) stated that ISS, just as many other disciplinary practices, could fail because it focused on the symptoms instead of the causes for assignment to ISS. 7. ISS has the potential to significantly improve student behavior and to reduce out-of-school suspensions, but this will happen only if ISS is developed as a supportive, rehabilitate program rather than just another way to punish (Garrett, 1981).

PAGE 84

71 8. There were more students suspended when there was an ISS program available, but dropout and failure rates were significantly less than for those suspended out-of-school (Thweatt, 1980). 9. Benefits of ISS programs were reduction of suspension, reductions in recidivism and misconduct, more parental involvement with school personnel, teacher satisfaction, and improved image of the school in the community (Bornmann, 1976; Brown, 1977; Clark, 1978a, 1978b; Harvey & Moosha, 1977; National School Public Relations, 1976; Yeakley, 1977). 10. McMurrens (1980) major finding and conclusion were that students who received internal ISS would more likely improve in personal adjustment than out-of-school suspended students and that externally suspended students were more likely to receive subsequent suspension than internally suspended students. His conclusion was that as an approach towards reducing disruptive student behavior, internal ISS was preferable to external, out-of-school suspension, 11. ISS programs leave the student in the educational environment, where the problem exists and where treatment can address the causes rather than the symptoms. In-school suspension placements force the students to examine the causes of the in-school

PAGE 85

72 suspension placements and to determine for themselves whether they wish to avoid the situation in the future, to deal with all areas of academic work, and to make them do work they would not have done out-ofschool. It is a bridge instead of a break in the education process. It focuses on behavior and on modifying and channeling improper behavior into a more positive direction (Harvey & Moosha, 1977). 12. "Despite the obstacles encountered in establishing the eight in-school suspension centers, the benefits for students were overwhelmingly positive" (Nielson, 1979b, p. 331)

PAGE 86

CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY The problem of this study was to investigate the characteristics of ISS programs in public secondary schools in the state of Colorado. This was a descriptive research study using a survey technique with a self-administered, structured questionnaire consisting of 31 items. According to Babbie (1979), survey research: is probably the best method available to the social scientist interested in collecting original data for purposes of describing a population too large to observe directly. Careful probability of sampling provides a group of respondents whose characteristics may be taken as representative of those of the larger population, and carefully constructed standardized questionnaires provide data in the same form from all respondents. These data are useful as a resource for anyone who is interested in providing alternatives to at-home suspension, to school personnel who may want to establish and implement an ISS program, and to those who may want to re-evaluate their ISS programs in light of the key components of others' programs.

PAGE 87

The questionnaire included the following sections: general information, background information, rationale for the ISS program, organizational structure, delivery of the ISS program, the ISS staff, and assessment of the ISS program. Questions Posed by the Study These were the questions posed by the study: 74 1. To what extent do public secondary schools in Colorado utilize in-school suspension programs as a part of their discipline programs? 2. How long have the in-school suspension programs been in operation? 3. What were the origins of the plans used? 4. What were the reasons why the in-school suspension programs were developed and implemented? 5. What were the goals of the programs? 6. What intervention strategies were employed prior to referral to in-school suspension? 7. What were the criteria for placement into in-school suspension? B. What were the organizational structures for developing and implementing in-school suspension programs?

PAGE 88

9. What were the key components of the daily in-school suspension programs for students? 75 10. How were the in-school suspension programs staffed? 11. What was the perceived effectiveness of the in-school suspension programs? On what were these perceptions based? 12. What were the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the in-school suspension programs? Sampling Procedures Each school year the Colorado Department of Education publishes the Colorado Education Directory which identifies all public schools in the state of Colorado. The population of this investigation included all.schools listed in the Colorado Education Directory, 1988-1989, as secondary schools, for a total of 476 schools. Schools which were identified in this secondary school population included those with any of the following grade level configurations: 4-8: 5-6: 6-7: 6-8: 6-9: 6-12: 7-8: 7-9: 7-12: 8-9: 9-12: 10-12 grades. The schools were divided into eight "School District by Setting Categories"_by the Colorado Department of Education. Using the Fall, 1988 Colorado Department of Education membership for

PAGE 89

76 Secondary Schools by District Setting, the researcher determined that there were 28 schools in Setting #1 -Core City, 106 schools in Setting #2 -Denver Metro; 102 schools in Setting #3 -Urban/Suburban; 35 schools in Setting #4 -outlying City; 89 schools in Setting #5 -outlying Town; 72 schools in Setting #6 -Rural; 14 schools in Setting #8 -Recreational; and 30 schools in Setting #8 Small Attendance Districts. The population of each school, as well as the grade levels represented at each school, were also included in this membership listing and were utilized in reporting data from this study. This produced a total of 476 secondary schools in the state of Colorado. In an attempt to solicit representative responses from all Colorado State Department of Education Settings by district, by size, and by grade-level categories, the researcher and her thesis committee made the decision to sample all 476 schools instead of drawing a random sample from each setting. A listing of the population of Colorado Schools used for this survey is included in Appendix A. "School Districts by Setting Categories" is in Appendix B. "School Districts by Setting Categories -Definition of Setting Categories" is in Appendix c.

PAGE 90

77 Data-Gathering Techniques Principals of Colorado secondary schools were surveyed by the use of a self-administered questionnaire mailed to them. The mailing included the following: 1. Cover letter (with an endorsement signature from the major advisor). The cover letter explained the purpose of the questionnaire, gave directions for its return, and thanked the respondent for hisjher cooperation. 2. Questionnaire. 3. A stamped and addressed return envelope. The cover letter and questionnaire appear in Appendices D and E. Questionnaires were mailed to the principals of these 476 schools. The principals were asked to complete the questionnaire themselves or to ask someone knowledgeable about the school's in-school suspension (ISS) program to do so. The first mailing was sent on October 24, 1989; a total of 249 questionnaires was returned from the first mailing. The second mailing was sent on November 28, 1989; a total of 98 questionnaires was returned from the second mailing.

PAGE 91

78 Records were kept as to the date of instrument return for the purpose of a follow-up mailing to nonrespondents. The initial mailing resulted in 249 completed surveys, or a 52% return. Six weeks after the initial mailing, follow-up materials were sent to the non-respondents. The follow-up packet contained a second cover letter, another copy of the instrument and a return envelope. The second cover letter appears in Appendix F. The return envelope of the follow-up mailing was coded in a color different from the first to indicate how many responses were returned from the first and second mailings. The follow-up mailing resulted in an additional 98 completed surveys. The total return of completed surveys was 347, or 73 percent of the population. Development of the Questionnaire After an extensive study of research findings and educational literature, the researcher drafted a questionnaire for this study. It contained general information, background information, rationale for the ISS program, organizational structure, delivery of the ISS program, the ISS staff, and assessment of the ISS program. suggestions from a panel of experts

PAGE 92

and a pilot test of the questionnaire modified the questionnaire as needed. Panel of Experts 79 A preliminary draft of survey questions was submitted to a panel of educational experts in order to gain their reactions and suggestions. This panel consisted of: Dr. Albert Aguayo, Assistant Superintendent, Denver Public Schools, 900 Grant Street, Denver, Colorado 80203 Mr. Vincent Capillupo, Assistant Principal, Powell Middle School, Littleton Public Schools, 8000 South Corona Way, Littleton, Colorado 80122 Dr. Rodney Killian, Director of Planning and Evaluation, Aurora Public Schools, 1085 Peoria Street, Aurora, Colorado 80011 Dr. Tom Maglaras, Director of Middle Schools, Aurora Public Schools, 1085 Peoria Street, Aurora, Colorado 800111 Dr. Sam McGowan, Superintendent of Schools, Paris Union District 95, 414 South Main, Paris, Illinois, 61944 Mr. Emory c. Oliver, Superintendent of Schools, Kingston K-14 School District, Box 501, Cadet, Missouri 63630

PAGE 93

80 These panelists were asked to evaluate the survey for clarity, appropriateness, and comprehensiveness. They critiqued the survey for the following: 1. Format 2. Inclusion and exclusion of necessary and unnecessary components 3. Inclusion and exclusion of necessary and unnecessary details 4. Grammar and syntax 5. Statistical validity 6. Overall improvements of the survey. Recommendations from the panel of educational experts were incorporated into the questionnaire. A copy of the letter sent to each expert panelist is included in Appendix G. Pilot Instrument The Survey of In-School Suspension Programs was pilot tested with a class of 13 students in the School of Education at the University of Colorado, Denver. The graduate students were primarily teachers who were pursuing administrative certification, with the remaining students being school administrators. The purpose of the pilot test was to identify any potential problems with the survey instrument

PAGE 94

relative to clarity, appropriateness, and comprehensiveness. Each individual was asked to communicate to the researcher any suggestions for improvement of the instrument. Suggestions from these individuals were evaluated for relevance and inclusion into the final instrument. Analysis and Treatment of the Data 81 Data from the surveys were collected in the fall of 1989 and analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. The SPSS/PCT V 3.0, a Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, was used. Since many of the questions could have more than one response, SPSS Tables V 2.0 package was used to analyze the multiple response and multiple dichotomy variables. Frequency distributions and percentage tables showing the responses to each survey item for the entire sample were developed. A correlation matrix of the 20 items from a scale within the survey, perceived strength and weaknesses of ISS programs, was also generated. Chi-square and analysis of variance statistical tests were performed as appropriate to determine if any statistically significant differences (p < .05) existed.

PAGE 95

82 A comparison was made between the initial group of respondents and the group who responded after receipt of the follow-up packet. Chi-squares were used to assess the probability that both groups of respondents were from the same population. Additional analyses were performed utilizing the independent variables of the district classification as to setting category, school enrollment, and grade levels to assess the relationships of these variables to the survey findings. A series of one-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) and chi-squares were computed for each of the independent variables and each survey variable. The findings of the study are reported and discussed in Chapter IV.

PAGE 96

CHAPTER IV REPORT OF THE FINDINGS Introduction This chapter reports the findings from the questionnaire responses. The responses represent public secondary school educators' perceptions of the characteristics of in-school suspension programs (ISS) in the State of Colorado; as well as desired modifications. The findings are reported in both tabular form and narrative description. In-school suspension programs will be identified as ISS. The purpose of this study was to investigate the characteristics of ISS programs in secondary schools of the State of Colorado. This was a descriptive research study using a survey technique with a selfadministered questionnaire consisting of 31 items. The questionnaire included the following sections: general information, background information, goals of the ISS program, organizational structure, delivery of the ISS program, the ISS staff, and assessment of the ISS program. This knowledge is useful as a resource to anyone who is interested in providing

PAGE 97

84 alternatives to at-home suspension, to school personnel who may want to establish and implement an ISS program, and to those who may want to re-evaluate their ISS programs in light of the key components of others' programs. The study sought answers to the following research questions: 1. To what extent do public secondary schools in Colorado utilize in-school suspension programs as a part of their discipline programs? 2. How long have the in-school suspension programs been in operation? 3. What were the origins of the plans used? 4. What were the reasons why the in-school suspension programs were developed and implemented? 5. What were the goals of the programs? 6. What intervention strategies were employed prior to referral to in-school suspension? 7. What were the criteria for placement into in-school suspension? 8. What were the organizational structures for developing and implementing in-school suspension programs? 9. What were the key components of the daily in-school suspension programs for students?

PAGE 98

85 10. How were the in-school suspension programs staffed? 11. What were the perceived effectivenesses of the in-school suspension programs? on what were these perceptions based? 12. What were the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the in-school suspension programs? Description of the Respondents Questionnaires were mailed to the principals of the 476 secondary schools in the state of Colorado. Table 1 presents the return rates for the study. The respondents from the initial group and those who were sent a follow-up letter were examined for any significant differences. As shown in Table 2, the chi-square yielded a significance value of p < .04; however, when the Yates Correction for 2 x 2 tables was applied, it yielded a significance of p < .056. There was a significant trend for schools with ISS programs to respond to the initial mailing more than schools without ISS programs. The questionnaires for this survey were completed predominantly by administrators. Respondents included

PAGE 99

86 Table 1 Return Rates Percentages Mailing of Responses Frequency First 52% (249) Second 21% ( 98) Total Return 73% (347) No Return 27% (129) Total 100% (476) Table 2 Comparison of First and Second Mailings with Respect to ISS Programs Mailing First Second ISS ISS Program-YES Program-NO 69% (171) 57% ( 56) 31% (78) 43% (42) Chi-square -4.13 Chi-square with Yates correction = 3.64 df = 1 Significance = p < .04 Chi-square Total 100% (249) 100% ( 98) p < .056 Chi-square with Yates correction

PAGE 100

87 principals, 190 (56%); assistant principals, 91 (27%); superintendents, 18 (5%); deans of students, 10 (3%); administrative assistants, 8 (2%), and others, 24 (7%). Only six cases were not identified by the job title of the person completing the survey, so they could not be included in this analysis. Questions Posed by the Study This section presents findings related to the questions posed by the study. Findings are reported for the sample as a whole. The questions on the questionnaire have been identified as they relate to the research questions and are reported under the most appropriate research question. The results for each research question are reported for the respondents to the questionnaire with ISS programs (n = 227) as a total group and represent the bulk of this section. Additional chi-square analyses were performed utilizing the three major descriptor variables (Colorado Department of Education setting Categories, population categories, grade level categories) and survey questions which produced category data suitable for chi-square analysis. Significant chi-square analysis findings are reported on pp. 154 to 159.

PAGE 101

88 One-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were performed for the three major descriptor variables and survey questions which produced continuous data suitable for analysis with the use of one-way analysis of variance. Significant analyses of variance are reported on page 124. Question 1: To What Extent Do Public Secondary Schools in Colorado Utilize In School Suspension Programs as a Part of Their Discipline Programs? Of the questionnaire respondents, 65% (227) reported having ISS programs, while 35% (120) did not have ISS programs. These data are presented in Table 3. Using the Colorado State Department of Education Membership for Secondary Schools by District Table 3 Status of ISS Programs in Secondary Schools in Colorado ISS Program YES 65% (227) ISS Program NO 35% (120) Total 100% (347)

PAGE 102

Setting (Appendix B) as a base, Table 4 presents a comparison of schools in each of the eight 89 settings with respect to having responded to the questionnaire. There were four questionnaires returned without "Name of School" completed, all of which reported that they did have ISS programs. These are listed separately as "Unidentified by School Setting." Table 5 is a comparison of reported ISS programs by the eight Colorado State Department of Education District Settings. The 86% (19) of those in Setting 1 -Core City and the 85% (57) of those in Setting 3 Urban/Suburban were the highest percentages with ISS programs reported by setting. The 65% (13) of those in Setting 8 Small Attendance Districts were the highest percentages without ISS programs reported by settings. Results of the chi-square statistical test showed that there was a statistically significant difference (p < .05) between the number of ISS programs in schools in the eight Colorado State Department of Education District settings. Table 6 is a comparison of schools with reported ISS programs by six school size categories. Categories created for the purpose of reporting school

PAGE 103

Table 4 Comparison of Schools in Colorado State Department of Education District Settings That Responded to Questionnaire Number of Percentage of Schools in Schools in setting Setting Number Percentage That That of of Colorado Responded Responded Schools in Schools in to Ques-to QuesSetting Setting Setting tionnaire tionnaire 1 -Core City 28 6t 22 79t 2 -Denver Metro 106 22t 86 81t 3 -Urban/Suburban 102 22t 67 66t 4 -outlying City 35 7\ 29 83t 5 Outlying Town 89 l9t 58 65t 6 -Rural 72 1St 52 72\ 7 -Recreational 14 3t 9 64t 8 small Attendance Districts 30 6t 20 67\ Unidentified by Setting --4 Total 476 100\ 347 Note: Percentages do not equal 100\. \0 0

PAGE 104

Table 5 Comparison of Colorado State Department of Education by District Settings with Respect to ISS Programs Setting 1 -Core City 2 -Denver Metro 3 Urban/Suburban 4 -Outlying city 5 -Outlying Town 6 -Rural 7 -Recreational 8 Small Attendance Districts Unidentified by Setting Total Chi Square= 31.2 df = 7 Number of Schools in Setting with ISS Program 19 49 57 19 38 27 7 7 (4) 227 Percentage of Schools in Setting with ISS Program 86\ 57% 85\ 66\ 66\ 52\ 78\ 35% (lOOt) Number of Schools in Setting without ISS Program 3 37 10 10 20 25 2 13 (0) 120 Significance = .0001 (Percentages do not equal 100\.) Percentage of Schools in Setting without ISS Program 14% 43% 15\ 34\ 34\ 48\ 22\ 65\ (0\) \0 ......

PAGE 105

92 Table 6 Comparison of Schools with ISS Programs by School Size Categories Number of Percentage of Schools with Schools with School Size ISS Program ISS Program Category in Category in Category (Students) (n=227) (%) 0 -99 19 8 100 -299 45 20 300 -499 48 21 500 -699 43 19 700 -899 31 14 900 2,400 37 16 Unidentifiable by School Size Category (4) 2 Total 227 (100) size were 0-99 students, 100-299 students, 300-499 students, 500-699 studenfs,_ 700-899 students, and 900-2,400 students. Schools with student populations between 100 and 699 had the highest percentages of ISS programs. Schools with student populations under 100 had the lowest percentages of ISS programs. Table 7 is a comparison of schools with reported ISS programs by three grade-level categories. Categories created for the purpose of reporting

PAGE 106

Table 7 Comparison of Schools with ISS Programs by School Size categories. 93 Grade Level Category Number of Schools with ISS Program (n=227) Percentage of Schools with ISS Program 1 -Middle Level* 2 -Junior/Senior High School** 3 -Senior High School*** Unidentifiable by Grade level Category Total 125 23 75 4 227 (%) 55 10 33 2 100 *Category 1 (Middle level) includes schools with any of the following grade level configurations: 6-8, 7-9, 5-8, 7-8, 4-8, 6-7, 6-9, 8-9. **Category 2 (Junior/Senior High Schools) includes those schools with grades 7-12 in one school. *** Category 3 (Senior High School) includes those schools with grades 9-12 or 10-12 in one school. grade-level data were: -middle level (schools with grade level configura-tions among any of grades four, five, six, seven, eight, or nin.e) -juniorjsenior high school combination (which included schools with grades seven through twelve)

PAGE 107

94 -senior high school (which included schools with grades nine through twelve or ten through twelve). Category One, which included the middle leveljjunior high school grades exclusively, had the majority (56%) of the ISS programs. Schools with grades 7-12, juniorjsenior high schools in one school, had the fewest (10%) ISS programs. High schools with grades 9-12 or 10-12 reported 34% with ISS programs. If a school did not have an ISS program, respondents were asked to state the reasons why. As shown in Table a, lack of money and facilities were the two predominant reasons stated for not having an ISS program. Question 2: How Lona Have the ISS Programs Been in Operation? The total number of years an ISS program had been in operation ranged from one year or less through 10 years or more, with a mean of 4.63 years. Of the schools reporting ISS programs, 64% had had programs for five years or less, and 31% had had them for six or more years. Table 9 presents a description of schools based on how long their ISS programs have been in operation.

PAGE 108

Table 8 Reasons Reported for Not Having an ISS Program Reasons for Not Having ISS Program Not enough money to fund a program Lack of facilities Had one previously but discontinued it Do not believe that they are effective Never considered implementing a program Other (*Examples of answers.) Percentage of Responses (n=120) 46% (55) 43% (52) 24% (29) 14% (17) 8% ( 9) 53% (64) Note: Percentages do not equal 100%; respondents could check more_ than one response.) Examples of answers: Small school, not needed; not an organized compone-nt of discipline program; no staff/qualified people to staff an ISS program; would like to have one. 95

PAGE 109

Table 9 Comparison of Schools Based Long ISS Programs Have Been Years in Operation One year or less Two years Three years Four years Five years Six years Seven years Eight years Nine years Ten years or longer Total Question 3: What Were the Origins of the Plan Used? on in ISS Programs and How Operation Percentage of Responses 13% {28) 13% {27) 13% {28) 14% {31) 14% {31) 11% {22) 6% {13) 4% {9) 2% {5) 10% {21) 100% (215) Question three was aimed at the identification of the participants who aided in the development of 96 ISS programs. Building administrators were reported as having been involved in the development of most ISS programs. Teachers and counselors were also involved in the development of many ISS programs, with district administrators following in amount of involvement. Parents and students were involved infrequently. Table 10 presents data regarding participants who aided in the development of ISS programs.

PAGE 110

97 Table 10 Percentage of Respondents Who Identified Participants Who Aided in the Development of ISS Programs Participants Who Aided Development of ISS Programs Building administrators Teachers Counselors District Administrators Parents Students Court order by a judge Others (*Examples of answers.) Percentage of Responses 98% 54% 35% 24% 13% 8% 1% 5% (217) (119) (78) (53) (29) (18) (1) (10) Note: Percentages do not equal 100%; respondents could check more than one response. Board of Education, Community Advisory Council, Dean's Office, Community Service, At-Risk Coordinator, Secretaries, Student Advisors. A second component of question three was to identify the sources of funding for the reported ISS programs. ISS programs were funded primarily from local district funds (54%), followed by local school funds (29%) and other (30%). The other response category included ISS funding within the schools' present FTE, requiring no extra funds, having no extra funds, or being in the building budget. Federal grants, state grants, and private funds were represented as insignificant contributors to ISS

PAGE 111

98 programs. (Percentages do not equal 100%; respondents could check more than one response.) Question 4: What Were the Reasons Why the In-School Suspension Programs Were Developed and Implemented? The most frequently selected reason for the development and implementation of ISS programs was to keep students in school in a supervised environment (44%). However, the largest over-all category for reasons for developing and implementing ISS programs was that of "Other" (51%), consisting of a variety of different responses with varying and smaller percentages of occurrence. Table 11 presents data regarding the stated reasons for developing and implementing ISS programs. Question 5: What Were the Goals of the ISS Programs? Respondents were asked to select goals for their ISS program from a list of goals, to specify any other goals which were not listed, and to identify the three most important goals of their ISS programs. The goals of providing alternatives to at-home suspension, of serving as consequences for unacceptable behavior, and of modifying inappropriate behavior were identified by most respondents as goals of their programs.

PAGE 112

99 Table 11 Percentage of Respondents Who Identified These Reasons for Developing and Implementing ISS Programs Reasons for Developing and Implementing ISS Programs To keep students in school and in a supervised environment To provide an alternative to out-of-school suspension To maintain students' education process, do the work, and receive credit for the work To respond to students often being unsupervised when suspended out-of-school; parents not at home To utilize another strategy (ISS} which was perceived as an effective discipline strategy To develop an intermediate strategy between detention and out-of-school suspension To counteract students' perceptions of out-of-school suspension as a vacation, a reward Other* Percentage of Responses (n=215) 44% (94) 28% (62) 26% (55) 19% (40) 15% (33) 13% (28} 13% (28) 51% (109} Note: Percentages do not equal 100%; respondents could list more than one response. Other reasons included: To provide time-out for students and teachers, 11% (24); to reduce the number of out-of-school suspensions, 10% (21); to provide a more appropriate response for minor offenses, 8% (18); to separate misbehaving students from the rest of the students, 7% (16}; to respond to parental requests, 7% (15}; to respond to negative public relations issues, 4% (8); to respond to district mandates, 3% (6}; to utilize personnel made available for staffing an ISS program, 1% (1}.

PAGE 113

100 Goals relating to students developing problem-solving skills, improved self-concepts, and self-discipline were identified less frequently. Table 12 shows the Table 12 Percentage of Respondents Who Identified These Goals as Goals of Their ISS Programs Goals To provide an alternative to at-home suspension To serve as a consequence for unacceptable behavior To modify inappropriate behavior To encourage appropriate behavior To prevent future misbehavior To provide time out for the student To help students develop self-discipline To reduce the number of discipline problems To reduce truancy To reduce chronic tardiness To provide relief for the teacher To reduce the dropout rate To develop problem-solving skills Percentage of Responses (n=226) 98% (221) 98% (221) 93% (210) 82% (186) 81% (184) 77% (175) 71% (160) 70% (158) 64% (145) 56% (127) 51% (115) 42% (95) 41% (92)

PAGE 114

101 Table 12 (cont'd) Goals Percentage of Responses (n=226) To help the student improve hisjher self-image To reduce the student's feelings of alienation from school Other* 32% (72) 30% (68) 14% (31) Note: Percentages do not equal 100%; respondents could check more than one response. Other goals listed by respondents included: To help students take responsibility for their behavior To help students complete their homework assignments To provide interventions and attention to students To remove disruptions from classrooms. responses for each goal listed in the questionnaire and lists some other goals written in by the respondents. Respondents were asked to indicate which three goals were the most important goals of their ISS programs of the 15 listed in the questionnaire. From Table 13, providing an alternative to at-home suspension, modifying inappropriate behavior, and serving as a consequence for unacceptable behavior were the goals listed by respondents as the three most

PAGE 115

102 Table 13 Report of Most Important Goals of ISS Programs Goals Percentage of Responses (n=215) To provide an alternative to at-home suspension To modify inappropriate behavior To serve as a consequence for unacceptable behavior To encourage appropriate behavior To help students develop self-discipline To provide time out for the student To prevent future misbehavior To reduce the number of discipline problems To provide relief for the teacher To reduce the dropout rate To develop problem-solving skills To reduce truancy To help the student improve his/her self-image To reduce the student's feeling of alienation from school To reduce chronic tardiness 75% (162) 59% (127) 43% (93) 25% (53) 18% (39) 11% (24) 10% (22) 10% (21) 7% (16) 7% (16) 7% (14) 6% (13) 6% (12) 5% (10) 4% (8) Note: Percentages do not equal 100%; respondents could check more than one response.

PAGE 116

important goals of their ISS programs. However, providing an alternative to at-home suspension was 103 markedly the primary goal choice of the respondents. Question 6: What Intervention Strategies Were Employed Prior to Referral to ISS? An assessment was made of the different strategies used with students in the discipline process at the respondents' schools, prior to narrowing the focus to strategies used prior to students' placement in ISS programs. Data provided by respondents regarding the different discipline strategies used at their schools in general are detailed in Table 14. Discipline strategies reported by most of the respondents included parent conferences and telephone calls, counseling with students, student detention, and student suspension. Only a few of the respondents reported using group workshops on specific topics, lowering of the student's grade, corporal punishment, or behavior clinics. After identifying the overall discipline strategies used in their schools, respondents were asked about strategies they typically used with students prior to placing them in the ISS programs.

PAGE 117

104 Referral to the office and teacher/student conferences were the two strategies checked most often Table 14 Report of Strategies Used in the Overall Discipline Process at Respondents' Schools Discipline Strategies Parent conferences Telephone calls to parents Counseling Detention suspension Cooling-off/time out Contracts Program/schedule changes Referral for special education evaluation Denial of extracurricular activities Work details/programs Expulsion Reward Systems Peer Counseling Advocacy by school staff Problem-solving sessions with school staff Percentage of Responses (n=226) 97% (218) 97% (216) 95% (215) 93% (210) 90% (204) 85% (192) 81% (182) 74% (167) 68% (154) 67% (152) 54% (122) 53% (120) 52% (117) 43% (96) 43% (96) 36% (82)

PAGE 118

Table 14 (cont'd) Percentage of Discipline Strategies Community/school projects Saturday school Group workshops on specific topics Lowering the student's grade Corporal punishment Behavior clinics Other* Responses (n=226) 24% (55) 22% (49) 17% (39) 14% (31) 9% (20) 9% (20) 13% (30) Note: Percentages do not equal 100%; respondents could check more than one response. Other overall discipline strategies listed by respondents included: -Group counseling -Beginning detention at 6:00 a,m. PASS (Positive Alternative to Suspension) -Incentives for fulfilling contracts -Peer/parents support team. by the respondents. These were followed by after-school detention and other kinds of conferences--counselor/student; teacher/parent; teacher/parent; student. Results are provided in Table 15. Data reported in Tables 14 and 15 appear to support one another. Once referred to the office, strategies used may have included parent 105

PAGE 119

Table 15 Report of Strategies Used with Students Prior to Placement in ISS 106 Strategies Percentage of Responses (n=224) Referral to the office Teacher/student conference After-school detention Counselor/student conference Teacher/parent conference Teacherjparentjstudent conference Lunch time detention After school work detail At-home suspension Other* 88% (198) 85% ( 191) 70% (156) 68% (152) 66% (148) 61% (136) 43% (97) 21% (46) 5% (12) 21% (46) Note: Percentages do not equal 100%; respondents could check more than one response. Other strategies used by respondents prior to placing students in ISS were: -student/principal (administrator) conference -Parent/principal (administrator) conference Saturday school -Telephone conversation with parents -Teachers/administrator/student conference.

PAGE 120

conferences and telephone calls, counseling, detention, time-out, contracts, program/schedule 107 changes, referral for special education evaluation, and denial of extracurricular activities. Conferences of different kinds (teacher/student; counselor/ student; teacher/parent; teacherjparentjstudent) may have included some of the same strategies. since most of the respondents were school administrators, it seems logical that they would indicate "referral to the office" as a primary prerequisite for placing students into ISS. It is usually only school administrators who are empowered to issue any kind of suspension. Question 7: What Were the Criteria for Placement into In-School suspension? Disruption and disrespect were checked most frequently by respondents as behaviors which might result in a student's placement into ISS. These were followed by serious illegal offenses which included coercion for moneyjgoods, possession or use of illegal substances, possession or use of a weapon, and gambling. Results of behaviors that might result in a student's placement into ISS can be found in Table 16.

PAGE 121

108 Table 16 Behaviors that Might Result in a student's Placement into ISS Behaviors Disruption Disrespect Insubordination Serious/illegal offenses Pattern of inappropriate behavior Profanity/vulgarity Fighting Verbal abuse Truancy Cutting classes Smoking Tardiness Physical assault Failure to have supplies/ materials Other* Percentage of Responses (n=225) 83% (187) 81% (183) 81% ( 181) 81% ( 180) 79% (178) 76% (170) 74% (167) 73% (165) 72% ( 161) 66% (149) 64% (143) 61% (138) 40% (89) 22% (49) 13% (30) Note: Percentages do not equal 100%: respondents could check more than one response. Other: -Repeated lesser offenses -Underachievement -Failure to serve after-school detention Work not completed -Vandalism

PAGE 122

109 Physical assault, failure to have supplies/materials, and those listed under "Other" were checked least frequently by the respondents as reasons for placing a student in ISS. Respondents were asked to star the three most frequent behaviors that result in a student's placement into ISS. However, not all respondents completed this task (190 of 225). Table 17, shows that disruption, a pattern of inappropriate behavior, and truancy were identified as the three most frequent behaviors exhibited that resulted in the student's placement into an ISS program. Table 17 Report of the Most Frequent Behaviors That Resulted in Student's Placement into ISS Behavior Disruption Pattern of inappropriate behavior Truancy Insubordination Disrespect Fighting Tardiness Percentage of Responses (n=190) 42% (79) 40% (75) 40% (75) 33% (63) 32% (61) 29% (55) 25% (48)

PAGE 123

110 Table 17 (cont'd) Behavior Percentage of Responses (n=190) Verbal abuse/profanity 21% (40) Other* 22% (41) Note: Percentages do not equal 100%; respondents could check more than one response. Other: -Cutting classes Smoking -Physical assault -Failure to have supplies/materials -Coercion for moneyjgoods. Question a: What Were the Organizational Structures for Developing and Implementing In-School Suspension Programs? This question addressed the following organiza-tional components regarding in-school suspension programs: average length of assignment to ISS, average number of students assigned to ISS at one time, activities from which students assigned to ISS are restricted, whether teachers provide work for ISS students, whether credit is given for work done in ISS, location of the ISS facility, how students get out of ISS, follow-up procedure with students who have been in ISS, and whether the ISS program is evaluated at least once a year.

PAGE 124

111 Average length of assignment to ISS. Table 18 shows that a majority of the respondents (61%) assigned students to ISS programs for one-day durations. Other time lengths included "at lunch time" or that "it depended on severity or the time of the year." Table 18 Average Length of Assignment to ISS Length of Assignment Part of the day One day Two days Three days Other time lengths Total Percentage of Responses (n=225) 7% (16) 61% (137) 19% (42) 10% (22) 3% (8) 100% (225) Average number of students assigned to ISS at one time. Table 19 presents data on the average number of students assigned to ISS at one time. Nearly three-fourths of the respondents reported assigning from one to three students to ISS at one time. Approximately one-fourth of the respondents

PAGE 125

112 Table 19 Average Number of Students Assigned to ISS at One Time Number of students 1-3 4-6 7 or more Total Percentage of Responses (n=225) 72% (163) 18% (40) 10% (22) 100% (225) reported assigning four to six students, nearly twice as often as seven or more students. Activities from which students assigned to ISS are restricted. Most respondents reported restricting ISS students from all classes, and a majority restricted them from their regular lunches. Less than a majority restricted ISS students from extracurricular activities.. Table 20 provides data regarding activities from which students assigned to ISS were restricted.

PAGE 126

Table 20 Activities from Which Students Assigned to ISS Are Restricted 113 Activities Percentage of Responses (n=225) All classes Regular lunch Extracurricular activities Other* 94% (211) 66% (148) 45% (101) 40% (89) Note: Percentages do not equal 100%: respondents could check more than one response. Other: Class(es) where the referral originated, break times, free times, come early in the morning, stay after regular school day, assemblies, special programs. Do the regular teachers provide the work for students in ISS, and do students receive credit for work done while in ISS? Most of the respondents (97%) reported that the regular teachers provided the work for students in ISS programs. Similarly, most of the respondents (92%) reported that students assigned to ISS programs do receive credit for work done while they are in ISS. Location of ISS facility. A majority of the respondents reported that their ISS facilities were located in the main school buildings but were isolated

PAGE 127

114 from other classrooms (54%). Many respondents reported that their ISS facilities were in part of the administrative offices in their schools (44%). Only a few reported having their ISS facility in the midst of other classrooms (16%), and even fewer reported having their ISS facility in a separate building but on the school grounds (3%). No respondents reported having their ISS facilities somewhere else in their districts. How students get out of ISS. Once assigned to ISS programs, nearly all students had to serve the time initially specified as the way to get out of ISS (98%), according to respondents. Some respondents reported that students had to complete all work prior to getting out of ISS (31%). Only a few respondents indicated that students could earn credit for good behavior and work which could reduce the time spent in ISS (11%). Follow-up procedures with students who have been in ISS program. Of the school personnel responding to this questionnaire and who answered this question (218), 53% (116) reported having follow-up procedures with students who had been in ISS programs; 47% (102)

PAGE 128

115 reported having no follow-up procedures with students who had been in ISS programs. Annual ISS program evaluation. Data provided by respondents regarding whether they evaluated their ISS programs at least once each year are detailed in Table 21. A majority of the respondents indicated that they evaluated their programs. The nature and extensiveness of the program evaluation was not elicited in this baseline descriptive study. Table ISS Program Evaluated At Least Annually? Program Evaluated Percentage of Responses (n=221) Yes 63% (139) No 37% (82) Total 100% (221) Question 9: What Were the Key Components of the Daily ISS Programs for Students? This issue was broken down into two components on the questionnaire--student and parent components. Responses to key components of ISS programs for students can be found in Table 22. Most of the respondents informed students of ISS rules and

PAGE 129

Table 22 Key Components of ISS Programs for Students Components Informed of ISS rules and procedures Did academic assignments (English, social studies, math, science) Informed of consequences of not following ISS rules and procedures Received the same academic assignments as in the regular classroom Kept under constant supervision Isolated within the ISS room Did elective assignments (home economics, physical education, etc.) Kept constantly busy Received help or tutoring with their work Received individual counseling while in ISS Were not released from ISS until assigned work has been satisfactorily completed Did different, separate ISS assignments Percentage of Response (n=226) 96% (217) 87% (196) 86% (194) 84% (189) 80% ( 181) 69% (155) 62% (140) 61% (137) 48% (109) 44% (99) 30% (68) 29% (66) 116

PAGE 130

Table 22 (cont1d) Components Completed a behavioral contract while in ISS Participated in extracurricular activities while in ISS Received group counseling while in ISS Were allowed to socialize Percentage of Response (n=226) 24% (53) 14% (32) 7% ( 16) 2% (5) Note: Percentages do not equal 100%; respondents could check more than one response. 117 procedures and of the consequences for not following the ISS rules and procedures; had the students working on the same assignments as in the regular classes of English, social studies, math, and science; and had the ISS students under constant supervision. Less than a majority of the students received help or tutoring with their work, received individual counseling, or completed a behavioral contract while in ISS. Few ISS students were allowed to socialize, to receive group counseling, or to participate in extracurricular activities. Responses to key components of parental involve-ment in ISS programs can be found in Table 23. Most

PAGE 131

118 Table 23 Parental Involvement in ISS Programs Parent Involvement Percentage of Responses (n=221) Contacted when son/daughter assigned to ISS program Supported ISS program Felt ISS program effective Knew goals of the ISS program Attended a conference with school personnel prior to the student's re-entry into the regular school program Involved in some way while the student was in ISS 93% (206) 72% (159) 53% (117) 41% (90) 21% (.46) 8% ( 18) Note: Percentages do not equal 100%; respondents could check more than one response. of the respondents reported that they contacted parents when a student was assigned to ISS. Many respondents reported that they believed parents were supportive of the ISS program. A majority reported that they believed parents perceived the ISS program as effective. Few respondents indicated parental involvement in some way while the students were in ISS.

PAGE 132

Question 10: How Were the In-School Suspension Programs Staffed? Responses to the kinds of personnel who staff 119 the ISS programs can be found in Table 24. Two-fifths of the respondents reported that administrative and office personnel staffed their ISS programs. Approximately two-fifths of the respondents reported that paraprofessionals staffed their ISS programs. Certified teachers were identified by only one-fifth of the respondents as staffing their ISS programs. Table 24 Personnel Who Staff ISS Programs Personnel Administrative personnel along with office personnel Paraprofessionals Certified teachers Other personnel* Percentage of Responses (n=222) 44% (97) 36% (80) 21% (47) 16% (36) Note: Percentages do not equal respondents could check more than one response. Other personnel: -Counselors -Aide -Certified staff at various lengths of time -Hire a certified substitute teacher to direct supervision, teachers as available.

PAGE 133

120 When crosstabs were run on personnel who staff ISS programs compared to the eight Colorado State Department of Education District Settings, a pattern emerged from the respondents reports. All of the respondents in Core City schools reported using paraprofessionals to staff their ISS programs. Respondents from Denver Metro District schools reported using certified teachers, followed by administrative andjor office personnel. Urban/ Suburban district schools used paraprofessionals a majority of the time. Then, from the remaining settings, a majority of the respondents (Outlying City Districts; Outlying Town Districts; and combined Rural/Recreational/Small Attendance Districts) consistently reported that their ISS programs were staffed by administrative andjor office personnel. Results from these crosstabs are displayed in Table 25. Question 11: What Was the Perceived Effectiveness of the In-School Suspension Programs? On What Were These Perceptions Based? Table 26 presents data regarding the percentage of respondents who indicated how effective they believed their ISS programs were in accomplishing certain goals. Most respondents reported their ISS

PAGE 134

Table 25 Staffing for ISS Programs Compared by Colorado State Department of Education District Setting StaffinCJ CateCJories (n) Core City Certified teacher St (1) Paraprofessional lOOt (19) Administrative and/or office personnel 0\ (0) Other personnel 0\ (0) Total 9\ (19) Colorado State Department of Education Setting Groupings Denver Metro 43\ (20) 28t (13) 34\ (16) 23\ (11) 22\ (47) Urban/ Suburban 12\ (7) 53\ (30) 35\ (20) 14\ (8) 26\ (57) outlyinCJ outlyinCJ City Town 17t (3) 16t (6) 2U (5) 14\ (5) 62\ (11) 62\ (23) 1U (2) 24\ (9) n (18) 17\ (37) Rural/ Recreational Small Attendance (Combined)* 25\ (10) 1St (6) 63\ (25) 15\ (6) 18\ (40) Due to small number of respondents in individual settings 6, 7, and 8, these were combined into one cateCJory. Chi Square 79.56 SiCJnificance -p < .0000 df -15 Total Cases 22\ (47) 36t (78) 44\ (95) 17\ (36) lOOt (218) ...... IV ......

PAGE 135

Table 26 ResEondents' Perceptions of Effectiveness of ISS Programs in Accomplishing SEecific Goals Percentage of Responses (n=221) Standard Not a Not somewhat Very ISS Goals Mean Deviation Goal Effective Effective Effective Modifying inappropriate behavior 3.22 .47 0\ (O) 2\ (5) 73\ (162) 25\ (54) Developing problem-solving skills 2.18 .91 29\ (61) 27\ (55) 40\ (82) n (8) Reducing the student's feelings of alienation from school 2.14 .99 36\ (74) 2lt (44) 36\ (73) (15) Providing an alterna-tive to at-home suspension 3.89 .32 0% (0) )t (0) 1U (25) 89\ (197) Providing relief for the teacher 2.93 1.16 23\ (49) 2t (4) 34\ (73) 4U (87) Reducing the dropout-rate 2.15 1.00 37\ (74) 17\ (35) 39t (79) (13) Providing time-out for the student 3.12 .96 12\ (26) 4t (10) 43\ (93) 41% (89) Helping the student develop self-discipline 2.90 .68 6% (14) 9% (19) 73% (155) 12\ (25) Reducing truancy 2.79 .91 14% (31) 1U (24) 56\ (121) 19% (40) Reducing chronic ...... tardiness 2.68 98 20% (41) 10% (22) 53% (111) 17% (36) 1\J 1\J

PAGE 136

Table 26 (Cont'd) of (n:U) a Not sa.evhat Vary ISS Goala Serving a conaaquenca for unacceptable behavior the n\lllbar of diacipline proble-Helplng the atudent iaprove hiajher lf-1-p Helping the iaprove hia/har tovard achool Preventing future alabahavior Mean ).57 .51 ).24 .14 3.05 .92 2.20 .9) ).20 .55 GOal Bffactiva Effective Bffaativa UL llL __ ___131__ l4l u (3) u (3) lit (14) lOt (U2) n (5) (10) lOt (lU) lU (72) ,.. (75) :an (sa) );at (17) ... (9) lOt (U) :an (51) .u (85) 5t (10) u (l) n <> 70t (151) 21t (51) Other (Five apaclfiad and not necaaaarlly rated: ISS only in effect ahort tiae Goal not eatabllahed Helpa non-ISS atudanta Parent re-entry conference -Not allovln9 a fev to diarupt learning. .N w

PAGE 137

124 programs somewhat or very effective in modifying inappropriate behavior, providing an alternative to at-home suspension, providing relief for the teacher, providing time out for the student, helping the student develop self-discipline, serving as a consequence for unacceptable behavior, reducing the number of discipline problems, and preventing future misbehavior. Respondents reported their ISS programs least effective in helping the student improve hisjher self-image, developing problem-solving skills, helping the student improve hisjher attitude toward school, reducing the student's feelings of alienation from school, and reducing the drop-out rate. These goals also had the highest percentage of responses to these goals not being goals of their ISS programs. Fifteen items were included in Table 26 about how effective respondents believed their ISS programs were in accomplishing specific goals. A series of one-way analyses of variance {ANOVAs) were performed for the three independent variables (Colorado Department of Education setting categories, population categories, grade level categories) and the 15 dependent variables (15 ISS goals enumerated in Table 26). The Eta and Eta Squared were calculated and reported as well. The rating scale was a four-point scale:

PAGE 138

1 -Not a goal 2 -Not effective 3 Somewhat effective 4 -Very effective 125 Of the 45 one-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) performed, seven were statistically significant. The statistics of the seven statistically significant one-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) are reported in Tables 27 through 33. It should be noted that there were unavoidable small cell sizes for some of the independent variable groupings. Following are narrative descriptions of the seven significant analyses of variance (ANOVAs): 1. CDE categories 1, 2, 3, & 4 (urban) attained means of 3.0 or higher on the "ISS Provides Relief for the Teacher" variable. Categories 5 and 6 (more rural) attained means near 2.5. It should be noted that the overall mean is 2.91, which is fairly high, and is close to the scale anchor of 3 = Somewhat effective. 2. Middle level schools attained means of 3.10, the highest. Junior/senior high school combination schools attained means of 3.09. Senior high schools attained means of 2.64, the lowest. The mean of the

PAGE 139

126 Table 27 Significant One-Way Analyses of Variance Between Three Main Descriptor Variables and Fifteen Dependent Variables in Table 26 Standard No. Value Label Mean Deviation Cases 1 Core City 3.0588 1.2976 17 2 Denver Metro Area 3.1064 1. 0051 47 3 Urban/Suburban 3.0909 1. 0933 55 4 outlying city 3.4167 .9003 12 5 Outlying Towns 2.6316 1. 2823 38 6 Rural Recreational, Small Attendance Area 2.5000 1.2195 40 Within Groups Total 2.9139 1.1441 209 Analysis of Variance sum of Mean Source Squares D. F. Square F Sig. Between Groups 16.7363 5 3.3473 2.5572 .0287 Within Groups 265.7135 203 1.3089 Eta = .2434 Eta Squared = .0593

PAGE 140

127 Table 27 (cont'd) 2. 3 Grade Level Categories x Providing Relief for the Teacher Value Label 1 Middle Level 2 Junior/Senior High School Combination 3 Senior High School Within Groups Total Analysis of Variance Sum of Source Squares Between Groups 9.8255 Within Groups 272.6243 Eta = .1865 Standard No. Mean Deviation Cases 3.1026 1.0937 117 2.7826 1.1661 23 2.6377 1.2363 69 2.9139 1.1504 204 Mean D.F. Square F Sig. 2 4.9127 3.7121 .0261 206 1. 3234 Eta Squared = .0348 3. 3 Grade Level Categories x Providing Time Out for the student standard No. Value Label Mean Deviation Cases 1 Middle Level 3.2917 .8540 126 2 Junior/Senior High School Combination 3.0870 1.1246 23 3 Senior High School 2.8732 1.0132 71 Within Groups Total 3.1308 .9401 214

PAGE 141

Table 27 (cont'd) Analysis of Variance Source Sum of Squares Between Groups 7.8595 Within Groups 186.4769 Mean D.F. Square F 128 Sig. 2 211 3.9298 4.4466 .0128 .8838 Eta = .2011 Eta Squared = .0404 4. 6 School Size Categories X Reducing Truancy Standard No. Value Label Mean Deviation cases Students 1 To 99 2.1579 1.2140 19 2 200-299 2.7719 1.0075 42 3 300-499 2.7234 .8773 47 4 500-699 2.9250 .9167 40 5 700-899 2.9643 .6372 28 6 900-2,400 2.8889 .7475 36 Within Groups Total 2.7783 .9000 212 Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean Source Squares D. F. Square F Sig. Between Groups 9.7357 5 1. 94 71 2.4041 .0381 Within Groups 166.8445 206 .8099 Eta = .2348 Eta Squared = .0551

PAGE 142

Table 27 (cont'd) 5. 6 School Size Categories x Reducing Chronic Tardiness Value Label Students 1 to 99 2 100-299 3 300-499 4 500-699 5 700-899 6 900-2,400 Within Groups Total Analysis of Variance Source Sum of Squares Standard Mean Deviation 2.1667 1. 2005 2.4286 1.1717 2.6522 .9937 3.0000 .7609 2.7407 .8590 2.7941 .7699 2.6650 .9643 Mean D.F. Square F 129 No. Cases 18 42 46 39 27 34 206 Sig. Between Groups 11.9238 5 Within Groups 185.9645 200 2.3848 2.5648 .0283 .9298 Eta = .2455 Eta Squared = .0603 6. 3 Grade Level Categories x Helping the student Improve His/Her Self-Image Standard No. Value Label Mean Deviation Cases 1 Middle Level 2.2000 .9291 115 2 Junior/Senior High School Combination 1.9091 .9211 22 3 Senior High School 1.8382 .8743 68 Within Groups Total 2.0488 .9104 205

PAGE 143

Table 27 (cont'd) Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean Source Squares D. F. Square F Between Groups 6.0634 2 3.0367 3.6635 Within Groups 167.4388 202 .8289 Eta = .1871 Eta Squared = .0350 7. 3 Grade Level Categories x Preventing Future Misbehavior Standard Value Label Mean Deviation 1 Middle Level 3.2222 .4570 2 Junior/Senior High School Combination 3.5217 .5108 3 Senior High School 3.1096 .6138 Within Groups Total 3.2160 .5214 Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean Source Squares D. F. Square F Between Groups 2.9811 2 1.4905 5.4833 Within Groups 57.0846 210 .2718 Eta = .2228 Eta Squared .0496 130 Sig. .0274 No. Cases 117 23 73 213 Sig. .0048

PAGE 144

131 middle level group is clearly above the scale anchor of 3 = Somewhat Effective. 3. Middle level schools attained means of 3.29, the highest. Juniorjsenior high school combination schools attained means of 3.09. Senior high schools attained means of 2.87, the lowest. The mean of the middle level group is clearly above the scale anchor of 3 = Somewhat Effective. 4. Most schools did use ISS to reduce truancy. Schools with populations of 99 or less attained means of 2.16. The remaining school size categories means were all 2.72 or higher. As school size increased, means tended to increase as well regarding effective-ness of the goal of ISS in reducing truancy. It should be noted that means for all of the schoolsize groups ranged between 2 = Not Effective and 3 = Somewhat Effective. 5. The means of the six school size categories on the variable of reducing chronic tardiness tended to be ordered according to size, with the smaller schools attaining smaller means and the larger schools attaining larger means. All of the means were between the scale anchors of 2 = Not Effective and 3 = Somewhat Effective.

PAGE 145

132 6. While the means for all three grade level categories tended to cluster around scale anchor 2 = Not Effective, there was significant order effect, with the middle level schools (mean = 2.20) with the highest, juniorjsenior high school combinations (means = 1.90), and senior high schools rating this area the lowest (mean= 1.84). 7. While all three grade level categories ranged between scale anchor categories 3 = Somewhat Effective and 4 = Very Effective, there was significant order effect with juniorjsenior high school combination schools rating this area the highest (mean= 3.52), followed by middle level schools (mean = 3.22), and senior high schools (mean= 3.11), the lowest. Of the seven significant analyses of variance (ANOVAs), four of the significant findings were due to the independent variable of school grade level, two to the school size variable, and only one to the CDE categories by setting variable. Of the four significant findings by the independent variable of school grade level, middle level schools tended to rate the goals higher than the other grade level groups. Of the two significant findings by the independent variable of school size, the mean

PAGE 146

133 effectiveness ascended with school size. Of the one statistically significant finding by the independent variable of CDE categories by setting, the rural tended to rate ISS less effective in ISS being a relief for teachers than the other categories which were urban. Respondents were asked their perceptions of the status of the number of disciplinary referrals, the recidivism rate of disciplinary referrals, the number of in-school suspension cases, and the number of athome suspension cases since their ISS programs had been in operation. Responses can be found in Table 28. Many of the respondents (77%) reported a decrease in the number of at-home suspension cases since the ISS program had been in operation. Four-fifths of the respondents reported both the number of disciplinary referrals as staying the same or decreasing since the ISS programs had been in operation. Respondents reported the largest increases in the area of number of in-school suspension cases, which is to be expected since this was a "new" program. Respondents were asked to indicate approximately what percentage of their student population was involved in their ISS programs during the previous

PAGE 147

Table 28 Respondents Perceptions of Status of Referrals. Recidivism of Referrals. and Suspensions Since ISS Program in Operation Percentage of Responses (n 212) Status of Following Stayed since ISS in Don't the 134 Operation :Know Increased same Decreased Number of disciplinary referrals 17t (35) 3% (7) 39% (83) 41% (87) Recidivism rate of disciplinary referrals 20t (37) 1% (2) 34% (63) 4St (84) Number of in-school suspension cases 9t (19) 2n (59) 26% (54) 37t (77) Number of at-home suspension cases u (16) Jt (6) 12t (26) 17t (164) (1988-89) school year. Results are provided in Table 29. A majority of the respondents (63%) reported that five percent or fewer of their student population was involved in their ISS programs during the 1988-89 school year. Respondents were asked to indicate whether there were any grade levels that had more students assigned to ISS than any other, and if so, which grade level. Seventy-one percent (71%) of the respondents indicated that there were certain grade levels with more students assigned to ISS; 29% indicated that there

PAGE 148

Table 29 Respondents' Perceptions on Percentage of Student Population Involved in ISS Programs During 1988-89 School Year Amount of Student Body Involved in ISS During 1988-89 One percent or less Two percent Three percent Four percent Five percent Six percent Seven percent Eight percent Nine percent Ten-eleven percent Twelve-fourteen percent Fifteen-nineteen percent Twenty percent or more Total Percentage of Responses (n=194) 15% (29) 7% (14) 9% (18) 6% (11) 26% (51) 3% (7) 3% (6) 5% (9) 1% (3) 11% (21) 1% ( 1) 5% (9) 8% (15) 100% (194) 135 were not. From Table 30, it appears that grades eight and nine were reported as being grade levels with more students assigned to ISS programs than other grade levels. And finally, respondents were asked to indicate whether there were more students of one gender assigned to ISS for the 1988-89 school year, and, if so, which gender. Sixty-six percent (66%) of the

PAGE 149

Table 30 Grade Levels That Had More Students Assigned to ISS Programs Frequency of Responses Grade Levels (n=144) 6 5% (7) 7 14% (20) 8 41% (59) 9 29% ( 41) 10 9% (13) 11 1% (2) 12 1% (2) Total 100% (144) 136 respondents indicated that there were more students of one gender assigned to ISS during 1988-89; 34% of the respondents indicated that there were not more students of one gender assigned to ISS. Of the 66% of respondents who indic.ated that one gender had more students assigned to ISS in 1988-89, 94% reported that gender as being male, with only 6% reporting that gender as being female. Question 12: What Were the Perceived Strengths and Weaknesses of the In-School Suspension Programs? Based on their professional judgment, respondents were asked to indicate degrees of agreement/disagree-ment with statements about various elements of their

PAGE 150

137 ISS programs. These items represent a pilot attempt on the development of an attitude scale about ISS programs. Results, as well as mean responses and standard deviations, are reported in Table 31. Most of the respondents reported that counselors were in favor of the ISS program; the ISS program was effective in improving classroom behavior when students returned from being in ISS; it was better for students to be in the ISS program than suspended at home and unsupervised in the community; the ISS program was effective in making students more aware of their responsibility for their own actions; isolation from peers was an effective strategy to deter misbehavior; and, the ISS program protected the rights of other students to learn. Respondents reported weaknesses in ISS programs in the burden added to teachers to prepare lessons for students in ISS; in how effective the ISS program was in acting as a deterrent to misbehavior; in whether the stay in the ISS program was too short for much positive student behavior change to occur; and, in whether the ISS addressed symptoms rather than causes. Respondents indicated the greatest range of responses to whether

PAGE 151

Table 31 ResEondents' PerceEtions of Strengths and Weaknesses of ISS Programs (n=186) Standard strongly Slightly Slightly Strongly variable Mean Deviation Dieagr .. Dieagree Dieagree Agree Agree Agree (;&) (2} Ul [tl nn (6} 1. The ISS prograa has a good reputa-tion with the student 4.19 1.29 4t (8) lOt (21) Ut (27) 2U (46) 42t (89) lOt (22) 2. The ISS progr-ha a good reputa-tion with the students who are referred to ISS 3.84 1.38 4t (8) 19t (38) 16t (33) 19t (4) 35t (74) n (15) 3. The ISS prograa is well thought of by teachers at our school 4.93 .93 Ot (0) 2t (5) ,, (13) 15t (33) sot (108) 27t (59) 4. Counselors at our school are in favor of our ISS prograa 5.12 .79 .st (1) 5t (1) 2t (4) Ut (29) 52t (113) 32t (69) s. Parents at our school have not been in favor of the ISS prograa 2.49 1.49 25t (53) 46t (99) (20) 5t (10) .. (18) 7t (16) 6. Parents ot the students who have been referred to the ISS prograa have been in favor of it 4.91 .86 1t (2) 1t (2) 4t (9) 1st (32) 59t (128) 20t (45) ..... w co

PAGE 152

Table 31 (cont'd) StancSard strongly Slightly Slightly Strongly Variable Mean Deviation Diaaqree Disaqree Disagree Agree Aqree Aqree (1) (2) (]) (4) (5) (6) 7. The ISS program is effective in improving class-room behavior when the students return from being in ISS 4.69 79 Ot (0) 2t (3) 2\ (5) ]6t (79) "" (100) 14t (31) 8. The ISS program is effective in improving students neqative attitudes about school 3.57 1.06 n (6) 14t (30) 25t (54) 42\ (92) Ut (28) n (6) 9. Tha ISS proqram is ineffective in acting as a deterrent to misbehavior 2.70 1.38 17\ (38) 41t (90) llt (28) 1lt (29) llt (27) 3t (6) 10. It is batter for the students to be in the ISS proqram than suapended at home and unsupervised in the community 5.60 .88 n (3) u (3) u (1) lt (6) 2U (45) 73\ (160 11. The ISS program is effective in keeping the students current with their regular school work 4.86 1.12 u (3) n (7) St (11) 2Jt (50) 34t (74) 34, (75) I-' w \.0

PAGE 153

Table 31 (cont'd) Standard strongly Variable Mean Deviation Disagree Ul 12. The ISS program is affective in making students mora aware of their responsibility for their ovn action 4.93 .90 n (2) 13. Too many students are assigned to the ISS program at once 2.30 1.18 2U (58) 14. ISS is overused aa a disci-pline strategy at our school 2.06 1.16 37t (81) 15. Preparing lessons for atudanta in ISS ia an added burden for teacher 3.55 1.48 12, (27) 16. The stay in the ISS program ia too abort for much positive student behavior change to occur 2.79 1.25 13\ (27) slightly Slightly Disagree Disagree Agree ';u ,;u u (2) 2' (5) 22, (49) 41t (89) 16t (36) lU (23) 37t (81) qst (31) n (lJ) liSt (34) 23t (27) 30, (65) 37t (79) 2Jt (49) lU (39) Agree 47t (103) 5t (10) 3t (7) 2lt (49) 6\ ( 14) Strongly Agree Uil 27t (58) u (3) 2t (4) ( 15) ]\ (7) ...... 0

PAGE 154

Table 31 (cont'd) Standard Strongly Variable Mean Deviation Diaagrea (1) 17. The ISS program provides an opportunity for positive inter-ventions with the atudent to begin 4.25 1.02 lt (2) 11. Iaolation from peers is an effective strategy to deter misbehavior 5.13 .90 lt (2) 19. The ISS program protects the rights of other students to learn 5.34 .75 lt (1) 20. The ISS program is ineffec-tive since it addresses syaptos rather than cauaea 2.59 1.29 22t (48) Slightly Slightly Diagree Diagrea Agree (2) (3) (4) 7t (15) n (18) 39\ (81) u (3) u (3) lJt (28) ot (O) u (2) 9t (20) llt (71) 20t (44) 16t (34) Agree (5) 39\ (81) 47t (101) 42t (92) 7t (16) Strongly Agree () (13) 37t (80) 47t (103 2t (4) ..... ""' .....

PAGE 155

142 the ISS program has a good reputation with students who were referred to ISS. By way of preliminary analysis, an intercorrelation matrix of the 20 items was generated. Significant correlations appear in Table 32. In total, 108 correlations were statistically significant. However, correlations that were relatively small (accounted for only a small percentage of the variance) achieved statistical significance because of the relatively large sample size. The direction of the significant correlations seems to be in appropriate directions. For example, the correlation between item 1 (ISS program has a good reputation with the study body in our school) and item 2 (ISS program has a good reputation with students who are referred to ISS) was .72, with p = .coo. These would appear to be appropriate. The correlation between items 7 (ISS program is effective in improving students' negative attitudes about school) and item 20 (ISS program is ineffective since it addresses symptoms rather than causes) was -.37, with p = .coo. The negative correlation would appear to be appropriate. There is good preliminary evidence that these 20 items are related in positive ways.

PAGE 156

Table 32 Correlation Matrix of Twenty Items Regarding Perceived Strengths and Weaknesses of ISS Ita 1 1 2 .72 4 .u .)4 Programs (n=l86) 2 .26 .... .n .42 4 5 5 -.12 -.01 -.Ol -.09 II .27 .28 l1 .27 -.0) 7 8 .44 .40 .29 .u ... .40 .14 .)8 .)2 .10 .01 II 7 8 9 10 11 12 u 14 15 .u .08 .)8 9 10 11 12 u -.12 -.02 -.10 -.16 .22 -.OS -.27 -.10 u 15 16 17 18 19 20 .)1 .27 .40 .2) .211 .u .12 .14 .)2 .11 -.15 .15 -.01 .29 -.OJ -.22 -.11 -.17 -.10 .u .11 .04 .21 .)8 .29 .45 ... .. .01 -.a8 -.18 -.10 -.19 -.20 .15 -.06 -.:19 -.02 -.04 -.17 -.01 -.oa .02 -.os -.16 -.oo -.17 -.12 -.12 -.10 -.14 .28 .... .ll .u .28 .02 .09 .. .u .as . 02 .25 .ll -.16 .2) .:12 -.08 .u .11 .10 .JO .)5 .... .17 -.:11 -.1) -.37 -.22 .u -.09 -.37 Top nw.ber Coafficlant of Corra1ation p c .osr p < .011 p < 001 .21 -.22 .l2 -.Ol .)2 -.20 .)7 ... .u .07 .oo .09 -.2, -.20 -.20 .15 -.22 -.07 -.26 .ol -.oa -.oo -.os -.os .06 .o4 -.os .oa -.17 .41 .19 -.20 ... -.26 .18 .32 .u .10 .JO .as .56 .15 .17 -.09 -.u .15 .17 .JO -.14 -.oa -.u .09 .10 -.17 .15 .18 .27 -.08 -.11 .u .u .:16 -.26 -.14 -.27 .28 .n .19 16 -.07 .06 .07 .)0 17 18 19 20 .19 .19 .Jl -.20 -.25 -.12 .... w

PAGE 157

Open-Ended Questions and Respondents' Answers 144 The questionnaire included four open-ended questions: What do you believe are the three main strengths of your ISS program? What do you believe are the three main problems with your ISS program? What are two things that would improve your ISS program? -Please add any comments regarding aspects of ISS programs which you feel were not covered in this survey. Summaries of the themes for the respondents' answers are provided for each question. The number of respondents who answered each open-ended question are noted in parentheses. Open-ended question number one: What do you believe are the three main strengths of your ISS program? (n =197). Respondents listed ability to maintain the educational process (32%), ISS as being an alternative to out-of-school suspension (29%), and isolation from peers (27%) most frequently as the three main strengths of their ISS programs. Major themes were as follows.

PAGE 158

145 The.very nature of the ISS program-Clearly defined consequences for offenses; consistency; fairness; due process in administering the discipline policy; and the flexible and immediate way to deal with misbehavior all made ISS a good disciplinary option. It offered controlled behavior, continuous supervision by a full-time monitor, and cost effectiveness (state aid for keeping a student in school). It was "open for business" every day. ISS was a deterrent to misbehavior Students did not enjoy ISS; some hated it. All day silence, loss of the privileges of being in regular classes, restrictive environment, peer pressure, and isolation from peers served as a deterrent to misbehavior for many students. ISS held students accountable for their inappropriate and sometimes repetitive misbehavior. Helped to keep students in school ISS was an alternative to at-home suspension and reduced the number of at-home suspensions. ISS was a program that allowed the educational process to continue; it allowed students to keep up with the regular classwork, andjor to do special assignments on ISS packets, and/or to catch up on missed work. Some ISS programs gave credit for work done; others did not.

PAGE 159

ISS was staffed by school personnel who helped to make ISS a productive place. 146 ISS provided disciplinary support for the staff ISS was a safe, secure, positive method to deal with the frustrations of the staff toward student misbehavior. It gave teachers help and support, often removing disruptive students from their classes. ISS was a time-out for the teacher and the student. The ISS facility was sometimes close to the main office, allowing an administrator to lend additional support there also. ISS provided intervention and counseling -Not all ISS programs had counseling components; however, most saw ISS as a way to intervene with a student. Interventions included being placed in a supportive but restrictive environment as consequences for misbehavior; availability of one-to-one tutoring or counseling; group counseling and meetings; behavior modification in a limited way; and becoming a part of the special education andjor at-risk programs. ISS had parental/community support Parents and communities tended to support ISS programs and to realize that the ISS program supported them. It had a positive image in the community, offering good public relations to them.

PAGE 160

147 ISS helped "good" kids ISS protected students' right to learn, away from constant disruptions and negative role models and negative peer pressure to show off. Students knew a student was being punished when he/she was in ISS. Open-ended question number two: What do you believe are the three main problems with your ISS program? (n=187). Respondents listed the need for a better ISS facility (35%), lack of adequate supervision (20%), and failure of teachers to send assignments (19%) most frequently as the three main problems with their ISS programs. Major themes were as follows: ISS programs have organizational problems -The staffing of ISS programs is an issue. There is a need for a staff willing to control behavior, teach, and work with ISS students and to try to understand them and help them with their problems. Difficulties of paraprofessionals in supervising and dealing with so many different kinds of assignments, lack of a paid ISS staff, lack of sufficient staff, ISS staff burnout, and lack of constant, consistent, adequate supervision were all ideas cited by respondents as problem areas. Lack of resources for materials, references, and stockpiles of all class books were an

PAGE 161

148 obstacle for some. There were differences of opinion among teachers as to giving credit or not for work done in ISS. And, finally, facilities for the ISS program are sometimes too small, were located in the midst of too much of the daily school activities, and were not isolated from the rest of the students. Lack of adequate space sometimes meant that students had to wait to get into ISS. Administrative issues -Lack of standards for suspension, inconsistency in using ISS as a discipline strategy, and too quick or over-use of ISS were administrative problems for some respondents. In schools where the administrative staff/clerical staff monitored ISS, it was limiting of their other activities and duties. Inadequate communication among the administrative staff, the ISS staff, and the classroom teachers was a problem for some. Lack of parental involvement -Lack of parental involvement both at school. and at home with ISS students was a problem for some. There was concern about lack of parental responsibility and supervision. Active participation by parents in the ISS program seemed to be missing. Effectiveness with some students Some respondents were concerned about too many students being in

PAGE 162

149 ISS at one time; the need to expand the housing capabilities of the ISS program; ISS's ineffectiveness with difficult students; too many repeaters; and, about some students actually preferring ISS to the regular school program. Over-all concerns -Respondents shared concerns about over-use of ISS by administrators, teachers, and parents; the lack of a specific counseling component for one-to-one help, group counseling, and follow-up with ISS students; the lack of follow-up with all ISS students, but especially with repeat offenders; and the lack of specific tutoring. Some believed that ISS needed a unique curriculum which provided meaningful work at all times. The failure of teachers to send assign-ments on time and the burden ISS placed on both administrative and teacher time were major concerns for many of the respondents. And finally, some believed that ISS really didn't solve behavior problems, that it wasn't positive, and that it didn't promote student growth and learning. Open-ended question number three: What are two things that would improve your ISS program? (n=l80). Respondents listed most frequently the need for a better facility (42%) and for a full-time ISS staff

PAGE 163

150 (28%) as the two things that would improve their ISS programs. Major themes were as follow: Strategies for improving ISS -Respondents suggested considering other strategies and interventions before the use of ISS, pre-planned academic material availability for ISS, more followup with ISS students, and consistent, closer supervision were key elements for improving ISS programs. Communication between the ISS staff and teachers, more time to notify teachers for assignments, and a smooth, efficient assignmentgathering procedure were communication sugges-tions. Use of strategies to improve students' attitudes and behavior with more positive emphasis in a negative setting were noted. Adequate staffing of ISS -Adequate staffing of ISS included in the need for paid, full-time ISS staff; for one administrator in charge of ISS for consistent application of rules; and for counseling support. Personnel needed to be trained in counseling, self-esteem enhancement, behavior modification, and basic academic skill development. Availability of tutoring and peer counseling were mentioned by respondents also. Teacher support for

PAGE 164

the ISS program, cooperation, and awareness were believed to be desirable. 151 Parental involvement -Parental involvement and support needed to be fostered. There needed to be more time and opportunity for direct parental interaction while the student was in ISS and for a parent conference prior to a student's re-entry into the regular program. ISS facility -Better facilities comprised of larger, separate ISS rooms with proximity to an administrator's office, with the ability to separate ISS students, and with full equipment, resources, and computers were indicated as primary needs by many respondents for improving their ISS programs. Open-ended question number four: Please add any comments regarding aspects of ISS programs which you feel were not covered in this survey (n=47). Highlights of respondents' comments regarding aspects of ISS programs not covered in this survey included: Use of behavior modification packets in addition to school work; they contain problem-solving and making choices activities. Two ISS programs: (1) Students assigned one to 10 hours of work detail after school.

PAGE 165

152 (2) Eight-hour Saturday detention. ISS was another step in the direction of school as a social service to many government agencies. Secretaries are inadequate as supervisory personnel. Should have two levels: {1) Group which fo.cused on behavior modification and counseling. (2) Complete isolation group with only one to two students per supervisor and assign extra school work and extremely strict rules for which infractions result in at-home suspension. Additional Analyses Further analyses were conducted by the following three independent variables: 1. Modified version of Colorado State Department of Education School Districts by Setting. The Colorado State Department of Education School Districts by Setting listing included eight settings with the number of ISS programs within each in parentheses--Core City {19), Denver Metro {49), Urban/Suburban (57), outlying City (19), outlying Towns {38), Rural {27), Recreational (7), Small

PAGE 166

153 Attendance Areas (7). Due to the small number of schools with ISS programs in the Recreational (7) and small Attendance Districts (7) settings, the individual cells did not lend themselves to chi-square analysis. The decision was made to combine settings six, seven, and eight; this resulted in a cell with 41 cases. The subsequent modified version of the Colorado State Department of Education School Districts by Setting included just six settings. 2. School grade level categories. This study sampled secondary schools in the State of Colorado. Upon studying the schools, it became apparent that the grade level configurations were quite varied among schools within the area of secondary schools. Configurations and the frequency of ISS programs for each (in parentheses) included grades 6-8 (69); 7-9 (24); 5-8 (10); 7-8 (14); 4-8 (1); 6-7 (2); 6-9 (2); 8-9 (3); 7-12 (23); 9-12 (59); and 10-12 (16). To facilitate chi-square analysis, the decision was made to combine the different configurations. Categories selected were: -middle level (which encompassed schools with grade level configurations among any of grades four, five, six, seven, eight, or nine) -juniorjsenior high school combination (which

PAGE 167

154 included schools with grades seven through twelve) -senior high school (which included schools with grades nine through twelve or grades ten through twelve). These categories represent three "patterns" around which schools are often organized and categorized throughout the United States. These three new categories and the frequency of ISS programs (in parentheses) were middle level (125), juniorjsenior high school (23), and high school (75). 3. School size categories. As the grade level configurations varied, so did the school size of the 476 secondary schools sampled in this study. In order to be able to work with the school size variable, it was necessary to create categories for school size. Ability to conduct chi-square analysis was considered as the categories were determined. School size categories and the frequency of ISS programs within each (in parentheses) were: 0-99 students (19), 100-299 students (45), 300-499 students (48), 500-699 students (43) 700-899 students (31), 900-2,400 students (37). Using these previous three main sample descriptor variables, chi-squares were run to ascertain whether significant relationships existed

PAGE 168

155 between any of these descriptor variables and other variables which lent themselves to chi-square analysis. Table 33 relates the significant chisquare relationships from this analysis (7 out of 21 chi-squares computed). The following are narrative descriptions of the seven significant chi-square analyses: 1. The chi-square for the six modified CDE School Districts by Setting categories versus the three school grade level categories was statistically significant (chi-square = 80.51, D.F. = 10, p = .0001). Of setting categories one, two, and three (all urban), a majority of the responding schools were from school grade level category one (middle level). In contrast, setting categories four, five, and six were divided among the three different school grade level categories. Setting four (Outlying city) was divided between middle level (58%) and high school (42%). Setting five (Outlying Towns) was divided into middle level (47%), juniorjsenior high school (5%), and high school (47%). Setting six (combined category of Rural, Recreational, and Small Attendance Areas) was more equally divided among middle level (22%), juniorjsenior high school (46%), and high school (32%)

PAGE 169

Table 33 Significant Chi-Square Relationships between Three Main Descriptor Variables 156 Significance Variables Chi-Square df Level 1. 6 CDE categories x 3 Grade Level categories 80.51 10 p = .oooo 2. 6 CDE Categories x 6 School Size Categories 175.24 25 p = .0000 3. 3 Grade Level Categories x 6 School Size Categories 92.42 10 p = .0000 4. 6 CDE Categories x 4 ISS Staff categories 79.56 15 p = .0000 5. 6 School Size categories x 4 ISS Categories 47.34 15 p = .0000 6. 3 Grade Level Categories x 2 One Gender More Likely to Be in ISS 13.25 2 p = .0013 7. 6 School Size Categories x 2 Certain Grades with More ISS Students 14.75 5 p = .0115 2. The chi-square for the six modified CDE School Districts by Setting categories versus the six school size categories was statistically significant (chi-square = 175.24, D.F. = 25, p = .0001) and

PAGE 170

157 responsive to the survey. The highest percentage of large schools (900-2,400 students) were located in CDE categories one, two, and three, urban areas. The highest percentage of small schools (0-299 students) were located in CDE categories five and six, rural areas. 3. The chi-square for the three grade level categories versus the six school size categories was statistically significant (chi-square = 92.42, df = 10, p = .0001). Middle level schools tended to have school sizes between 300 and 900. Juniorjsenior high schools tended to have school sizes between 0 and 300. A large majority of the schools with school sizes in the 900 to 2,400 range were high schools (78%) 4. The chi-square for the six modified CDE School Districts by Setting categories versus the four ISS staff categories (certificated teacher; paraprofessional; administrative/office personnel; other personnel) was statistically significant (chisquare= 79.57, df = 15, p = .0001). A pattern emerged from the cross tabulations. All (100%) of the respondents in Core City schools reported using paraprofessionals to staff their ISS programs. Respondents from Denver Metro District schools

PAGE 171

158 reported using certificated teachers (33%), followed by administrative andjor office personnel (27%). Urban/Suburban District schools used paraprofessionals a majority of the time (46%). Then, from the remaining CDE setting (rural), a majority of the respondents consistently reported that their ISS programs were staffed by administrative andjor office personnel (more than 52% in modified CDE settings four, five, and six). 5. The chi-square for the six school size categories versus the four ISS staff categories was statistically significant (chi-square= 47.34, D.F. = 15, p = .0001). Schools with student populations under five hundred used a majority of administrative andjor office personnel to staff their ISS programs. In contrast, schools with student populations over 500 used a majority of paraprofessionals to staff their ISS programs. 6. The chi-square for the three grade level categories versus the two, "Is One Gender More Likely to Be in ISS?" (Yes category; No category) was statistically significant (chi-square = 13.25, D.F. = 2, p = .001). At the high school level, respondents were fairly evenly split as to one gender dominating placement. into ISS programs. However, at

PAGE 172

159 the juniorjsenior high school level (68% of the respondents) and at the middle level (76% of the respondents) reported one gender dominating placement into ISS programs. It was reported previously that 94% of those who reported one gender dominating placement into ISS programs reported the gender as being male. 7. The chi-square for the six school size categories versus the two, "Are There Certain Grades with More ISS Students?" (Yes category; No category) was statistically significant (chi-square= 14.75, D.F. = 5, p = .01). Of the six school size categories, five of the six categories reported by large majorities that certain grade levels did have more students assigned to ISS programs than others. The category of school size under 100 was fairly evenly split between yes (42%) and no (58%). Grades eight and nine were reported as being grade levels with more students assigned to ISS programs than other grade levels. Grades 11 and 12 were reported as being grade levels with the least students assigned to ISS programs. summary of Findings A summary of the major findings from the sample as a whole includes the following:

PAGE 173

1. Of the questionnaire respondents, 65% reported having ISS programs in their schools. 160 2. When using Colorado State Department of Education District Settings as categories for respondents, schools in setting 1 -Core City (86%) and those in Setting 3 Urban/Suburban (85%) reported the highest percentages of ISS programs. Schools in Setting 8 -Small Attendance Districts (65%) reported the highest percentages without ISS programs. 3. Reasons reported for not having ISS programs were lack of staff, money, facilities; did not believe they are effective; had one but discontinued it; never considered implementing an ISS program; and were a small school so didn't need an ISS program. 4. The mean length of time ISS programs had been in operation was 4.63 years. 5. Development of ISS programs involved most building administrators, a majority of the teachers and counselors, and few parents and students. 6. The primary reason for the development and implementation of ISS programs was to keep students in school in a supervised environment. 7. Primary goals of ISS programs were to provide an alternative to at-home suspension, to serve as

PAGE 174

consequences for unacceptable behavior, and to modify inappropriate behavior. 161 8. strategies used with students prior to placement in ISS were primarily referral to the office, after-school detention, and varying types of conferences (teacher/student, counselor/student, teacher/parent, teacherjparentjstudent). 9. Behaviors that resulted most often in a student's placement in ISS were disruption, disrespect, insubordination, a pattern of inappropriate behavior, and truancy. 10. The average length of assignment to ISS was one day. 11. Nearly three-fourths of the respondents reported assigning only from one to three students to ISS at one time. 12. When placed in ISS, most students were restricted from all classes and regular lunch. 13. Most of the schools reported that regular teachers provided the work for students in ISS and that students received credit for work done while in ISS. 14. Half of the respondents reported having follow-up procedures with students who had been in ISS.

PAGE 175

162 15. Three-fifths of the respondents reported evaluating their ISS programs at least once a year. 16. Parental involvement was primarily notification by the schools that their child had been placed in ISS. Respondents' perceptions were that a majority of the parents believed ISS was an effective program and that they were supportive of the program. 17. Two-fifths of the schools reported staffing their ISS programs with administrative andjor office personnel; two-fifths said they staffed theirs with paraprofessionals; and one-fifth staffed theirs with certified teachers. 18. Most respondents reported that their ISS programs were somewhat or very effective in modifying inappropriate behavior, providing an alternative to at-home suspension, providing relief for the teacher and the student, helping the student develop selfdiscipline, serving as a consequence for unacceptable behavior, reducing the number of discipline problems, and preventing future misbehavior. 19. Respondents reported that their ISS programs were least effective in helping with students' selfesteem, developing problem-solving skills, reducing feelings of alienation, and reducing the drop-out rate.

PAGE 176

163 20. Four-fifths of the respondents reported that the number of disciplinary referrals and the recidivism rate of disciplinary referrals had stayed the same or decreased since their ISS programs had been in operation. 21. A majority of the respondents reported that five percent or fewer of their student populations had been involved in their ISS programs the previous school year. 22. Grade levels 8 and 9 were reported as having more students assigned to ISS than grade levels 6, 7, 10, 11, or 12. 23. A clear majority of the respondents indicated that male students were assigned to ISS more often than female students. 24. Strengths of ISS programs were keeping students in school, holding students responsible for their actions, improving classroom behavior upon return from ISS, and using isolation from peers as an effective strategy to.deter misbehavior. 25. Weaknesses of ISS programs were the burden they place on teachers to prepare additional assignments, ineffectiveness of ISS as a deterrent to misbehavior, the stay in ISS was too short for

PAGE 177

164 behavior change to occur, and ISS addressed symptoms rather than causes. 26. Additional analyses yielded few significant relationships between the three CDE category variables and survey responses.

PAGE 178

CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary The problem of this research project was to investigate the over-all characteristics of in-school suspension (ISS) programs in secondary schools of the State of Colorado. The study sought answers to the following research questions: 1. To what extent do public secondary schools in Colorado utilize in-school suspension (ISS) programs as a part of their discipline programs? 2. How long have the in-school suspension (ISS) programs been in operation? 3. What were the origins of the plans used? 4. What were the reasons why the in-school suspension (ISS) was developed and implemented? s. What were the goals of the programs? 6. What intervention strategies were employed prior to referral to in-school suspension (ISS)? 7. What were the criteria for placement into ISS?

PAGE 179

166 8. What were the organizational structures for developing and implementing in-school suspension (ISS) programs? 9. What were the key components of the daily in-school suspension (ISS) programs for students? 10. How were the in-school suspension (ISS} programs staffed? 11. What were the perceived effectivenesses of the in-school suspension (ISS} programs? On what were these perceptions based? 12. What were the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the in-school suspension (ISS} programs? The population of this investigation included all schools listed in the Colorado Education Directory. 1988-89, as secondary schools, for a total of 476 schools. A self-administered questionnaire was sent to the principal of each school. The response rate was 73% (347}. Data were collected and analyzed using descriptive statistics. Frequency distributions and percentage tables were developed. Chi-square and analysis of variance statistical tests were performed as appropriate to determine if statistically significant differences (p < .05) existed. Additional analyses were performed utilizing the independent variables of the district

PAGE 180

167 classification as the setting category, school enrollment, and grade levels (Appendix A) to assess the relationships of these variables to the survey findings. A series of one-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) and chi-squares was computed for each of the independent variables and each survey variable. Analysis of the data generated by this study provided answers to the following questions posed by the study. Question 1 asked to what extent public secondary schools in Colorado utilized in-school suspension (ISS) programs as a part of their discipline programs. Of the questionnaire respondents, 65% (227) reported having ISS programs, while 35% (120) did not. Except for schools in the small attendance areas setting, a majority of the schools in the other Colorado State Department of Education settings had ISS programs. Schools with student populations under 100 had the fewest ISS programs. A maj.ori ty of the middle leveljjunior high schools had ISS programs, while only a third of the high schools had ISS programs. Question 2 asked how long the ISS programs had been in operation. A majority of the programs had existed for six or less years.

PAGE 181

168 Question 3 asked what were the origins of the plan used. Building administrators were reported as having been involved in the development of almost all ISS programs, followed by teachers with just a majority. Counselors played minor roles, while parents and students were involved infrequently. ISS programs were funded primarily by local district and school funds; grants were insignificant contributions. Question 4 asked what were the reasons why the ISS programs were developed and implemented. The primary reason was to keep students in school in a supervised environment where their educational processes could be maintained rather than sending them home to often unsupervised environments. ISS was seen as an alternative to out-of-school suspension and as another discipline strategy to employ. Question 5 asked what were the goals of the ISS programs. The behavioral goals of providing an alternative to at-home suspension, of serving as consequences for unacceptable behavior and of modifying inappropriate behavior were identified by most respondents as goals of their ISS programs. Affective goals such as developing problem-solving skills, improved self-concepts, and reduced

PAGE 182

169 alienation from school were selected infrequently by comparison. Question 6 asked what intervention strategies were employed prior to referral to ISS. Referral to the office, after-school detention, and different types of conferences were used by a large majority of the respondents prior to placing students in ISS programs. Kinds of conferences were headed by teacher/student conferences, followed by counselor/student and teacher/parent conferences. ISS was seen as a discipline strategy to employ prior to using out-of-school suspension. Question 7 asked what were the criteria for placement into ISS. Disruption, disrespect, and serious illegal offenses were checked by a large majority of the respondents as behaviors which might result in a student's placement into ISS. More than a simple majority also cited insubordination, pattern of inappropriate behavior, profanity/vulgarity, fighting, verbal abuse, and truancy as behaviors which might result in ISS. Many fewer respondents utilized ISS for such offenses as physical assault, lack of supplies/materials, or vandalism. Question a asked what were the organizational structures for developing and implementing ISS

PAGE 183

170 programs. A majority of the respondents assigned students to ISS for one day, assigning from one to three students at a time. Nearly all students had to serve the time initially specified as the way to get out of ISS. While in ISS, most students were restricted from all classes, and a majority were unable to participate in their regular lunches. Less than half of the respondents restricted ISS students from extracurricular activities. Most ISS programs reported that regular teachers provided the work for ISS students and that students received credit for work done in ISS. Almost all respondents perceived that their ISS programs were effective in helping students change their behavior and in becoming more responsible for their actions, but only half conducted follow-up procedures to ascertain actual changes. About twothirds of the respondents indicated that they evaluated their programs at least once a year. Question 9 asked what were the key components of the daily ISS programs for students. Procedures for ISS (rules, doing assigned work, being under constant supervision) were the key components of most ISS programs. Less than half of the ISS programs provided help/tutoring with the ISS work or individual

PAGE 184

171 counseling while in ISS. Fewer yet completed a behavioral contrast or received group counseling while in ISS. Parent involvement in the ISS programs was confined to their being contacted when their children were assigned to ISS. Only a few programs involved parents in other ways while the students were in ISS. Question 10 asked how the ISS programs were staffed. Approximately two-fifths of the respondents indicated that administrative and office personnel staffed their ISS programs, while another two-fifths indicated that paraprofessionals staffed their ISS programs. Only one-fifth of the respondents identified certified teachers as staffing their ISS programs. Question 11 asked for the perceived effectivenesses of the ISS programs and for the bases of these perceptions. Most respondents reported their ISS programs somewhat or very effective in modifying inappropriate behavior, providing an alternative to at-home suspension, providing relief for the teacher, providing time out for the student helping the student develop self-discipline, reducing the number of discipline problems, and preventing future misbehavior. Respondents reported that their ISS

PAGE 185

172 programs did not include these as goals or were least effective in helping students improve their selfconcepts: developing problem-solving skills, helping students improve attitudes toward school, reducing feelings of alienation from school, and reducing the drop-out rate. Many respondents reported decreases in the number of at-home suspensions since their ISS programs had begun. Four-fifths of the respondents reported that the number of disciplinary referrals and the recidivism rate of the disciplinary referrals had stayed the same or decreased since their ISS programs had been in operations. Question 12 asked what were the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the ISS programs. Most of the respondents reported the following as strengths of ISS programs: counselors were in favor of the ISS program; improved classroom behavior when students returned from ISS; it was better for students to be in ISS than at home and unsupervised; ISS made students more aware of their responsibility for their actions; isolation from peers was an effective strategy to deter misbehavior; and ISS protected the rights of other students to learn. Respondents reported weaknesses of ISS programs in the following areas: the burden added to teachers to prepare

PAGE 186

173 lessons for ISS students; ineffectiveness in acting as a deterrent to misbehavior; in whether the stay in ISS was too short for positive behavior change to occur; and in whether ISS addressed symptoms rather than causes. Conclusions The following conclusions are based on the findings of this study and on the review of the literature and research: 1. statistical differences were found between schools having and not having ISS programs based on setting/location, size of school enrollment, and grade level configuration. Middle-level schools of moderate size in more urban settings had the highest percentage of ISS programs. Conversely, high schools had far less use of ISS programs, as did schools of smaller size and in more rural settings. This conclusion differs from the findings of Moore (1989) and Chabot and Garibaldi (1982). 2. Administrators stated little opposition to ISS programs on educational grounds. Instead, opposition centered on lack of money and facilities. This conclusion corroborates the findings of Moore (1989) and Haupt (1987). There was inadequate

PAGE 187

174 financial support to supply certificated personnel to staff ISS programs throughout Colorado. 3. Most school personnel were involved to some extent in the development of ISS programs. This corroborates the findings of Moore (1989), Chabot and Garibaldi (1982) and Matherson (1982). 4. There was a discrepancy between one of the primary stated goals of most ISS programs, to modify inappropriate behavior, and the actual attention devoted to positive behavior change by addressing the cause of the problem instead of focusing on sheer punishment of offenses. This corroborates the findings of Moore (1989), Short and Noblit (1985), Mendez and Sanders (1981), and Garrett (1981). 5. Most students were assigned to ISS for just one day, bringing up the issue of adequate time to address causes and to make a difference with students. The need for adequate time to address causes and to effect behavior changes is-corroborated in the findings of Frith, Lindsay, and Sasser (1980), Harvey and Moosha (1977), and Grice (1986). 6. Noticeably lacking in most ISS programs were active tutoring and counseling components which address the prevention of future misbehavior, the development of problem-solving skills, the improvement

PAGE 188

of students' self-concepts, and the reduction of alienation from school. This corroborates the findings of Dilling (1979), Hochman (1985), Moore (1989) and Harvey and Moosha (1977). 175 7. systematic follow-up for support and continued rehabilitation with students after they leave ISS were missing components of many ISS programs. This corroborates the findings of Mendez and Sanders (1981), Moore (1989), and Garrett (1981). a. The extent of systematic evaluation of ISS programs in meeting established goals and of serving as the basis for subsequent change was not well estab-lished in ISS programs. There was a lack of evaluative procedures to assess the adequacy of ISS personnel, financial support, facilities, administrative procedures, and success or failures of the ISS programs. This corroborates the findings of Chabot and Garibaldi (1982), Short and Noblit (1985), McClung (1975), and Moore (1989). 9. Parent involvement and support for ISS during and after a student's stay in ISS were not well established in ISS programs. This corroborates the findings of Mendez and Sanders (1981), Chabot and Garibaldi (1982), and Lundell (1982).

PAGE 189

176 10. ISS has the potential to become a positive program to help keep students in school and to help students become more successful in school rather than just being a consequence for misbehavior or a form of punishment. This corroborates the findings of Mosely (1977), Strassman (1985), Mendez (1977), Hochman (1985), Grossnickle and Sesko (1985), and Thweatt (1980). Recommendations Based on the findings and conclusions of the study, these recommendations are made: 1. In order to move ISS programs in Colorado beyond "administrative procedures" and into "student advocate" programs, there must be more active involvement of teachers, counselors, parents, and students in the development and operation of comprehensive ISS programs. 2. ISS programs need to include specific, concentrated efforts on behalf of students to modify unacceptable behavior practices, addressing causes instead of symptoms. 3. ISS programs need to be more than places for consequences and punishment: ISS programs need to include counseling and rehabilitative processes in

PAGE 190

177 addition to academic and behavioral components. In most cases, students need to be assigned to ISS for more than one day to effect more extensive interaction to produce academic and behavioral changes. 4. ISS programs need to include affective goals which focus on problem-solving skills, improved selfconcept, reduced alienation from school, and reducing drop-out rates. 5. Time spent in ISS needs to move beyond specific, set days to also include the ability for students "to earn" their ways out with demonstrated progress, contingency contracts, and parent involvement. 6. ISS programs need to build in and implement specific follow-up procedures which focus on transition back into the regular program, mentoring these former ISS students, monitoring their progress, and assessing the effectiveness of the ISS as an intervention. 7. Systematic evaluation of ISS programs in meeting established goals and of serving as the basis for subsequent change needs to be a component of each program. 8. Parents need to be actively involved before, while, and after a student has been in an ISS program.

PAGE 191

This other support for the student needs to be solicited and developed. 178 9. Staffing of ISS programs needs to be studied to determine effective and yet economically feasible ways to staff ISS programs, attempting to staff the programs with full-time certificated personnel. 10. Schools and researchers need to continue to pursue strategies to counteract out-of-school suspen-sions. 11. Isolation from peers is an effective strategy to deter misbehavior. Schools should consider this as a component of their disciplinary practices with students. 12. Schools should continually assess if dis-proportionate numbers of one particular grade level, gender, or ethnic group make up the membership in their ISS programs and, if so, to study the causes and to take definitive actions towards eliminating such occurrences. Recommendations for Further Study 1. The limitation imposed by addressing the over-all characteristics of ISS programs in the same study somewhat restricted the analysis of the implementation of specific characteristics in depth. It

PAGE 192

179 is recommended that research be conducted to determine the implementation of key characteristics of ISS programs and patterns of this implementation. 2. It is recommended that a similar sample be reexamined in five years to study the continuance and discontinuance of ISS programs and related reasons. 3. Rural and small schools reported fewer instances of ISS programs than other settings. Further research might consider the extent of similarities and differences between these schools and those with and without ISS programs in the other more populated settings and the need for such programs in rural and small schools. 4. This study did not address parent and student perceptions about ISS programs. Such research could add important data about the effectiveness and ineffectiveness of ISS programs. 5. It is recommended that a study be undertaken to clearly establish standards by which the effectiveness of ISS programs can be evaluated.

PAGE 193

REFERENCES Alternatives to suspension. Your schools. (1975, May). Published by South Carolina Community Relations Program of the American Friends Service Committee. Babbie, E. R. (1979). research. Belmont, Co., Inc. The practice of social CA: Wadsworth Publishing Bailey, R., & Kackley, J. (1974). Positive alternatives to student suspensions. St. Petersburg, FL.: Pupil Personnel Services Project of All Children's Hospital. Baskerville, J. c. (1982). Suspendees in a suburban middle school setting. Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Bass, A. (1980, May). Another approach to suspension. NASSP Bulletin, 64(436), 109-110. Bayh, B. (1978, January). Seeking solutions to school violenace and vandalism. Phi Delta Kappan, 59(5), 299-302, Beckner, J. L., Jr. (1982). The extent and trend of suspension. related school factors. and profiles of chronically suspended and non-suspended students. Doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia. Bickel, F., & Qualls, R. (1980, Summer). The impact of school climate on suspension rates in the Jefferson County public schools. Urban Review, 12 (2), 79-86. Bishopp, T. J. (1982). The effect of selected school and non-school variables on school attendance, as assessed by students with three types of school attendance patterns: good, average and poor. Doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado.

PAGE 194

Bone, A. D. (1982). Student supervisions: An in-school prevention design for the Anniston city school system. Doctoral dissertation, University of Alabama. Bornmann, S. (1976, May). An in-school suspension progress. School and Community, 62(9), 36. Bozym, N. (1977). Discipline as a multi-colored act. Creative Discipline, 2. Brennan, T., & Huizinga, D. (1975). Theory validation in aaareaate math data: Integration report of OYD research, FY. 1975, 12, 351. Boulder, CO: Behavioral Research Evaluation Corporation. Brooks, B. D. (1974). Contingency contracts with truants. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 52, 316-320. Brown, T. ( 1977) Manchester, MO: Alternative learning center. Manchester School System. 181 Burress, c. B. (1978, September). Group workshops. to eliminate self-defeating behavior as an alternative to suspension in the secondary school. Together, d(l), 32-36. Canfield, J.D., & Wells, H. c. (1976). One hundred ways to enhance self conceDt in the classroom. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. I Canter, (1976). Assertive discipline. Los Angeles-:Lee canter & Associates. Capillupo, v. (1979). Discipline for the middle school. Alternative for suspension. Memorandum. Carkhuff, R. R., & Griffin, A. H. (1978). The LEAST approach to classroom discipline. Washington, DC: National Educational Association. Chadbourn, G. L. (1977, November). To heal the breach: A program for maladjusted adolescents. The School Counselor, 19(2), 92-96.

PAGE 195

182 Challenge for the third century: Education in a safe enviromment -final report on the nature and prevention of school violence and vandalism. (1977). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Chamberlin, L. J. (1971). Effective instruction through dynamic discipline. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company. Children's Defense fund. (1974). school in America. Cambridge, Research Project, Inc. Children out of MA.: Washington Children's Defense Fund. (1975) . School suspensions: Are they helping children? Cambridge, Mass.: Washington Research Project, Inc. Chobot, R. B., & Garibaldi, A. (1982). In-school alternatives to suspension: A description of ten school district programs. The Urban Review, 14(4), 317-336. Clark, L. (1978a, June). Classroom for development and change: Teachers training handbook. WinstonSalem, NC: Winston-Salem -Forsythe County Schools. Clark, L. (1978b, June). The impact of an in-school suspension center. Winston-Salem, NC: Winston Salem -Forsyth County Schools. Clark, w. H. (1980). The effectiveness of supervised discipline centers as an alternative to suspensions in two public secondary schools in Prince George's County, Maryland. Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California. Cole, T. (1983). A study of organizational climate and in-school suspension in selected high schools of an urban public school district. Doctoral dissertation; The University of Oklahoma. Coleman, J. s. (1961). The adolescent society. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.

PAGE 196

183 Collins, c. G. (1985a, April). Helping children with behavior problems (through in-school suspension). Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Council for Exceptional Children, Anaheim, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 258 352) Collins, c. G. (1985b, April). In-school suspension. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Council for Exceptional Children, Anaheim, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 258 353) Colorado Department of Education. (1988). Colorado Education Directory, 1988-1989. Denver, co: Colorado Department of Education. Colorado Department of Education (1988, December). Colorado School Laws. 1988. Denver, co: Colorado Department of Education Comerford, D. J. of suspension high schools. University. III. (1983). An ethnographic study procedures at four suburban junior Doctoral dissertation, New York Corbett, A. H. (1980). Organizational variables affecting in-school suspension: A case study. Doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Crews, J. R. (1984). In-school suspension: An effective disciplinary alternative. Dissertation Abstracts International, 46, 2474 A. Cusick, P. A. (1973). Inside hiah school: The student's world. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. Demarest, s. M., & Jorden, J. F. (1975, July). Hawkins v. Coleman: Discriminatory suspensions and the effect of institutional racism on school discipline. Inequality in Education, (20), 25-41. Descriptive analysis of 1974-75 DISD disciplinary reports. (1975). Affirmative action progress report, August 4. 1974 to April 30, 1975. Dallas Independent School District.

PAGE 197

Dilling, T. w. (1979, May). A viable alternative to suspension from junior high school. The Personnel and Guidance Journal, 57(9), 472-473. 184 Dinkmeyer, D., & Dinkmeyer, D., Jr. (1976). Logical consequences: A key to the reduction of disciplinary problems. Phi Delta Kappan, 57, 664-666. Discipline. (1984-85, Winter). Noteworthy. The Mid-continent Regional Educational Laboratory (MoRel), pp. 14-19. Discipline in the classroom. (1974). Rev. ed. Washington, DC. National Education Association of the United States. DiScuillo, M. (1984, March). In school suspension: An alternative to unsupervised out-of-school suspension. Clearing House, 57(7), 328-330. Dobson, J. (1971). Dare to discipline. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House. Dorrell, L. D. (1984, January). Allowing continuous instruction in the suspension program. NASSP Bulletin, 68(468), 123. Driekurs, R., Grunwald, B. B., & Pepper, F. c. (1971). Maintaining sanity in the classroom. New York: Harper & Row. Duke, D. L. (1978, summer). Etiology of student misbehavior and the depersonalization of blame. Review of Educational Research, 48(3), 415-437. Edgeworth, E. D. (1980). An exploratory and descriptive study of the discipline practices in a high school utilizing an alternative suspension program. Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University. Elliott, D. s., & Voss, H. (1974). Delinquency and dropout. Lexington, MA: D. c. Heath. Encyclopedia of educational research (1982). Vol. 1. Discipline and alternative schools. Vol. 2. Junior high school and middle school education. Vol. 4. Secondary education and managing student discipline (E. H. Mitzel, Ed.). New York: The Free Press.

PAGE 198

185 Ernst, K. (1972). Games students play and what to do about them. Milbrae, CA: Celestial Arts. Felice, L. G. behavior: and racial Education, (1981, Fall). Black student dropout Disengagement from school rejection discrimination. Journal of Negro 50(4), 415-424. Flynn, w. (1980, February). Assessina disproportionate minority suspensions: A case study. University of Michigan School of Education, Project of Fair Administration of Student Discipline. Foster, G. (1977). Discipline practices in the Hillsborough County public schools. Coral Gables, FL: South Florida School Desegregation Consulting Center. Frith, G., Lindsey, J. D., & Sasser, J. L. (1980, May). An alternative approach to school suspension: The Dothan model. Phi Delta Kappan, 61(9), 637-638. Gallup, A.M. (1986, September). The 18th annual Gallup Poll of the public's attitudes toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 68(1), 43-60. Garrett, J.P. (1981). In-school suspension programs in southern Illinois high schools. Doctoral dissertation at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. Ginott, H. (1972). Teacher and child. New York: Macmillan. Glasser, W. (1965). Reality therapy: A new approach to psychiatry. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers. Glasser, w. (1969). Schools without failure. New York: Harper & Row. Glatthorn, A. A. (1975). Schools and programs. Company. Alternatives in education: New York: Dodd, Mead & Gnagey, W. J. (1975). Maintaining discipline in classroom instruction. New York: Macmillan.

PAGE 199

186 Gold, N. (1978, July). Scholastic experiences, selfesteem, and delinquent behavior: A theory for alternative schools. Crime and Delinquency, 24, 290-308. Good, c. v. (1972). Essentials of educational research. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Gordon, T. (1974). Teacher effectiveness training. New York: Wyden. Gorton, R. A. (1977, January). Responding to student misbehavior. NASSP Bulletin, 61(405), 18-26. Gray, F. (1974, March). Little brother is changing you. Psychology Today, pp. 42-46. Grice, M. (1986). Positive alternative school suspension CP.A.S.S.), 1986-86. Portland Public Schools Evaluation Report. (ERIC Document Reproduction SerVice No. ED 276 794) Grossnickle, D. R., & Sesko, F. P. (1985). Promoting effective discipline in school and classroom: A practitioner's perspective. Reston, VA: NASSP. Hadd, H. w. (1980). A study of the in-school suspension programs in Missouri school districts, 1978-1979. Doctoral dissertation, Saint Louis University. Hakamen, L. (1978). The stride program: Answer to absenteeism. Phi Delta Kappan, 59, 348-349. Hampton, B. R., & Lauer, R. H. (1981). Solving problems in secondary school administration: A human organization approach. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, Inc. Hamre, G. c. (1981). A study of parent, teacher and principal alternative preferences for specific disciplinary problems in middle-junior high schools in Wisconsin. Doctoral dissertation, The University of Wisconsin -Madison.

PAGE 200

Harvey, D., & Moosha, w. G. (1977, January). Inschool supervision: Does it work? NASSP Bulletin, 61(405), 14-17. Haupt, P. A. (1987). The effectiveness of inschool suspension programs as perceived by secondary school principals in Pennsylvania. Dissertation Abstracts International, 48, 266A. 187 Hawkins, J.D., & Wall, J. S. (1980). Alternative education: Exploring the delinquency prevention potential. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, No. J26.27:Ed8. Washington, DC: u.s. Government Printing Office. Herzog, M. R. (1980). An analysis of data and student opinion regarding two alternatives for reducing aberrant student behavior at Hiles East High School. Doctoral dissertation, George Peabody College for Teachers of Vanderbilt. Hethington, c. I., Jr. (1981). Alternative programs for disruptive youth in selected Florida public school districts, 1973-1980. Doctoral dissertation, The Florida state University. Hillway, T. research. Company. (1969). Handbook of educational Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Hochman, J. s. (1985). The effectiveness of inschool suspension as a disciplinary technique in an urban high school with and without intervention strategies. (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 363A. Hodges, M. F. w. (1978). Teachers' perceptions of the conaruence of classroom behaviors with an understanding of the unique characteristics of transescents. Doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado. Hopkins, K. D., & Glass, G. V. (1978). Basic statistics for the behavioral sciences. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

PAGE 201

188 Howard, E. R. (1978). School discipline desk book. West Nyack, NY: Parker Publishing Company. Howard, E. R. (1979, August 17). Unrigging the schools--One approach to improving discipline. Presentation at the Denver Public Schools District Conference at Keystone, Colorado. Hudgens, J. H., II. (1977). The develocment and testing of a model to assess administrative bias in student suspensions with regard to the students race, sex, family income level and parental marital status. Doctoral dissertation, University of South Carolina. Hudson, J. (1980). The effectiveness of in-school suspension programs as perceived by secondary school principals in Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio. Doctoral dissertation, Indiana State University. Jones, J. w. (1973). Discipline crisis in schools: The problem, causes and search for solutions. National School Public Relations Association. Jones, v. (1984, April). An administrator's guide to developing and evaluating a building discipline program. NASSP Bulletin, 68(471), 60-73. Jorgensen, J. (1977). An alternative to suspension for smoking. Creative Discipline, 1(4), 5. Keifer, D. A. (1980, March). An inexpensive alternative to suspension. NASSP Bulletin, 64(434),112-114. Kemper, R. (1975, May). Coping with discipline problems. Your Schools, pp. 11-12. Kern, c. R. (1980, May). Discipline for the SO's techniques for the rocky roads ahead. NASSP Bulletin, 64(436), 121-123. Kingston, A. J., & Gentry, H. W. (1977). Discipline problems in Georgia secondary schools: 1961 and 1974. National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 61(406), 94-99. Kirk, s. A. (1972). Educating exceptional children. (1972). NP, pp. 402-412.

PAGE 202

189 Knoff, H. N. (1984, April). Conceptualizing discipline: A school psychologist's perspective. NASSP Bulletin, 68(471), 80-85. Krasa, P. G. (1981). The impact of California's suspension legislation. AB 530/2191. upon junior high students suspension recidivism and staff attitudes in the Monterey Peninsula Unified School District. Doctoral dissertation, University of San Francisco. Ladd, E. (1971). Allegedly disruptive student behavior and the legal authority of school officials. Journal of Public Law, 19, 209, 234. Lipsitz, J. (1984). Successful schools for young adolescents. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. Little, A. D. (1979). Alternative education options. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Document No. J26.2:ED8). Washington, DC: u.s. Government Printing Office. Lundell, K. T. (1982). Levels of discipline: A complete svstem for behavior management in the schools. Springfield, IL: Charles c. Thomas, Publisher. Lynch, A. L. (1983). A comparative study of three groups of junior high school students to evaluate the effects of different methods of suspension: In-school suspension without schoolwork. inschool suspension with assigned schoolwork. and out-of-school suspension. Doctoral dissertation, University of San Francisco. Mann, J. L., III. (1983). An analysis of disciplinary techniques used for specific disciplinary problems by middle school administrative disciplinarians. Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University. Martin, B. A. (1979, September). The slammer: An in-school suspension program. The Massachusetts Teacher, 59, 21-22.

PAGE 203

190 Matherson, T. F. (1982). A descriptive study of inschool suspension programs in the State of Texas. Doctoral dissertation, East Texas State University. McClung, M. (1975, July). Alternatives to disciplinary exclusion from school. Inequality in Education (20), 58-73. McMurren, L. E. (1980). External versus internal suspension approaches to reducing disruptive student behavior. Doctoral dissertation, Fordham University. Meares, H. o., & Kittle, H. A. (1976, February). In-house suspension. NASSP Bulletin, 60(397), 60-63. Mendez, R. (1977, January). School suspensiondiscipline without failure. NASSP Bulletin, 61(405), 11-13. Mendez, R., & Sanders, s. G. (1981). An examination of in-school suspension: Panacea or Pandora's box. National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 65(441), 65-69. Miller, J.D. (1975, July). Student suspensions in Boston: Derailing desegregation. Inequality in Education (20), 16-24. Mitzel, H. E. (Ed.). (1982). Encvlocedia of Educational Research. Vol 1. Discicline and alternative schools. Vol. 2. Junior high school and middle school education. Vol. 4. Secondary education and managing student discipline. New York: The Free Press. Mizell, M. H. (1978, Fall). Designing and implementing effective in-school alternatives to sion. Urban Review, 10(3), 203-213. Moore, c. (1989). A study of the in-school suspension programs in North Central associated member junior high and middle schools. Doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado.

PAGE 204

191 Moos, R. H., & Moos, B.s. (1978). Classroom social climate and student absences and grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 263-269. Mosely, K. s. (1977). A discipline alternative. Educational Digest, 42, 26-28. National Center for the Study of Corporal Punishment. (1977). Report. Philadelphia: Temple University. National Education Association. (1972). Report of the task force on corporal punishment. Washington, DC: Author. National Institute of Education. (1978). Safe school study. Washington, D.C.: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. National School Public Relations. (1976). Suspensions and expulsions. Arlington, VA: Author. National School Resource Network. (1981, August). The William A. Wirt High School behavior modification clinic. Technical Assistance Bulletin, 36, 1-3. Nichols, J. (1952). A comparative study of reports from certain principals, teachers and pupils concerning discipline in selected secondary schools in Colorado. Doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado. Nielsen, L. (l979a, May). Let's suspend suspensions: Consequences-and alternatives. The Personnel and Guidance Journal, 57(9), 442-445. Nielsen, L. (l979b, May). successful in-school suspension programs: The counselor's role. The School Counselor, 26(5), 323-332. Noblit, G., & Short, P. (1985). Missing the mark in in-school suspension: An explanation and proposal. National Association of Secondary School Principals, 69 (484), 111-116. North carolina Department of Public Instruction. (1976). Discipline in the schools. Raleigh, NC: Author.

PAGE 205

O'Brien, D. (1976, March). In-school suspension: Is it the new way to punish productivity. The American School Board Journal, 163(3), 35-37. Pare, J. A. (1983, April). Alternative learning centers: Another option for disc. programs. NASSP Bulletin, 67(462), 61-67. 192 Patterson, F. (1985, March). rehabilitates offenders. 97-99. In-school suspension NASSP Bulletin, 69(479), Pharr, o. M., & Barbarin, O.A. (1976, November 4-6). School suspensions: A problem of person-environment fit. Paper given at the Annual CommunityClinical Workshop, Lanham, MD. Pledger, L. R. L. (1980). An evaluative study of a pilot program. counseling center. an alternative to suspension in the Montgomery. Alabama. public school system. 1979-80. Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern Mississippi. Proctor, s. (1976). The spiral of futility. New dimensions for educating youth, pp. 55-57. Project TEACH. (1977). Westwood, NJ: Performance Learning Systems. Purkey, W. W. (1978). Inviting school success: A self-concept approach in teaching and learning. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Ratliff, R. (1980). Physical punishment must be abolished. Educational Leadership, 37, 474-476. Reardon, F. J., & Reynolds, R.N. (1975). Corporal punishment in Pennsylvania. Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania State Department of Education. Regal, J., Elliott, R., Grossman, H., & Morse, w. (1975). The exclusion of children from school: The unknown. unidentified. and untreated. Report of the Co.uncil for Children with Behavioral Disorders. Report of the task force on corporal punishment. (1972). National Education Association, pp. 27, 28.

PAGE 206

193 Reutter, E. E., Jr., & Hamilton, R. R. (1976). The low of public education (2nd ed.). Mineola, NY: The Foundation Press, Inc. Romano, L. G., Georgiady, N. P., & Heald, J. E. (Eds.). (1973). The middle school: Selected readings on an emerging school program. Chicago: Nelson-Holly Company, Publishers. Roos, P. (1975, July). Goss and Wood: Due process and student discipline. Inequality in Education, (20), 42-46. Rubin, R., and Balow, B. (1971, December). Learning and behavior disorders: A longitudinal study. Exceptional Children, 38, 293-299. Safe Schools Task Force. (1979). Recommendations to the superintendent of public instruction, state of Washington, Olympia, Washington. Schmidt, L. T. (1982). School suspensions: A comparative study of the characteristics of junior high suspended and non-suspended students. Doctoral dissertation, Seattle University. School susoensions: Are they helping children? (1975). Washington Research Project. Cambridge, MA: Children's Defense Fund. Schools accused of ignoring poor. (1985, January 29). The Denver Post, p. llA. This article originally appeared in the Los Angeles Times, written by Zack Hauth. Seyfarth, J. T. (1980, February). Achieving equity and restraint in in-school suspension. The High School Journal, 63(4&5), 200-202. Short, P.M. (1963). The effect of organizational contest on in-school suspension programs: Ten comparative case studies. Doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Short, P., & Noblit, G. (1985). Missing the mark in in-school suspension: An explanation and proposal. National Association of Secondary School Principals, 69(484), 112-116.

PAGE 207

194 simon, s. B., Howe, L. w., & Kirschenbaum, H. (1972). Values clarification. New York: Hart. Skinner, B. F. (1968). The technology of teaching. New York: Crofts. Smith, v., Barr, R., & Burke, D. (1976). Alternatives in education: Freedom to choose. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation. southern Regional Council and the Robert F. Kennedy Memorial. (1973). The student pushout: Victim of continued resistance to desegregation. Atlanta, p. viii. Stradley, w. E., & Aspinall, R. D. (1975). Discipline in the junior high/middle school: A handbook for teachers, counselors, and administrators. New York: The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc. Stressman, c. W. (1985). In-school suspension-making it a place to grow. National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 69(478), 86-88. Task Force on Children out of School. (1971). The way we go to school: The exclusion of children in Boston. Thweatt, A. W. (1980). An investigation of the relationship between two suspension programs and selected variables. Doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia. Turning points: Preparing American youth for the 21st century. (1989, June). The Report of the Task Force on Education of Young Adulescents. Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. New York: carnegie Corporation. Van Dalen, D. B. (1973). research. New York: Understanding educational McGraw-Hill Book Company. Vincent, J. E. (1978). The relationship of shortterm suspension to student behavior in an urban secondary school. Doctoral dissertation, The University of Nebraska -Lincoln.

PAGE 208

195 Wayson, w. w. (1980, June). Perspectives on discipline. Practical applications of research. Newsletter of Phi Delta Kappa's Centeron Evaluation Development, and Research, 1-2. Weckstein, P. (1975, July). The Supreme Court and the daily life of schools: Implications of Goss v. Lopez. Inequality in Education (20), 47-57. Weiss, K. (1983, September). In-school suspensiontime to work, not socialize. NASSP Bulletin, 67 (464), 132-33. What are a teacher's rights to discipline students? (1982, February). Social Education, 46(2), 122-125. Reprinted from L. Stilzer & J. Banthin, Teachers have rights, too. Boulder, CO: Social Science Education Consortium; ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management and ERIC Clearinghouse for Social studies/Social Science Education, 8190. White, B. (1977, February). In school suspension: No panacea, but the impact is positive. Phi Delta Kappan, 58(6), 497-498. Wiles, J., & Bondi, J. (1981). The essential middle school. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Publishing. Wiles, J., & Bondi, J. (1986). Makina middle schools work. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and curriculum Development. Williams, A. (1982). Comparative analysis of traditional suspension and a confluent school suspension program. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara. Winborne, c. R. (1980, March). In-school suspension programs: The King William County model. Educational Leadership, 37(6), 466-469. Wollan, D. N. (1983). Alternatives to suspension: Middle. intermediate, and junior high school principals' perceptions of administrative procedures and programs with the highest potential for success. Doctoral dissertation, University of South carolina.

PAGE 209

Yoakley, R. (1977, September). Evaluation of inschool suspension at Halls High School Knoxville, TN: Knox County School System. 196 Zimmerman, J., & Archbold, L.A. (1979, September). On-campus suspension: What it is and why it works. NASSP Bulletin, 63(428), 63-67.

PAGE 210

APPENDICES

PAGE 211

APPENDIX A COLORADO STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 1988 MEMBERSHIP FOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS BY DISTRICT SETTING

PAGE 212

Fall 1988 Membership for Secondary School by District setting Total District Name School Name Grade stud. Setting 1 Core City C28 Schools> Denver County Smiley Middle School 06-08 612 Denver County Rishel Middle School 06-08 680 Denver county Lake Middle School 06-08 648 Denver County Hill Middle School 06-08 770 Denver County Henry Middle School 06-08 881 Denver County Thomas Jefferson High School 09-12 1,277 Denver county Skinner Middle School 06-08 811 Denver County George Washington High School 09-12 1,785 Denver County West High School 09-12 1,750 Denver County Kunsmiller Middle School 06-08 762 Denver County Baker Middle School 06-08 408 Denver County East High School 09-12 1,687 Denver County Morey Middle School 06-08 494 Denver county Cole Middle School 06-08 587 County Gove Middle School 06-08 538 Denver County Hamilton Middle School 06-08 596 Denver County Merrill Middle School 06-08 597 Denver county Montbello High School 09-12 1,177 Denver County South High School 09-12 1,105 Denver County Place Middle School 06-08 387 Denver county Manual High School 09-12 1,059 Denver County Abraham Lincoln High School 09-12 1,633 ...... \0 \0

PAGE 213

District Name Denver County Denver County Denver County Denver county Denver County School Name John F. Kennedy High School North High School Grant Middle School Kepner Middle School Horace Mann Middle School Setting 2 -Denver Metro Cl06 Schools) Brighton Cherry Creek Jefferson County Jefferson County Sheridan Boulder Valley Boulder Valley Boulder Valley Littleton Northglenn-Thornton Adams-Arapahoe Littleton Brighton Westminster Jefferson County Jefferson County Jefferson County Jefferson County Jefferson County overland Trail Middle School Laredo Middle School Evergreen Jr. High School Evergreen High School Sheridan Middle School Angevine Middle School Centennial Jr. High School Nevin Platt Jr. High School Goddard Middle School Northglenn Jr. High School East Middle School Heritage High School Brighton High School J. Hodgkins Middle School North Arvada Jr. High School Standley Lake High School Green Mountain High School Bear Creek High School Wheat Ridge Jr. High School Grade 00-12 09-12 06-08 06-08 06-08 06-08 07-08 07-09 10-12 06-08 06-08 07-09 07-09 06-08 07-09 06-08 09-12 09-12 06-08 07-09 09-12 09-12 09-12 07-08 stud. 1,269 2,103 449 938 746 26,865 447 905 724 1,193 354 483 512 485 -771 677 721 1,674 1,189 692 945 964 1,568 1,851 325 N 0 0

PAGE 214

District Name Douglas County Douglas County Jefferson County Jefferson County Sheridan Jefferson county Westminster Englewood Boulder Valley Jefferson county Adams County Adams-Arapahoe Northglenn-Thornton Northglenn-Thornton Adams-Arapahoe Jefferson County Northglenn-Thornton Mapleton Jefferson County Boulder Valley Jefferson county Jefferson County Adams-Arapahoe Douglas County Jefferson county Cherry Creek Westminster School Name Castle Rock Jr. High School Ponderosa High School Drake Jr. High School Pomona High School Sheridan High School Mandalay Jr. High Westminster High School Englewood High School Burbank Jr. High School Columbine High School Kearney Middle School Columbia Middle School Meritt Hutton Jr. High School Thornton High School Aurora Hills Middle School Moore Jr. High School Northeast Jr. High School York Jr. High School Wheat Ridge High School Boulder High School Lakewood Jr. High School Creighton Jr. High School Central High School Douglas County High School Arvada Jr. High School Horizon Middle School Clear Lake Middle School Grade 07-09 10-12 07-09 09-12 09-12 07-09 09-12 09-12 07-09 09-12 06-09 06-09 07-09 10-12 06-08 07-08 07-09 07-09 09-12 10-12 07-08 07-08 09-12 10-12 07-09 06-08 06-08 stud. 899 1,055 880 1,915 459 606 1,634 963 376 1,681 618 869 566 1,482 977 828 826 435 1,536 1,687 270 288 1,586 797 599 832 476 N 0 .......

PAGE 215

District Name Northglenn-Thornton Boulder Valley Adams Arapahoe Littleton Boulder Valley Englewood Jefferson County Cherry Creek Cherry Creek Boulder Valley Jefferson County Littleton Jefferson County Jefferson County Douglas county Jefferson County Jefferson County Jefferson County Westminster Cherry creek Mapleton Cherry Creek Northglenn-Thornton Englewood Jefferson County Northglenn-Thornton Mapleton School Name Horizon High School Base Line Jr. High School South Middle School Newton Middle School Casey Jr. High School Mary L. Flood Middle School Deer Creek Jr. High School Campus Middle Unit West Middle School Louisville Middle School Lakewood High School Euclid Middle School Jefferson High School Arvada High School Parker Jr. High School Arvada West High School Alameda High School West Jefferson Jr. High School Iver c. Ranum High School Cherry Creek High School Skyview High School Smoky Hill High School Northglenn High School Charles B. sinclair Middle School Bell Jr. High School Huron Jr. High School John Dewey Jr. High School Grade 10-12 07-09 06-08 06-08 07-09 06=08 07-08 07-08 07-08 06-08 09-12 06-08 09-12 10-12 07-09 10-12 09-12 07-09 09-12 09-12 09-12 09-12 10-12 06-08 07-08 07-09 06-08 stud. 815 401 601 854 456 418 1,036 750 782 469 1,270 790 744 1,625 1,001 1,777 1,452 494 1,379 3,109 1,299 2,440 1,877 265 635 553 286 N 0 N

PAGE 216

District Name Boulder Valley Westminster Jefferson County Jefferson County Westminster Adams-Arapahoe Adams-Arapahoe Adams-Arapahoe Jefferson county Adams-Arapahoe Boulder Valley Jefferson County Cherry Creek Jefferson county Cherry Creek Jefferson county Littleton Jefferson County Adams-Arapahoe Northglenn-Thornton Adams-Arapahoe Brighton Littleton Northglenn-Thornton Boulder Valley Boulder Valley Jefferson County School Name southern Hills Jr. High School Shaw Heights Middle School Oberon Jr. High School O'Connell Jr. High School M. Scott Carpenter Middle West Middle School Rangeview High School Mrachek Middle School Ken caryl Jr. High School Hinkley High School Broomfield Heights Middle School Carmody Jr. High School Overland High School Chatfield High School Prairie Middle School Everitt Jr. High School John Wesley Powell Middle School Dunstan Jr. High School North Middle School Pecos Jr. High School Gateway High School Vikan Middle School Littleton High School Westlake Village Jr. High centaurus High School Nederland Jr.-sr. High School Golden High School Grade 07-09 06-08 07-09 07-08 06-08 06-08 09-12 06-08 07-08 09-12 06-08 07-08 09-12 09-12 07-08 07-08 06-08 07-08 06-08 07-09 09-12 06-08 09-12 07-09 09-12 07-12 09-12 Stud. 397 617 833 587 530 529 1,980 1,110 839 1,386 715 960 2,314 1,755 769 649 1,033 672 636 794 1,928 486 1,513 911 1,017 281 1,415 1\.J 0 w

PAGE 217

District Name Littleton Adams County Douglas County Adams County Boulder Valley Boulder Valley School Name Arapahoe High School Adams City Middle School Highlands Ranch Jr.-Sr. High Adams City High School Fairview High School Broomfield High School Setting 3 -Urban/Suburban C102 Schools) Pueblo county Rural Mesa County Valley Greeley Greeley Greeley Mesa County Valley Thompson Mesa County Valley Colorado Springs Pueblo City Fountain Lewis-Palmer Pueblo city Pueblo County Rural Thompson Greeley Greeley Pueblo County High School Fruita Monument High School Heath Jr. High School Greeley Central High School Greeley West High School Bookcliff Middle School Turner Middle School Grand Junction High School Russell Jr. High School Roncalli Middle School Carson Middle School Lewis-Palmer Middle School Freed Middle School Pueblo West Middle School Thompson Valley High School Maplewood Middle School Franklin Middle School Grade 09-12 06-08 07-12 09-12 10-12 09-12 09-12 09-12 08-09 10-12 10-12 06-08 07-08 09-12 07-09 06-08 06-08 06-08 06-08 06-08 10-12 06-07 06-07 stud. 1,901 623 1,115 1,230 1,526 1,031 103,180 1,060 998 797 1,151 1,000 550 397 1,574 723 621 414 532 727 134 1,026 467 441 t\) 0

PAGE 218

District Name Widefield Fountain Poudre Pueblo County Rural Pueblo county Rural Colorado Springs Mesa County Valley Thompson Harrison Mesa County Valley Pueblo City Colorado Springs St. Vrain Valley Greeley Pueblo City St. Vrain Valley Fountain Poudre Widefield Mesa County Valley Pueblo City Manitou Springs Pueblo county Rural Manitou Springs Pueblo City Falcon Colorado Springs School Name Widefield High School Aragon Middle School Cache La Poudre Jr. High School Craver Middle School Rye High School West Jr. High School West Middle School Berthoud High school Gorman Middle School East Middle School East High School East Jr. High School Skyline High School Brentwood Middle School Lemuel Pitts Middle School Northeast Jr. High School Fountain-Fort carson High School Poudre High School Sproul Jr. High School Central High School Cent.ral High School Manitou Springs High School Pleasant View Middle School Manitou Springs Middle School James H. Risley Middle School Horizon Middle School Coronado High School Grade 10-12 07-08 07-09 06-08 09-12 07-09 06-08 09-12 06-08 06-08 09-12 07-09 10-12 06-07 06-08 07-09 09-12 10-12 07-09 09-12 09-12 09-12 06-08 06-08 06-08 06-09 10-12 stud. 1,516 403 325 125 181 483 422 544 629 432 1,324 603 854 411 843 699 505 1,080 475 1,254 1,439 362 351 257 532 422 1,233 N 0 01

PAGE 219

District Name Poudre St. Vrain Valley Mesa county Valley Thompson Falcon Falcon Greeley Mesa County Valley Poudre Poudre St. Vrain Valley Colorado Springs Pueblo City Poudre Academy Colorado Springs PUeblo City Academy Lewis-Palmer St. Vrain Valley Thompson Poudre Harrison Thompson Academy Colorado Springs Greeley School Name Wellington Jr. High School Lyons Jr.-sr. High School Palisade High School Conrad Ball Jr. High School Falcon Middle School Falcon High School Chappelow Middle School Orchard Mesa Middle School Blevins Jr. High School Boltz Jr. High School Erie Jr.-sr. High School Florence R. Sabin Jr. High School Centennial High School Lincoln Jr. High School Timberview Middle School Holmes Jr. High School South High School Rampart High School Lewis-Palmer High School Frederick Jr.-sr. High School Bill Reed Jr. High School Lesher Jr. High School Carmel Middle School Loveland High School Eagleview Middle School Washington Irving Jr. High School John Evans Jr. High School Grade 07-09 07-12 09-12 07-09 06-09 10-12 06-07 06-08 07-09 07-09 07-12 07-09 09-12 07-09 06-08 07-09 09-12 09-12 09-12 07-12 07-09 07-09 06-08 10-12 06-08 07-09 08-09 stud. 185 258 414 768 300 509 325 665 874 891 323 894 1,267 655 549 653 1,552 1,145 628 510 771 755 645 1,100 901 887 668 1\J 0 a-.

PAGE 220

District Name Colorado Springs St. Vrain Valley Widefield Thompson Colorado Springs Harrison Pueblo City Academy Academy Pueblo City Mesa county Valley Colorado Springs Harrison Mesa County Valley Cheyenne Mountain St. Vrain Valley St. Vrain Valley Widefield St. Vrain Valley Colorado Springs Harrison St. Vrain Valley Poudre Pueblo County Rural Colorado Springs Colorado Springs Colorado Springs School Name North Jr. High School Mead Jr. High School Janitell Jr. High School Walt Clark Jr. High School Mitchell High School Harrison High School W. H. Heaton Middle School Challenger Middle School Air Academy High School Corwin Middle School Fruita Middle School Palmer High School Panorama Middle School Mt. Garfield Middle School Cheyenne Mtn. Jr. High School Longmont High School Longmont Jr. High School Watson Jr. High School Longs Peak Jr. High School Wasson High School Sierra High School Niwot High School Fort Collins High School Beulah Middle School Horace Mann Jr. High School Emerson Jr. High School Thomas B. Doherty High School Grade 07-09 07-09 07-09 07-09 10-12 09-12 06-08 06-08 09-12 06-08 06-08 10-12 06-08 06-08 07-09 10-12 07-09 07-09 07-09 10-12 09-12 10-12 10-12 06-08 07-09 07-09 10-12 Stud. 658 194 613 682 1,356 1,126 672 841 1,194 635 729 1,133 703 758 588 979 789 495 879 1,207 1,145 675 1,312 41 688 702 1,579 "" 0 ....,J

PAGE 221

District Name Pueblo County Rural Academy Poudre Cheyenne Mountain School Name Vineland Middle School Liberty High School Rocky Mountain High School Cheyenne Mtn. High School Setting 4 -Outlying City C35 Schools) Valley Durango Valley Moffat County Montrose County Montrose County Montrose County Valley Montezuma-Cortez Fort Morgan Fort Morgan Delta County Delta County Durango East Otero Montezuma-Cortez East Otero Canon City Canon City Sterling Jr. High School Durango High School Caliche Jr.-sr. High School. Moffat County High School Olathe Middle School Olathe High School Centennial Jr. High School Sterling High School Montezuma-cortez High School Fort Morgan Middle School Fort Morgan High School Paonia Middl School Paonia High School Miller Jr. High School La Junta Jr. High School Cortez Jr. High School La Junta High School Canon City Middle School Canon City High School Grade 06-08 09-12 10-12 10-12 06-08 10-12 07-12 09-12 06-08 09-12 08-09 09-12 09-12 06-08 09-12 05-08 09-12 07-09 06-08 07-08 09-12 07-08 09-12 Stud. 319 791 1,224 634 74.749 567 784 151 705 209 239 514 688 812 576 644 174 176 383 465 490 581 537 997 !'-J 0 CD

PAGE 222

District Name Lamar Montrose County Montrose County Alamosa Trinidad Alamosa Delta County Delta county Moffat County Delta county Delta county Lamar Trinidad Delta County Delta County Durango School Name Lamar Middle School Columbi.ne Middle School Montrose High School Ortega Middle School Trinidad High School Alamosa High School Hotchkiss Middle School Hotchkiss High School Craig Middle School Cedaredge High School Cedaredge Middle School Lamar High School Trinidad Jr. High School Delta Middle School Delta High School Smiley Jr. High School Setting 5 -outlying Town (89 Schools) Gilcrest Meeker Park (Estes Park) Park (Estes Park) Platte Valley Akron Rangely Valley High School Barone Jr. High School Estes Park Middle School Park High School Platte Valley Jr. High School Akron High School Rangely Middle School Grade 06-08 06-07 10-12 06-08 09-12 09-12 05-08 09-12 05-08 09-12 05-08 09-12 06-08 05-08 09-12 07-09 09-12 06-08 06-08 09-12 07-08 09-:-12 06-08 stud. 457 504 752 531 520 601 156 242 754 108 182 527 385 546 524 434 17,015 413 168 248 335 123 265 1:\J 0 \0

PAGE 223

District Name Johnstown-Milliken Rangely Limon Huerfano Roaring Fork Roaring Fork Las Animas Meeker Garfield Platte Valley Springfield Springfield Fort Lupton Windsor Buena Vista Buena Vista Windsor Florence Holly Johnstown-Milliken Brush Brush Bennett South Conejos Archuleta County Gunnison Watershed Archuleta County School Name Milliken Middle School Rangely High School Limon Jr.-Sr. High School Walsenburg Middle School Carbondale Middle School Roaring Fork High school Las Animas Middle School Meeker High School Riverside Jr. High School Platte Valley Jr.-sr. High School Springfield Jr. High School Springfield High School Fort Lupton Intermediate Windsor High School Buena Vista High School Harry L. McGinnis Middle School Windsor Middle School Florence High School Holly Jr.-sr. High School Roosevelt High School Brush Middle School Brush High School Bennett Middle School Antonito High School Pagosa Springs Jr. High School Gunnison High School Paqosa sprinqs Hiqh School Grade 06-08 09-12 07-12 05-08 05-08 09-12 06-08 09-12 07-08 09-12 07-08 09-12 05-08 09-12 09-12 06-08 05-08 09-12 07-12 09-12 05-08 09-12 06-08 09-12 07-08 09-12 09-12 Stud. 265 198 165 190 293 246 179 220 122 351 43 109 658 440 285 207 372 518 "139 284 305 334 184 144 143 382 301 r--J 1-' 0

PAGE 224

District Name School Name Grade Stud. South Conejos Antonito Middle School 07-08 71 Bennett Bennett High School 09-12 245 Las Animas Las Animas High School 09-12 235 Salida Kesner Jr. High School 07-08 210 Rocky Ford Jefferson Middle School 06-08 303 Fort Lupton Fort Lupton High School 09-12 529 East Yuma County Buchanan Middle School 05-08 229 Roaring Fork Basalt High School 09-12 148 Ault-Highland Highland Middle School 05-06 138 Rocky Ford Rocky Ford High School 09-12 352 West Yuma County Yuma Middle School 04-08 316 Clear Creek Clear creek Secondary School 07-12 569 West Yuma county Yuma High School 09-12 240 Monte Vista Monte Vista Jr. High School 06-08 286 Monte Vista Monte Vista Sr. High School 09-12 383 East Yuma County Wray High School 09-12 240 Huerfano John Mall High School 09-12 272 Woodland Park Woodland Park Middle School 06-08 474 Woodland Park Woodland Park High School 09-12 649 Burlington Burlington High School 09-12 235 Burlington Burlington Middle School 05-08 249 West Grand West Grand High School 09-12 139 West Grand West Grand Middle School 06-08 134 Eaton Eaton Middle School 05-08 333 Eaton Eaton High School 09-12 301 Cheyenne County Cheyenne Wells Middle School 05-08 114 Cheyenne County Cheyenne Wells Middle School 09-12 87 1\J 1-' ......

PAGE 225

District Name Del Norte Ault-Highland Ault-Highland Julesburg Elizabeth Elizabeth Fowler Fowler Hayden Hayden Garfield Salida Center Gilcrest Holyoke Del Norte East Yuma County Crowley county crowley County Lake County Garfield Center Florence Gilcrest West Yuma County Gunnison Watershed Roaring Fork Roaring Fork School Name Del Norte Middle School Highland Jr. High School Highland high School Julesburg High School Elizabeth Middle School Elizabeth High School Fowler Jr. High School Fowler High School Hayden Middle School Hayden High School Rifle Middle School Salida High School Center Jr. High School North Valley Middle School Holyoke High School Del Norte High School Idalia Jr.-Sr. High School crowley County Middle School Crowley County High School Lake County High School Rifle High School Center High School Florence Middle School South Valley Middle School Liberty Jr.-Sr. High School Ruland Middle School Glenwood Springs Jr. High Glenwood Springs High School Grade 05-08 07-08 09-12 09-12 06-08 09-12 07-08 09-12 06-08 09-12 06-08 09-12 07-08 06-08 09-12 09-12 07-12 06-08 09-12 09-12 09-12 09-12 06-08 06-08 07-12 07-08 07-08 09-12 stud. 147 94 181 103 386 353 60 181 98 117 273 359 95 148 157 173 56 130 145 320 593 139 230 226 64 196 119 474 21,670 1\J ...... 1\J

PAGE 226

District Name School Name Setting 6 -Rural C72 Schools) Primero Reorganized Dolores County Centennial centennial West End Hoehne Reorganized Hoehne Reorganized South Routt Wiley Ignacio Ignacio Cheraw Cheraw Buffalo Sangre De Cristo Garfield Mancos Mancos Keenesburg Platte Valley West End Ellicott Peyton Peyton Primero Jr.-sr. High School Dolores County High School Centennial Jr. High School Centennial High School Nucla High School Hoehne Jr. High School Hoehne High School Soroco High School Wiley Und. High School Ignacio Jr. High School Ignacio High School Cheraw High School Cheraw Middle School Merino Jr. Sr. High School Sangre De cristo Und. High Grand Valley High School Mancos Jr. High School Mancos High School Weld Central Jr.-sr. High School Revere Jr.-sr. High School Naturita Middle School Ellicott Jr.-Sr. High School Peyton Middle School Peyton High School Grade 07-12 09-12 06-08 09-12 09-12 07-08 09-12 09-12 07-12 07-08 09-12 09-12 06-08 07-12 07-12 09-12 07-08 09-12 07-12 07-12 06-08 07-12 06-08 09-12 stud. 90 104 82 116 94 42 84 106 138 134 255 41 42 94 131 116 81 124 533 96 78 228 69 87 1\) ..... w

PAGE 227

District Name Garfield Eads Eads Kiowa Manzanola Genoa-Hugo Cripple Creek-Victor McClave Park County Arriba-Flagler Cotopaxi Mountain Valley Wiggins Wiggins Consolidated Ouray North Park Haxtun Ridgway Granada Strasburg Aguilar Reorganized Deer Trail Sargent Big Sandy Walsh Bayfield School Name L. W. St. John Middle School Eads Jr. High School Eads High School Kiowa Und. High School Manzanola Jr.-sr. High School Hugo Jr.-Sr. High School Cripple Creek-Victor Jr.-Sr. McClave Und. High School South Park Jr.-sr. High School Flagler Jr.-sr. High School Cotopaxi Jr.-sr. High School Mountain Valley Jr.-sr. High Wiggins High School Wiggins Jr. High School custer Co. Und. High School ouray Und. High School North Park Jr.-Sr. High School Haxtun High School Ridgway Undiv. High School Granada Und. High School Strasburg Jr. High School Aguilar Jr.-sr. High School Deer Trail Jr.-Sr. High School Sargent Jr.-sr. High School Simla Jr. High School Walsh High School Bayfield Middle School Grade Stud. 06-08 87 04-08 42 09-12 86 07-12 72 07-12 114 06-12 95 07-12 137 07-12 78 07-12 123 07-12 108 07-12 107 07-12 87 09-12 124 07-08 56 07-12 146 07-12 78 07-12 148 09-12 85 07-12 94 07-12 102 07-08 64 07-12 77 07-12 68 07-12 194 06-08 70 09-12 100 06-08 154 1\) f-1 '"

PAGE 228

District Name Platte Canyon Platte Canyon North Conejos North Conejos otis swink Sierra Grande Sanford Bayfield Dolores county Big Sandy Calhan Byers La Veta Stratton Gilpin County Dolores Dolores Norwood South Routt School Name Platte Canyon High School Fitzsimmons Middle School Centauri High School Centauri Jr. High School Otis Jr.-sr. High School Swink Jr.-Sr. High School Sierra Grande Jr.-sr. High Sanford High School Bayfield High School Dove Creek Jr. High School Simla High School Calhan High School Byers High School La Veta Jr.-sr. High School stratton Jr.-sr. High School Gilpin Col Und. High School Dolores Jr. High School Dolores High School Norwood High School Soroco Jr. High School Grade 09-12 06-08 09-12 04-08 07-12 07-12 07-12 09-12 09-12 07-08 09-12 07-12 09-12 07-12 07-12 07-12 06-08 09-12 09-12 06-08 stud. 292 235 316 171 77 147 105 134 190 49 64 151 86 113 113 141 115 144 65 68 8,544 t.J ...... 01

PAGE 229

District Name School Name Setting 7-Recreational (14 Schools) East Grand East Grand Eagle County summit summit Telluride Telluride Steamboat Springs Steamboat Springs Eagle County Eagle County Eagle County Aspen Aspen East Grand Jr. High School Middle Park High School Battle Mountain High School Summit County Middle School Summit Co. Sr. High School Telluride Middle School Telluride High School Steamboat Springs Jr. High Steamboat Springs High School Minturn Middle School Eagle Valley High School Eagle Valley Middle School Aspen High School Aspen Middle School Setting 8 Small Attendance Districts (30 Schools) Briggsdale Edison Woodlin Plainview Weldon Valley Karval Briggsdale Und. High School Edison Jr.-Sr. High School Woodlin Und. High School Plainview Jr.-sr. High School Weldon Valley Middle School Karval Jr.-Sr. High School Grade 06-08 09-12 09-12 06-08 09-12 06-08 06-08 09-12 05-08 09-12 05-08 09-12 05-08 07-12 07-12 07-12 06-12 06-08 07-12 Stud. 243 279 302 336 361 43 62 353 392 339 255 309 303 278 3,855 44 16 44 37 30 33 N 0\

PAGE 230

District Name Branson Reorganized Creede consolidated Agate Weldon Valley Hi-Plains De beque Pritchett Lone star Arickaree Vilas Campo Silverton Kim Reorganized Pawnee Hanover Kit Carson Frenchman Bethune Prairie Plateau Elbert Moffat Moffat Miami/Yoder School Name Branson Und. High School .creede Jr.-sr. High School Agate Jr.-sr. High School Weldon Valley High School Hi Plains Und. High School Debeque Und. High School Pritchett Und. High School Lone Star Und. High School Arickaree Und. High School Vilas Und. High School Campo Und. High School Silverton Und. High School Kim Und. High School Pawnee Jr.-sr. High School Hanover Jr.-Sr. High School Kit Carson Und. High School Fleming High School Bethune Jr.-sr. High School Prairie Jr.-sr. High School Peetz Jr.-sr. High School Elbert Jr.-sr. High School Moffat Middle School Moffat Sr. High School Miami/Yoder Jr.-Sr. High School Grade 07-12 07-12 07-12 09-12 07-12 07-12 07-12 07-12 07-12 07-12 07-12 07-12 07-12 07-12 07-12 07-12 09-12 07-12 07-12 07-12 07-12 06-08 09-12 07-12 Total stud. 25 45 18 40 60 47 43 25 62 32 32 60 47 48 29 53 40 45 39 47 53 28 40 65 1,227 257,105 f-1 .,_]

PAGE 231

APPENDIX B SCHOOL DISTRICTS BY SETTING CATEGORIES

PAGE 232

SCHOOL DISTRICTS BY SETTING CATEGORIES Core Clty/Dmnr Metro Oud,lnl Town II ural Rin Crande Sar1ent RE-UJ Den-er Oc-nwcr Coun.1J' I Adatnt lennftl 29J Adam Snubur !IJ lauu Sou1h lllouu liE Adam Mopletoft I Atchultta. Arthulno County ]0 JT Alamnta San1re de Critto IIEJ !a1uache Moun1ain RF. I Adams Norch,lenn lloca Sprinl!field IIE-t Arapahoe Deer Trail 26J SonMill"el Noraood 11-IJ Thorn1on 12 ltn.l Lit Animat REI Arapahoe I yen '2J ,..d,..ic\ P1anr Vallif"''' llt: ] Adoml Wtttminnn so ChofTee lurna Vltta llU Ina Wol1h liE I Trllrr Crirplr Crrrk Adanu Adamt CouniJ' ChofTee Solido lmt McClave RE-2 Vietor Rf.-1 Adom1 llrithtoll 2Jj Cheyenne Che!frnne Conry RE-S Conejot Sonrord 6J W11hinf1on Otit R-J Aropahoe AdamtArapahoe 21J Cleu Cree\ Clear Cree\ RE-I Conejot Norah Contjot REIJ Wrld lltrencothur' RF.-J Arapahoe Shendon I Conejot South Conejoo RE-10 Coil ill a Sierra Grande IISO Arapahoe Enslewood I cr-ley Cr-ley Countr IIE-1-J Cottilla Centennial Il-l Recreational A rap hoe Cherty Crer\ s Elbert Eliobeoh Cl Cutlrr C-1 Cnumw u ,., Ar.apahoe Linlrton Frentll"nl florence 11-1 Oolorrr1 Dolores Counry RE No.I Crand [au Cnnd l lnnlder Boulder Valley ll! 2 r.arurlof' C.rr.eld R-2 El Po1o Pnton UJT Pit\.in A'Pf'" I Dou1l11 Oousl County REI Corfield 1toarin1 For .. IlE-I Pooo [llicon 22 Roun Srramboa Spttn11 Jrlfeuon JrR'enon Counl}' Rl Crond .. Cran4 I El Pooo Calhon RJI San Miuel Trlluidr Il-l Cunniton t'..unnitott Watft'lhtd IIEIJ Elbert kiowa C-2 Summ1i 5umm11 REI Urban Suburban Huerfano Hucrlano REI [IMrt 11;1 Sandy IOOJ Boulder !1. Vrain Valley llF. IJ lUI Carton lurUn1ton RE-6J Frrmont Cotopui II.E-J !rnall Auendance [I PolO folcon ue La\r Counr, II I Carfleld carr. rid 16 Ban ,.i1cht11 RE' El PolO Acadrrmr 20 Larimrrr Pu.(lrtel Pork) R' Gilpin Cilp_in Counry RE-I Baca Compo U-6 El P11o Che,enM' Mountain II Lincoln Limon 11-J Hurrr(ano La Vtrtl I au Vilas II. F.' El PolO ,. .. nitou Sprinp .. MO'Jift I ruth IIE(JJ Jackon North Par .. R-1 Chrwrrnne IC.it Canon R.-1 El Poto H.,r"on 2 Orero food 11-2 Kiowa Eo do RE-I El Paso MiamiiYodtr 60 JT El P110 l.r"fiJaPalmer ,. o ..... ,_1 ... R-J Kh Carson Suanon Rt El Paso Hano'"r u El P11o WideRrld Philllpo Holo\e REIJ kil Canon Arribo-Fio1ler t:-20 El P110 Edi1on ;t JT El P11o Fountain I "owen Holiy RES 1..1 Plotl llnOrld 10 JTR Eiben El .... n -ann El PliO Colorodo 5prlns II ll.io lllonco Mee\er liE I 1..1 Plota II JT AI.IIC' 11)0 Uri mer Th11mp1on ll-2j Rio llonco llonselr IIEt La Animas All"ilar Reo'lonied 6 Hinsdale HtntdaiC' Counl\ AE I Uri mer Il-l llio Moneo Vi" C-1 UAnimat Hoehne Kiowa Plam,.,.,._. RE-l ""'"' Mna Co"noy Volley Rio Grande Oel None C-7 llror1anilled Kir Cannn He-rl:ain II.U Pueblo Pueblo Caunry lloult Hawdrn 11-1 Lit Anim Primrro IC.i1 Brthunr R \ Rural 70 Sauache" ceftcrr 26 JT. lleorJanircd 2 La Anin111 e ...... ... l'ueblo I'Urblo City 110 Sed pick Juleoburll REI Lincoln Ccnoa-Huso CIIS Rrurllaniarrt l Weld Creeler e Teller Woodlond Par\ II.F.-2 L"'ln luiT&Io 11-t La Animu km Arnrta:anilttd Wnhina,on A \ron 11.-1 Mesa rlaeou v.11,. )0 Lincoln IC.af"a.l , Outl,inl Ciry weld E.acon RE-2 Montrr:uma P.bnCOI RE-6 Lo1an rtarnu II.E' Alamo Alan1011 IIE-IIJ Wtld ,. .,.valley RE-7 Monlr&utna Dolores 11.[-IA I.CIIIIIft Frf'tu hnan Rt. Drho Deha Counr JO(JJ Weld AuhH ishlond RE-9 Monnnse Wtn End REl Mrn DrR,....1ur '"IT Frtmont Canon Cir liE I Weld ''"'Lupton RE-I Mor,.an Wiuin RE-JO(JI MinC'ral Cr..-.lc-I La Pl111 Duranp 9-ll Weld Johnll-n-Milli\en REJj Otero Man1anola lj Mor1.1n Weldon \"ollt'' liE Lat Animal l'rinidad I Weld Ci1crr.ll REI Otero s .. :ink IS M.,rra. 1 Lottn Voller ll-1 Wrld Wlndu" liE' Orero Chc-ra-. ll San luan Sih"r"'" I l'lofTol MofTat CouniY IIE:No I Yuma Well Yuma Coutny II.J-1 Ouray RJ Was l111nrr Str IPI Mnn1r1uma Monltzuma-Conf!'t RE-I Yuma [atl Yun Counrr RJ-2 Ouuy OuraY Kl A.ric .. ar"' R l MonnoJe Mnnuote County RE-IJ Pu\ Par C:ounn REJ Wa1hintcron Woorllin R-10' ,.. ..... n Mor1n RE-S P>r\ Plaur I Weld lriu;tdalco RE-10 Or no E111 Otero Rl Phillir HLuun RE-2J \0\rld C:rmorr Rt Prowen lanar 11-2 Prn""con Cranad.a RE-I ..... d rrainco Rf. II 1\J rro"e'fl Wiley RE-15 JT 1-' 1.0

PAGE 233

APPENDIX C SCHOOL DISTRICTS BY SETTING CATEGORIESDEFINITION OF SETTING CATEGORIES

PAGE 234

SCHOOL DISTRICTS BY SETTING CATEGORIES DEFINITION OF. . SETTING CATEGORIES .. CORE CITY is composed of large urbanized disnictswith district and cirv boundaries which are coterminous. Core cicv districiS are characterized bv enrollment declines over the past twenry year5. high concentrations of low income studentS and students wnh special needs but not limited to, special education students, compen satorv education stuclent5, and educ;uion studcnt5, high dropout r.ues, and total pupil enrollments in excess of forry thousand. DENVER METRO is composed of districts located within the Denver-Boulder standud metropolitan statistical area which are primarily suburban m nature. compete economically for the 5ame staff pool, and reflect the regional economy of the area. Denver metro districts are characterized by more homogenous pupil populations and generally smaller numbr.rs of special needs pupils than core ciry disuicts. URBAN-SUB URBAN is composed of districts which com prise the Slate's major popuCation centers ourside of the Denver metropolitan area and their immediately ur rounding suburbs. districts are within areas characterized by population centers of thirty thou sand persons or more. OUTLYING CITY is compo5ed of dimim in whirh mnst ,,f the li\e in population crmen of seven thomand IH:rsons ur more but les5 than thirty thcmund pr.rsrtns. OUTLYING TOWN i composed of dimicts in which most of the pupils live in populatinn centers in of one thousand persons but less than seven thousand persons. RURAL is of districts with no population cen ters in e"cess of one thou5and persons and is r:haracterized by sparse widespread populations. Rural districts arr di5tricts which do not meet the enrollment criteria for sening category VIII small attendance. RECREATIONAL is composed of dimicts which comain major recreational de"elopmems that impact the cost of pr?perry values, community income, and other cosr-of livmg components. SMALL ATTENDANCE is composed of districts which arr rural in nature and havr pupil rnrolhnt"nts or lt"Ss th3n nnf' fifty. 221

PAGE 235

APPENDIX D INITIAL COVER LETTER

PAGE 236

of Colorado al Denver School or Eduaooirln 11m I.Mim
PAGE 237

APPENDIX E QUESTIONNAIRE

PAGE 238

SURVEY OF IN-8CHOOL SUSPENSION PROGRAMS Name or School District Name or School Job Title of Person Completing This Survey Date Completed 1. Does your school have an in-school suspension program! YES NO 1a.lf !Q, please check the two most important reasons why: Never considered implementing a program Not enough money to fund a program Do not believe that they are effective Lack or facilities Had one previously but discontinued it Other (Please explain.) U you do not have an in-school suspension program, fcou need not proceed. return the survey in the enclosed envelope. Thank you or your assistance. 225 Please lb.lf YES, please complete the rest or the survey. In this survey, "'n-School Suspension" will be referred to as "lSS". 2. How long has your ISS program been in operation? Years 3. Who was involved in developing your ISS program? (Cheek all that apply.) Building Administrators District Administrators Teachers Parents Students Counselors Court Order by a Judge Other (Please specify.) 4. Please list at least two reasons why your school decided to develop and implement an ISS program-----------------------------------------------------------------------------(1)

PAGE 239

226 5. How is your ISS program funded? (Check all that apply.) Federal grant State grant Local district funds Local school funds Private funds Other (Please specify.) 6. What strategies are used with students in the discipline process at your school? (Cheek all that apply.) Advocacy by school starr Behavior clinics Contracts Cooling ort/time out Community/school projects Corporal punishment Counseling Denial of extracurricular activities Detention Expulsion Group workshops on specific topics Lowering the student's grade Problem-solving sessions with second starr Parent conferences Peer counseling Program/schedule changes Referral !or special education evaluation Reward systems Saturday school Suspension Telephone calls to parents Work details/programs Other (Please specify.) 7. Which of the below are goals for your ISS program? (Check all that apply.) To modify inappropriate behavior To develop problem solving skills To reduce the student's feelings or alienation from school To provide an alternative to at-home suspension To provide relief for the teacher To reduce the dropout rate To provide time out for the student To help students develop self-discipline To reduce truancy To reduce chronic tardiness To serve as a consequence for unacceptable behavior To reduce the number of discipline problems To help the student improve his/her self image To encourage appropriate behavior To prevent future misbehavior Other (Please specify.) For item 17, now please place a star to the left of the three most important goals of your ISS Program. (2)

PAGE 240

227 8. What strategies are typically used with students prior to their placement in your ISS program!. (Check all that apply.) Teacher/student conference Counselor/student conference Teacher/parent conference Teacher /par en t/studen t eonf er ence-Referral to the office --After-school detention After-school work detail At-home suspension Other (Please specify.) LI.Dlch-time detention --------------9, What behaviors may result in a student's placement into your ISS program? (Check all that apply.) Truancy Tardiness Cutting classes Profanity/vulgarity Fighting Failure to have supplies/ materials Smoking Coercion for money/goods Disrespect Verbal abuse Insubordination Disruption Physical assault Possession or use of illegal substances Possession or use of a weapon Gambling Development of a pattern of inappropriate behavior Other (Please specify.) For item 19, now please place a star to the left of the three most freguent behaviors. 10 What is the average length of assignment to your ISS program? Part of the day One day Two days Three days Four to five days Six to seven days Other (Please speclry.) 11. What is the average number of students in your ISS program at one time? One to three Pour to six Seven to ten Eleven to fifteen Fifteen to twenty More than twenty 12. Students_assigned to your ISS are suspended from which of the following? (Check all that apply.) Only elass(es) where referral originated All classes Extracurricular activities Regular lunch Other (Please specify.) (3)

PAGE 241

13. Do the regular teachers provide the work Cor students in your ISS program? 14. Do the students receive credit for work done while in your ISS program! 15. What is the location of your ISS facility? (Cheek all that apply.) Isolated from other classrooms but in the main building Located in the midst or the other classrooms Located in a separate building but on the school grounds Located somewhere else in the district 1[1 part or the administrative oCriees in your school YES YES 16. Is there a follow-up procedure with students who have been in your ISS program? YES NO 228 NO NO 17. Which of the following apply to students in your ISS program? (Cheek all that apply.) Are informed or in-school suspension rules and procedures Are informed of the consequences of not Collowing ISS rules and procedures Are kept constantly busy Are kept under constant supervision Are allowed to socialize Are isolated within the room Receive the same academic assignments as in the regular classroom Do academic assignments (English, Social Studies, Math, Science) Do elective assignments (Home Economies, Physical Education, etc.) Do different, separate ISS assignments Complete a behavioral contract while in ISS Receive individual counseling while in ISS Receive group counseling while in ISS Participate in extra-curricular activities while in ISS Are not released from ISS until assigned work has been satisfactorily completed Receive help or tutoring with their work 18. How do students get out of your ISS program? (Check all that apply) Serve the time initially specified Complete all work Earn credit for good behavior and work which can reduce the time spent Other (Please specify.) -----------------19. Who staffs your ISS program! (Check all that apply.) Full time certified teacher Part time certified teacher Full time paraprofessional Part time paraprofessional Other (Please specify.) ----------------, 20. Is your ISS program evaluated at least once a year? YES NO (4)

PAGE 242

229 21. In your opinion, which of the following apply to the parents of students in your ISS program? (Check all that apply.} Are contacted when a student is assigned to ISS Are involved in some way while the student is in ISS Must attend a conference with school personnel prior to the student's re-entry into the regular school program Know the goals of the ISS program Are supportive of the ISS program Feel the ISS program is effective 22. Please indicate how effective you believe your ISS program is in accomplishing each of the following goals. (Circle one number Cor each.) 1=Not a goal 2=Not Effective 3=Somewhat Effective 4=Very Effective 1 2 3 4 Modifying Inappropriate behavior 1 2 3 4 Developing problemsolving skills 1 2 3 4 Reducing the student's !eellngs of alienation !rom school 1 2 3 4 Providing an alternative to at-home suspension 1 2 3 4 Providing relief !or the teacher 1 2 3 4 Reducing the dropout rate 1 2 3 4 Providing time-out for the student 1 2 3 4 Helping .the student develop self-discipline 1 2 3 4 Reducing truancy 1 2 3 4 Reducing chronic tardiness 1 2 3 4 Serving as a consequence for unacceptable behavior 1 2 3 4 Reducing the number of discipline problems 1 2 3 4 Helping the student improve his/her self-image 1 2 3 4 Helping the student improve his/her attitude toward school 1 2 3 4 Preventing future misbehavior Other (Please specify and rate.) 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 23. Since the ISS program has been in operation, what is the condition of the following? (Circle one number !or each.) 1=Don't Know 2=Increased 3=Stayed the same 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Number of disciplinary referrals Recidivism rate of disciplinary referrals Number of ln-$Chool suspension eases Number of at-home suspension cases 4=Decreased 24. Approximately what percentage of the student population was involved in your ISS program during the 1988-89 school ye8J'! __ Percentage 25. During the 1988-89 school year, were there any grade levels that had more students assigned to ISS than other grade levels! YES NO If yes, which grade level? -----(5)

PAGE 243

26. During the 1988-89 school year, were there more students or one gender assigned to ISS? YES NO It yes, which gender! -------27. Based on your professional judgement, please indicate your degree of agreement/disagreement by circling the appropriate number: -The ISS program has a good reputation with the -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 student body in our school -The ISS program has a good reputation with students -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 who are referred to ISS -The ISS program is well thought of by teachers in our -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 school -Counselors at our school are in favor of the ISS -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 program -Parents at our school have not been in favor of the ISS -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 program -Parents of students who have been referred to the ISS -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 program have been supportive ol it -The ISS program is effective in Improving classroom -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 behavior when the students return !rom being in ISS -The ISS program is etrective in Improving students' -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 negative attitudes about school -The ISS program is ineffective in acting as a deterrent -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 to misbehavior -It is better for the students to be in the ISS program -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 than suspended at-home and unsupervised in the community -The ISS program is effective in keeping the students -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 current with their regular schoolwork -The ISS program is effective In making students more -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 aware of their responsibWty for their own actions -Too many students are assigned to the ISS program at -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 once ISS is over-used as a discipline strategy at our school -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 -Preparing lessons for students in ISS is an added -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 burden for teachers -The stay In the ISS program is too short for much -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 positive student behavior change to occur -The ISS program provides an opportunity for positive -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 interventions with the student to begin -Isolation from peers is an etrective strategy to deter -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 misbehavior -The ISS program protects the rights of other students -3 -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 to learn -The ISS program is lnetrective since It addresses -2 -1 +1 +2 +3 symptoms rather than causes (6) 230

PAGE 244

231 28. What do you believe are the three main strengths of your ISS program? A-------------------------------------------------B. -------------------------------------------------C--------------------------------------------------29. What do you believe are the three main problems with you ISS program? A--------------------------------------------------B. --------------------------------------------------C. -----------------------------------------------------30. What are two things that would improve your ISS program? A--------------------------------------------------B. 31. Please add any comments regarding aspects ::>( __ .. covered in this survey. Thank you for your time, cooperation, and eUorts. ..,s which you reel were not Would you like an executive summary of the findings of this study? YES NO (7)

PAGE 245

APPENDIX F FOLLOW-UP COVER LETTER

PAGE 246

of Colorado al Schml nl Eduullnn 12111 !ilrm C'omru ""' IIIII Drn"1..'r. 1.10.11 November 28, 1989 Dear Fellow Administrator, 233 On pctober 15, 1989, I mailed you a survey dealing with in-school suspension programs. As of today'a .date, I have not received your completed survey. Your completed survey is so important to the comprehensiveness of this study status of in-school suspension programs in the State of Colorado: AB the principal of a middle school in Colorado, I am interested in all data dealing. with at-risk students and how to keep them in school. As a graduate student at the University of Colorado at Denver, I am conducting a study of the CHARACTERISTICS OF IN-SCHOOL SUSPENSION PROGRAMS in public secondary schools in the State of Colorado. Your participation is extremely important to this study. Please take the time to complete the sl.lrvey and to return it in the enclosed self-addressed, stamped envelope by December 15, 1989. The questions require mostly check-type responses and should take just 12-15 minutes to complete. --Please share the information about your school regarding in-school suspension. The results of our work will provide important information that could potentially be used as the basis for formulating and for re-examining in-school suspension programs. Thank you so much for your time and efforts: Sincerely, Nadine B. Fuller 12341 East Bates Circle Aurora, Colorado 80014 Home Telephone: 303-751-0304

PAGE 247

APPENDIX G LETTER TO PANEL OF EXPERTS

PAGE 248

Dr. Rodney Killian Director, Planning and Evaluation Aurora Public Schools 1085 Peoria ST. Aurora, CO 80011 Dear Dr. Killian: Nadine B. Fuller 12341 E. Bates Circle Aurora, CO 80014 (303) 751-{)304 (H) (303) 373-9870 (W) 235 Thank you for your consent to becoming an expert panel member to review the survey on in-school suspension programs, which will become the research data source for my doctoral dissertation at the University of Colorado at Denver. Please critique the survey for the following: Format and exclusion or necessary and unnecessary components Inclusion and exclusion or necessary and unnecessary details Grammar and syntax Statistical validity Your suggestions will be welcomed Cor any over-aU Improvements or this document and lor any that will aid in Its elicitation or the statistical data which I am attempting to gamer. Thank you Cor your assistance, time and willingness to share your expertise. Sincerely, Nadlne B. Fuller