"Suspension involves a custodial and control policy focus, usually thought of in terms of average daily attendance rates and to a lesser extent secondary dropout rates...jurisdictions with suspension rates approaching or exceeding ten percent of all the students in school may have a distinctive character " (Suspension Exercise Argument, p. 1).

     I began my understanding of suspension with this simple paragraph and watched my understanding evolve into a better appreciation for the practical aspects of managing in education The issues surrounding suspension rates and practices act also as an illustration of the many dilemmas that face or may present themselves to policymakers and administrators. When does data become information ? How is it used (or not used) to formulate policy ? What are the implications in using new data in formulation of policy and more importantly for implementation ?

     When we first convened as a group we discussed some possible relationships that we might hypothesize from the data . Perhaps we could find a relationship between dropout rates and high suspension, or attendance and suspension or the % white, reg diploma %'s, and suspension ? The initial questions about the meaning of the data led to a closer look at the data, but perhaps more importantly led our group to look for addition meaning, something to make the data become information.

The Data

     Due to my lack of confidence in doing a true statistical analysis I thought of other ways to look at the data to see if in fact a "formula" could be developed for the relationship between suspension the variables presented in the case. The first chart at the end of this paper illustrates one attempt at taking districts with the same suspension rate and looking at what one might learn about common characteristics. After looking at "slices" of the data in this way and also sorting the data in different ways it was not possible to devise a formula.

     One additional way of looking at the data that wasn't initially part of the data set, is to translate suspension rates into a number of students. A suspension rate is expressed in terms of the number of suspended students to enrollment, not days or numbers of incidents. While the methodology, based on our class discussion, is not correct (it doesn't account for the variations in suspension rate across grade levels) it can be used for illustration. The second chart re-ranks the districts based on the numbers of students suspended and displays their former "rank" by suspension rate for comparison sake. This particular way to again "slice" the data leads to additional questions and a mission for the group to find alternative sources of data to assist in translating this into information. Our group pursued two different avenues, based on individual interest, leaving a third alternative untouched.

Additional Data

     The original investigation of the data led three of us to address an alternative explanation: the "environment" of administration. Perhaps the styles or philosophies of various administrators were influencing these rates in a way not captured by the data. A second group member pursued potential sociological variables described in the literature. This aspect is related to the final "slice" of the data that I illustrated. While some demographic data is provided about the district as a whole, data on the individual students impacted by suspension were not available. The level of analysis in this instance moves from the district to the individual.

     However, a third aspect, not necessarily an explanation, but relavent to policy is a cost analysis. If this data is in fact an entre to the development of a statewide analysis, certainly one element that would interest those making the decisions is the relative cost of suspension. Another way to look at the argument would be to look at relative "costs" of suspension by district. Certainly not easy to tackle, but it struck me as a third alternative when I spoke to one superintendent. He said that costs to the community were reduced because the previously suspended student, now part of the districts' new program, was not out vandalizing the community.

Districts with Lowered Suspension Rates

     As one of the individuals interested in the adminstrative "environment" I attempted to speak to administrators who were from districts with lowered suspension rates. I thought this assist in understanding what works and what doesn't work in lowering suspension rates. I picked, unscientifically, 10 of the 19 districts (although I did try to get a mix of urban/rural, upstate downstate) on the improved list. I then faxed a cover note and list of questions (final page in this document) to the superintendents of those districts. I insured confidentiality and didn't ask questions specific to their districts suspension rate, but to suspension practices in general. When the deadline passed I then followed up with a phone call. I had one definite "No" via a secretary, one only by phone (fear of written and faxed material), and two faxed written material one of which have had a follow up discussion. I also supplemented this with some assistance from unnamed members of our class. While I cannot tell you the specific districts I will call them A, B, C and tell you that A is rural, B and C are urban, B I haven't talked with the administrator and C I did.

Superintendent A

     He has a philosophy of discipline that involves the teacher as the first line of defense --keep journals, talk to parents, work with student. He doesn't however believe in imposing that philosophy on his district (one building). He, within the last three years, has a new principle who came in with a "zero tolerance" philosophy. There was a substantial increase in referrals and suspensions, but they dropped off dramatically in the last year (one way of reducing suspensions). He emphasized that context is important. Its a small, rural, conservative community that is "strict". Where he didn't perceive a discipline problem , having come from an urban experience, the community did. Regarding SED and the data collection he didn't believe it was accurate and that the way SED goes about collecting it doesn't make conducive to accuracy or validity. He started to get more uptight so I didn't explore all of the reasons why he made this statement.

Some of Superintendent A's comments:

"discipline is subjective, not formula driven....teachers would like to have a formula"

"discipline is "good" until it applies to your kids"

"there is a tension between suspending and the need to learn"

Superintendent B

I haven't talked to B personally, but from written comments and his policy I can make some comments. He didn't respond to the question about a district "philosopy" of discipline, but did answer the specific policy questions. In particular he mentioned the challenges in consistently implementing a policy. The word consistency is mentioned in the policy itself. However, when asked how this policy is communicated he didn't mention any "training" sessions, simply that handbooks were made available to students, teachers, and administrators, nothing directly to parents and the board through a board policy committee. The policy is the longest of any I've seen, its seventeen pages and is very specific. It does however, have "room" in the application of different types of disciplinary measures, including a Saturday school and in-school suspension. He also mentioned that this policy has taken three years to develop.

Superintendent C

     Perhaps the most interesting and the "friendliest" and most enlightening. This superintendent not only provided information via fax, but also via follow up phone conversation and invited me to speak with another district and a principal in his district.

     In contrast to the previous districts he had a very different solution and a very different policy. His policy was a board policy of one paragraph. When asked how it is communicated he mentioned that its discussed at staff meetings, conference days, board meetings, and mailings to parents with the annual calendar. Like the other districts the suspension rate is calculated by the number of students suspended, not incidents or days, divided by the enrollement. He didn't have any problem with the data per se or SED collecting . He didn't however like the calculation as it doesn't tell you the number of times suspended. When he came in 1994 he was astounded by the number of suspensions and said it couldn't be tolerated. therefore a program was developed that has since dropped their suspension rate over 60%. As an alternative to out-of-school suspension. They have developed a twist on the "in-school" suspension. They pick up the students at their home and transport to a BOCES where a teacher (difficult selection process) and an assistant have them do their school work all day. He has received tremendous feedback from parents and students. When I asked him how he sold this to the board and the community he said it was quite easy...(a) parents thought of out-of-school suspension as a vacation for students and in many instances they were doing destructive things or watching television so this was constructive and worth the dollars in their mind and (b) doing it in conjunction with another school they get BOCES aid (70%).

Some of Superintendent C's comments:

"This arrangement is an "alternative educational setting not punishment"

"What we have learned through this process is that there are kids that are so distracted by "the regular school setting" that they cannot learn or get their school work done.

Concluding Comments

     While these administrators are only three among many other possible district approaches to suspension as a practice, I believe they illustrate some of the "tensions" that exist not only in using data to formulate policy, but the harsh territory one embarks upon when trying to devise a policy.

     The approach by each was different and if one can assume the data is correct, each had results. However, it poses serious tensions between the need to centralize the definition of the practice, possibly for a pressing statewide need (e.g. accountability), and the reality that suspension involves human behavior in a very specific context. How much local control and administrator discretion can be balanced with a centralized need ?

     I think the discussion that followed our presentation provided an interesting insight into how the data might be used to balance this tension. If for example the data also includes a geographic assumption about the administrator "environment" and districts are then clustered perhaps a regional policy,or at the very a regional understanding, could be formulated. As educators move the argument from state, to district, to building, to student the issue and the data begin to have very little meaning, at least for those who have to address the "big picture".