A damning report is out that details the toxic combination of the disparate racial impact of various high school discipline policies and the consequent “arbitrary and capricious” use of disciplinary records in the college admissions process.
Considering that black students are over 3 times more likely to be suspended or expelled than white students, the implications for the college access, success outcomes, and socioeconomic mobility gains for students of color are deeply alarming.
First, the major findings from the Center for Community Alternatives, which surveyed both colleges and high schools:
Disparities in Access
- 75 percent of college survey respondents collect high school disciplinary information – whether through the Common Application or separately – and 90 percent of those colleges use the information in the decision process.
- Nearly 30 percent of colleges that collect this information have circumstances – such as those where a weapon, illegal drugs, assault, arrest, or bullying are present – that result in the automatic denial of admission.
Disparities in Participation Once Admitted
- Even if admitted, 33 percent of colleges either impose a probationary period whereby students must maintain a minimum GPA and cannot violate any disciplinary policies, or students must commit to special monitoring.
- Nearly 50 percent of colleges place housing restrictions on students, with over 34 percent banning the student from residing in on-campus housing.
Disparities in Procedure
- 75 percent of colleges that collect disciplinary information have no formal, written policies to guide their use.
- 65 percent of high schools have no formal, written policies regarding the disclosure of disciplinary records, yet 50 percent disclose information.
- If an applicant is denied admission, only 21 percent of colleges automatically notify the student with the reason for denial – all others require the applicant to inquire. 75 percent of colleges have an appeals process in place for applicants rejected for disciplinary reasons, but only 44 percent formally notify the applicant of that process.
Some might argue that certain infractions warrant extra consideration during the admissions process. In fact, the reason for including the question on the Common Application in 2006 was because member colleges wanted a way to verify “good citizens” and help determine whether the applicant should be a “part of our community.” Others cite campus safety concerns.
One of the problems though is that there are no clear standard definitions to classify infractions. As the report details, some schools call fighting among students an “assault,” not a “fight.” Arms, hands, or feet are sometimes called “personal weapons.” “Violent behavior” too, is subject to interpretation. In one survey, some administrators classified the possession of weapons as “not at all violent,” while others rated students pushing each other while in line as “an extremely violent act.”
It goes without saying that the same problem applies to the severity of punishment – it all depends on the policies and personalities of teachers, schools, districts, and states. Some even permit suspension for tardiness.
Given our nation’s heightened sensitivity at this time to biases in race, violence, and policing issues, now is the perfect time to address this glaring problem in K-12 and higher education policy. Because not only do suspensions result in 18 million lost days in instruction in high school, they go on to have a lasting, potentially even more severe, impact in terms of college access and success.
The New York Times editorial page summed up this issue better than we can:
Disciplinary data is junk information that can hurt students while doing nothing to meaningfully distinguish them from other applicants. Clearly, many schools realize that. About half the 1,360 high schools that answered the [Center for Community Alternatives] survey had chosen not to disclose the information. Of course, this means applicants from districts that do share the information can be penalized merely because of where they live.
Education Secretary Arne Duncan has already taken a historic step last year to announce national guidelines on school discipline. Maybe after investigating specific schools, the Education Department’s Office of Civil Rights should do the same and take action in how high school discipline information is used.