Violenceto the Person or Property Exclusions were:
- False alarm/Bomb threats
- Fighting/Violence
- Serious Bodily Injury
- Theft
- Use/Possession of explosive/incendiary/poison gas
- Use/Possession of a Gun
- Use/Possession of weapon other than gun/explosive
- Vandalism
- Firearm Look-a-like
Violence to the person or property was not included in the Subjective Discipline Grade.
Of the 880 districts that reported, the median percentage of discipline based on violence to the person or property was 33.3%. The average was 34.5%; the lowest was 0 and the highest was 100%.
The mean for Community (charter) schools (38.3%) was higher than the mean for Public Districts (32.8%). This difference was statistically significant (p=.00). Which means that there zero chance of this difference occurring by chance alone.
There was a difference based on public school typology. Small town districts had a higher percentage of their exclusions due to violence (34.3%) than suburban districts (30.5%). This difference was statistically significant (p=.00). Which means that there zero chance of this difference occurring by chance alone.
Percentage of Exclusions |
|||||
Organizational Type |
Number of |
Mean |
Median |
Minimum |
Maximum |
Community (Charter) School |
274 |
38.3 |
36.7 |
0.0 |
100.0 |
Public District |
606 |
32.8 |
32.5 |
0.0 |
100.0 |
Total |
880 |
34.5 |
33.3 |
0.0 |
100.0 |
ANOVA Table |
|||||
Sum of Squares |
df |
Mean Square |
F |
Sig. |
|
5627.715 |
1 |
5627.715 |
18.546 |
0.000 |
Percentage of Exclusions |
|||||
Number of Districts |
Mean |
Median |
Minimum |
Maximum |
|
Type 1: Rural - High Student Poverty & Small Student Population |
123 |
33.945 |
32.258 |
0.0 |
100.0 |
Type 2: Rural - Average Student Poverty & Very Small Student Population |
105 |
30.700 |
32.143 |
0.0 |
96.3 |
Type 3: Small Town - Low Student Poverty & Small Student Population |
110 |
34.854 |
33.333 |
0.0 |
82.9 |
Type 4: Small Town - High Student Poverty & Average Student Population Size |
89 |
33.652 |
34.965 |
8.6 |
63.9 |
Type 5: Suburban - Low Student Poverty & Average Student Population Size |
77 |
31.645 |
31.494 |
9.5 |
73.1 |
Type 6: Suburban - Very Low Student Poverty & Large Student Population |
46 |
29.470 |
28.874 |
5.9 |
53.0 |
Type 7: Urban - High Student Poverty & Average Student Population |
47 |
33.787 |
33.770 |
0.0 |
51.6 |
Type 8: Urban - Very High Student Poverty & Very Large Student Population |
8 |
33.885 |
34.921 |
2.7 |
54.1 |
Total |
605 |
32.9 |
32.6 |
0.0 |
100.0 |
ANOVA Table |
|||||
Sum of Squares |
df |
Mean Square |
F |
Sig. |
|
1818.886 |
7 |
259.841 |
1.290 |
0.253 |
Tobacco, Alcohol, and Drugs Exclusions:
- Use/Possession of alcohol
- Use/Possession of other drugs
- Use/Possession of tobacco
Tobacco, Alcohol, and Drug behavior were not included in the Subjective Discipline Grade.
Of the 880 districts that reported, the median percentage of exclusions based on Tobacco, Alcohol or Drug behavior was 5.1%. The average was 9.2%; the lowest was 0, and the highest was 100%.
The mean for Community (charter) schools (3.5%) was lower than the mean for Public Districts (11.8%). Public Districts were almost four times more likely to have an exclusion based on tobacco, alcohol, or drugs. This difference was statistically significant (p=.00). Which means that there zero chance of this difference occurring by chance alone.
There was a difference based on the Typology of Public School. Suburban districts had a higher percentage of their exclusions due to tobacco, alcohol, and drugs (17.5%) than Urban districts (3%). This difference was statistically significant (p=.00). Which means that there zero chance of this difference occurring by chance alone.
Percentage of Exclusions |
|||||
N |
Mean |
Median |
Minimum |
Maximum |
|
Community (Charter) School |
274 |
3.5 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
100.0 |
Public District |
606 |
11.8 |
8.9 |
0.0 |
100.0 |
Total |
880 |
9.2 |
5.1 |
0.0 |
100.0 |
ANOVA Table |
|||||
Sum of Squares |
df |
Mean Square |
F |
Sig. |
|
13118.209 |
1 |
13118.209 |
95.556 |
0.000 |
Percentage of Exclusions |
|||||
Number of Districts |
Mean |
Median |
Minimum |
Maximum |
|
Type 1: Rural - High Student Poverty & Small Student Population |
123 |
10.7 |
8.0 |
0.0 |
55.6 |
Type 2: Rural - Average Student Poverty & Very Small Student Population |
105 |
14.9 |
11.2 |
0.0 |
100.0 |
Type 3: Small Town - Low Student Poverty & Small Student Population |
110 |
11.9 |
10.5 |
0.0 |
53.3 |
Type 4: Small Town - High Student Poverty & Average Student Population Size |
89 |
8.2 |
6.7 |
0.0 |
25.4 |
Type 5: Suburban - Low Student Poverty & Average Student Population Size |
77 |
12.1 |
11.0 |
0.0 |
44.3 |
Type 6: Suburban - Very Low Student Poverty & Large Student Population
|
46 |
23.7 |
20.4 |
0.0 |
69.2 |
Type 7: Urban - High Student Poverty & Average Student Population |
47 |
4.1 |
3.0 |
0.0 |
12.3 |
Type 8: Urban - Very High Student Poverty & Very Large Student Population |
8 |
1.6 |
1.5 |
0.6 |
3.4 |
Total |
605 |
11.8 |
8.9 |
0.0 |
100.0 |
ANOVA Table |
|||||
Sum of Squares |
df |
Mean Square |
F |
Sig. |
|
12476.493 |
7 |
1782.356 |
13.337 |
0.000 |
Truancy Exclusions
Of the 880 districts that reported, the median percentage for truancy was 0.0%. The average was 1%; the lowest was 0 and the highest was 100%.
The mean for Community (charter) schools (1.3%) was higher than the mean for Public Districts (.9%). This difference was statistically significant (p=.0269). Which means that there less than 5% probability that this difference occurred by chance alone.
There was a difference based on public school typology, Urban districts had the highest percentage of their exclusions due to truancy (1.5%), and rural districts (.4%) had the lowest. This difference was not statistically significant.
Percentage of Exclusions |
|||||
Number of Districts |
Mean |
Median |
Minimum |
Maximum |
|
Community (Charter) School |
274 |
1.3 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
100.0 |
Public District |
606 |
0.9 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
23.8 |
Total |
880 |
1.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
100.0 |
Anova Table |
|||||
Sum of Squares |
df |
Mean Square |
F |
Sig. |
|
22.271 |
1 |
22.271 |
1.221 |
0.269 |
Percentage of Exclusions |
|||||
|
Number of Districts |
Mean |
Median |
Minimum |
Maximum |
Type 1: Rural - High Student Poverty & Small Student Population |
123 |
0.469 |
0.000 |
0.0 |
15.1 |
Type 2: Rural - Average Student Poverty & Very Small Student Population |
105 |
0.383 |
0.000 |
0.0 |
23.8 |
Type 3: Small Town - Low Student Poverty & Small Student Population |
110 |
1.148 |
0.000 |
0.0 |
15.0 |
Type 4: Small Town - High Student Poverty & Average Student Population Size |
89 |
0.896 |
0.000 |
0.0 |
14.7 |
Type 5: Suburban - Low Student Poverty & Average Student Population Size |
77 |
1.638 |
0.873 |
0.0 |
11.1 |
Type 6: Suburban - Very Low Student Poverty & Large Student Population |
46 |
0.848 |
0.000 |
0.0 |
5.8 |
Type 7: Urban - High Student Poverty & Average Student Population |
47 |
1.954 |
1.361 |
0.0 |
7.8 |
Type 8: Urban - Very High Student Poverty & Very Large Student Population |
8 |
1.233 |
0.307 |
0.0 |
5.3 |
Total |
605 |
0.943 |
0.000 |
0.0 |
23.8 |
ANOVA |
|||||
Sum of Squares |
df |
Mean Square |
F |
Sig. |
|
151.777 |
7 |
21.682 |
4.431 |
0.000 |