Abstract
This study uses critical race quantitative intersectionality to examine the impacts of gender and dis/ability type on Black students’ school discipline outcomes. We use multilevel logistic regression models to analyze data from a large urban school district, considering the intersectional impact of gender and dis/ability type on school discipline outcomes among Black students (suspension, restorative justice, referral to law enforcement). We found that Black students identified as male, labeled with emotional dis/abilities, or identified as having ADHD were more likely to experience school discipline consequences than those who were not. These findings suggest that gender and dis/ability status are significant correlates of discipline outcomes, indicating that a general focus on race or special education masks important differences in discipline disparities.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Annamma, S. A. (2013). Dis/ability critical race studies (DisCrit): Theorizing at the intersections of race and dis/ability. Race Ethnicity and Education, 16(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2012.730511
Appiah, K. A. (2020). The Case for Capitalizing the “B” in Black. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/time-to-capitalize-blackand-white/613159/
Anyon, Y. (2009). Sociological theories of learning disabilities: Understanding racial disproportionality in special education. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 19(1), 44–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/10911350802631495
Anyon, Y., Jenson, J. M., Altschul, I., Farrar, J., McQueen, J., Greer, E., Downing, B., & Simmons, J. (2014). The persistent effect of race and the promise of alternatives to suspension in school discipline outcomes. Children and Youth Services Review, 44, 379–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.06.025
Bal, A., Betters-Bubon, J., & Fish, R. E. (2019). A multilevel analysis of statewide disproportionality in exclusionary discipline and the identification of emotional disturbance. Education and Urban Society, 51(2), 247–268.
Covarrubias, A., & Velez, V. (2013). Critical race quantitative intersectionality: An anti-racist research paradigm that refuses to “let the numbers speak for themselves. In M. Lynn & A. D. Dixson (Eds.), Handbook of critical race theory in education (pp. 269–286). Berlin: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203155721
Crawford, C. E., Demack, S., Gillborn, D., & Warmington, P. (2018). Quants and Crits: Using numbers for social justice (or, how not to be lied to with statistics) 1. In Understanding critical race research methods and methodologies (pp. 125–137). Routledge.
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989, 139–166.
Cholewa, B., Hull, M. F., Babcock, C. R., & Smith, A. D. (2018). Predictors and academic outcomes associated with in-school suspension. School Psychology Quarterly, 33(2), 191.
Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2001). Critical race theory: An introduction. New York University Press.
Fisher, A. E., Fisher, B. W., & Railey, K. S. (2020). Disciplinary disparities by race and disability: Using DisCrit theory to examine the manifestation determination review process in special education in the United States. Race Ethnicity and Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2020.1753671
Gillborn, D. (2015). Intersectionality, critical race theory, and the primacy of racism: Race, class, gender, and disability in education. Qualitative Inquiry, 21(3), 277–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800414557827
Gillborn, D., Warmington, P., & Demack, S. (2018). QuantCrit: Education, policy, ‘Big Data’ and principles for a critical race theory of statistics. Race Ethnicity and Education, 21(2), 158–179.
Goodley, D. (2016). Disability studies: An interdisciplinary introduction. Sage.
Hines-Datiri, D., & Carter Andrews, D. J. (2020). The effects of zero tolerance policies on Black girls: Using critical race feminism and figured worlds to examine school discipline. Urban Education, 55(10), 1419–1440.
Heitzeg, N. A. (2009). Education or incarceration: Zero tolerance policies and the school-to-prison pipeline. Forum on Public Policy, 2009(2), 1–21.
Kluckow, R., & Zeng, Z. (2022). Correctional populations in the United States, 2020—statistical tables (NCJ 303184). Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpus20st.pdf
López, N., Erwin, C., Binder, M., & Chavez, M. J. (2018). Making the invisible visible: Advancing quantitative methods in higher education using critical race theory and intersectionality. Race Ethnicity and Education, 21(2), 180–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2017.1375185
Losen, D. J. (2018). Disabling punishment: The need for remedies to the disparate loss of instruction experienced by Black students with disabilities. The Center for Civil Rights Remedies. https://today.law.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/disabling-punishment-report-.pdf
Losen, D. J., & Gillespie, J. (2012). Opportunities suspended: The disparate impact of disciplinary exclusion from school. The Center for Civil Rights Remedies. https://www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/resources/projects/center-for-civil-rights-remedies/school-to-prison-folder/federal-reports/upcoming-ccrr-research
Losen, D. J., & Martinez, T. E. (2013). Out of School and Off Track: The Overuse of Suspensions in American Middle and High Schools. Executive Summary. Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles.
Mendoza, M., Blake, J. J., Marchbanks, M. P., & Ragan, K. (2020). Race, gender, and disability and the risk for juvenile justice contact. The Journal of Special Education, 53(4), 226–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466919845113
Morris, M. W. (2016). Pushout: The criminalization of black girls in schools. The New Press.
Palmer, N. A., & Greytak, E. A. (2017). LGBTQ student victimization and its relationship to school discipline and justice system involvement. Criminal Justice Review, 42(2), 163–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734016817704698
Puzzanchera. (2016). Juvenile arrests, 2016. National report series bulletin. Office of Juvenile Justice Statistics.
Pownall, S. (2013). A, B, C, D, STPP: How school discipline feeds the school-to-prison pipeline. New York Civil Liberties Union. http://www.nyclu.org/files/publications/nyclu_STPP_1021_FINAL.pdf
Reid, D. K., & Knight, M. G. (2006). Disability justifies exclusion of minority students: A critical history grounded in disability studies. Educational Researcher, 35(6), 18–23. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X035006018
Ritter, G. W., & Anderson, K. P. (2018). Examining disparities in student discipline: Mapping inequities from infractions to consequences. Peabody Journal of Education, 93(2), 161–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2018.1435038
Ryberg, R., Her, S., Temkin, D., & Harper, K. (2021). Despite reductions since 2011–12, Black Students and Students with Disabilities Remain More Likely to Experience Suspension. https://www.childtrends.org/publications/despite-reductions-black-students-and-students-with-disabilities-remain-more-likely-to-experience-suspension
Sawyer, W. (2019). Youth confinement: The whole pie 2019 [Press release]. Prison Policy Initiative. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/youth2019.html#:~:text=On%20any%20given%20day%2C%20over,even%20having%20had%20a%20trial
Sawyer, W., & Wagner, P. (2022). Mass incarceration: The whole pie 2022. Prison Policy Initiative. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2022.html
Scott, R., & Saucedo, M. (2013). Mass incarceration, the school-to-prison pipeline, and the struggle over “secure communities” in Illinois. Journal of Educational Controversy, 7(1), 1–27.
Skiba, R. J., Poloni-Staudinger, L., Simmons, A. B., Feggins-Azziz, L. R., & Chung, C. G. (2005). Unproven links: Can poverty explain ethnic disproportionality in special education? Journal of Special Education, 39(3), 130–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669050390030101
Skiba, R. J., Horner, R. H., Chung, C. G., Rausch, M. K., May, S. L., & Tobin, T. (2011). Race is not neutral: A national investigation of African American and Latino disproportionality in school discipline. School Psychology Review, 40(1), 85–107.
Solórzano, D. G. (1997). Images and words that wound: Critical race theory, racial stereotyping, and teacher education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 24, 5–19.
Stage, F. K. (2007). Answering critical questions using quantitative data. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2007(133), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.200
U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. (2014). Civil rights data collection data snapshot: School discipline. https://ocrdata.ed.gov/assets/downloads/CRDC-School-Discipline-Snapshot.pdf
U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. (2018). 2015–2016 civil rights data collection: School climate and safety. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/school-climate-and-safety.pdf
U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. (2021). An overview of exclusionary discipline practices in public schools for the 2017–18 school year. https://ocrdata.ed.gov/assets/downloads/crdc-exclusionary-school-discipline.pdf
United States Government Accountability Office. (2018). K-12 education: Discipline disparities for Black students, boys, and students with disabilities (GAO-18-258). https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-18-258.pdf
Watts, I. E., & Erevelles, N. (2004). These deadly times: Reconceptualizing school violence by using critical race theory and disability studies. American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 271–299.
Welsh, R. O., & Little, S. (2018). Caste and control in schools: A systematic review of the pathways, rates and correlates of exclusion due to school discipline. Children and Youth Services Review, 94, 315–339.
Wessler, M. (2022). Updated charts provide insights on racial disparities, correctional control, jail suicides, and more. Prison Policy Initiative. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2022/05/19/updated_charts/
Widra, E., & Herring, T. (2021). States of incarceration: The global context 2021. Prison Policy Initiative. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/global/2021.html
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix: Logistic Regression Models with Interaction Terms
Appendix: Logistic Regression Models with Interaction Terms
Restorative justice | In-school suspension | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
OR (CI) | SE | p | OR (CI) | SE | p | |
Student level | ||||||
Male (reference group = female) | 2.08 (1.70, 2.55) | 0.21 | < 0.001*** | 1.94 (1.63, 2.31) | 0.17 | < 0.001*** |
Homeless | 1.49 (1.01, 2.18) | 0.29 | 0.042* | 1.2 (0.81, 1.77) | 0.24 | 0.369 |
English language learners | 0.58 (0.44, 0.77) | 0.08 | < 0.001*** | 0.71 (0.56, 0.89) | 0.08 | 0.003** |
Gifted | 0.82 (0.51, 1.31) | 0.2 | 0.403 | 0.67 (0.45, 1.01) | 0.14 | 0.054 |
Grade | 1.27 (1.19, 1.34) | 0.04 | < 0.001*** | 1.24 (1.17, 1.31) | 0.03 | < 0.001*** |
Special education designation | ||||||
Emotional disability | 6.22 (3.43, 11.30) | 1.89 | < 0.001*** | 4.89 (2.87, 8.33) | 1.33 | < 0.001*** |
Intellectual disability | 1.02 (0.33, 3.10) | 0.58 | 0.974 | 0.83 (0.31, 2.24) | 0.42 | 0.708 |
Specific learning disability | 1.96 (1.31, 2.94) | 0.41 | 0.001** | 1.72 (1.19, 2.47) | 0.32 | 0.004** |
Speech or language impairment | 1.32 (0.46, 3.76) | 0.71 | 0.603 | 0.64 (0.19, 2.19) | 0.4 | 0.478 |
Autism spectrum disorders | 0.54 (0.12, 2.43) | 0.42 | 0.425 | 0.51 (0.15, 1.79) | 0.33 | 0.295 |
Multiple disabilities | 0.52 (0.07, 3.99) | 0.54 | 0.527 | 1 | (omitted) | |
Other health impairment (includes ADHD) | 5.1 (2.96, 8.79) | 1.42 | < 0.001*** | 3.7 (2.26, 6.08) | 0.94 | < 0.001*** |
Developmental delay | 0.94 (0.27, 3.31) | 0.6 | 0.927 | 0.41 (0.05, 3.11) | 0.42 | 0.387 |
Low incident disability | 1 | (omitted) | 0.52 (0.11, 2.41) | 0.41 | 0.406 | |
School-level | ||||||
% Black | 0.89 (0.06, 12.65) | 1.21 | 0.931 | 0.63 (0.08, 5.00) | 0.67 | 0.661 |
% Free and reduced price meals | 4.1 (0.89, 18.97) | 3.21 | 0.071 | 5.97 (1.79, 19.97) | 3.68 | 0.004** |
% Special education | 0.12 (< 0.001, 215.51) | 0.45 | 0.575 | 0.009 (< 0.001, 3.53) | 0.03 | 0.121 |
School size | 1.04 (0.93, 1.15) | 0.06 | 0.5 | 1.14 (1.05, 1.24) | 0.05 | 0.002** |
Charter (reference group = district managed schools) | 0.29 (0.13, 0.67) | 0.12 | 0.003** | 1.07 (0.59, 1.94) | 0.33 | 0.823 |
High | 0.33 (0.12, 0.88) | 0.17 | 0.027* | 0.4 (0.18, 0.89) | 0.16 | 0.025* |
Middle | 2.41 (0.96, 6.06) | 1.13 | 0.062 | 3.56 (1.74, 7.29) | 1.3 | 0.001** |
Other grade configuration (e.g. K-8) | 0.58 (0.19, 1.71) | 0.32 | 0.32 | 1 (0.45, 2.25) | 0.42 | 0.992 |
Interaction term | ||||||
Gender: special education designation | 0.60 (0.38, 0.95) | 0.14 | 0.031* | 0.73 (0.48, 1.1) | 0.15 | 0.135 |
sigma_u | 1.82 (1.52, 2.19) | 0.17 | 1.52 | 1.37 | 0.13 | 1.141303 |
rho | 0.50 (0.41, 0.59) | 0.047 | 0.41 | 0.36 | 0.04 | 0.2836339 |
Out of school suspension | Law enforcement referral | All discipline outcomes | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
OR | SE | p | OR (CI) | SE | p | OR (CI) | SE | p | |
Student level | |||||||||
Male (reference group = female) | 1.38 (1.16, 1.65) | 0.12 | < 0.001 | 1.72 (1.21, 2.43) | 0.3 | 0.002** | 1.69 (1.49, 1.90) | 0.11 | < 0.001*** |
Homeless | 1.37 (0.96, 1.95) | 0.25 | 0.085 | 1.49 (0.78, 2.86) | 0.5 | 0.226 | 1.5 (1.16, 1.94) | 0.2 | 0.002** |
English language learners | 0.46 (0.35, 0.62) | 0.07 | < 0.001*** | 0.5 (0.28, 0.90) | 0.15 | 0.02* | 0.6 (0.50, 71) | 0.05 | < 0.001*** |
Gifted | 0.81 (0.56, 1.18) | 0.15 | 0.272 | 0.86 (0.43, 1.74) | 0.31 | 0.675 | 0.66 (0.50, 0.88) | 0.1 | 0.004** |
Grade | 1.23 (1.17, 1.30) | 0.03 | < 0.001*** | 1.08 (0.97, 1.21) | 0.06 | 0.177 | 1.24 (1.20, 1.29) | 0.02 | < 0.001*** |
Special education designation | |||||||||
Emotional disability | 6.8 (4.33, 10.69) | 1.57 | < 0.001*** | 5.19 (2.23, 12.10) | 2.24 | < 0.001 | 5.68 (3.82, 8.46) | 1.15 | < 0.001*** |
Intellectual disability | 1.25 (0.53, 2.94) | 0.54 | 0.605 | 2.39 (0.64, 8.96) | 1.61 | 0.197 | 1 (0.52, 1.89) | 0.33 | 0.992 |
Specific learning disability | 1.43 (1.00, 2.04) | 0.26 | 0.051 | 1.36 (0.65, 2.81) | 0.5 | 0.412 | 1.5 (1.16, 1.96) | 0.2 | 0.002** |
Speech or language impairment | 1 (0.34, 2.95) | 0.55 | 0.997 | 1 | (omitted) | 0.65 (0.29, 1.44) | 0.26 | 0.287 | |
Autism spectrum Disorders | 0.44 (0.13, 1.52) | 0.28 | 0.197 | 1 | (omitted) | 0.34 (0.14, 0.84) | 0.16 | 0.019* | |
Multiple disabilities | 0.6 (0.14, 2.58) | 0.45 | 0.492 | 1 | (omitted) | 0.21 (0.05, 0.89) | 0.15 | 0.034* | |
Other health impairment (includes ADHD) | 3.6 (2.30, 5.65) | 0.83 | < 0.001*** | 2.5 (0.99, 6.34) | 1.19 | 0.053 | 3.43 (2.38, 4.95) | 0.64 | < 0.001*** |
Developmental delay | 1.25 (0.37, 4.25) | 0.78 | 0.716 | 1 | (omitted) | 0.7 (0.29, 1.71) | 0.32 | 0.439 | |
Low incident disability | 0.9 (0.20, 3.99) | 0.68 | 0.89 | 1 | (omitted) | 0.53 (0.18, 1.60) | 0.3 | 0.261 | |
School-level | |||||||||
% Black | 2.66 (0.74, 9.58) | 1.74 | 0.135 | 0.37 (0.02, 6.06) | 0.53 | 0.487 | 2.22 (0.62, 8.00) | 1.45 | 0.222 |
% Free and reduced price meals | 4.11 (1.85, 9.14) | 1.67 | 0.001** | 9.84 (1.71, 56.6) | 8.79 | 0.01* | 5.31 (2.49, 11.33) | 2.05 | < 0.001*** |
% Special education | 0.07 (0.002, 2.29) | 0.12 | 0.134 | 0.043 (< 0.001, 45.13) | 0.15 | 0.375 | 0.07 (0.002, 2.51) | 0.12 | 0.144 |
School size | 1.01 (0.97, 1.06) | 0.02 | 0.552 | 1.06 (0.97, 1.15) | 0.04 | 0.179 | 1.05 (1.00, 1.11) | 0.03 | 0.059 |
Charter (reference group = district managed schools) | 0.81 (0.56, 1.17) | 0.15 | 0.261 | 0.35 (0.16, 0.76) | 0.14 | 0.008** | 0.62 (0.42, 0.91) | 0.12 | 0.014* |
High | 0.84 (0.47, 1.51) | 0.25 | 0.571 | 7 (1.9, 25.72) | 4.65 | 0.003** | |||
Middle | 2.92 (1.80, 4.73) | 0.72 | < 0.001*** | 10.61 (3.58, 31.44) | 5.88 | < 0.001*** | 0.49 (0.29, 0.80) | 0.12 | 0.005** |
Other grade configuration (e.g. K-8) | 0.88 (0.52, 1.50) | 0.24 | 0.644 | 2.99 (0.95, 9.36) | 1.74 | 0.061 | 2.44 (1.54, 3.87) | 0.57 | < 0.001*** |
Interaction term | 0.74 (0.44, 1.25) | 0.2 | 0.259 | ||||||
Gender: special education designation | 1.15 (0.78, 1.70) | 0.23 | 0.489 | 0.76 (0.34, 1.67) | 0.3 | 0.491 | 0.96 (71, 1.30) | 0.15 | 0.799 |
sigma_u | 0.75 | 0.08 | 0.601 | 1.15 | 0.18 | 0.840 | 0.92 | 0.08 | 0.78 |
rho | 0.14 | 0.03 | 0.099 | 0.29 | 0.07 | 0.177 | 0.2 | 0.03 | 0.16 |
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Samimi, C., Jefferson, N., Flanagan, S. et al. Intersections of Disproportion: A Critical Quantitative Examination of Dis/ability and Gender in Black Students’ School Discipline Outcomes. Urban Rev 55, 456–475 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-023-00657-6
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-023-00657-6