1. Trang chủ
  2. » Ngoại Ngữ

Ending-the-School-to-Prison-Pipeline.PPT2_

6 2 0

Đang tải... (xem toàn văn)

THÔNG TIN TÀI LIỆU

Thông tin cơ bản

Định dạng
Số trang 6
Dung lượng 172,17 KB

Nội dung

1/9/2014 Understanding New  Mexico’s School To Prison  Pipeline:  What The Data  Are Beginning To Show Presented At: The 21st Annual Children’s Law Institute Albuquerque, New Mexico January 15-17, 2014 Facilitated By: Judge Louis P McDonald, Chief Judge Of The 13th Judicial District Peter Winograd, The UNM Center For Education Policy Research Acknowledgements • • • • • • • • • • Matt Montano, NM PED Jeanne Masterson, NM CYYFD  Tonna Burgos, Rio Rancho Public  Schools Tara Ford, Pegasus Legal Services  For Children Traci Neff, San Juan County Deborah Dungan, Esq, Supreme  Court  Lisa Hamilton, NM PED Linda Carlisle, NM CYFD Fran Bunker, NM CYFD Annamarie Luna, NM CYFD • • • • • • • Tom Dauphinee, UNM CEPR Dominica Montano,  Sandoval County District  Court Amy Ballard, UNM CEPR Christina Marie Reynoso ,  UNM CEPR Chris Erwin, UNM CEPR Alfie McCloud, UNM CEPR Hailey Heinz,  UNM CEPR The Joint Education Task Force • • • • The Joint Education Task Force established by Order No. 12‐8300 and chaired by  Governor Susana Martinez and Chief Justice Petra Jimenez Maes The purpose is to provide collaborative advice, recommendations, and proposed  strategies to this Court to address the educational needs of children and youth in the  state’s custody and other high risk youth Members include representative from the Court, the Governor, the Legislature, the  Secretary of the Department of Public Education, and the Secretary of the Children,  Youth, and Families Department The Joint Education Task Force has focused on a number of goals including: – Identifying the challenges and barriers to educational success including, but not  limited to, attendance and truancy; – Developing and implementing a sustainable collaborative model for ongoing  systemic improvement of educational outcomes; and – Developing and implementing a system to share data between child welfare,  judiciary, and educational entities in order to make informed policy decisions and  ensure individual student success 1/9/2014 What Do We Know About The Students Who Are Caught  Between The Schools And The Justice System? • • • It is difficult to get a clear picture of the students who are involved in both the education  and juvenile justice system.    Important questions include: • How many students commit infractions in schools each year?  How do those  infractions vary over time by type of infraction and by student, school and community  demographics?  • What happens to those students and how do those consequences vary over time, by  type of infraction and by student, school, and community demographics? • What are schools and communities doing now in both practice and policy that seem to  prevent infractions from occurring? Could those practices and polices be taken to scale  across the state? • What are schools and communities doing now in both practice and policy to respond  to infractions in ways that are most constructive for the student who committed the  infraction and the well‐being of the other students in that school? The Public Education Department; The Children, Youth, and Families Department, and the  Courts are making significant progress in sharing data that can help us answer those  questions.  One of the ways we can learn more about these students is by tracking how many students  are arrested, suspended, expelled, or receive some other form of response to their  infractions Student Infractions Grouped Into Four Major Areas • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Assault/battery with firearm  Assault/battery with knife or cutting object  Assault/battery with other dangerous weapon  Assault/battery aggravated with hands, feet, fist  Assault/battery simple  Other Violence ‐ Sexual battery  Other Violence – Homicide  Other Violence – Kidnapping  Other Violence ‐ Robbery using force  Other Violence ‐ Self Injury  Other Violence – General (includes Threat or  Intimidation)  Sexual Harassment  Disorderly Conduct  Bullying  Weapons, Substance Abuse, Gang Activity  • • • • • • • • • Weapons Possession – Knife/Cutting  Weapons Possession – Other  Gang‐Related Activity  Drug Violation  Alcohol Violation – Possession  Alcohol Violation – Use  Alcohol Violation – Dealing  Tobacco Use  Other Weapons, Substance Abuse, Gang Activity – Describe Firearms Possession (NOT to include toy guns, cap guns,  BB guns, pellet guns, etc.)  Vandalism  • • • • • • • Graffiti  Criminal Damage  Breaking/Entering/Larceny  Missing Property/Theft  Arson  Vandalism  Other Vandalism, Describe • Handgun Possession  • Rifle/Shotgun Possession  • Other Firearms Possession ‐ Describe in Comment  Field   • Student Teach The image part with relationship ID rId2 was not found in the file Source: NM PED STARS Manual for School Year 2013-2014 Responses to Infractions Are Organized Into Eight Categories  Arrest/referral to justice system  In school suspension  Out of school suspension  Expulsion ‐ no educational services – REGULAR ED  ONLY; NOT to be used for Special Ed students)  Modified Expulsion (still receiving some  educational services)  Sent to alternate setting by school personnel  Sent to alternate setting based on hearing officer  determination of likely injury  Other/Unknown The image part with relationship ID rId2 was not found in the file Source: NM PED STARS Manual for School Year 2013-2014 1/9/2014 Total Percent of Students Suspended From  Public Elementary and Secondary Schools, by State (2006) District of Columbia North Dakota South Dakota Wyoming Iowa Utah Idaho Nebraska Minnesota New York Vermont Montana Maine Oklahoma Oregon Wisconsin Kansas New Mexico Hawaii Massachusetts Texas New Hampshire New Jersey Arizona Alaska Washington Colorado Ohio Illinois Kentucky Pennsylvania Connecticut    United States Maryland Virginia Tennessee Missouri Arkansas Indiana Nevada California Michigan Rhode Island Georgia Alabama West Virginia Mississippi Louisiana Florida North Carolina Delaware South Carolina In 2006, New Mexico  suspended 17,140 or  5.27% students.  In  2006, the national  average was 6.86% NOTE: Suspension is excluding a  student from school for  disciplinary reasons for 1 school  day or longer. A student is counted  only once, even if suspended  more than once during the same  school year 10 12 14 SOURCE: 2012 Digest of Educational Statistics. U.S. Department of Education,  Office for Civil Rights, Civil Rights Data Collection: 2006. (Data was prepared July 2008.) Total Percent of Students Expelled From  Public Elementary and Secondary Schools, by State (2006) Hawaii New Jersey North Dakota Missouri Minnesota New York Florida Iowa Utah Vermont Massachusetts New Hampshire West Virginia Arizona Montana New Mexico Kentucky Maine Idaho Virginia Arkansas South Dakota Wyoming Michigan Alaska Illinois North Carolina Pennsylvania Wisconsin Alabama Kansas Maryland Delaware    United States District of Columbia Georgia Nebraska Connecticut Texas Colorado Mississippi California Tennessee Oregon Washington Oklahoma Nevada Ohio Indiana South Carolina Louisiana 0.00 In 2006, New Mexico  expelled 240 or .07%  students.  In 2006,  the national average  was .21% NOTE: Expulsion is the exclusion of a  student from school for disciplinary  reasons that results in the student’s  removal from school attendance rolls  or that meets the criteria for expulsion  as defined by the appropriate state or  local school authority A student is  counted only once, even if expelled  more than once during the same  school year 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 SOURCE: 2012 Digest of Educational Statistics. U.S. Department of Education,  Office for Civil Rights, Civil Rights Data Collection: 2006. (Data was prepared July 2008.) Total Count of Infraction Responses  (Arrest/Referral to Justice System; In School Suspension; Out Of School Suspension; Expulsion – No  Educational Services; Modified Expulsion – Still Receiving Some Educational Experiences) 17,500 17,148 17,000 16,566 16,500 16,000 15,818 15,500 15,000 2010‐2011 2011‐2012 2012‐2013 Source: New Mexico Public Education Department. Note: Does not  include data on students sent to alternative settings or coded as  other/unknown 1/9/2014 This map shows infractions of all types as a percentage  of total district enrollment  for the 2012‐2013 school  year 0.3% - 5% 5.1% - 10% 10.1% - 15% 15.1% - 36.3% The image part with relationship ID rId2 was not found in the file Source: New Mexico Public Education Department 10 Total Number Of Infraction Reponses  By Gender, Ethnicity, and Special Education Status For 2012‐2013  (N=15,818) 12,000 11,333 9,937 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,485 4,234 4,000 2,606 2,446 2,000 523 221 77 Female Male American Indian/Alaskan Native Asian Black or African American Caucasian Hispanic Multiracial Students W/ Disabilities Source: New Mexico Public Education Department. Note: Does not include data  on students sent to alternative settings or coded as other/unknown 11 Male, Minority, and Students With Disabilities Have A Disproportionate  Chance Of  Being Arrested, Referred to Justice System, Suspended or Expelled  (2012‐2013) 80% 71.6% 70% 62.8% 59.2% 60% 50% 51.4% 48.6% 40% 30% 28.4% 16.5% 15.5% 13.8% 10.2% 10% 1.3% 0.5% 0% Female Male American Indian/Alaskan Native Asian Percent of Total Student Population 12 26.8% 25.7% 20% 3.3% 2.2% Black or African American Caucasian Hispanic Students W/Disabilities Percent Of Infraction Responses Source: New Mexico Public Education Department.  1/9/2014 Total Number Of Infraction Reponses  By Age For 2012‐2013 (N=15,818) 3,000 2,634 2,500 2,360 2,284 2,022 2,000 1,746 1,500 1,406 1,000 805 732 468 500 185 281 337 313 190 43 20 21 22 The image part with relationship ID rId2 was not found in the file 13 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Source: New Mexico Public Education Department. Note: Does not  include data on students sent to alternative settings or coded as  other/unknown What Are Some Of The Questions We Have Yet To Explore? How many students commit which kinds of infractions in schools each year?   How have the number and types of infractions changed over time? How many students commit multiple infractions and how do we handle those  cases? How do those infractions vary by type and by student, school and community  demographics?  What happens to those students and how do those consequences vary by  type of infraction and by student, school, and community demographics? What are schools and communities doing now in both practice and policy  that seem to prevent infractions from occurring? Could those practices and  polices be taken to scale across the state? 14 What Are Some Of The Questions We Have Yet To Explore? What are schools and communities doing now in both practice and policy to  respond to infractions in ways that are most constructive for the student  who committed the infraction and the well‐being of the other students in  that school? Much of the current data deal with 15,000 students with infractions. In 2011‐ 2012, New Mexico had over 51,000 students who were habitually truant. We  need to know much more about the educational and juvenile justice  outcomes for these students We need to know much more about the disciplinary policies in place in New  Mexico’s schools. In 2010, the New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty  reviewed the discipline policies of 12 of the state’s 89 public school districts  and found that several of the districts incorporated zero tolerance elements  into their policies.  This study should be replicated and include all of the  districts and charter schools 15 1/9/2014 And Now To The Panel Tara Ford, JD, Pegasus Legal Services For Children Tonna Burgos, Rio Rancho Public Schools, Michele DeLese, School Resource Officer,  Jeanne Masterson, Associate Deputy Director for  Juvenile Justice Services,  Matthew Montano, Director of Educator Quality, Tracy Neff, Juvenile Facility Administrator 16 CEPR.UNM.EDU The image part with relationship ID rId2 was not found in the file 17

Ngày đăng: 23/10/2022, 06:16