You are given two reports by the government agency.  

Report 1:
The issue of who gets disciplined and why is complex. Studies we reviewed suggest that implicit bias—stereotypes or unconscious associations about people—on the part of teachers and staff may cause them to judge students’ behaviors differently based on the students’ race and sex. Teachers and staff sometimes have discretion to make case- by-case decisions about whether to discipline, and the form of discipline to impose in response to student behaviors, such as disobedience, defiance, and classroom disruption. Studies show that these decisions can result in certain groups of students being more harshly disciplined than others. Further, the studies found that the types of offenses that Black children were disciplined for were largely based on school officials’ interpretations of behavior. For example, one study found that Black girls were disproportionately disciplined for subjective interpretations of behaviors, such as disobedience and disruptive behavior. A separate study used eye-tracking technology to show that, among other things, teachers gazed longer at Black boys than other children when asked to look for challenging behavior based on video clips. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) reported that this research has highlighted implicit bias as a contributing factor in school discipline and may shed some light on the persistent disparities in expulsion and suspension practices, even though the study did not find that teacher gazes were indicative of how they would discipline students. Children’s behavior in school may be affected by health and social challenges outside the classroom that tend to be more acute for poor children, including minority children who experience higher rates of poverty. Research shows that experiencing trauma in childhood may lead to educational challenges, such as lower grades and more suspensions and expulsions; increased use of mental health services; and increased involvement with the child welfare and juvenile justice systems, according to HHS’s Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). Further, a substantial share of children nationwide are estimated to have experienced at least one trauma, referred to as an adverse childhood experience (ACE), according to the National Survey of Children’s Health. Additionally, as we recently reported, there has been an increase in certain mental health issues within the school age population. For example, from 2005 to 2014, the suicide rate of youth ages 15 to 19 rose slightly, with older youth having a much higher rate of suicide than younger youth, and since 2007, the percentage of youth ages 12-17 experiencing a major depressive episode increased. About 50 million students were enrolled in K-12 public schools during the 2013-14 school year, according to the CRDC. About 90 percent of students attended traditional public schools; the remainder were enrolled at public charters, magnets, and other types of schools (see table 1). About half of all public school students were White and the other half fell into one of several minority groups, with Hispanic and Black students being the largest minority groups (see fig. 1). The number of boys and girls in public schools was almost evenly split. A larger percentage of boys were students with disabilities. Nearly half of all public school students went to schools where 50 percent or more of the students were low-income, and about a quarter went to schools where 75 percent or more of the students were low-income (see table 2). Discipline of students dropped between 2011-12 and 2013-14 over the six broad categories of discipline reported in Education’s CRDC, which were (1) out-of-school suspensions, (2) in-school suspensions, (3) referrals to law enforcement, (4) expulsions, (5) corporal punishment, and (6) school- related arrests. For example, in school year 2011-12 about 3.4 million (or 6.9 percent) of K-12 public school students were suspended out-of-school at least once, and in school year 2013-14 these suspensions fell to about 2.8 million (or 5.7 percent). Other disciplinary actions affected a much smaller portion of the student body—specifically, less than 0.5 percent of all K-12 public school students were expelled, referred to law enforcement, had a school-related arrest, or experienced corporal punishment in 2013-14, according to Education’s reported data. Education’s Office for Civil Rights and Justice’s Civil Rights Division are responsible for enforcing a number of civil rights laws, which protect students from discrimination on the basis of certain characteristics (see table 3). As part of their enforcement responsibilities, both agencies conduct investigations in response to complaints or reports of possible discrimination. Education also carries out agency-initiated investigations, which are called compliance reviews and which target problems that Education has determined are particularly acute. Education may also withhold federal funds if a recipient is determined to be in violation of the civil rights laws and the agency is unable to reach agreement with the parties involved. In addition, Justice has the authority to file suit in federal court to enforce the civil rights of students in public education. Education and Justice have also issued guidance to assist public schools in meeting their obligations under federal law to administer school discipline without unlawfully discriminating against students on the basis of race, color, or national origin. According to the guidance, public schools are prohibited by federal law from discriminating in the administration of student discipline based on protected characteristics. Further, Education and Justice have noted in their guidance that disciplinary policies and practices can result in unlawful discrimination based on race, for example, in two ways: first, if students are intentionally subject to different treatment on account of their race; and second, if a policy is neutral on its face but has a disproportionate and unjustified effect on students of a particular race, referred to as disparate impact. According to Education and Justice guidance, significant and unexplained racial disparities in student discipline give rise to concerns that schools may be engaging in racial discrimination that violates federal civil rights laws; however, data showing such disparities, taken alone, do not establish whether unlawful discrimination has occurred. Two significant, recently enacted laws include provisions related to school discipline: the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) and the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 2014 (CCDBG Act of 2014). ESSA, enacted in December 2015, amended Title I program requirements to allow states’ accountability systems to use multiple indicators of success, which can include measures of school climate and safety. As we previously reported in 2017, some states were considering measures related to suspension rates or school attendance. Additionally, ESSA amended the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to authorize the Student Support and Academic Enrichment Program, under which school districts may use grant funding to, among other things, design and implement a locally-tailored plan to reduce exclusionary discipline practices in elementary and secondary schools. These grants also allow the use of funding to expand access to school- based mental health services, including counseling. In addition, the CCDBG Act of 2014 allows states to use certain funds to support the training and professional development of child care workers through activities such as behavior management strategies and training that promote positive social and emotional development and reduce challenging behaviors, including reducing expulsions of young children for those behaviors. Black students, boys, and students with disabilities were disproportionately disciplined in K-12 public schools, according to our analysis of Education’s most recent CRDC data. This pattern of disproportionate discipline persisted regardless of the type of disciplinary action, level of school poverty, or type of public school these students attended. Across each disciplinary action, Black students, boys, and students with disabilities experienced disproportionate levels of discipline. Black students were particularly overrepresented among students who were suspended from school, received corporal punishment, or had a school- related arrest (see fig. 2). For example, Black students represented 15.5 percent of all public school students and accounted for 39 percent of students suspended from school, an overrepresentation of about 23 percentage points. Differences in discipline were particularly large between Black and White students. Although there were approximately 17.4 million more White students than Black students attending K-12 public schools in 2013-14, nearly 176,000 more Black students than White students were suspended from school that school year. See appendix IV, table 12 for additional data on the disciplinary experiences of different racial or ethnic groups. For example, American Indian and Alaska Native students had higher than average rates of receiving each of the six disciplinary actions. This pattern of disproportionate discipline affected both Black boys and Black girls—the only racial group for which both sexes were disproportionately disciplined across all six actions. For example, Black girls were suspended from school at higher rates than boys of multiple racial groups and every other racial group of girls (see fig. 3). Further, boys as a group were overrepresented, while girls were underrepresented among students disciplined across each action. Specifically, boys accounted for just over half of all public school students, but were at least two-thirds of students disciplined across each of the six actions, according to our analysis of Education’s school year 2013-14 data. Boys were particularly overrepresented among students who received corporal punishment, by about 27 percentage points (see fig. 4). These kinds of disparities presented as early as pre-school (see sidebar). Additional information about discipline for pre-school students is in appendix IV, table 17. Regardless of the level of school poverty, Black students, boys, and students with disabilities were suspended from school at disproportionately higher rates than their peers (see fig. 6). This was particularly acute for Black students in high-poverty schools, where they were overrepresented by nearly 25 percentage points in suspensions from school. This pattern persisted across all six disciplinary actions, as well. A similar pattern emerged for boys and students with disabilities. However, unlike Black students, boys and students with disabilities were particularly overrepresented among students suspended from low-poverty public schools (poverty less than 25 percent). Effect of School Poverty on Discipline GAO used a regression model to examine the independent effect of school poverty on discipline in school year 2013-14. The model showed that increases in the percentage of low-income students in a school were generally associated with significantly higher rates for each of the six disciplinary actions GAO reviewed (in-school and out-of-school suspensions, referrals to law enforcement, expulsions, corporal punishment, and school- related arrests). In these schools, boys and students with disabilities were overrepresented by approximately 24 and 20 percentage points, respectively. See appendix IV, table 14 for more information on discipline by the poverty level of the school. In addition, see sidebar for regression results that were relevant to poverty and school discipline. Full results from our regression model are in appendix I, table 10. Regardless of the type of public school a student attended—traditional, magnet, charter, alternative, or special education—Black students, boys, and students with disabilities were disciplined at disproportionately higher rates than their peers, with few exceptions (see fig. 7). For example, Black students were disproportionately suspended from all types of public schools, and this was particularly acute in charter schools. That is, although they represented about 29 percent of all students in charter schools, Black students accounted for more than 60 percent of the students suspended from charter schools (about 32 percentage points higher than their representation in those schools). Boys and students with disabilities were particularly overrepresented among students suspended from traditional public schools (roughly 19 and 14 percentage points, respectively, above their representation in traditional public schools). Effect of School Type on Discipline GAO used a regression model to examine the independent effect of attending different types of public schools on disciplinary outcomes. The model showed several significant associations between school type and the likelihood of receiving discipline. For example, attending an alternative school was associated with a significantly higher likelihood of being suspended (in-school or out-of-school), expelled, referred to law enforcement, or arrested for a school-related incident, compared to attending a traditional public school. The model also showed that students were significantly less likely to be suspended (in-school or out-of-school) if they attended a magnet, charter, or special education school as compared to a traditional public school. We found a few exceptions to the general pattern of Black students, boys, and students with disabilities receiving disproportionately high rates of discipline by school type. For example, Black students attending special education schools did not receive corporal punishment at disproportionate levels. See appendix IV, table 15 for additional information on discipline by the type of public school. In addition, see sidebar for regression results that were relevant to school type and school discipline. Full results from our regression model are in appendix I, table 10. We also found a regional component to discipline in public schools. For example, corporal punishment generally occurred in southern states. See appendix II for maps showing the rates of disciplinary actions by public school district. We spoke with school officials at five school districts about how they are addressing discipline, including challenges they face in responding to student conduct given the complex issues influencing student behavior. Several school officials noted a range of issues, including complex issues such as the effects of poverty, mental health issues, and family dysfunction, that they said contributed to behavior that leads to discipline (see fig. 8). For example, officials at a high-poverty Georgia high school said that their students have additional responsibilities, such as raising or watching siblings or working to support their family, which may cause students to be late to, or skip, class. This observation is consistent with our recent report on child well-being, which cited research showing that children in poverty are more likely to face academic and social challenges than their peers, and with our analysis of CRDC data, which showed that rates of chronic absenteeism (being absent 15 or more days in a school year), were higher in high-poverty schools. See appendix IV, table 19 for detailed data on chronic absenteeism. At one high school in Georgia, officials said that attendance issues were the reason for a majority of disciplinary actions at their school. They said that if students were repeatedly late to school or did not get to their next class within the set amount of time, students could amass enough infractions to warrant suspension from school. In contrast, an official at an elementary school in Georgia said that they usually do not discipline their students for being late to school, as they have found that it was often due to circumstances beyond the child’s control. According to several school officials, some groups such as homeless youth, American Indian, or Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, or Questioning (LGBTQ) students have had greater attendance problems than others. For example, education officials in California said that homeless and foster youth frequently miss school because of all the transitions and instability in their lives. In a school in Texas, officials also reported attendance issues with students who are homeless or in foster care because they lack transportation and clothing. Similarly, we previously reported that American Indian students face school attendance challenges, including access to reliable transportation. In addition, American Indian and Alaska Native students had the highest rates of chronic absenteeism in school year 2013-14, compared to students of other races, according to our analysis of CRDC data (see appendix IV). LGBTQ students are at a high risk of suicide and other emotional issues during adolescence, and often feel disconnected from their peers and families, according to county education officials in California. According to these officials, this can contribute to attendance problems. Officials in our five selected school districts also described what they perceived as a growing trend of behavioral challenges or provided examples related to mental health and trauma, such as increased anxieties, thoughts of and attempts at suicide, and depression among students. For example, state education officials in Georgia said they viewed a growing number of their students as being “trauma complex.” Officials at one school in Massachusetts said that they involve the mental health clinicians or social worker for additional support when students are dealing with traumatic experiences, depression, or are struggling to self- regulate. Further, officials at another school in Massachusetts said that many of their students have experienced trauma and this may lead to more aggressive behaviors at the elementary school level, and to more self-destructive behaviors at the middle school level. Specifically, these officials said that children who have experienced trauma may kick, bite, and punch others when they are younger and cut themselves or become suicidal when older. Similarly, officials at a school in Texas said that they have seen a growth in suicidal ideation and self-harm among the students. Some school officials also said that they felt ill-equipped or that schools lacked resources to deal with the increase in students with mental health issues and the associated behaviors. School officials in all five of the selected states also said that social media results in conflicts or related behavioral incidents among students, such as related bullying and arguments. Officials at a school in Georgia said that social media arguments can cause students who were not part of the original situation to be pulled in, creating classroom disruptions that end in discipline for a larger group. Moreover, officials in a North Dakota middle school said that disagreements on social media last for longer periods of time. They said that social media has also been used to facilitate the purchase of illegal drugs, which can result in students being arrested in school and expelled. Use of Corporal Punishment in School for Five Selected States California, Massachusetts, and North Dakota: Corporal punishment in schools is prohibited. Texas: If a school district adopts a policy to permit corporal punishment, school staff may use corporal punishment unless the student’s parent has provided a written, signed statement prohibiting it. None of the schools GAO visited used corporal punishment, according to officials. Georgia: Boards of education are authorized to determine policies related to corporal punishment, including allowing school staff, at their discretion, to administer corporal punishment in order to maintain discipline. However, none of the schools GAO visited used corporal punishment, according to officials. School district officials from three of the five selected districts we visited stated that officials at individual schools generally have a lot of discretion in determining what discipline a student receives. In several schools, officials said they often try other avenues first to address behavior, such as detention, alerting or having a discussion with the parent, or taking away certain privileges such as making the student eat lunch with the teacher instead of with their friends. However, for certain offenses, officials in most districts said that discipline was automatically more severe. Gun possession, for example, prompts an automatic expulsion at most of the school districts we visited. In another example, school district officials in Texas said drug-related incidents, physical assault of a teacher or student, or extreme sexual behaviors can result in a student being placed in an alternative school. School officials at one alternative school we visited stated that 80 to 90 percent of their students are there due to drug-related incidents. Officials in several of the school districts said their districts had School Resource Officers who only become involved in school disciplinary issues when requested by school administrators. In a Texas high school with over 3,800 students, a school official said School Resource Officers patrol school grounds, monitor gang activity, and may become involved when there are illegal drug issues. Officials also said that School Resource Officers sometimes provide trainings for students, parents, or school staff on subjects such as safety, good decision making, substance abuse, and peer pressure. Further, although corporal punishment was legal in two of the five states we visited (see sidebar), the school district officials with whom we spoke in those states said it was not used anymore in their districts. Our analysis of schools nationwide using school year 2013-14 data showed that corporal punishment tended to be most prevalent in southern states (see maps in appendix II). While there is no one-size-fits-all solution to addressing challenging student behavior, or to the evident disparities in discipline for certain student groups, officials in two school districts we visited told us they recognize the importance of finding alternatives to discipline that unnecessarily removes children from the learning environment. Some school officials said they have begun to specifically address disparities for certain student groups. Officials in all selected school districts reported they are implementing efforts to better address student behavior or reduce the use of exclusionary discipline. For example, officials in all school districts said that they are implementing alternative discipline models that emphasize preventing challenging student behavior and focus on supporting individuals and the school community, such as positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS), restorative justice practices, and social emotional learning (SEL) (see sidebar). For example, officials at a selected school district in Texas said they have implemented a classroom management model that uses positive behavior techniques. Texas state law allows schools to develop and implement positive behavior programs as disciplinary alternatives for very young students. This was also true in California, where state law specifically lists suggested alternatives to suspension, including restorative justice, a positive behavior support approach with tiered interventions, and enrollment in programs that teach positive social behavior or anger management. Examples of Alternatives to Discipline that Removes Students from the Classroom Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS): A school-wide framework that focuses on positive behavioral expectations. By teaching students what to do instead of what not to do, the school can focus on the preferred behaviors. All of the selected school districts used some form of positive behavioral intervention and supports. One school official told us that PBIS has significantly reduced their discipline referral numbers and provided teachers more tools to get behavior situations under control. Restorative Justice Practices: This approach focuses on repairing harm done to relationships and people. The aim is to teach students empathy and problem-solving skills that can help prevent inappropriate behavior in the future. For example, according to officials we interviewed at one school, their restorative practices help students take ownership of their actions and work collaboratively to restore relationships that may have been strained. Officials at another school said schools use mediation techniques as alternatives to suspensions. Social and Emotional Learning (SEL): SEL enhances students’ abilities to deal effectively and ethically with daily tasks and challenges. SEL integrates the following five core competencies: self-awareness, self- management, social awareness, relationship skills, and responsible decision making. At a school implementing this model, officials said that they are strengthening their SEL program to improve the whole child instead of treating discipline and mental and behavioral health separately. With regard to directly addressing disparities in school discipline, officials at one school district in California said they created a new leadership team for equity, culture, and support services, and developed a district- wide equity plan that includes mandatory training on implicit bias for principals. Officials from that district also said they had recently changed a policy to increase the consistency of discipline actions across the district’s schools. Similarly, officials at a school district in Massachusetts reported they were working to build awareness among school leadership to address racial bias and the achievement gap through multiyear trainings. Officials we spoke with at a school within that district said they conduct trainings for staff on implicit bias and other related issues to reduce school discipline disparities. As some of the schools and districts we visited have begun implementing alternative discipline models and efforts to reduce the use of exclusionary discipline in recent years, we heard from officials in two districts that there has been difficulty with implementation due to limited resources, staffing turnover, and resistance on the part of some parents. During our visits to schools, we observed classroom spaces that school officials used to manage student behavior, including through various alternative approaches to discipline (see fig. 9). Officials in two school districts said they are moving away from exclusionary discipline because it decreases the amount of academic instruction. Officials at one school district in Georgia said that the district had a history of overusing exclusionary discipline and they understood that schools cannot “suspend their way out of behavioral and discipline issues.” Officials at that district said they are currently rolling out PBIS to their schools, although progress has been slow. While they said discipline rates have decreased and they have received fewer parent and staff complaints, change is difficult because of limited resources, staff turnover, and some resistance to alternative discipline versus punitive discipline on the part of both some school staff and parents. State education officials in all five states said that changes to state law were made or considered related to school discipline in the past several years. For example, California officials said that state law now prohibits suspensions and expulsions for children in grades K-3 for willful defiance. For all ages suspensions may only be used when other means of correction fail to bring about proper conduct. Similarly, Massachusetts law requires that during a student meeting or a hearing to decide disciplinary consequences for a student, school administrators consider ways to re-engage students in the learning process and that expulsion only be used after other remedies and consequences have failed. Massachusetts also revised its state law effective July 2014 to require that schools provide educational services for expelled students. Georgia state law includes a preference for reassignment of disruptive students to alternative educational settings in lieu of suspending or expelling such students. In addition, most of the selected states plan to include school discipline or absenteeism as measures of school quality in their state ESSA Title I plans (see sidebar). According to administrative data from Education, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) resolved over 2,500 K-12 school discipline cases between 2011 and summer 2017 through several means, including voluntary resolution (leading to agreed-upon actions and subsequent monitoring), dismissal, or closure due to insufficient evidence. These cases stemmed both from external complaints and reviews self-initiated by Education. When we analyzed a non-generalizable sample of resolved cases, we found that most of them focused on alleged racial discrimination or disability status. In the four cases we selected for more in-depth review, the school districts agreed to address discipline issues by, for example, designating a discipline supervisor, training staff, revising district policies, holding student listening sessions, and regularly reviewing data to identify disparities (see case descriptions below). Some of these remedies are designed to reduce exclusionary discipline or improve overall school climate, and others are more directly focused on addressing disparities in school discipline. For example, having school leadership regularly review data, particularly when disaggregated by race and other student characteristics, would increase awareness of disparities. Education Case 1: Race and Exclusionary Discipline in a Mississippi School District. OCR’s 2014 investigation of the Tupelo Public School District found that Black students were disproportionately disciplined in nearly all categories of offenses. These commonly included subjective behaviors like disruption, defiance, disobedience, and “other misbehavior as determined by the administration.” The consequences for “other misbehavior” in high school could be severe, ranging from detention to referral to an alternative school. Once at the alternative school, students were searched thoroughly each day upon entry, escorted by security officers when changing classes, and not allowed to carry purses or book bags. OCR concluded that the district’s discipline codes afforded administrators broad discretion, and found different treatment of Black students when looking at specific disciplinary records. For example, among several students who were disciplined for the first offense of using profanity, Black students were the only ones who were suspended from school, while White students received warnings and detention for substantially similar behavior. To address these issues, the district entered into a voluntary resolution agreement whereby it committed to taking specific actions to ensure that all students have an equal opportunity to learn in school. It agreed, among other things, to revise its student discipline policies, practices, and procedures to include clear and objective definitions of misconduct, eliminate vague and subjective offense categories, and describe criteria for selection within the range of possible penalties when imposing sanctions. The district also agreed to require that alternatives to suspension and other forms of exclusionary discipline be considered in all cases except where immediate safety of students or staff is threatened, and where the behavior in question is such that the disruption to the educational environment can only be remedied by removal, or where the student’s removal is a result of the district’s progressive discipline policy. Education Case 2: Disability and Restraint & Seclusion in a Non- Public California School. This 2016 OCR investigation focused on restraint and seclusion of a student with disabilities who was placed at the non-public school with which Oakland Unified School District contracted to provide the student with certain services, including developing and implementing behavior intervention plans. OCR found the use of prone restraint on this student to be severe, persistent, and pervasive: staff held the student face-down 92 times over a period of 11 months, with the longest duration of a single face-down restraint being 93 minutes. Examples of behaviors that led to the use of restraint included disruptive behavior, not following directions, pushing desks, and ripping up assignments. Staff said that the student wanted to be disciplined and understood prone restraint to be disciplinary. OCR determined that the district allowed the student to be treated differently for non-dangerous behavior on the basis of disability. The district entered into a resolution agreement, committing to resolve these issues by offering individual relief to the student—arranging for an evaluation of the student for adverse effects of the restraint and seclusion, with recommendations for addressing areas of harm—and implementing district-wide policy changes related to restraint and seclusion. The latter included establishing a protocol for responding to any contracted non-public schools’ reports of restraining or secluding district students, and providing training on positive interventions. Excerpt from Christian County, KY Case An African American 10th grader was assigned 1-day out-of-school suspension for skipping school. In comparison, a white 12th grader was assigned a conference with the principal for skipping school. The African American student had 19 previous disciplinary referrals, while the white student had 28 previous disciplinary referrals. Education reported that it would be difficult for the district to demonstrate how excluding a student from attending school in response to the student’s efforts to avoid school meets an important educational goal. Education Case 3: Race and Exclusionary Discipline in a Kentucky School District. In this 2014 case, OCR found that Christian County School District disciplined Black students more frequently or harshly than similarly situated White students. Specifically, Black students were more than 10 times more likely than White students to receive out-of-school suspension for disorderly conduct, and Black students were more likely to be assigned to an “Isolated Classroom Environment” when discipline was for a violation that afforded discretion. OCR also found that the district’s discipline code did not define 61 types of violations, including ones that involve interpretation, such as disorderly conduct, failure to follow directions, deliberate classroom disruption, and profanity. OCR found that administrators had wide discretion in determining the consequences for such actions, and noted that the discipline code allowed for virtually every type of sanction, including expulsion, for each type of violation. OCR also found inconsistencies in treatment of students in different racial groups when looking at individual records (see sidebar). Although district officials said they were aware of the higher rates of discipline for Black students, OCR found that there were no safeguards to ensure that discretion would be exercised in a nondiscriminatory manner. To resolve these issues, the district agreed to ensure as much as possible that misbehavior is addressed in a way that avoids exclusionary discipline, collaborate with experts on research-based strategies to prevent discrimination in discipline, and provide support services to decrease behavioral difficulties, among other things. Education Case 4: Race and Informal Removals in a California Charter School. In this 2015 case, OCR investigated whether Black students were disproportionately disciplined at a charter school which emphasizes Hmong culture and language. The complaint noted that the student’s parents had been asked to take him home on a few occasions because he was disruptive in class. School administrators confirmed the practice of “early dismissal” in response to misbehavior, but said they did not consider the dismissal to be disciplinary. Because the school did not maintain records of these removals, OCR was unable to determine if the student was subjected to discriminatory discipline. However, OCR noted that the practice of removing students from school for disciplinary reasons without appropriate recordkeeping and due process makes it almost impossible for the school to assess whether it is fully meeting its duty of ensuring nondiscrimination with respect to discipline. To resolve these issues, the school agreed, among other things, to revise its discipline policies, provide due process and alternatives to exclusionary discipline, and clearly prohibit the kinds of informal suspensions that OCR observed. Justice also investigates discrimination in school discipline based on complaints filed under federal civil rights statutes and as part of monitoring desegregation orders. Three recently-resolved cases investigated exclusionary discipline or restraint and seclusion for students of color and those with disabilities (see case descriptions below). Justice Case 1: Race and Exclusionary Discipline in an Arkansas School District. This Justice case, originally stemming from a desegregation order, focused on whether the Watson Chapel School District was discriminating against Black students in its administration of school discipline. Justice found that the district suspended and expelled Black students at significantly higher rates than White students, and that district policies and procedures were responsible for this difference. The parties signed a Consent Order in 2016, under which the school district agreed to implement positive interventions and supports, transition away from exclusionary discipline, revise the code of conduct to list specific levels of disciplinary infractions and consequences, prohibit corporal punishment, establish a memorandum of agreement with any law enforcement agency that supplies school resource officers, and provide training to staff. In addition, the district agreed to provide due process before students receive out-of-school suspensions, expulsions, or referrals to the alternative education program because of disruptive behavior. Justice Case 2: Race and Disability in a Maryland School District. Justice investigated complaints that discipline policies in the Wicomico County Public School District resulted in the discriminatory suspension of Black and Latino students and students with disabilities. After the investigation, Justice and the district negotiated and entered into a voluntary out-of-court settlement agreement in January 2017. The district agreed to hire a consultant to implement positive behavioral interventions and supports and restorative practices, revise the code of conduct to include objective definitions of behavioral infractions and incorporate alternatives to exclusionary discipline, establish clear guidelines for when law enforcement intervention is appropriate, and provide appropriate due process procedures. Justice Case 3: Race and Restraint & Seclusion in a Kentucky School District. This 2017 Justice case investigated whether Covington Independent Schools’ disciplinary practices, including the use of exclusionary discipline, restraint, and seclusion, discriminated on the basis of race, national origin, or disability. The parties agreed to negotiate a settlement agreement under which the district agreed to develop a process to regularly identify students who disproportionately had disciplinary referrals, with a focus on offenses that may be the result of unaddressed behavioral needs such as disruptive behavior or aggression, defiance, and being “beyond control.” The district also agreed to discontinue the use of “calm rooms” (where students are isolated during an episode of misbehavior) and prohibit the use of physical restraint except in the case of imminent danger that could not be addressed through de-escalation techniques. The district agreed to adopt an intervention procedure to meet the needs of students with disabilities who may need support beyond the standard discipline policies. In addition, if parents of students with disabilities were asked to come to the school to become involved in an ongoing instance of misbehavior, the district could no longer require the parent to take the student home unless the student had been assigned an out-of-school suspension or expulsion. Education and Justice collaborated on a “Rethink Discipline” campaign in 2014 to address what they viewed as widespread overuse of suspensions and expulsions. This awareness campaign included comprehensive guidance to help states and schools implement alternatives to exclusionary discipline, reduce discrimination, and identify root causes of disparities (see sidebar). The agencies have also collaborated to provide guidance encouraging school districts that use school resource officers to formalize partnerships with local law enforcement agencies and clarify that school resource officers should not administer discipline in schools. Education has also issued special guidance related to the discipline of students with disabilities, including an explanation of the requirement to provide appropriate strategies to address behavior in students’ individualized education programs (IEPs). This guidance stated that when a student with a disability is regularly sent home early from school for behavior reasons, it is likely that the child’s opportunity to make progress in the general education curriculum is significantly impeded (see sidebar). The guidance states that being sent home regularly in this way constitutes a disciplinary removal, which comes with statutory reporting obligations and other considerations. For further information on available federal guidance related to discipline in public schools, see appendix III. available could result in an inappropriately restrictive placement. demonstrates that disciplinary measures such as short-term removals from the current placement (e.g., suspension), or other exclusionary disciplinary measures that significantly impede the implementation of the individualized education program (IEP), generally do not help to reduce or eliminate reoccurrence of the misbehavior. Education and other federal entities have also awarded grants and established special initiatives related to student behavior and school discipline, many of which started around the same time as the federal Rethink Discipline campaign and were designed to be complementary. For example, Education awarded about $130 million from 2014-2016 to states and school districts through the School Climate Transformation Grant, which was established in 2014 to support districts taking steps to improve behavioral outcomes. According to Education, nearly 3,000 schools have worked to implement these behavioral support systems through the grant, and preliminary outcomes data have shown increased student attendance and fewer disciplinary referrals. In addition, Education awarded about $68 million for fiscal years 2015-2019 to over 20 school districts under Project Prevent—a grant to promote conflict resolution skills in students, particularly when they have been exposed to pervasive violence. According to the districts’ grant summary documents, these districts have experienced nearly 10,000 fewer violent behavioral incidents and have provided access to mental health services for over 5,000 students. Justice’s research arm, the National Institute of Justice, also started the Comprehensive School Safety Initiative in 2014 and has since provided about $84 million to fund nearly 40 research projects and interventions that address school discipline and safety, such as implementing restorative practices and studying the root causes of the school-to-prison pipeline. More recently, Education collaborated with HHS to fund the Pyramid Equity Project for early learning programs, which is designed to address implicit bias in school discipline, implement culturally responsive practices in addressing student behavior, and use data systems to understand equity issues. For ongoing technical assistance related to student behavior and school discipline, Education sponsors centers on supportive learning environments, improving student engagement and attendance, and implementing positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS). For example, the National Center on Safe Supportive Learning Environments provides information and resources on addressing school discipline, mental health, substance abuse, physical safety, student engagement, and other related issues. Justice funds a technical assistance center on school-justice partnerships that works to enhance collaboration among schools, mental and behavioral health specialists, and law enforcement officials. This center recently published a bulletin on the intersection of exclusionary school discipline and the juvenile justice system, which offers tips for judges who handle school-related cases and information on successful efforts to reduce the number of school-based referrals to law enforcement. For a list of other technical assistance centers related to student behavior or discipline, see appendix III. Lastly, to help identify discipline disparities among the nation’s schools, Education collects comprehensive data on school discipline every other year through the CRDC. The agency publicly releases highlights from these data through their “First Look” documents and in annual reports, which typically focus on a limited number of disciplinary actions (primarily suspensions) and student demographics (usually race and disability status). Education’s public analyses of school discipline data have not included school characteristics like poverty level or type of school. Education encourages districts and schools to disaggregate their data by various student demographics and examine it for disparities. In addition, Education’s Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services recently examined racial and ethnic disparities for students with disabilities using data collected under IDEA, Part B. This IDEA report provides the public with information on whether districts had significant disproportionality on the basis of race or ethnicity in the discipline of students with disabilities. We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of Education and Justice for review and comment. These agencies provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. We also provided selected draft excerpts relevant to officials we interviewed in state agencies, school districts, and school officials. We received technical comments from those officials in four of our five selected states, which we incorporated as appropriate. As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of Education, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Attorney General, and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (617) 788-0580 or nowickij@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix V. The objectives of this report were to examine (1) the patterns in disciplinary actions among public schools, (2) the challenges selected school districts reported with student behavior and how they are approaching school discipline, and (3) the actions the Department of Education (Education) and the Department of Justice (Justice) have taken to identify and address any disparities or discrimination in school discipline. To conduct this work we (1) analyzed federal discipline data by student demographics and school characteristics; (2) visited five school districts to provide illustrative examples of approaches to school discipline; and (3) interviewed federal agency officials and reviewed agency documentation, federal laws, regulations and policies, selected state laws, and a selection of resolved school discipline cases. To inform all aspects of our work, we interviewed representatives from several nonfederal civil rights organizations and advocacy organizations that represent parents and families, individuals with disabilities, and people from specific racial or ethnic backgrounds, such as Hispanic, African-American, and American Indian communities. We also met with academic subject matter experts to discuss issues related to school discipline, including disparities in school discipline and initiatives intended to reduce exclusionary discipline. In addition, we reviewed two dozen articles containing research that had been published since 2010 to further understand the context of school discipline issues and programs. We evaluated the methods used in the research and eliminated the research if we felt the methods were not appropriate or rigorous. The following sections contain detailed information about the scope and methodology for this report. To determine the patterns in disciplinary actions among public schools, we used Education’s Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) to analyze discipline data from all public schools by student demographics (e.g., race, sex, disability) and school characteristics (e.g., school type, such as charter or magnet school). Our analyses of this data, taken alone, do not establish whether unlawful discrimination has occurred. The CRDC is a biennial survey that is mandatory for every public school and district in the United States. Conducted by Education’s Office for Civil Rights, the survey collects data on the nation’s public schools (pre-K through 12th grade), including disciplinary actions as well as student characteristics and enrollment, educational and course offerings, and school environment, such as incidents of bullying. CRDC data are self-reported by districts and schools, and consequently there is potential for misreporting of information. In school years 2011-12 and 2013-14, the CRDC collected data from nearly every public school in the nation (approximately 17,000 school districts, 96,000 schools, and 50 million students in school year 2013-14). Using the public-use data file of the CRDC, we focused our analysis primarily on data for school year 2013- 14, the most recent data available at the time of our analysis. We also compared disciplinary data from school years 2011-12 and 2013-14 to analyze how discipline may have changed over that period. The 2013-14 CRDC collected data on six broad types of disciplinary actions: (1) out-of-school suspensions, (2) in-school suspensions, (3) referrals to law enforcement, (4) expulsions, (5) corporal punishment, and (6) school-related arrests. The CRDC did not collect data on less severe forms of discipline, such as detentions, Saturday school, or removing privileges to engage in extracurricular activities, such as athletic teams or field trips. As shown in table 4, we combined related variables for out-of- school suspension and expulsion; we also provide a crosswalk of discipline variables used in this report and those captured in the CRDC. For each of the six disciplinary actions in our review, we examined discipline counts and rates both overall and disaggregated by student demographic characteristics. Specifically, we examined counts and rates for each disciplinary action by student sex (boy or girl), race or ethnicity (see table 5), disability status (students with or without disabilities), and English Language Learners. Using the CRDC, we also examined race and sex intersectionally, for example, disciplinary rates for Black boys or White girls. In order to analyze discipline counts and rates by the poverty level of the school, we pulled in data on free or reduced-price lunch eligibility from the 2013-14 Common Core of Data (CCD), and matched it to schools in the 2013-14 CRDC, which did not collect eligibility data. The CCD is administered by Education’s National Center for Education Statistics, and annually collects nonfiscal data about all public schools in the nation. A student is generally eligible for free or reduced-price lunch based on federal income eligibility guidelines that are tied to the federal poverty level and the size of the family. State education agencies supply these data for their schools and school districts. We then sorted schools into quartiles based on the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch as follows: 0 to 25 percent, 25.1 to 49.9 percent, 50 to 74.9 percent, and 75 to 100 percent (see table 6). The poverty thresholds and measure of poverty discussed here and throughout this report were commonly used in the literature and also aligned with how Education analyzed its data. To analyze discipline counts and rates by the type of public school a student attended, we sorted schools into mutually exclusive categories and reviewed disciplinary data by student demographic information. The 2013-14 CRDC allowed schools to self-identify as special education, magnet, charter, and alternative schools (see table 7). The categories of public schools in the CRDC were not mutually exclusive; that is, schools could select multiple school types to describe their school, such as a charter school that was also an alternative school. To create mutually exclusive categories for analytical purposes, we applied the following criteria: Alternative school: all schools that selected “alternative” as the school type in the CRDC, even if they selected other types as well. Special education school: schools that selected “special education” as the school type in the CRDC, except those schools that also selected the alternative school type. Charter school: schools that selected “charter” as the school type in the CRDC, except those schools that also selected the alternative school type and/or the special education school type. Magnet school: schools that selected “magnet” as the school type in the CRDC, except those schools that also selected the alternative school type, the special education school type, and/or the charter school type. Traditional school: schools that did not select any other school type in the CRDC. Table 8 provides the breakdown of students and schools captured in the 2013-14 CRDC after applying these criteria. For each of our school discipline analyses, we also examined disparities in disciplinary rates by student demographics. Specifically, we compared each student groups’ representation among students disciplined to their representation in the overall student population. For example, if boys accounted for 50 percent of all K-12 public school students, but represented 75 percent of students that received a given disciplinary action, then boys would be overrepresented among students that received that type of discipline by 25 percentage points. We also compared disciplinary rates across student groups and similarly examined disparities based on school poverty level and school type for all students. We also analyzed CRDC data on discipline of pre-school students. The disciplinary data for pre-school students that was collected in the CRDC for school year 2013-14 was different than disciplinary data collected for K-12 students. Specifically, data on pre-school discipline was limited to out-of-school suspensions and expulsions. Findings from our analysis of pre-school discipline data are included where applicable in the report and additional data are provided in appendix IV, table 17. In addition to analyzing data on school discipline, we also analyzed data on chronic absenteeism, which was defined as students who were absent 15 or more days during the school year for any reason, which could include for suspensions and expulsions. The CRDC also collected data on instances in which students were restrained—both physically and mechanically—or secluded at school. Education has provided a resource document with principles to school districts that indicates restraint and seclusion should only be used in instances where a student’s “behavior poses imminent danger of serious physical harm to self or others,” and should never be used as punishment or discipline. However, multiple sources, including civil rights complaints filed with Education, news stories, and other reports have alleged that these practices have been used in response to student misbehavior, in particular for students with disabilities. We included data on chronic absenteeism and restraint and seclusion in our analyses, and present related findings in appendix IV, tables 18 and 19. We determined that the data we used from the CRDC and CCD were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report by reviewing technical documentation, conducting electronic testing, and interviewing officials from Education’s Office for Civil Rights and National Center for Education Statistics. For our analysis of the 2013-14 CRDC, we used the final data file that was publicly available as of June 2017 because it corrected errors in the original data previously submitted by several school districts. We conducted a generalized linear regression using the 2013-14 CRDC and CCD data to explore whether and to what extent certain school-level characteristics were associated with higher rates of each disciplinary action. Such a model allowed us to test the association between a given school characteristic and the percentage of students receiving a given disciplinary action, while holding other school characteristics constant. We selected different school characteristics (our independent variables) for the regression based on factors that Education’s Office for Civil Rights and other researchers have identified as potential drivers of school discipline rates (our dependent, or outcome variables). Table 9 lists the variables we included in our regression model. We conducted a separate regression for each of the six disciplinary actions listed as an outcome variable. We excluded some schools from our regression model. Specifically, we excluded schools that met one or more of the following criteria: Data were not available in both the CRDC and CCD data sets, and therefore we were unable to determine the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch in these schools or whether these schools were located in rural, suburban, or urban areas. School was listed as “ungraded” in the CRDC because we could not determine if these schools offered grade 6 or above. School only offered pre-school because pre-school disciplinary data were reported separately and differently than K-12 disciplinary data in the CRDC. School identified as a juvenile justice facility in the CRDC. In the 2013-14 CRDC, schools could identify as a juvenile justice facility, and select one of the other school types in our analysis (i.e., traditional, magnet, charter, alternative, and special education schools). Due to this overlap, and because it is reasonable to expect discipline within a juvenile justice facility could function differently than discipline in other schools, we excluded these schools from our regression model. School had less than 10 students enrolled because in smaller schools minor fluctuations in the numbers of students receiving a given disciplinary action could have a large effect on disciplinary rates. In the 2013-14 data, these exclusions reduced the total number of public schools in our regression model from a universe of 95,507 public schools to 86,769 public schools. All regression models are subject to limitations and for this model the limitations included: Data we analyzed were by school rather than student. Consequently, we were not able to describe the association between our independent variables and a student’s rate of different disciplinary actions, while controlling for characteristics of an individual student, such as sex, race or ethnicity, disability status, or grade level. Instead, the school-level nature of the CRDC data limited our description of the associations between school characteristics and disciplinary rates to whether there was an increase, decrease, or no effect on disciplinary rates for schools with a given characteristic, controlling for other characteristics of the entire school’s population, such as percent of students who are boys or are Black. Some variables that may be related to student behavior and discipline are not available in the data. For example, in this context, it could be that parent education or household type (single- versus multiple- headed household) could be related to student behaviors, such as those that lead to receiving the six disciplinary actions we analyzed. Results of our analyses are associational and do not imply a causal relationship because, for example, CRDC data were not gathered by a randomized controlled trial, where students would be randomized to attend schools with certain characteristics. Typically, a generalized linear regression model provides an estimated incidence rate ratio, where a value greater than one indicates a higher or positive association, in this case, between the disciplinary outcome and the independent variable of interest, such as being a charter school or having a higher percentage of Black students. An estimated incidence rate ratio less than one indicates a lower incidence of a given disciplinary action when a factor is present. Given the limitations of our model as described above, we present the results of our regression model in table 10 by describing the direction of the associations, rather than an estimated rate (incidence) of disciplinary outcomes. For categorical variables in table 10, we provided the comparison school characteristic in brackets and italics. For example, the results in this table should be interpreted as students attending alternative schools were significantly more likely than students attending traditional schools to be suspended out of school. For continuous variables (i.e., those starting with “Percent”), the results in this table should be interpreted as the likelihood of receiving a given disciplinary action as the percentage of students in the school with a given characteristic increased. For example, as the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced- price lunch increased, we found that the likelihood of receiving each of the six disciplinary actions also increased. It should be noted that interactions (i.e., where we combine both race and sex variables) should be interpreted differently than other variables in table 10. Though an interaction may be “negative,” it does not necessarily imply that the group presented in the interaction was significantly less likely to receive the given disciplinary action because interactions are interpreted relative to the main effect of each variable in the interaction. For example, as shown in table 10, the interaction for percentage of Black boys was negative for out-of-school suspensions; however, the estimated incidence of out-of-school suspensions for a school with a higher than average percentage of Black students and a higher than average percentage of boys was positive. Since the contribution for an interaction coefficient is relative, in this example the contribution of the main effects outweighed that of the interaction, resulting in a positive effect altogether, despite the negative interaction. To obtain information on how selected school districts are addressing discipline issues, including any challenges they face in doing so, we selected five school districts to serve as illustrative examples. To select school districts, we used CRDC data to sort school districts into categories based on district size; the presence of disparities in out-of- school suspension rates for boys, Black students, or students with disabilities; and whether the out-of-school suspension rate was increasing or decreasing between the two most recent CRDC collections. With regard to size, we collapsed several categories that Education has previously used into three groupings, each with roughly one-third of all students attending public schools in school year 2013-14: Large School District: 25,000 or more students (34.7% of all students in 2013-14) Medium School District: 5,000 to 24,999 students (33.2% of all students in 2013-14) Small School District: Less than 5,000 students (32.1% of all students in 2013-14) Further, we focused on out-of-school suspensions for selection purposes because this disciplinary action was one of the most frequently reported disciplinary actions employed by schools in Education’s two most recent data collection efforts on the issue (2011-12 and 2013-14 CRDC). Moreover, out-of-school suspensions are an exclusionary disciplinary action; that is, they remove or exclude students from the usual instructional or learning environment. Selecting districts with a range of out-of-school suspension rate was intended to generate a mix of districts that commonly use exclusionary discipline, as well as those that may employ alternatives. For site selection, we used out-of-school suspension data in two ways. First, we excluded districts that did not have a disparity in out-of-school suspension rates for Black students, boys, or students with disabilities. Prior GAO work and Education’s data showed that these groups were particularly vulnerable to discipline disparities, and the purpose of this research objective was to understand district efforts to identify and address such disparities. Second, we grouped school districts by whether their out-of-school suspension rate increased or decreased between 2011-12 and 2013-14. Exploring school districts that changed in different ways over time was intended to help us identify successful efforts to reduce suspensions as well as challenges districts face in addressing disparate discipline. Using the above criteria, we grouped school districts into the following categories: Category 1 and 2: Large school district and out-of-school suspension rate that increased (or decreased) from 2011-12 to 2013-14 Category 3 and 4: Medium school district and out-of-school suspension rate that increased (or decreased) from 2011-12 to 2013- 14 Category 5 and 6: Small school district and out-of-school suspension rate that increased (or decreased) from 2011-12 to 2013-14. After sorting school districts into the above categories, we randomized the list within each category to improve the methodological rigor of selecting school districts. In addition, we applied a series of post-checks to our list of districts in each grouping to ensure we had appropriate variety to consider other key factors in school discipline. Specifically, we checked for variety in: types of public schools in the district, geographic diversity both in terms of region of the country and use of corporal punishment in the district, and use of restraint or seclusion in the district. To select specific districts, we started with the district in each category that was at the top of the randomized list and then applied the above post-checks. We then conducted outreach to district superintendents or their designees via telephone and email to obtain their agreement to participate in this review. When school districts were unresponsive to our outreach or unwilling to participate, we contacted additional districts that had similar characteristics in order to achieve variety in our final selections. This resulted in the selection of five schools districts, one each in California, Georgia, Massachusetts, North Dakota, and Texas (see table 11). We visited each district and interviewed district-level officials involved in school discipline and school climate initiatives. These officials included superintendents, assistant superintendents, program managers, and directors of applicable district departments (e.g., student support services and special education). We also reviewed district-level discipline data, school district discipline policies, and relevant state laws related to school discipline to better understand the local context in each selected district. In the five districts we visited, we also interviewed officials at a total of 19 schools. At each school, we typically met with principals and/or assistant principals, and in some instances, spoke with other personnel at the school, such as counselors, attendance coordinators, school resource officers (i.e., law enforcement officers), and teachers. In each district, we selected a variety of schools to visit based on grade level, school type, and disciplinary data. For each selected district, we also interviewed officials from the state educational agency that oversees that district to better understand the statewide context around discipline, such as state laws that may affect district disciplinary policies, statewide initiatives related to discipline, and state-level monitoring of district-level disciplinary actions. In California, we also met with the county office of education that oversees the district we selected because, in that state, counties have a primary role in the local school district accountability structure. Because we selected these school districts judgmentally, we cannot generalize the findings about these districts’ approaches to discipline, and the challenges they face, to all school districts and schools nationwide. To determine the extent to which, and in what ways, Education and Justice are identifying and addressing discipline disparities and discrimination, we interviewed agency officials at headquarters and regional offices, reviewed agency documentation and administrative data, reviewed federal laws and regulations, and reviewed a non-generalizable sample of seven recently resolved school discipline investigations undertaken by Education and Justice (which we refer to as cases). With both agencies, we interviewed officials about each agency’s responsibilities with respect to federal civil rights laws and regulations, as well as the actions the agencies took to enforce them. We also discussed each agency’s guidance, support to school districts on these issues (e.g., grants and technical assistance), and data collection activities. In addition, we collected and reviewed relevant agency procedures and guidance documents. We also requested and reviewed Education’s data on the number of civil rights complaints received and cases related to school discipline investigated from 2011 to August 2017 to better understand the scope of the agency’s efforts. Education provided these data from their internal database, where investigators categorized cases as being related to school discipline. We assessed the reliability of this source through discussion with knowledgeable officials and reviewing key documents and determined the data to be reliable for our purposes. To select resolved school discipline cases to review, we searched Education’s and Justice’s respective online repositories of resolved investigations and compliance reviews, as well as Education’s annual reports, to create a list of resolved cases related to school discipline. We then narrowed the list to cases resolved in approximately the past 3 years (from 2014 to May 2017) and excluded long-standing cases that were opened several decades ago to help ensure the information in the cases reflected recent policies and practices in each agency. We also excluded cases regarding institutions of higher education because they were outside the scope of this review. This resulted in a list of 12 relevant resolved cases—9 for Education and 3 for Justice. From this list, we selected 7 cases to review in depth to better understand Education’s and Justice’s investigatory processes and resolutions with regard to school discipline cases in pre-K through 12th grade, and to provide illustrative examples in our report. We selected 4 cases from Education that provided a mix of the type of alleged discrimination (e.g., race or disability) and type of discipline (e.g., suspension, expulsion, arrest, etc.). We selected all 3 relevant cases from Justice. For each case, we reviewed the type of investigation (complaint investigation or compliance review); the reason for the investigation; any applicable findings or recommendations; and the ultimate resolution of the investigation, such as a voluntary agreement with the school district or remedies to address findings. In all instances, we are presenting Education’s and Justice’s findings and do not reach any independent conclusions regarding the cases. We conducted this performance audit from November 2016 to March 2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. This appendix contains maps showing rates of disciplinary actions by school district for each of the six disciplinary actions captured in the Department of Education’s Civil Rights Data Collection for school year 2013-14. Funded by Department of Education (Education): National Center on Safe Supportive Learning Environments: offers information and technical assistance focused on improving student supports and academic enrichment. This includes resources on using positive approaches to discipline, as well as promoting mental health for students and ensuring the safety and effectiveness of physical learning environments. https://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/. National Student Attendance, Engagement, and Success Center: a center that disseminates evidence-based practices and facilitates communities of practice to help students attend school every day, be engaged in school, and succeed academically, so that they graduate high school prepared for college, career, and civic life. It offers webinars on identifying the root causes of chronic absence, linking school climate and exclusionary discipline to absenteeism, and improving attendance for vulnerable students. http://new.every1graduates.org/nsaesc/ National Technical Assistance Center for the Education of Neglected or Delinquent Children and Youth: provides technical assistance to state agencies with Title I, Part D programs and works to improve education services for children and youth who are neglected, delinquent, or at risk. This includes running the Supportive School Discipline Communities of Practice, which brings together education and justice leaders for knowledge-sharing events and offers webinars on discipline initiatives such as restorative practices. https://www.neglected-delinquent.org/ Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports Technical Assistance Center: funded by Education’s Office of Special Education Programs, this center supports implementation of a multi- tiered approach to social, emotional and behavior support. In addition, it offers resources on cultural responsiveness, addressing discipline disproportionality, and interconnecting mental health with behavior support systems, among other issues. https://www.pbis.org/. Funded by Department of Health and Human Services (HHS): Center of Excellence for Infant and Early Childhood Mental Health Consultation: supports states, tribes, and communities in promoting mental health and school readiness. It provides training to leaders in early childhood education around mental health and school readiness issues. https://www.samhsa.gov/iecmhc Center for School Mental Health: works to strengthen policies and programs in school mental health to improve learning and promote success for youth. This center is supported in full by HHS’s Maternal and Child Health Bureau, Division of Child, Adolescent and Family Health Adolescent Health Branch in the Health Resources and Service Administration. http://csmh.umaryland.edu/ National Center for Trauma-Informed Care and Alternatives to Seclusion and Restraint: works to develop approaches to eliminate the use of seclusion, restraints, and other coercive practices and to further advance the knowledge base related to implementation of trauma-informed approaches. https://www.samhsa.gov/nctic National Child Traumatic Stress Network: works to improve access to care, treatment, and services for children and adolescents exposed to traumatic events. The group provides a comprehensive focus on childhood trauma by collaborating with the health, mental health, education, law enforcement, child welfare, juvenile justice, and military family service systems. http://nctsn.org/ National Resource Center for Mental Health Promotion and Youth Violence Prevention: offers resources and technical assistance to states, tribes, territories, and local communities to promote overall child wellness and prevent youth violence. http://www.healthysafechildren.org/ Now Is the Time Technical Assistance Center: provides national training and technical assistance to recipients of the Healthy Transitions (youth access to mental health) and Project Advancing Wellness and Resilience Education (AWARE) grants. https://www.samhsa.gov/nitt-ta/about-us Funded by Department of Justice (Justice): School-Justice Partnership National Resource Center: provides trainings and webinars, and partners with stakeholders in the law enforcement, juvenile justice, mental health, and public education arenas. The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges operates this center. https://schooljusticepartnership.org/ Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) This appendix contains several tables that show the underlying data used throughout this report, as well as additional analyses we conducted using the Department of Education’s Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) and Common Core of Data (CCD) for school year 2013-14. Our analyses of Education’s data, as reflected in these tables, taken alone, do not establish whether unlawful discrimination has occurred. The following tables and information are included in this appendix: Table 12: students who received disciplinary actions captured in the CRDC, disaggregated by student sex, race or ethnicity, and English Language Learner status. Table 13: students with or without disabilities who received disciplinary actions captured in the CRDC, disaggregated by student sex and race or ethnicity. Table 14: students who received disciplinary actions captured in the CRDC, disaggregated by the poverty level of the school and other student characteristics. Table 15: students who received disciplinary actions captured in the CRDC, disaggregated by the type of public school and other student characteristics. Table 16: students who received disciplinary actions captured in the CRDC, disaggregated by the grades offered in the school and other student characteristics. Table 17: pre-school students who were suspended from school, disaggregated by student sex and race or ethnicity, as well as the poverty level of school and the type of public school. Table 18: students who were restrained—mechanically or physically—or secluded, disaggregated by student sex, race or ethnicity, and disability status as well as the poverty level of school and the type of public school. Table 19: students who were chronically absent, disaggregated by student sex, race or ethnicity, and disability status, as well as the poverty level of school and the type of public school. Table 20: schools that reported having access to a school counselor or sworn law enforcement officer, disaggregated by the poverty level of school and the type of public school. Table 21: students disciplined for harassment or bullying, disaggregated by student sex, race or ethnicity, and disability status. In addition to the contact named above, Sherri Doughty (Assistant Director), Amy Moran Lowe (Analyst-in-Charge), James Bennett, Holly Dye, Aaron Karty, Jean McSween, John Mingus, James Rebbe, Sonya Vartivarian, and David Watsula made key contributions to this report. Also contributing were Johana Ayers, Deborah Bland, Irina Carnevale, Caitlin Croake, Vijay D’Souza, Gretta Goodwin, Gloria Hernandez-Saunders, Reginald Jones, DuEwa Kamara, John Karikari, Ted Leslie, Sheila R. McCoy, Brittni Milam, Cady Panetta, Moon Parks, Caroline Prado, Steven Putansu, Maria Santos, Margie K. Shields, Ruth Solomon, Alexandra Squitieri, and Barbara Steel-Lowney.

 

 Report 2:
The federal government owns roughly 640 million acres, more than a quarter of the land in the United States. These lands are heavily concentrated in 12 western states (including Alaska), where t he federal government owns roughly half of the overall land area. Four federal agencies—the National Park Service (NPS), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and Bureau of Land Management (BLM), all in the Department of the Interior (DOI), and the U.S. Forest Service (FS) in the Department of Agriculture—administer about 95% of those lands. No single law provides authority for these four agencies to acquire and/or disposal of lands. Rather, Congress provided various acquisition and disposal authorities through laws enacted over more than a century. This report describes the primary authorities of the four agencies. The extent to which each of the agencies has authority to acquire and dispose of land, and the nature of the authorities, varies considerably. Some of the agencies have relatively broad authority to acquire and/or dispose of land. Most notably, the BLM has relatively broad authority for both acquisitions and disposals. By contrast, the NPS has no general authority to acquire land to create new park units or to dispose of park lands. The extent of the acquisition and disposal authorities for the FS and the FWS are not nearly as broad as the BLM's but not nearly as restrictive as the NPS's. The FS authority to acquire lands is mostly limited to lands within or contiguous to the boundaries of a national forest. The agency has various authorities to dispose of land, but they are relatively constrained and infrequently used. The FWS has various authorities to acquire lands but no general authority to dispose of its lands. The acquisition authorities differ as to the circumstances in which they apply, and the disposal authorities likewise differ as to their purposes. Thus, where a specific acquisition or disposal by an agency is contemplated, the particular authority at issue should be consulted. In general, the acquisition authorities are designed to allow federal agencies to acquire lands that could be viewed as benefitting from federal management. Among other circumstances, acquisition might be authorized to bring inholdings or lands adjacent to federal lands into federal ownership to improve or simplify management of federal lands. Acquisitions also might be authorized to conserve species, protect natural and cultural resources, and increase opportunities for recreation. The disposal authorities generally are designed to allow federal agencies to dispose of land that is no longer required for a federal purpose, might be inefficient to manage, or might be chiefly valuable for another purpose. For instance, disposal might be authorized to allow lands to be used for agriculture, community development, mineral extraction, or educational purposes. Agencies also acquire and dispose of federal land in exchanges. Exchanges are not discussed separately in this report, as often the authorities to acquire and dispose of lands also apply to land exchange. However, there are provisions of law particularly applicable to exchanges. The exchange authorities for the NPS and the FWS are relatively narrow. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA; 43 U.S.C. §§1701-1781) provides broader exchange authority and is the main authority governing exchanges by the BLM and the FS. Congress often faces questions on the adequacy of existing acquisition and disposal authorities; the nature, extent, and location of their use; the extent of federal land ownership overall; and the sources and levels of land acquisition funds, among other issues. The suitability of the acquisition and disposal authorities, and the extent and circumstances of their use by the agencies, forms the backdrop for congressional consideration of measures to establish, modify, or eliminate the use of authorities. With regard to the establishment of new authorities, for instance, some 115 th Congress proposals would authorize states to exchange land grant parcels for federal lands. Other measures would authorize the BLM and FS to convey small tracts to adjacent landowners and to govern the use of proceeds from these conveyances. Proposals to modify authorities include measures in the 115 th Congress to reauthorize and amend BLM authority to sell or exchange land under the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA; 43 U.S.C. §§2301 et seq.), as well as bills to amend the Small Tracts Act (16 U.S.C. §521e) regarding the type and value of FS lands that can be disposed of and the use of related proceeds. Among the provisions to eliminate the use of authorities are those to prevent the disposal of federal land under the General Mining Law of 1872, which have been contained in annual Interior appropriations laws since FY1995. In addition, Congress frequently considers legislation authorizing and governing the acquisition or disposal of specific parcels. For example, Title XXX of P.L. 113-291 contained various provisions to authorize the acquisition and/or disposal of land. Congress may consider such legislation to provide an agency with acquisition or disposal authority in a particular instance because it is lacking. In other cases, Congress directs a particular acquisition or disposal to facilitate the action. For instance, the legislation may seek to direct an acquisition based on Congress's assessment of public needs and priorities. It may expedite the process for acquiring a parcel of land, such as by limiting the assessments and evaluations that ordinarily would be required under law. The legislation also might authorize actions not ordinarily permitted, such as the conveyance of land at reduced or no cost rather than at fair market value. Congress also addresses acquisition and disposal policy in the context of deliberations on the role and goals of the federal government in owning and managing land generally. The extent to which the federal government should own land remains controversial. Many westerners contend that there is excessive federal influence over their lives and economies and that the federal government should divest itself of many lands. Many others support the policy of retaining lands in federal ownership on behalf of the public and sometimes advocate adding more lands to enhance protection. Recent Congresses considered diverse bills pertaining to the extent of federal land ownership. Among others, 115 th Congress measures would authorize or direct the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to offer to sell a certain percentage of land in each of several fiscal years. Other bills provide that where a land management agency acquires land, an equal number of acres is to be offered for sale. Another set of issues pertains to the sources and levels of funds for land acquisition. The principal financing mechanism for federal land acquisition is discretionary appropriations under the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). Provisions of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (LWCF Act; 54 U.S.C. §§200301 et seq.) had provided for $900 million in specified revenues to be deposited in the LWCF annually. These provisions expired September 30, 2018. Each year, Congress determines the level of appropriations from the LWCF for federal land acquisition. Total appropriations for land acquisition and the amount provided to each of the federal land management agencies have varied substantially since the program's origin in 1965. In the 115 th Congress, some measures propose permanent reauthorization of the LWCF and/or mandatory appropriations at the authorized level. Advocates of such bills typically seek stable, predictable funding to promote a strong federal role in acquiring and managing sensitive resources. Other measures would direct a portion of funding to particular purposes, such as acquisitions in areas with restricted access for fishing, hunting, and other types of recreation. Still other proposals would allow LWCF to be used for a broader array of purposes, including nonacquisition purposes, due to concerns about the extent of federal land ownership and the availability of funding for other federal activities. Additional sources of funding are available for some agencies or under certain authorities. For instance, the FWS has a mandatory source of funds for land acquisition through the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, as discussed below. As another example, the BLM also has mandatory spending authorities that allow the agency to keep the proceeds of land sales and use these proceeds for subsequent acquisitions and other purposes. These authorities are discussed below. The application of mandatory spending authorities, including the uses of the proceeds, has been the subject of congressional debate. As noted above, various laws authorizing and governing specific land acquisitions have been enacted. In addition, the four federal land management agencies have different standing authorities for acquiring lands. In general, all four agencies are authorized to accept land as gifts and bequests. In addition, each generally is authorized to use eminent domain —taking private property, through condemnation, for public use—while compensating the landowner. However, this practice is controversial, and it is rarely used by the land management agencies. The primary land acquisition authorities are described below for each of the four federal land management agencies. In general, the agencies are presented in the order of the breadth of their authorities, with the NPS (the narrowest authorities) first and the BLM (the broadest authorities) last. The NPS does not have standing authority to acquire lands for new or existing units of the National Park System, except in limited circumstances. Rather, most units have been created by Congress, and the law creating a park unit typically includes specific authority for the NPS to acquire nonfederal inholdings within the identified boundaries of that park. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to make certain boundary adjustments of park units for "proper preservation, protection, interpretation, or management" and to acquire the nonfederal lands within the adjusted boundary, under specified provisions and conditions (54 U.S.C. §100506(c)). Some of these conditions have been interpreted to apply particularly to boundary adjustments requiring land purchases, as opposed to those in which added lands are acquired by donation, transfer, or exchange. The President has authority to create national monuments on federal lands under the Antiquities Act of 1906 (54 U.S.C. §§320301 et seq.). In total, 158 monuments have been created by presidential proclamation. Most are managed by the NPS, but some are managed by the BLM and other agencies. Under law, the Secretary of the Interior and the NPS have responsibilities related to the potential acquisition of lands for the National Park System. Among other requirements, the Secretary is directed "to investigate, study, and continually monitor the welfare of" areas that could potentially be added to the system and to report to Congress on possible additions (54 U.S.C. §100507). Furthermore, the general management plan for each unit is to include potential changes to the boundaries of the unit and the reasons for such changes (54 U.S.C. §100502). The Secretary also is to conduct a "systematic and comprehensive review of certain aspects of the National Park System" and to submit a related report to Congress at least every three years (54 U.S.C. §100505(a)) that includes a list of all authorized but unacquired lands within the boundaries of park units and a priority listing of these unacquired parcels (54 U.S.C. §100505(c)). The Secretary of Agriculture has various authorities to acquire lands for the National Forest System (NFS). The NFS consists of 284 units covering 232.4 million acres of federal and nonfederal land, including national forests, national grasslands, purchase units, land utilization projects, and other areas. Today, only an act of Congress can create new NFS units, but the Secretary may acquire lands within or contiguous to the proclaimed exterior boundaries of an NFS unit. The NFS contains substantial acreage of nonfederal lands within the proclaimed boundaries of the system, particularly in the east, where national forests were established after extensive settlement. NFS units in the Eastern and Southern Regions average about 46% nonfederal land within their boundaries, while Western Region NFS units average about 10%. The FS has very limited regulatory authority over the uses of the 39.5 million acres of nonfederal land within the NFS. The FS's primary land acquisition authority is the Weeks Act of 1911 (16 U.S.C. §515), which was used to acquire many of the lands that became the eastern national forests. The Weeks Act authority continues to be the agency's primary authority to acquire lands; however, acquisitions are now limited to lands within (or adjacent to) established NFS unit boundaries. The Weeks Act also authorizes the Secretary to modify the NFS unit boundary as needed to encompass new acquisitions. Other laws authorize the FS to acquire lands for the national forests, typically in specific areas or for specific purposes. For example, Section 205 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA; P.L. 94-579 ) authorizes the acquisition of access corridors—including easements—to national forests across nonfederal lands (43 U.S.C. §1715(a)). Another example is the Act of August 3, 1956 (7 U.S.C. §428(a)), which authorizes the FS to acquire lands without any geographical limitations but does require a provision be made in a specific appropriation or other law. Another law authorizes proceeds from certain land sales or exchanges to be used for acquisitions, including for administrative sites and enhancement of recreational access. However, the acquisitions are limited to the state in which FS previously conveyed NFS land under specific disposal authorities, as discussed later in this report. Several other acquisition authorities apply to specific national forests, such as the Act of June 11, 1940, which authorizes the purchase of lands within the Angeles National Forest in California. In addition, the Secretary of Agriculture and the secretary of a military department that has lands within or adjacent to proclaimed NFS land may interchange lands, without reimbursement or transfer of funds. Many of the acquisition authorities also allow the FS to accept donations of land as specified. Within the NFS, the Secretary of Agriculture also is authorized to acquire privately owned lands within or adjacent to designated wilderness areas (16 U.S.C. §1134(c)), Wild and Scenic River corridors (16 U.S.C. §1277), and certain segments of designated National Trails (16 U.S.C. §1244), as specified by the law creating the trail. Lands may be added to the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) in a number of ways, including through congressional and administrative actions and donations. A principal FWS land acquisition authority is the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (MBCA; 16 U.S.C. §§715 et seq.). This act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to recommend areas "necessary for the conservation of migratory birds" to the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, after consulting with the relevant governor (or state agency) and appropriate local government officials (16 U.S.C. §715a and §715c). In addition, the state in which the purchase is located must have consented to the acquisition by law (16 U.S.C. §715f and §715k-5). The Secretary may then purchase or rent areas or interests therein approved by the commission and acquire by gift or devise any area or interest therein (16 U.S.C. §715d). The MBCA authority is used frequently because of the availability of funding through the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund (MBCF, 16 U.S.C. §718d). The MBCF is supported by multiple sources of funding, including three major sources: the sale of hunting and conservation stamps (commonly known as duck stamps); import duties on arms and ammunition; and a portion of certain refuge entrance fees. MBCF funds are permanently appropriated to the extent of receipts and, after paying certain administrative costs, may be used for the "location, ascertainment, and acquisition of suitable areas for migratory bird refuges ..." (16 U.S.C. §718d(b)). The predictability of funding and permanent authority for use makes the MBCF, and thus the MBCA, particularly important for FWS land acquisition and unique among the four agencies. Other laws provide general authority to expand the NWRS, including the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934 (16 U.S.C. §§661-667a), the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. §§742a et seq.), and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. §§1531-1544). The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. §§668dd-668ee) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to acquire land or interests therein through donated funds or exchange (16 U.S.C. §668dd(b)). Further, FLPMA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to withdraw lands from the public domain for creating or adding to refuges (which would be an interagency transfer), although withdrawals exceeding 5,000 acres are subject to congressional approval (43 U.S.C. §1714(c)). In contrast to NPS and FS land acquisition, where the lands generally must be within the boundaries of established units, the FWS can acquire new lands to create a new refuge or to expand an existing one under the general FWS authorities cited above, as well as under certain other laws. Some national wildlife refuge (NWR) units have been created by specific acts of Congress, such as Protection Island NWR (WA) and Bayou Sauvage Urban NWR (LA) (16 U.S.C. §668dd note). Units also can be created by executive order; for example, the Midway Atoll NWR was created by President Clinton in Executive Order 13022. The BLM has broad, general authority to acquire lands, principally under Section 205 of FLPMA. Specifically, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to acquire, by purchase, exchange, donation, or use of eminent domain, lands or interests therein (43 U.S.C. §1715(a)). The BLM acquires land or interests in land, including inholdings, for a variety of reasons. These include to protect natural and cultural resources, to increase opportunities for public access and recreation, and to improve management of lands. As noted above, various laws directing the disposal of particular lands sometimes have been enacted. In addition, the four federal land management agencies have different standing authorities for disposing of lands. The specific disposal authorities are discussed below for each of the four agencies in the order of their apparent breadth, with the NPS (the narrowest authorities) first and the BLM (the broadest authorities) last. The NPS does not have general authority to dispose of National Park System lands. Units and lands of the Park System that were established by acts of Congress can be disposed of only by acts of Congress. Preservation of park units is a management goal and provisions of law limit the power of the Secretary of the Interior to dispose of land in changing park boundaries. Although the Secretary can, under specified conditions, make boundary changes that concurrently add and remove land within the boundary, minor boundary revisions solely to remove NPS acreage can be made only by Congress. Also, the Secretary can acquire by exchange lands that are adjacent to a boundary revision, but the Secretary cannot dispose of NPS land to do so (54 U.S.C. §100506(c)). Presidents have modified the boundaries of national monuments established by previous presidential proclamations, in some cases reducing the size of the monument. However, no president has terminated a monument established by proclamation. The FWS does not have general authority to dispose of its lands. With certain exceptions, wildlife refuge lands administered by the FWS can be disposed only by an act of Congress (16 U.S.C. §§668dd(a)(5) and (6)). For refuge lands reserved from the public domain, FLPMA prohibits the Secretary of the Interior from modifying or revoking any withdrawal which added lands to the NWRS (43 U.S.C. §1714(j)). For acquired lands, disposal is allowed only if: (1) the disposal is part of an authorized land exchange (16 U.S.C. §§668dd(a)(6) and (b)(3)); or (2) the Secretary determines the lands are no longer needed and the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission approves the disposal (16 U.S.C. §668dd(a)(5)). In the latter case, the disposal must recover the acquisition cost or be at the fair market value (whichever is higher), and the receipts must be deposited in the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund. The Secretary of Agriculture has numerous authorities to convey lands within proclaimed NFS boundaries out of federal ownership—through sale or exchange—although previous, broader authorities have been modified or revoked. Many of the authorities put constraints on land disposal, such as applying only to a specific geographical area or to the disposal of particular administrative properties or facilities. Many of the authorities are used in conjunction with FLPMA and other federal law and as such may place requirements on the sale or exchange of land. This includes obtaining at least fair market value for the sale of federal lands; requiring that nonfederal land exchanged for federal land be in the same state; and requiring exchanged lands to be of equal value, although value may be partially equalized with a cash payment (43 U.S.C. §1716). The General Exchange Act of 1922 (16 U.S.C. §485) authorizes the exchange of NFS land or timber that was reserved from the public domain if the Secretary determines it will be in the public interest. The nonfederal land must be within the same state and within the exterior boundary of a national forest, and it must be chiefly valuable for national forest purposes, among other provisions. The Weeks Act of 1911 allows for similar exchanges for acquired NFS lands (16 U.S.C. §516). The 1983 Small Tracts Act authorizes the Secretary to dispose of NFS land by sale or exchange, generally up to certain specified acreage limits. The disposal may be To improve management efficiencies where NFS lands are interspersed with nonfederal mineral rights owners, or if the Secretary determines the parcels to be inaccessible, physically isolated from other federal land, or to have lost national forest character (40 acres maximum); To relieve encroachments including due to erroneous surveys, or encroachments by a permanent habitable improvement if there is no evidence that the encroachment was intentional or due to negligence (10 acres maximum); To dispose of unneeded federal rights-of-way substantially surrounded by nonfederal lands (no specified acreage limitation); and If the parcel is used as a cemetery, landfill, or sewage plant pursuant to a special use authorization for the use and occupancy of NFS land (no specified acreage limitation) (16 U.S.C. §521e). The conveyance must be determined to be in the public interest and the tracts may not be valued at more than $500,000. The land can be disposed of for cash, lands, interests in land (such as an easement), or any combination thereof for at least the value of the land being sold or exchanged (16 U.S.C. §521d) plus "all reasonable costs of administration, survey, and appraisal incidental to such conveyance" (16 U.S.C. §521f). In some cases, the proceeds may be used for specified land acquisition purposes. The 1958 Townsites Act authorizes the Secretary to transfer up to 640 acres of NFS land adjacent to communities in Alaska or the 11 western states for townsites, if the "indigenous community objectives ... outweigh the public objectives and values which would be served by maintaining such tract in Federal ownership" (16 U.S.C. §478a). Public notice of the application for such transfer is required, and upon a "satisfactory showing of need," the Secretary may offer the land to a local governmental entity at "not less than the fair market value." The Education Land Grant Act, also known as the Sisk Act (16 U.S.C. §479a), authorizes the Secretary to transfer up to 80 acres of NFS land for a nominal cost upon written application of a public school district. It provides for reversion of the title to the federal government if the lands are not used for the educational purposes for which they were acquired. There are a few other specific authorities that allow for the disposal of NFS lands. For example, the 1911 Weeks Act authorizes the disposal of NFS lands that are "chiefly valuable for agriculture" but were acquired inadvertently or otherwise, if agricultural use will not injure the forests or streamflows and the lands are not needed for public purposes. The lands can be sold as homesteads in parcels of up to 80 acres (16 U.S.C. §519). The Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act of 1937 (7 U.S.C. §§1010-1012) also authorizes the disposal of lands acquired under its authority, although the FS has adopted regulations stating that the Bankhead-Jones lands comprising the national grasslands will be held permanently (36 C.F.R. §213.1(b)). The BLM can dispose of land under several authorities. They include (1) exchanges and sales under FLPMA, (2) sales or exchanges under the FLTFA, (3) transfers to other governmental units or nonprofit entities for public purposes, (4) patents under the General Mining Law of 1872, and (5) geographically limited sale authorities. With regard to exchanges under FLPMA, the exchanges must serve the public interest, and the federal and nonfederal lands in the exchange must be located in the same state and be of equal value (with cash equalization payments possible), among other requirements (43 U.S.C. §1716). With regard to sales under FLPMA, the BLM is authorized to sell certain tracts of public land that are identified through the land-use planning process. Such tracts must meet specific criteria (43 U.S.C. §1713(a)): (1) such tract because of its location or other characteristics is difficult and uneconomic to manage as part of the public lands, and is not suitable for management by another Federal department or agency; or (2) such tract was acquired for a specific purpose and the tract is no longer required for that or any other Federal purpose; or (3) disposal of such tract will serve important public objectives, including but not limited to, expansion of communities and economic development, which cannot be achieved prudently or feasibly on land other than public land and which outweigh other public objectives and values, including, but not limited to, recreation and scenic values, which would be served by maintaining such tract in Federal ownership. The size of the tracts for sale is determined by "the land use capabilities and development requirements." Proposals to sell tracts of more than 2,500 acres first must be submitted to Congress and can be disapproved by Congress. Lands may not be sold at less than their fair market value. They generally must be sold through competitive bidding, although modified competition and noncompetitive sales are allowed. FLTFA provides for the sale or exchange of BLM lands identified for disposal under BLM land- use plans. The law create s a separate Treasury account for most of the proceeds (96%) from the sale or exchange, and it provide s for the use of those funds by the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture. The Secretaries may acquire nonfederal lands, specifically inholdings , lands adjacent to federal lands that contain exceptional resources , and areas adjacent to inaccessible lands that are open to recreation. Up to 20% of the funds in the account may be used for administrative costs, and at least 80% of the funds for acquisition are to be in the state in which the funds are generated . The Recreation and Public Purposes Act (43 U.S.C. §869) authorizes the Secretary, upon application by a qualified applicant, to dispose of any public lands to a State, Territory, county, municipality, or other State, Territorial, or Federal instrumentality or political subdivision for any public purposes, or to a nonprofit corporation or nonprofit association for any recreational or any public purpose consistent with its articles of incorporation or other creating authority. The lands can be sold or leased, and the act specifies conditions, qualifications, and acreage limitations for transfer. The price of the land depends on the type of entity that will receive it, for instance, whether a state government or a nonprofit organization. The price also depends on the intended use of the land, with some sales and leases made at no cost. Although the BLM can dispose of lands through patents under the General Mining Law of 1872, since FY1995 a series of annual moratoria on issuing mineral patents has been enacted into law. These moratoria, contained in the annual Interior appropriations laws, have effectively prevented this means of federal land disposal. Specifically, the Mining Law allows access to and development of hardrock minerals on federal lands that have not been withdrawn from entry. With evidence of valuable minerals and sufficient developmental effort, the Mining Law allows mining claims to be patented, with full title (of surface and mineral rights) transferred to the claimant upon payment of the appropriate fee. Nonmineral lands used for associated milling or other processing operations can also be patented (30 U.S.C. §42). Patented lands may be used for purposes other than mineral development. The BLM also has geographically limited land sale authorities. The program with the largest revenue stream has been the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, which allows the Secretary of the Interior to sell or exchange certain lands around Las Vegas. The BLM and the local government unit jointly decide on the lands to be offered for sale or exchange. In general, 85% of the proceeds are deposited into a special account, and are available to the Secretary of the Interior for land acquisition in Nevada and other purposes in the state, such as certain capital improvements and development of parks, trails, and natural areas. The other 15% of the proceeds are for state or local purposes, specifically the State of Nevada General Education Fund (5%) and the Southern Nevada Water Authority (10%). Other provisions of law similarly provide for BLM land sales in particular areas (mostly in Nevada), with specific allocations of the proceeds. Further, the BLM continues to dispose of land in Alaska as required by law, such as through transfers to the state of Alaska and to Alaska native corporations. A total of about 150 million acres in Alaska will be transferred from federal to state and private ownership. 

Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 1.

Answer: Research has shown that students who experience discipline that removes them from the classroom are more likely to repeat a grade, drop out of school, and become involved in the juvenile justice system. Studies have shown this can result in decreased earning potential and added costs to society, such as incarceration and lost tax revenue. Education and Justice are responsible for enforcing federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in the administration of discipline in public schools. GAO was asked to review the use of discipline in schools. To provide insight into these issues, this report examines (1) patterns in disciplinary actions among public schools, (2) challenges selected school districts reported with student behavior and how they are approaching school discipline, and (3) actions Education and Justice have taken to identify and address disparities or discrimination in school discipline. GAO analyzed discipline data from nearly all public schools for school year 2013-14 from Education's Civil Rights Data Collection; interviewed federal and state officials, as well as officials from a total of 5 districts and 19 schools in California, Georgia, Massachusetts, North Dakota, and Texas. We selected these districts based on disparities in suspensions for Black students, boys, or students with disabilities, and diversity in size and location. We also reviewed federal laws and a non-generalizable sample of seven recently resolved federal school discipline investigations (selected in part based on the type of alleged discrimination). We incorporated technical comments from the agencies as appropriate. Black students, boys, and students with disabilities were disproportionately disciplined (e.g., suspensions and expulsions) in K-12 public schools, according to GAO's analysis of Department of Education (Education) national civil rights data for school year 2013-14, the most recent available. These disparities were widespread and persisted regardless of the type of disciplinary action, level of school poverty, or type of public school attended. For example, Black students accounted for 15.5 percent of all public school students, but represented about 39 percent of students suspended from school—an overrepresentation of about 23 percentage points (see figure). Officials GAO interviewed in all five school districts in the five states GAO visited reported various challenges with addressing student behavior, and said they were considering new approaches to school discipline. They described a range of issues, some complex—such as the effects of poverty and mental health issues. For example, officials in four school districts described a growing trend of behavioral challenges related to mental health and trauma. While there is no one-size-fits-all solution for the issues that influence student behavior, officials from all five school districts GAO visited were implementing alternatives to disciplinary actions that remove children from the classroom, such as initiatives that promote positive behavioral expectations for students. Education and the Department of Justice (Justice) documented several actions taken to identify and address school discipline issues. For example, both agencies investigated cases alleging discrimination. Further, to help identify persistent disparities among the nation's schools, Education collects comprehensive data on school discipline every other year through its Civil Rights Data Collection effort.