K-12 EDUCATION

Discipline Disparities 

for Black Students, 

Boys, and Students 

with Disabilities

Report to Congressional Requesters

March 2018

GAO-18-258

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-18-258, a report to 

congressional requesters

March 2018

K-12 EDUCATION

Discipline Disparities for Black Students, Boys, and 

Students with Disabilities

What GAO Found

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). 

Students Suspended from School Compared to Student Population, by Race, Sex, and 

Disability Status, School Year 2013-14

Note: Disparities in student discipline such as those presented in this figure may support a finding of 

discrimination, but taken alone, do not establish whether unlawful discrimination has occurred.

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.

View GAO-18-258. For more information, 

contact Jacqueline M. Nowicki at (617) 788-

0580 or nowickij@gao.gov.

Why GAO Did This Study

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 nongeneralizable 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. 
Page i GAO-18-258 School Discipline

Letter 1

Background 4

Black Students, Boys, and Those with Disabilities Were 

Disproportionately Disciplined Regardless of Type of Discipline, 

Level of School Poverty, or Type of School 12

Five Selected Districts Reported Changing Their Approach to 

Discipline in Order to Address Student Behavior Challenges 22

Education and Justice Identify and Address School Discipline 

Issues by Investigating Cases, Analyzing Data, and Providing 

Guidance and Support 31

Agency Comments, Third Party Views, and Our Evaluation 40

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 42

Appendix II Maps of Disciplinary Actions by School District 60

Appendix III Key Federal Resources Related to Student Behavior and School 

Discipline 66

Appendix IV Additional Discipline and Discipline-Related Data Tables 70

Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 91

Tables

Table 1: Definitions of Public School Types, School Year 2013-14 6

Table 2: Student Enrollment in K-12 Public Schools, by Level of 

School Poverty, School Year 2013-14 8

Table 3: Federal Agencies Responsible for Enforcing Federal Civil 

Rights Laws in Public Schools 10

Table 4: Disciplinary Actions Used in Analysis of the Civil Rights 

Data Collection (CRDC) 44

Table 5: Race and Ethnicity Variables Used in Analysis of the Civil 

Rights Data Collection (CRDC) 45

Contents
Page ii GAO-18-258 School Discipline

Table 6: Number and Percent of Public School Students and 

Schools by School Poverty Level, School Year 2013-14 46

Table 7: Definitions of Public School Types, School Year 2013-14 46

Table 8: Number and Percent of Public School Students and 

Schools by School Type, School Year 2013-14 47

Table 9: Variables Included in Our Regression Model 50

Table 10: Associations of Regression Model Variables with K-12 

Public School Disciplinary Outcomes, School Year 

2013-14 53

Table 11: Descriptive Information on Selected Public School 

Districts, School Year 2013-14 56

Table 12: Number and Percent of K-12 Public School Students 

Who Received Disciplinary Actions, by Student Sex and 

Race, School Year 2013-14 71

Table 13: Number and Percent of K-12 Public School Students 

Who Received Disciplinary Actions, by Student Disability 

Status, School Year 2013-14 73

Table 14: Number and Percent of K-12 Public School Students 

Who Received Disciplinary Actions, by Level of School 

Poverty, School Year 2013-14 74

Table 15: Number and Percent of K-12 Public School Students 

Who Received Disciplinary Actions, by Type of Public 

School, School Year 2013-14 77

Table 16: Number and Percent of K-12 Public School Students 

Who Received Disciplinary Actions, by Grade Level, 

School Year 2013-14 80

Table 17: Number and Percent of Pre-school Public School 

Students Suspended Out of School, by Student and 

School Characteristics, School Year 2013-14 81

Table 18: Number and Percent of K-12 Public School Students 

Who Were Restrained or Secluded, by Student and 

School Characteristics, School Year 2013-14 83

Table 19: Number and Percent of K-12 Public School Students 

Who Were Chronically Absent, by Student and School 

Characteristics, School Year 2013-14 85

Table 20: Number and Percent of K-12 Public Schools Reporting 

the Presence of a School Counselor or Law Enforcement 

Officer, by School Characteristics, School Year 2013-14 87

Table 21: Number and Percent of K-12 Public School Students 

Disciplined for Engaging in Harassment or Bullying, by 

Student Characteristics, School Year 2013-14 88
Page iii GAO-18-258 School Discipline

Figures

Figure 1: Student Enrollment in K-12 Public Schools, by Sex, 

Race, and Disability Status, School Year 2013-14 7

Figure 2: Representation of Students Who Received Disciplinary 

Actions Compared to Overall Student Population, by 

Student Race or Ethnicity, School Year 2013-14 14

Figure 3: Rates of Out-of-School Suspensions, by Student Race 

or Ethnicity and Sex, School Year 2013-14 15

Figure 4: Boys’ Overrepresentation Among Students Who 

Received Disciplinary Actions, School Year 2013-14 16

Figure 5: Students with Disabilities’ Overrepresentation Among 

Students Who Received Disciplinary Actions, School 

Year 2013-14 17

Figure 6: Representation of Students Suspended Out-of-School 

Compared to Student Population, by Level of School 

Poverty, School Year 2013-14 19

Figure 7: Representation of Students Suspended Out-of-School 

Compared to Student Population, by School Type, 

School Year 2013-14 21

Figure 8: Challenges Influencing Student Behavior or Attendance, 

Reported by Officials from Selected Sites 24

Figure 9: Examples of School Spaces for Managing Student 

Behavior at Selected Schools 29

Figure 10: Percentage of Students Suspended Out-of-School, by 

School District, School Year 2013-14 60

Figure 11: Percentage of Students Suspended In-School, by 

School District, School Year 2013-14 61

Figure 12: Percentage of Students Referred to Law Enforcement, 

by School District, School Year 2013-14 62

Figure 13: Percentage of Students Expelled, by School District, 

School Year 2013-14 63

Figure 14: Percentage of Students Who Received Corporal 

Punishment, by School District, School Year 2013-14 64

Figure 15: Percentage of Students Who Had a School-Related 

Arrest, by School District, School Year 2013-14 65
Page iv GAO-18-258 School Discipline

Abbreviations

ACE adverse childhood experience

ADHD attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

AWARE Project Advancing Wellness and Resilience Education

CCD Common Core of Data

CCDBG Child Care and Development Block Grant

CRDC Civil Rights Data Collection

Education Department of Education

ESSA Every Student Succeeds Act

FAPE free appropriate public education

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

IDEA Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

IEP individualized education program

Justice Department of Justice

LGBTQ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, or Questioning

MOU memorandum of understanding

OCR Education Office for Civil Rights

OJJDP Justice Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention

PBIS positive behavioral interventions and supports

SAMHSA Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

Administration

SEL social and emotional learning

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

March 22, 2018

The Honorable Robert C. “Bobby” Scott

Ranking Member

Committee on Education and the Workforce

House of Representatives

The Honorable Jerrold Nadler

Ranking Member

Committee on the Judiciary

House of Representatives

Students who face certain types of discipline in school may be affected in 

profound ways that influence their lives as adults. Starting in pre-school, 

children as young as 3 and 4 have been suspended and expelled from 

school, a pattern that can continue throughout a child’s education.1

Research has shown that students who are suspended from school lose 

important instructional time, are less likely to graduate on time, and are 

more likely to repeat a grade, drop out of school, and become involved in 

the juvenile justice system.2 The effects of certain discipline events, such 

as dropping out, can linger throughout an individual’s lifetime and lead to 

individual and societal costs. For example, one study of California youth

estimated that students who dropped out of high school due to 

suspensions would result in about $2.7 billion in costs for the state, 

stemming from lost wages and tax revenue, increased crime, and higher 

 1

U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, 2013-14 Civil Rights Data 

Collection: A First Look (Washington, D.C.: October 2016), and U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services and U.S. Department of Education: Policy Statement on Expulsion 

and Suspension Policies in Early Childhood Settings (November 2016).

2

Tony Fabelo et al., Breaking Schools’ Rules: A Statewide Study of How School Discipline 

Relates to Students’ Success and Juvenile Justice Involvement (2011). The results of this 

study cannot be generalized and are applicable to Texas only. Also see Russell Skiba et 

al., Parsing Disciplinary Disproportionality: Contributions of Infraction, Student, and School 

Characteristics to Out-of-School Suspension and Expulsion (2014).

Letter
Page 2 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

welfare and health costs.3 Another study estimated that Florida high 

school students who drop out earn about $200,000 less over their 

lifetimes than high school graduates.4

We were asked to report on the issue of discipline in schools. This report 

examines (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 obtain information on the patterns in disciplinary actions among public 

schools, we analyzed Education’s Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) for 

2013-14 (the most recent available). CRDC collects a range of 

information, including discipline data, from nearly every public school by 

student demographics (e.g., race, sex, disability) and school type (e.g., 

magnet or charter).5 The CRDC captures data on six broad categories of 

discipline: (1) out-of-school suspensions, (2) in-school suspensions, (3) 

referrals to law enforcement, (4) expulsions, (5) corporal punishment, and 

(6) school-related arrests. It does not capture data on less severe 

disciplinary actions, such as detentions. Using the CRDC, we also 

developed a regression model to explore whether certain school 

 3

This cost estimate was based on 4,621 students who dropped out of high school due to 

suspensions over a three-year period. Russell Rumberger and Daniel Losen, The Hidden 

Costs of California’s Harsh School Discipline: And the Localized Economic Benefits From 

Suspending Fewer High School Students (2017). The results of the study are limited to 

California. A separate study reported that there were serious economic costs associated 

with Texas students being held back a grade due to discipline. The study estimated that it 

cost the state and its school districts over $76 million per year. Miner Marchbanks et al., 

More than a Drop in the Bucket: The Social and Economic Costs of Dropouts and Grade 

Retentions Associated with Exclusionary Discipline (2014). The results of this study are 

limited to Texas.

4

Clive R. Belfield, The Economic Burden of High School Dropouts and School 

Suspensions in Florida (2014). The results of the study are limited to Florida. The study 

takes into account suspensions that lead to dropouts. The earnings difference 

substantially increased when accounting for the probability of high school graduates 

attending college.

5

To examine discipline by school poverty level, we sorted schools into quartiles based on 

the percentage of low-income students attending the school. We used the percent of 

students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch as a proxy for school poverty. We further 

examined discipline by five types of public schools: traditional, magnet, charter, 

alternative, or special education schools.
Page 3 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

characteristics, such as the poverty level of the school, were associated 

with higher rates of certain disciplinary actions.6 Our analyses of these 

data, taken alone, do not establish whether unlawful discrimination has 

occurred. We determined these data were sufficiently reliable for the 

purposes of this report by reviewing documentation, conducting electronic 

testing, and interviewing Education officials.

To obtain information on how selected school districts are addressing 

discipline issues, we interviewed state education, school district, and 

school officials in five states (California, Georgia, Massachusetts, North 

Dakota, and Texas). We selected one district in each state, and 19 

schools within those districts, to serve as illustrative (non-generalizable) 

examples based on several criteria, including the presence of disparities 

in suspensions from school for Black students, boys, or students with 

disabilities, as reported in Education’s CRDC data,7 size of the district, 

and geographic diversity.8

To determine how Education and Justice are identifying and addressing 

discipline disparities and discrimination, we interviewed agency officials 

and reviewed agency documentation, administrative data, federal laws 

and regulations, and a non-generalizable selection of resolved school 

discipline investigations undertaken by Education and Justice (which we 

refer to as cases). We selected four school discipline cases from 

Education and three from Justice that covered pre-kindergarten through 

grade 12 students, included a mix of types of alleged discrimination (e.g., 

based on race or disability status) and types of discipline (e.g., 

suspension, expulsion, arrest, etc.), and were resolved between 2014 and 

May 2017. Regarding administrative data, Education provided information 

from its internal database on the number of complaints received and 

 6

A linear regression 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 conducted a generalized linear 

regression using the 2013-14 CRDC and Common Core of Data. 

7

We use the term discipline disparity to describe instances in which a student group was 

overrepresented among students receiving discipline. There are various ways to calculate 

discipline disparities, such as comparing disciplinary rates across student groups, or 

comparing one student group’s representation among those disciplined to that group’s 

representation among all students.

8

All of our selected school districts had disparities in out-of-school suspensions for Black 

students, boys, and students with disabilities, according to 2013-14 CRDC data. We used 

out-of-school suspension data for selection purposes because it was one of the most 

reported forms of exclusionary discipline.
Page 4 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

cases investigated that were categorized 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. See appendix I for 

detailed information about our scope and methodology.

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.

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.9 Teachers and staff sometimes have discretion to make caseby-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 

 9

Edward Morris and Brea Perry, Girls Behaving Badly? Race, Gender, and Subjective 

Evaluation in the Discipline of African American Girls (2017). This study was conducted in 

a large, urban public school district in Kentucky for students in grades 6 through 12 

between August 2007 and June 2011. See also Keith Smolkowski et al., Vulnerable 

Decision Points for Disproportionate Office Discipline Referrals: Comparisons of Discipline 

for African American and White Elementary School Students (2016). This study was 

conducted using data from the 2011-12 school year, limited to elementary schools, and 

limited to schools that used a standardized system for tracking discipline referrals.

Background

Research on Student 

Behavior and School 

Discipline
Page 5 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

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.10

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.11 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).12 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.13 Additionally, as we recently 

reported, there has been an increase in certain mental health issues 

within the school age population.14 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 

 10 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Addressing Implicit Bias in the Early 

Childhood System (Washington, D.C.: December 2016).

11Liliana Fernandes, Americo Mendes, and Aurora Teixeira, A Review Essay on the 

Measurement of Child Well-Being (2011), The American Academy of Pediatrics, The 

Lifelong Effects of Early Childhood Adversity and Toxic Stress (2012), The American 

Academy of Pediatrics, Mediators and Adverse Effects of Child Poverty in the United 

States (2016), U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population 

Survey, 2008 to 2017 Annual Social Economic Supplements, as cited by GAO, Child WellBeing: Key Considerations for Policymakers Including the Need for a Federal CrossAgency Priority Goal, GAO-18-41SP (Washington, D.C.: November 2017).

12SAMHSA and The National Child Traumatic Stress Network, Understanding Child 

Trauma, SMA-15-4923 (2016). 

13CD Bethell, MB Davis, N Gombojav, S Stumbo, K Powers, Issue Brief: A national and 

across-state profile on Adverse Childhood Experiences among U.S. children and 

possibilities to heal and thrive. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

(October 2017). According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, ACEs have 

wide-ranging health and social consequences. 

14GAO-18-41SP.
Page 6 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

percentage of youth ages 12-17 experiencing a major depressive episode 

increased.15

About 50 million students were enrolled in K-12 public schools during the 

2013-14 school year, according to the CRDC.16 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).

Table 1: Definitions of Public School Types, School Year 2013-14

School type 

(Percent of total 

students enrolled)

Definition

Traditional school 

(87.5%) 

Not defined in the Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC).

Magnet school

(5.9%)

A program within a public school that offers a special curriculum 

that may be designed to provide an academic or social focus on a 

particular theme (e.g., science/math, performing arts, 

gifted/talented, or foreign language). 

Charter school

(4.9%)

A nonsectarian public school under contract—or charter—

between a public agency and groups of parents, teachers, 

community leaders or others. 

Alternative school

(1.0%)

A public elementary or secondary school that addresses the 

needs of students that typically cannot be met in a regular school 

program.

Special education 

school

(0.6%)

A public elementary or secondary school that focuses primarily 

on serving the needs of students with disabilities under the 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) or Section 504 

of the Rehabilitation Act.

Source: Department of Education, Civil Rights Data Collection and GAO analysis. | GAO-18-258

Note: Definitions come from Education’s CRDC, except where noted. Schools could select multiple 

school types in the CRDC, such as a school that is both a charter and an alternative school. For 

purposes of analyzing differences by school type, we developed mutually exclusive categories, using 

the following hierarchy: (1) schools that selected “Alternative” are coded as such, (2) schools that 

selected “Special education” are coded as such, except those that also selected “Alternative,” (3) 

 15U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Results from the 2016 National Survey 

on Drug Use and Health: Detailed Tables (September 2017) and Deaths: Leading Causes 

for 2014, National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 65, Number 5 (June 2016, amended June 

2017) per citation in GAO-18-41SP.

16We used 2013-14 because it was the most recent data available on student discipline 

and related issues, as captured in the CRDC. Education’s National Center for Education 

Statistics provides more current student enrollment information, which showed that the 

projected number of students in public school was about the same in 2016 as the number 

of students in the 2013-14 CRDC data. 

K-12 Students and 

Discipline
Page 7 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

schools that selected “Charter” are coded as such, except those that also selected “Alternative” or 

“Special education,” (4) schools that selected “Magnet” are coded as such, except those that also 

selected one of the other school types, and (5) “Traditional” public schools include all schools that did 

not select any of the school types in the CRDC.

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.17

Figure 1: Student Enrollment in K-12 Public Schools, by Sex, Race, and Disability Status, School Year 2013-14

Note: Students with disabilities refers to students served under the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act.

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).

 17For the purposes of our analysis throughout this report, students with disabilities 

included only students served under IDEA. The analysis does not therefore include 

students with disabilities served only under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 

because the CRDC does not collect data on such students disaggregated by race or 

ethnicity.
Page 8 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

Table 2: Student Enrollment in K-12 Public Schools, by Level of School Poverty, 

School Year 2013-14

Level of school poverty Total enrollment Percent of all students

0 to 25% low-income students 9,892,019 19.8%

25.1 to 49.9% low-income students 13,253,440 26.5%

50 to 74.9% low-income students 13,068,190 26.1%

75 to 100% low-income students 11,500,244 23.0%

Data unavailable 2,321,853 4.6%

All students 50,035,746 100.0%

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Education, Civil Rights Data Collection and Common Core of Data. | GAO-18-258

Note: School poverty level is measured by the percentage of students eligible for free or reducedprice lunch. The category “Data unavailable” refers to schools that either were not included in both 

the Civil Rights Data Collection and the Common Core of Data or schools that did not report the 

percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch for school year 2013-14.

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) schoolrelated 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 and Justice 

Enforcement 

Responsibilities
Page 9 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

Education has determined are particularly acute.18 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.19 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.20 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.21

 18Both agencies also have regulations requiring that they conduct periodic reviews of 

recipients of federal funding for compliance with certain laws they enforce. See, for 

example, 34 C.F.R. § 100.7 and 28 C.F.R. § 42.107, requiring Education and Justice, 

respectively, to periodically review the practices of recipients of federal funding to 

determine whether they are complying with Title VI requirements.

19Agency officials told us that this rarely happens. Before withholding of federal funds can 

occur, a recipient, among other things, has the right to request a hearing. GAO, K-12

Education: Better Use of Information Could Help Agencies Identify Disparities and 

Address Racial Discrimination, GAO-16-345 (Washington, D.C.: April 21, 2016).

20U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of Justice, Dear Colleague Letter 

on the Nondiscriminatory Administration of School Discipline (January 2014). This 

guidance states that although it explicitly addresses only race discrimination, much of the 

analytical framework laid out in the guidance also applies to discrimination on other 

prohibited grounds, such as by sex or disability status.

21According to guidance issued by Education and Justice, districts would intentionally 

violate federal law, for example, if they issued a policy discriminatory on its face, such as 

explicitly calling for students of one race to be disciplined differently from students of 

another race. The guidance also states that districts would violate federal law if they 

evenhandedly implemented facially neutral policies and practices that, although not 

adopted with the intent to discriminate, nonetheless have an unjustified effect of 

discriminating against students on the basis of race. Education’s Title VI regulations 

specifically state, for example, that recipients of federal financial assistance from the 

Department may not utilize criteria or methods of administration which have the effect of 

subjecting individuals to discrimination because of their race, color, or national origin, or 

have the effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of 

the program with respect to individuals of a particular race, color or national origin (see 34 

C.F.R. § 100.3(b)(2)).
Page 10 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

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.

Table 3: Federal Agencies Responsible for Enforcing Federal Civil Rights Laws in Public Schools

Federal civil rights laws Federal agency responsible 

for enforcementa

Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national 

origin, sex, and religion in public schools and institutions of higher learning. Title IV of the Act also 

authorizes Justice to file suit in federal court to enforce the civil rights of students in public education.b

Justice

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin 

in programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance.c Education and Justice

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits discrimination based on sex in education 

programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance.d Education and Justice

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in 

programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance.e Education and Justice

Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 which, among other things, prohibits states from 

denying equal educational opportunity to individuals, including deliberate segregation of students on 

the basis of race, color, or national origin.f

Justice

Age Discrimination Act of 1975 prohibits discrimination based on age in programs or activities that 

receive federal financial assistance.g Education

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 prohibits discrimination by public entities, 

whether or not they receive federal financial assistance.h Education and Justice

Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act prohibits public schools, districts, and states that receive 

Education funding from denying certain youth groups equal access to school facilities for meetings.i Education

Source: Department of Education (Education) and Department of Justice (Justice). | GAO-18-258

a

Jurisdiction under the same law does not necessarily indicate that the agencies have identical 

responsibilities under those laws. In addition, there is a memorandum of understanding (MOU) 

between the Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, and the Department of Justice Civil 

Rights Division, regarding the agencies’ enforcement of Title IX, although the MOU states that “the 

offices recognize the immeasurable value of transparency, communication, and collaboration and 

shall continue to confer in all areas of their shared enforcement authority to protect students from 

discrimination.”

b

Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000c - 2000c-9.

c

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d – 2000d-7.

d

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681.

e

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794.

f

Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1701 – 1721.

g

Age Discrimination Act of 1975, 42 U.S.C. §§ 6101 - 6107.

h

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 – 12134.

i

Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act, 20 U.S.C. § 7905.
Page 11 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

Two significant, recently enacted laws include provisions related to school 

discipline: the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)22 and the Child Care 

and Development Block Grant Act of 2014 (CCDBG Act of 2014).23

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.24 As we previously reported in 2017, some states were 

considering measures related to suspension rates or school attendance.25

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.26

These grants also allow the use of funding to expand access to schoolbased 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.27

 22 Pub. L. No. 114-95, 129 Stat. 1802 (2015). ESSA reauthorized and amended the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.

23Pub. L. No. 113-186, 128 Stat. 1971.

2420 U.S.C. § 6311(c)(4)(B)(v). Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act

provides grants to local educational agencies to improve the academic achievement of 

disadvantaged students. States are required to annually measure, for all students and for 

all student subgroups, four academic indicators. In addition, states are also required to 

have, for all public schools, at least one statewide indicator of school quality or student 

success that meets certain criteria.

25GAO, Every Student Succeeds Act: Early Observations on State Changes to 

Accountability Systems, GAO-17-660 (Washington, D.C.: July 13, 2017). 

2620 U.S.C. § 7118(5)(F).

2742 U.S.C. § 9858e(b)(1)(c). The CCDBG Act of 2014 reauthorized the Child Care and 

Development Block Grant Act of 1990, which provides discretionary funding to states for 

child care subsidies. This funding, along with mandatory and matching funding authorized 

under Section 418 of the Social Security Act, compose the Child Care and Development 

Fund, which provides funding to states, territories, and tribes to improve the affordability, 

availability, and quality of child care.

Selected Recently 

Enacted Federal Laws 

with Provisions Related to 

School Discipline
Page 12 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

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.28 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.29

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 schoolrelated arrest (see fig. 2).30 For example, Black students represented 15.5 

percent of all public school students and accounted for 39 percent of 

 28We used the term “disproportionate” to describe instances in which a student group was 

overrepresented among those disciplined compared to their representation in the overall 

student population. For example, boys accounted for 51.4 percent of all K-12 public school 

students, but represented 73.6 percent of students expelled in 2013-14. Therefore, boys 

were overrepresented among students expelled by about 22 percentage points. Our 

analyses of Education’s data throughout this report showed disparities across a range of 

different areas. These analyses, taken alone, should not be used to make conclusions 

about the presence or absence of unlawful discrimination.

29As stated above, the 2013-14 CRDC—the most recent data available—captured data on 

six broad categories of discipline: (1) out-of-school suspensions, (2) in-school 

suspensions, (3) referrals to law enforcement, (4) expulsions, (5) corporal punishment, 

and (6) school-related arrests. In that year, about 2.8 million students were suspended 

out-of-school at least once, and a similar number of students received an in-school 

suspension. Each of the other four disciplinary actions affected less than half of a percent 

of all K-12 public school students. During our visits to selected school districts, we 

discussed other forms of discipline or behavior management, such as detentions and 

taking away student privileges, for example, a student’s ability to eat lunch with their 

peers.

30Throughout this section, we use the phrase “suspended from school” to refer to students 

who received an out-of-school suspension. 

Black Students, Boys, 

and Those with 

Disabilities Were 

Disproportionately 

Disciplined 

Regardless of Type of 

Discipline, Level of 

School Poverty, or 

Type of School 

Type of Disciplinary Action
Page 13 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

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.31 For example, American Indian and 

Alaska Native students had higher than average rates of receiving each 

of the six disciplinary actions.

 31In appendix IV, we present further information on the prevalence of disciplinary actions, 

organized by student and school characteristics, as well as data on topics related to 

school discipline, such as chronic absenteeism, restraint, seclusion, and bullying in K-12 

public schools.
Page 14 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

Figure 2: Representation of Students Who Received Disciplinary Actions Compared to Overall Student Population, by Student 

Race or Ethnicity, School Year 2013-14

Note: Disparities in student discipline such as those presented in this figure may support a finding of 

discrimination, but taken alone, do not establish whether unlawful discrimination has occurred.

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).
Page 15 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

Figure 3: Rates of Out-of-School Suspensions, by Student Race or Ethnicity and Sex, School Year 2013-14

Note: Disparities in student discipline such as those presented in this figure may support a finding of 

discrimination, but taken alone, do not establish whether unlawful discrimination has occurred.

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).32 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.

 32Some states allow corporal punishment in schools, while other states ban its use. In 

addition, according to Justice, school districts in some states may need parental consent 

for corporal punishment.

Disparities in Public Pre-schools

Disparities in discipline for Black students and 

boys appeared as early as pre-school, 

according to the Department of Education’s 

Civil Rights Data Collection for school year 

2013-14.

• Black students accounted for 19 percent 

of all public pre-school students, but 

represented 47 percent of students 

suspended from pre-school.

• Boys were 54 percent of all public preschool students, but 78 percent of those 

suspended from pre-school.

• Pre-school students with disabilities were 

not disproportionately suspended from 

public pre-schools.

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Education, Civil 

Rights Data Collection, and Department of Education, 2013-

14 Civil Rights Data Collection: A First Look (Washington, 

D.C.: October 2016). | GAO-18-258
Page 16 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

Figure 4: Boys’ Overrepresentation Among Students Who Received Disciplinary Actions, School Year 2013-14

Note: In contrast, girls were underrepresented among students who received each disciplinary action. 

For example, girls were underrepresented among students referred to law enforcement by the same 

amount that boys were overrepresented, i.e., 19.0 percentage points. Disparities in student discipline 

such as those presented in this figure may support a finding of discrimination, but taken alone, do not 

establish whether unlawful discrimination has occurred.

For students with disabilities, the same pattern of disproportionately 

higher rates of discipline compared to their peers without disabilities was 

evident, according to Education’s school year 2013-14 data (see fig. 5).33

Students with disabilities represented approximately 12 percent of all 

public school students, and accounted for nearly 25 percent or more of 

students referred to law enforcement, arrested for a school-related 

incident, or suspended from school (an overrepresentation of roughly 

15.5 percentage points for referrals to law enforcement and schoolrelated arrests, and 13 percentage points for out-of-school suspensions). 

Further, our analysis of discipline for students with disabilities by both 

race and sex showed that Black students with disabilities and boys with 

disabilities were disproportionately disciplined across all six actions. For 

example, Black students with disabilities represented about 19 percent of 

all K-12 students with disabilities, and accounted for nearly 36 percent of 

students with disabilities suspended from school (about 17 percentage 

 33For the purposes of our analysis, throughout this report students with disabilities include

students served under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This analysis 

does not therefore include students with disabilities served only under Section 504 of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 because the CRDC does not collect data on such students 

disaggregated by race or ethnicity.
Page 17 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

points above their representation among students with disabilities). See 

appendix IV, table 13 for additional data on discipline by student disability 

status, including data organized by sex and race or ethnicity.

Figure 5: Students with Disabilities’ Overrepresentation Among Students Who Received Disciplinary Actions, School Year 

2013-14

Note: In contrast, students without disabilities were underrepresented among students who received 

each disciplinary action. For example, students without disabilities were underrepresented among 

students suspended from school by the same amount that students with disabilities were 

overrepresented, i.e., 13.2 percentage points. Disparities in student discipline such as those 

presented in this figure may support a finding of discrimination, but taken alone, do not establish 

whether unlawful discrimination has occurred.

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).34 This was 

particularly acute for Black students in high-poverty schools, where they 

were overrepresented by nearly 25 percentage points in suspensions 

from school.35 This pattern persisted across all six disciplinary actions, as 

 34We focused on out-of-school suspensions in this section because more students 

received this type of exclusionary discipline than any other type captured in the 2013-14 

CRDC. The findings of disproportionality in these suspensions for Black students, boys, 

and students with disabilities regardless of school poverty level were generally consistent 

across all disciplinary actions. Appendix IV, table 14 contains additional data on the 

prevalence of all disciplinary actions by school poverty level.

35In this section, we used the phrase “low-poverty schools” to refer to schools where 0 to 

25 percent of the students were low-income and we used the phrase “high-poverty 

schools” to refer to schools where 75-100 percent of the students were low-income.

Level of School Poverty
Page 18 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

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).

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.

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 schoolrelated arrests).

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Education, Civil 

Rights Data Collection, and Common Core of Data. |

GAO-18-258
Page 19 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

Figure 6: Representation of Students Suspended Out-of-School Compared to Student Population, by Level of School Poverty, 

School Year 2013-14

Note: School poverty level is measured by the percentage of students eligible for free or reducedprice lunch. Disparities in student discipline such as those presented in this figure may support a 

finding of discrimination, but taken alone, do not establish whether unlawful discrimination has 

occurred.
Page 20 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

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).36 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).

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.37

 36See appendix I, table 7 for the definitions of each type of public school in our analysis. In 

this section, we focused on out-of-school suspensions because more students received 

this type of exclusionary discipline than any other type captured in the 2013-14 CRDC. 

Unless otherwise noted, the findings of disproportionality in these suspensions for Black 

students, boys, and students with disabilities were consistent across all disciplinary 

actions and school types we reviewed. Appendix IV, table 15 contains additional data on 

the prevalence of all disciplinary actions by type of public school.

37Several factors could affect a school district’s use of the disciplinary actions captured in 

the CRDC, including state laws and district policies.

Type of Public School

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.

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Education, Civil 

Rights Data Collection, and Common Core of Data. |

GAO-18-258
Page 21 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

Figure 7: Representation of Students Suspended Out-of-School Compared to Student Population, by School Type, School 

Year 2013-14

Note: Disparities in student discipline such as those presented in this figure may support a finding of 

discrimination, but taken alone, do not establish whether unlawful discrimination has occurred.
Page 22 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

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.38 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 

 38Children who experience poverty are often more likely to face academic and social 

challenges, live in adverse conditions, and have poorer health than children who grow up 

in higher-income families. From 2007 to 2016, the estimated percentage of all children 

living in poverty in the United States remained about the same at 18 percent, with Black 

and Hispanic children having experienced poverty at significantly higher rates than White 

children during this time period. GAO-18-41SP, U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. 

Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2008 to 2017 Annual Social and Economic 

Supplements, Liliana Fernandes, Americo Mendes, and Aurora Teixeira, A Review Essay 

on the Measurement of Child Well-Being (2011), The American Academy of Pediatrics, 

The Lifelong Effects of Early Childhood Adversity and Toxic Stress (2012), and The 

American Academy of Pediatrics, Mediators and Adverse Effects of Child Poverty in the 

United States (2016).

Five Selected 

Districts Reported 

Changing Their 

Approach to 

Discipline in Order to 

Address Student 

Behavior Challenges

Selected School District 

and School Officials Said 

Complex Issues 

Confronting Students 

Make It Challenging to 

Address Student Behavior
Page 23 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

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,39 American Indian,40 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.41 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.42 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 

 39In school year 2014-15 there were 1.26 million homeless students reported as enrolled 

in public school districts, which is an increase from school year 2005-06, when there were 

fewer than 1 million. GAO-18-41SP.

40In school year 2013-14 there were about 550,000 American Indian and Alaska Native 

students enrolled in public elementary and secondary schools in the United States, not 

counting Bureau of Indian Education schools. GAO, Tribal Transportation: Better Data 

Could Improve Road Management and Inform Indian Student Attendance Strategies, 

GAO-17-423 (Washington, D.C.: May 22, 2017).

41We previously reported that thousands of foster children have an incarcerated parent. 

GAO, Child Welfare: More Information and Collaboration Could Promote Ties Between 

Foster Care Children and Their Incarcerated Parents, GAO-11-863 (Washington, D.C.: 

September 26, 2011).

42 GAO-17-423. 
Page 24 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

California. According to these officials, this can contribute to attendance 

problems.43

Figure 8: Challenges Influencing Student Behavior or Attendance, Reported by 

Officials from Selected Sites

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 

 43One study found that actual or perceived sexual orientation and/or gender identity 

affects discipline experiences in school and noted that the use of exclusionary discipline 

was biased against LGBTQ youth. According to examples in that study, this can result in 

disproportionate punishment for student displays of affection, self-expression, 

appearance, and unequal enforcement of school policies. Shannon Snapp et al., Messy, 

Butch, and Queer: LGBTQ Youth and the School-to-Prison Pipeline (2015). Nationwide, 

gay, lesbian, and bisexual students had a higher prevalence than heterosexual students of 

having been threatened or injured with a weapon, in a physical fight, electronically bullied 

and bullied on school property, and having avoided school due to feeling unsafe, 

according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Youth Risk Behavior 

Surveillance System survey conducted in 2015.
Page 25 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

students.44 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 selfregulate. 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.45 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.

 44About one in six school-age youth experience impairments due to mental illness, and 

the most prevalent mental illnesses in school-age youth include attention deficit 

hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), behavioral or conduct problems, anxiety, and depression, 

according to SAMHSA. They further reported that mental illness can lead to thoughts of 

suicide, and an estimated 17 percent of U.S. high school students seriously considered 

attempting suicide during 2013-14, and an estimated 8 percent of students attempted 

suicide one or more times in the previous 12 months. The confidence interval for these 

estimates is 95 percent. 

45Officials at a school in Georgia provided examples of trauma common to students, such 

as students who are homeless, have been taken from their parents, been through violent 

situations, or have been neglected. According to a 2015 U.S. Department of Justice 

report, an estimated 70 percent of youth age 14-17 had been assaulted during their 

lifetimes and a similar proportion witnessed violence during their lifetimes. David 

Finkelhor, Heather Turner, Anne Shattuck, Sherry Hamby, and Kristen Kracke, Children’s 

Exposure to Violence, Crime, and Abuse: An Update (2015).
Page 26 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

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.46 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.47 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.48

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 

 46According to school officials we spoke with and local policy documents we reviewed, 

responding to student behavior issues generally starts with the classroom teacher 

addressing the behavior in the classroom or sending the student to a different classroom. 

The next level may involve contacting the parents, referring the student to higher-level 

school staff, or issuing a detention. In some cases, at this level, school officials also told 

us they remove privileges (such as participating in sports) or require students to make up 

work at Saturday school. Above that level, schools may offer the options of suspension 

either in or from school for intervals of hours or days, and finally, placement in an 

alternative school (schools specifically designed to work with students with behavioral 

issues), or expulsion.

47Each of the selected school districts’ student code of conduct, or state education law, 

requires a disciplinary hearing before expulsion occurs. 

48With regard to gang issues, some school officials said that gang activity in the 

neighborhood may be a factor in why students skip school. For example, an official at one 

alternative school reported that the route students take to school may be unsafe, and this 

can negatively affect attendance.

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.

Source: GAO analysis of state statutes. | GAO-18-258
Page 27 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

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.49 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.50

 49See Tex. Code Ann. § 37.0013(a).

50See Cal. Ed. Code § 48900.5(b)(6).

All Selected School 

Districts Described 

Changing Their Approach 

to Discipline
Page 28 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

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 districtwide 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.

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, selfmanagement, 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.

Source: GAO analysis of examples provided by selected 

school districts and related documentation. | GAO-18-258
Page 29 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

Figure 9: Examples of School Spaces for Managing Student Behavior at Selected Schools

Note: This figure shows examples of spaces selected schools used for managing student behavior 

through discipline or alternative behavioral supports. GAO observed these spaces in person at the 

selected schools and took the photos or received them from school personnel. Regarding the “cool 

down” room pictured above, school officials in North Dakota stated that such rooms could be part of a 

de-escalation process for students as needed. GAO has not evaluated whether any of the observed 

spaces were effective. 
Page 30 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

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.51 For all ages suspensions may only be used when other 

means of correction fail to bring about proper conduct.52 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.53 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.54 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).

 51Cal. Ed. Code § 48900(k)(2). Under the statute, this provision will become inoperative 

on July 1, 2018, unless that date is deleted or extended by a subsequently enacted 

statute.

52Cal. Ed. Code § 48900.5(a).

53Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 71, § 37H3⁄4(b).

54Ga. Code Ann. § 20-2-735(f).

Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) 

School Quality/Student Success Indicators

for Five Selected States

The five states selected by GAO have 

submitted their Title I state plans to Education 

for approval and plan to include the following 

measures of school quality:

California: suspension rate

Georgia: chronic absenteeism, in combination 

with literacy, college and career readiness, 

success in enrichment classes, college level 

course credit, career pathway completion, and 

science and social studies achievement

Massachusetts: chronic absenteeism, in 

combination with math and science 

achievement, student engagement, success 

in coursework, and dropout rate

North Dakota: student engagement

Texas: academic achievement based on 

assessment outcomes, graduation rate, 

English language proficiency, and (for high 

schools) college, career, and military 

readiness

Source: Department of Education, ESSA State Plan 

Submissions, and GAO analysis. | GAO-18-258
Page 31 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

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.55 These cases 

stemmed both from external complaints and reviews self-initiated by 

Education.56 When we analyzed a non-generalizable sample of resolved 

cases, we found that most of them focused on alleged racial 

 55During this timeframe, Education received about 1,500 complaints of discrimination 

based on race, color, or national origin (filed under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act); about 

1,500 based on disability (filed under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of 

the Americans with Disabilities Act); and just over 200 based on sex discrimination (filed 

under Title IX of the Education Amendments)—all related to K-12 school discipline, 

according to Education’s administrative records. These numbers do not reflect the total 

number of complaints received because some complaints are filed under more than one 

statute.

56See https://ocrcas.ed.gov/ for information on how to file a complaint with OCR. In June 

2017, OCR changed the investigative approach it had been using since 2014. The new 

instructions to the OCR field offices regarding the scope of complaints removed the 

requirement to use a systemic approach and assess multiple years of data when 

investigating complaints of discrimination in discipline based on race. Instead, 

investigators are now allowed to determine the appropriate scope on a case-by-case 

basis. Several OCR investigators we spoke with in regional offices said that caseloads 

were a substantial challenge, and a few noted that this policy change could help them 

process cases more efficiently. At the time of our review, it was too soon to evaluate the 

results of this internal policy change.

Education and Justice 

Identify and Address 

School Discipline 

Issues by 

Investigating Cases, 

Analyzing Data, and 

Providing Guidance 

and Support

Education Has 

Investigated and Found 

Instances of 

Discrimination and 

Disparities in School 

Discipline

Key Federal Efforts to Address School 

Discipline Issues

• Investigations

• Guidance

• Technical assistance

• Grants

• Data collection

Source: GAO analysis. | GAO-18-258
Page 32 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

discrimination or disability status.57 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).58

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.59 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

 57We searched K-12 discipline cases that had resolution agreements between 2014 and 

May 2017. None of the cases that met our criteria involved sex discrimination. As of 

January 2018, there were about 30 pending investigations of sex discrimination related to 

K-12 school discipline, which were opened between 2010 and 2017.

58Nine cases from Education met our selection criteria, and from them we selected four for 

in-depth review based on, the range of types of discipline that were used (suspension, 

expulsion, arrest, etc.), and a mix of the type of alleged discrimination (e.g., race or 

disability). See appendix I for more information on our methodology for selecting cases. 

These case descriptions reflect Education’s findings and the agreed-to remedies, and are 

taken from agency documents. The summaries provided here are not intended to be 

exhaustive of all the issues involved in each case.

59For more details about Education’s findings in this Mississippi case, see: 

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/investigations/more/06115002-a.pdf. 
Page 33 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

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 NonPublic California School.60 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.61 The latter included establishing a 

protocol for responding to any contracted non-public schools’ reports of 

 60For more details about Education’s findings in this California case, see: 

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/investigations/more/09141465-a.pdf

61Although the student was restrained by non-public school staff, Education noted in its 

analysis that the district could not “contract away,” among other things, its responsibility 

under the law to ensure that its students are provided an education that is free from 

discrimination on the basis of disability.
Page 34 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

restraining or secluding district students, and providing training on 

positive interventions. 

Education Case 3: Race and Exclusionary Discipline in a Kentucky 

School District.62 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.63 In this 2015 case, OCR investigated whether Black 

students were disproportionately disciplined at a charter school which 

emphasizes Hmong culture and language.64 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 

 62For more details about Education’s findings in this Kentucky case, see: 

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/investigations/more/03115002-a.pdf

63For more information on Education’s findings in this California case, see: 

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/investigations/more/09141170-a.pdf

64The Hmong are an indigenous group originally from the mountainous regions of 

Southeast Asia. 

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.

Source: Department of Education. | GAO-18-258
Page 35 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

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.65 Three recently-resolved cases 

investigated exclusionary discipline or restraint and seclusion for students 

of color and those with disabilities (see case descriptions below).66

Justice Case 1: Race and Exclusionary Discipline in an Arkansas 

School District.67 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.68 Justice found that the district suspended and expelled 

Black students at significantly higher rates than White students, and that 

 65See https://www.justice.gov/crt/how-file-complaint for information on how to file a 

complaint with Justice’s Civil Rights Division. Complainants may file under statutes such 

as Title IV of the Civil Rights Act and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, for 

example. 

66 Justice’s documentation of case investigations follows a different format and provides a 

different level of information than the documentation from Education. The case 

descriptions here reflect Justice’s findings and the agreed-to remedies, and are taken from 

agency documents. The summaries are not intended to be exhaustive of all the issues 

involved in each case. We selected Justice cases to review based on their relevance to K12 school discipline issues and having resolution dates between 2014 and May 2017. We 

reviewed three of the most recently-resolved cases that met these criteria. See appendix I 

for more information on our methodology for selecting cases.

67For more information on Justice’s findings in this Arkansas case, see: 

https://www.justice.gov/crt/case-document/file/916471/download. 

68 This Justice case originated with a desegregation order dating from 1970. In 2012, 

Justice notified the Watson Chapel School District that it was focusing on school discipline 

because the district had complied with the remainder of its desegregation obligations. 

Justice Has Investigated 

Discrimination in School 

Discipline Based on Longstanding Desegregation 

Orders and Public 

Complaints
Page 36 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

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.69

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.70 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.71 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 

 69For more information on Justice’s findings in this Maryland case, see: 

https://www.justice.gov/crt/case-document/file/930511/download. 

70For more information on Justice’s findings in this Kentucky case, see: 

https://www.justice.gov/crt/case-document/file/928961/download. 

71This case was investigated under the jurisdiction of Title IV of the Civil Rights Act and 

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Page 37 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

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).72 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).73 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 

 72See the complete Rethink Discipline package at 

https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/school-discipline/index.html. This guidance is nonbinding. 

73The guidance noted that providing behavioral interventions and supports to students 

with disabilities is part of ensuring a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) and 

placement in the least restrictive environment. See Dear Colleague Letter from August 

2016: https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/school-discipline/files/dcl-on-pbis-in-ieps--08-

01-2016.pdf.

Excerpts from Discipline Guiding 

Principles

• Train all school staff to apply school 

discipline policies in a fair and equitable 

manner.

• Use proactive, data-driven, and 

continuous efforts to prevent, identify, 

reduce, and eliminate discriminatory 

discipline and unintended consequences.

• Create policies that include appropriate 

procedures for students with disabilities 

and due process for all students.

• Remove students from the classroom only 

as a last resort, and return students to 

class as soon as possible.

• Ensure that any school-based law 

enforcement officers’ roles focus on 

improving school safety and reducing 

inappropriate referrals to law 

enforcement.

Source: Department of Education Guiding Principles for 

Improving School Climate and Discipline. | GAO-18-258

Education and Justice 

Provide Guidance and 

Resources on School 

Discipline and Related 

Issues, Including How to 

Identify and Address 

Disparities
Page 38 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

obligations and other considerations. For further information on available 

federal guidance related to discipline in public schools, see appendix III.

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.74

For ongoing technical assistance related to student behavior and school 

discipline, Education sponsors centers on supportive learning 

environments, improving student engagement and attendance, and 

 74Since 2014, HHS has issued Project Advancing Wellness and Resilience Education 

(AWARE) grants to 20 state education agencies and 100 school districts to expand or 

implement access to mental health services, behavioral supports, and youth violence 

prevention strategies. Project AWARE grantees at the local level that also received School 

Climate Transformation Grants were encouraged to partner with local juvenile and family 

courts that would be eligible to apply for coordinated funding through Justice’s School 

Justice Collaboration Program—Keeping Kids in School and Out of Court—beginning in 

2014.

Excerpt from Discipline Guidance for 

Students with Disabilities

• Failure to make behavioral supports 

available could result in an inappropriately 

restrictive placement.

• When done with fidelity [evidence-based 

behavioral supports], often serve as 

effective alternatives to unnecessary 

disciplinary removals, increase 

participation in instruction, and may 

prevent the need for more restrictive 

placements.

• Schools should note that recent research 

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.

Source: Department of Education. | GAO-18-258
Page 39 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

implementing positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS).75 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 

 75According to the PBIS technical assistance center, over 25,000 schools have 

implemented this approach.
Page 40 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

disproportionality on the basis of race or ethnicity in the discipline of 

students with disabilities.76

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 

 76 U.S. Department of Education, Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Special Education: A 

Multi-Year Disproportionality Analysis by State, Analysis Category, and Race/Ethnicity

(2016). Education’s analysis in this report uses example thresholds for identifying 

disproportionality, and notes that there were limitations to the data used. For example, 

local-level data files did not undergo data quality procedures. The term “significant 

disproportionality” is used in IDEA to refer to the overrepresentation of racial and ethnic 

groups in special education, although it is not defined. Under IDEA, a school district is 

required to reserve 15 percent of its IDEA, Part B funds for early intervening services if 

that district is found to have significant disproportionality in special education based on 

race and ethnicity with respect to the incidence, duration, and type of disciplinary actions, 

including suspensions and expulsions, among other things. GAO, Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act: Standards Needed to Improve Identification of Racial and 

Ethnic Overrepresentation in Special Education, GAO-13-137 (Washington D.C.: February 

27, 2013).

Agency Comments, 

Third Party Views,

and Our Evaluation
Page 41 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report 

are listed in appendix V.

Jacqueline M. Nowicki, Director

Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 42 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

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.1 Conducted by Education’s Office for Civil Rights, the 

 1 The Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights in the Department of Education is authorized “to 

collect or coordinate the collection of data necessary to ensure compliance with civil rights 

laws within the jurisdiction of the Office for Civil Rights [OCR].” 20 U.S.C. 3413(c)(1). OCR 

has been collecting this data since 1968. See https://ocrdata.ed.gov/.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Analysis of School 

Discipline National Data
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 43 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

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.2 CRDC data are self-reported 

by districts and schools, and consequently there is potential for 

misreporting of information.3 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).4 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.5 As shown in table 4, we combined related variables for out-of-

 2

Other federal surveys have also collected data relevant to school discipline; however, for 

the purposes of our analysis the CRDC had several advantages over these other surveys, 

including that the CRDC collected data on several disciplinary actions beyond 

suspensions and expulsions, and collected data from the universe of K-12 public schools 

in school year 2013-14, rather than a sample of schools.

3

Education has put in place quality control mechanisms to attempt to reduce misreporting 

of information in the CRDC; however, the potential for misreporting remains. For example, 

officials from two schools we visited indicated that the 2013-14 CRDC data for their 

schools were incorrect for certain variables, such as instances of corporal punishment, 

possibly due to data entry errors. After reviewing their CRDC data, school districts can 

submit revised data to Education. From June 2016 to June 2017, Education released 

multiple versions of the 2013-14 public-use CRDC dataset that incorporated revised data 

from several school districts.

4

These were the most recent CRDC data available at the time of our analysis. The 

response rates for this mandatory data collection were 99.2 percent for school year 2013-

14 and 98.4 percent for school year 2011-12.

5

We used the term “Saturday school” to refer to the form of discipline whereby students 

are required to come to the school building on the weekend as punishment for 

misbehavior that occurred at school. This does not include “Saturday school” programs 

that function to help students address academic credit deficiencies.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 44 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

school suspension and expulsion; we also provide a crosswalk of 

discipline variables used in this report and those captured in the CRDC.6

Table 4: Disciplinary Actions Used in Analysis of the Civil Rights Data Collection 

(CRDC)

GAO category CRDC category

One or more out-of-school suspensions Only one out-of-school suspension

More than one out-of-school suspension

One or more in-school suspensions One or more in-school suspensions

Referred to a law enforcement agency or 

official

Referred to a law enforcement agency or 

official

Expulsion Expulsion with educational services

Expulsion without educational services

Corporal punishment Corporal punishment

School-related arrest School-related arrest

Source: GAO analysis. | GAO-18-258

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),7 and 

English Language Learners. Using the CRDC, we also examined race 

and sex intersectionally, for example, disciplinary rates for Black boys or 

White girls.

 6

The CRDC also collected data on expulsions under zero-tolerance policies; however, 

these data overlap with data on students expelled with or without educational services. 

Consequently, we do not report specific data on students expelled under zero-tolerance 

policies. Nationally, 0.04 percent of all students were expelled under zero tolerance 

policies in 2013-14.

7

Our analysis of students with disabilities included only those students served under the 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. We excluded students served only under 

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 from our analysis of discipline for students 

with disabilities because the CRDC does not collect data on these students disaggregated 

by race or ethnicity.

Analysis by type of discipline
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 45 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

Table 5: Race and Ethnicity Variables Used in Analysis of the Civil Rights Data 

Collection (CRDC)

GAO category CRDC category

White White

Hispanic Hispanic or Latino of any race

Black Black or African American

Asian Asian

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

American Indian or Alaska Native American Indian or Alaska Native

Two or more races Two or more races

Source: GAO analysis. | GAO-18-258

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.8 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 

 8

Education’s National Center for Education Statistics uses eligibility for free or reducedprice lunch as a measure of poverty. The Department of Agriculture’s National School 

Lunch Program provides low-cost or free lunches to children in schools. Students are 

eligible for free lunches if their household income is at or below 130 percent of federal 

poverty guidelines or if they meet certain automatic eligibility criteria, such as eligibility for 

the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps). Students are eligible for 

reduced-price lunches if their household income is between 130 percent and 185 percent 

of federal poverty guidelines. Recent changes in the program may change how some 

schools implement it and how they report counts of eligible students. These changes 

could affect data analysis using free or reduced-price lunch eligibility as a proxy for 

poverty. We do not have evidence that these changes substantively affected our analysis 

for school year 2013-14. See, for example, Department of Education, Free and ReducedPrice Lunch Eligibility Data in EDFacts: A White Paper on Current Status and Potential 

Changes (2012).

Analysis by poverty
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 46 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

here and throughout this report were commonly used in the literature and 

also aligned with how Education analyzed its data.

Table 6: Number and Percent of Public School Students and Schools by School Poverty Level, School Year 2013-14

School Poverty Level Students Schools

Number Percent of all students Number Percent of all schools

0 to 25% 9,892,019 19.8% 16,421 17.2%

25.1 to 49.9% 13,253,440 26.5% 24,145 25.3%

50 to 74.9% 13,068,190 26.1% 25,798 27.0%

75 to 100% 11,500,244 23.0% 22,511 23.6%

Data unavailable 2,321,853 4.6% 6,632 6.9%

Total 50,035,746 100% 95,507 100%

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Education, Civil Rights Data Collection, and Common Core of Data. | GAO-18-258

Note: School poverty level is measured by the percentage of students eligible for free or reducedprice lunch. The category “Data unavailable” refers to schools that either were not included in both 

the Civil Rights Data Collection and the Common Core of Data or schools that did not report the 

percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch for school year 2013-14.

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).

Table 7: Definitions of Public School Types, School Year 2013-14

School type Definition in the Civil Rights Data Collection 

Alternative school A public elementary or secondary school that addresses the needs of students that typically cannot be 

met in a regular school program. The school provides nontraditional education services as an adjunct to 

a regular school, and falls outside the categories of regular education, special education, or vocational 

education.

Charter school A nonsectarian public school under contract—or charter—between a public agency and groups of 

parents, teachers, community leaders or others who want to create alternatives and choice within the 

public school system. A charter school creates choice for parents and students within the public school 

system, while providing a system of accountability for student achievement. In exchange for increased 

accountability, a charter school is given expanded flexibility with respect to select statutory and regulatory 

requirements.

Magnet school A magnet program is a program within a public school that offers a special curriculum capable of 

attracting substantial numbers of students of different racial/ethnic backgrounds, which may also reduce, 

prevent, or eliminate minority group isolation. The program may be designed to provide an academic or 

social focus on a particular theme (e.g., science/math, performing arts, gifted/talented, or foreign 

language). A public school is considered a magnet school if it operates a magnet program for all students 

or some students within the school.

Analysis by school type
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 47 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

School type Definition in the Civil Rights Data Collection 

Special education school A public elementary or secondary school that focuses primarily on serving the needs of students with 

disabilities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) or Section 504 of the 

Rehabilitation Act.

Traditional school Not defined in the Civil Rights Data Collection.

Source: Department of Education, Civil Rights Data Collection, and GAO analysis. | GAO-18-258

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.

Table 8: Number and Percent of Public School Students and Schools by School Type, School Year 2013-14

School Type Students Schools

Number Percent of all students Number Percent of all schools

Traditional 43,800,055 87.5% 79,618 83.4%

Magnet 2,939,149 5.9% 3,616 3.8%

Charter 2,470,354 4.9% 5,726 6.0%

Alternative 501,496 1.0% 4,519 4.7%

Special Education 324,692 0.6% 2,028 2.1%

Total 50,035,746 100% 95,507 100%

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Education, Civil Rights Data Collection. | GAO-18-258
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 48 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

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.9 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.10 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 

 9

For the purposes of calculating chronic absenteeism, absences could be for excused 

reasons, such as a medical appointment, or for unexcused reasons, such as cutting class 

or skipping school.

10U.S. Department of Education, Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document

(Washington, D.C.: May 2012). https://www2.ed.gov/policy/seclusion/restraints-andseclusion-resources.pdf
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 49 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

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.11

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.12 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).13 Table 9 lists the 

variables we included in our regression model.14 We conducted a 

 11According to the Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, the 2013-14 CRDC 

data file released in June 2017 contained corrections from 16 school districts for a variety 

of data issues, including pre-school enrollment, suspensions and expulsions, chronic 

student absenteeism, teacher absenteeism, referrals to law enforcement, school-related 

arrests, expulsions, harassment or bullying, and advanced placement enrollment. For 

more information see https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/crdc-2013-14.html. 

12We used a generalized linear regression for this analysis because the data on 

disciplinary outcomes represent counts of students who received different disciplinary 

actions, and are therefore not appropriate for a traditional normal linear model. In addition, 

we used a negative binomial regression instead of a Poisson regression because negative

binomial models are appropriate for count analyses with observed over-dispersion (i.e., 

when the variance of the count variable is much larger than the mean of that variable). In 

our analysis, the variance was several magnitudes larger than the mean of the number of 

students suspended.

13We excluded data on the percent of the student population that are English Language 

Learners because we found it to be collinear with the variable capturing the percent of the 

student population that are Hispanic.

14In addition to the variables listed in table 9, we used the total number of students 

enrolled as an exposure variable to account for differences in school size.

Regression Analysis
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 50 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

separate regression for each of the six disciplinary actions listed as an 

outcome variable.

Table 9: Variables Included in Our Regression Model

Independent variables Outcome (or dependent) 

variables

Percent of the student population that are: boys, 

girls, White, Hispanic, Black, Asian, American 

Indian/Alaska Native, two or more races, students with 

disabilities, and students eligible for free or reducedprice lunch

Percent of students receiving 

the following disciplinary 

actions:

• out-of-school suspension

• in-school suspension

• referral to law enforcement

• expulsion

• corporal punishment

• school-related arrest

School Type: Alternative (Yes/No), Special Education 

(Yes/No), Charter (Yes/No), Magnet (Yes/No), 

Traditional (Yes/No)

School Personnel: Presence of a sworn law 

enforcement officer, presence of a school counselor, 

and percent of teachers with 2 or fewer years of 

experience

Grades offered: Grade 6 or above, or grade 5 and 

below only

Population density: Rural, Suburban, Urban

Interactions between student demographic 

variables: percent of the student population that are: 

Hispanic boys, Black boys, Asian boys, American 

Indian/Alaska Native boys, or two or more races boys

Fixed effects: state-level fixed effects to help account 

for differences in state law, policy, or other factors that 

may affect school discipline

Source: GAO analysis. | GAO-18-258

Note: Including state-level fixed effects in the regression model helped control for unobserved 

differences in school discipline that could result from laws, policies, or other factors that may be 

specific to a given state.

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 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 51 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

eligible for free or reduced-price lunch in these schools or whether 

these schools were located in rural, suburban, or urban areas.15

• 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

 15Though both the CRDC and the CCD collected data on the universe of public schools in 

2013-14, and each had a high response rate, there are several reasons why a school may 

not have reported data for each survey. For example, school districts are the primary 

respondents to the CRDC, whereas state education agencies are the primary respondents 

to the CCD. Differences between school records at the state and district level could result 

in data for a given school being reported to one collection and not the other in a given 

year.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 52 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

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 multipleheaded 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 reducedprice 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 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 53 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

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.

Table 10: Associations of Regression Model Variables with K-12 Public School Disciplinary Outcomes, School Year 2013-14

Association related to likelihood of students receiving discipline

School Characteristic 

[comparison variable]

Out-of-school 

suspension

In-school 

suspension

Referral to law 

enforcement

Expulsion Corporal 

punishment

Schoolrelated arrests

School Type [Traditional 

schools]

Alternative Positive Positive Positive Positive Insignificant Positive

Special Education Negative Negative Insignificant Positive Insignificant Positive

Charter Negative Negative Negative Positive Insignificant Negative

Magnet Negative Negative Positive Negative Negative Positive

Student Demographics 

Percent Boys Positive Positive Positive Positive Insignificant Positive

Percent Black students Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive

Percent Hispanic students Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Insignificant

Percent Asian students Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative

Percent American 

Indian/Alaska Native students

Positive Positive Positive Positive Insignificant Positive

Percent two or more races 

students

Positive Positive Insignificant Positive Insignificant Insignificant

Percent students with 

disabilities (IDEA)

Positive Positive Positive Negative Insignificant Positive

Percent eligible for free or 

reduced-price lunch

Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive

Grades Offered

[Grade 5 or below only]

Grade 6 or above Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive

Staffing

Percent teachers with 2 or 

fewer years of experience

Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Insignificant

Presence of a sworn law 

enforcement officer

Positive Positive Positive Positive Negative Positive

Presence of a school 

counselor

Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 54 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

Association related to likelihood of students receiving discipline

School Characteristic 

[comparison variable]

Out-of-school 

suspension

In-school 

suspension

Referral to law 

enforcement

Expulsion Corporal 

punishment

Schoolrelated arrests

Locale/Population Density 

[Urban]

Rural Negative Positive Negative Positive Positive Negative

Suburban Negative Insignificant Negative Positive Insignificant Negative

Interactions

Percent Black boys Negative Negative Insignificant Positive Not applicable Insignificant

Percent Hispanic boys Positive Positive Positive Positive Not applicable Positive

Percent Asian boys Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant Not applicable Insignificant

Percent American 

Indian/Alaska Native boys

Insignificant Insignificant Positive Insignificant Not applicable Insignificant

Percent two or more races 

boys

Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant Positive Not applicable Positive

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Education, Civil Rights Data Collection, and Common Core of Data. | GAO-18-258

Note: Cells marked “Positive” indicate instances where we found school characteristics were 

associated with a significantly higher likelihood of students receiving the given disciplinary action. 

Cells marked “Negative” indicate a significantly lower likelihood of students receiving a given 

disciplinary action. Cells marked “Insignificant” indicate no association between the given school 

characteristic and the likelihood of students in such schools receiving a given disciplinary action. 

Significance is indicated by a p value of less than 0.05.

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-ofschool 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: 16

• Large School District: 25,000 or more students (34.7% of all 

students in 2013-14)

 16In publications using the CCD, Education has grouped school districts into the following 

categories: (1) 25,000 or more students; (2) 10,000-24,999 students; (3) 5,000-9,999 

students; (4) 2,500-4,999 students; (5) 1,000-2,499 students; (6) 600-999 students; (7) 

300-599 students; (8) 1 to 299 students. See, for example, Department of Education, 

Digest of Education Statistics 2015 (Washington, D.C.: December 2016). 

School District Site Visits
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 55 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

• 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 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 56 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

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 

population density,

• 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).17

Table 11: Descriptive Information on Selected Public School Districts, School Year 

2013-14

District-level information

State Approximate 

enrollment

Locale Out-of-school 

suspension rate

(National average: 5.7%)

California 40,000 students Large suburb 6.4%

Georgia 30,000 students Midsize city 18.8%

Massachusetts 60,000 students Large city 6.5%

North Dakota 10,000 students Small city 2.5%

Texas 30,000 students Midsize city 6.9%

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Education Civil Rights Data Collection and Common Core of Data. | GAO-18-258

Note: Enrollment in this table is rounded to the nearest 10,000 students.

 17Though we originally grouped school districts into six categories, the five selected 

school districts provided sufficient variety to serve as illustrative examples for the 

purposes of our analysis.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 57 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

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 

Review of Federal Actions
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 58 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

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.18 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.

 18There were no relevant pre-K-12 school discipline cases at Education or Justice in 

which the alleged discrimination was based on the student’s sex. Education officials told 

us that they do not commonly receive complaints of discrimination based on sex in school 

discipline; however, some complaints may include a student’s sex in addition to another 

protected category. For example, the complaint may allege that a student received 

disparate treatment in school discipline because of being a Black boy.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 59 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

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.
Appendix II: Maps of Disciplinary Actions by 

School District

Page 60 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

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.

Figure 10: Percentage of Students Suspended Out-of-School, by School District, School Year 2013-14

Note: In 2013-14, approximately 2.83 million students, or 5.7 percent of all K-12 public school 

students, were suspended from school at least one time. In this map, white space indicates locations 

where school district data were unavailable, or school district locations did not align with the mapping 

software used to generate the map.

Appendix II: Maps of Disciplinary Actions by 

School District
Appendix II: Maps of Disciplinary Actions by 

School District

Page 61 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

Figure 11: Percentage of Students Suspended In-School, by School District, School Year 2013-14

Note: In 2013-14, approximately 2.77 million students, or 5.5 percent of all K-12 public school 

students, were suspended in school at least one time. In this map, white space indicates locations 

where school district data were unavailable, or school district locations did not align with the mapping 

software used to generate the map.
Appendix II: Maps of Disciplinary Actions by 

School District

Page 62 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

Figure 12: Percentage of Students Referred to Law Enforcement, by School District, School Year 2013-14

Note: In 2013-14, approximately 224,000 students, or 0.4 percent of all K-12 public school students, 

were referred to law enforcement. In this map, white space indicates locations where school district 

data were unavailable, or school district locations did not align with the mapping software used to 

generate the map.
Appendix II: Maps of Disciplinary Actions by 

School District

Page 63 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

Figure 13: Percentage of Students Expelled, by School District, School Year 2013-14

Note: In 2013-14, approximately 130,000 students, or 0.3 percent of all K-12 public school students, 

were expelled. In this map, white space indicates locations where school district data were 

unavailable, or school district locations did not align with the mapping software used to generate the 

map.
Appendix II: Maps of Disciplinary Actions by 

School District

Page 64 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

Figure 14: Percentage of Students Who Received Corporal Punishment, by School District, School Year 2013-14

Note: In 2013-14, approximately 110,000 students, or 0.2 percent of all K-12 public school students, 

received corporal punishment. In this map, white space indicates locations where school district data 

were unavailable, or school district locations did not align with the mapping software used to generate 

the map. Differences in the incidence of corporal punishment may reflect differences in state laws. 

GAO did not do a comprehensive review of state laws in this area, but rather reviewed state corporal 

punishment laws only for the five states selected for site visits.
Appendix II: Maps of Disciplinary Actions by 

School District

Page 65 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

Figure 15: Percentage of Students Who Had a School-Related Arrest, by School District, School Year 2013-14

Note: In 2013-14, approximately 65,000 students, or 0.1 percent of all K-12 public school students, 

were arrested for a school-related incident. In this map, white space indicates locations where school 

district data were unavailable, or school district locations did not align with the mapping software used 

to generate the map.
Appendix III: Key Federal Resources Related to 

Student Behavior and School Discipline

Page 66 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

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 multitiered 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 

Appendix III: Key Federal Resources 

Related to Student Behavior and School 

Discipline

Technical Assistance 

Centers
Appendix III: Key Federal Resources Related to 

Student Behavior and School Discipline

Page 67 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

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 
Appendix III: Key Federal Resources Related to 

Student Behavior and School Discipline

Page 68 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

arenas. The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges 

operates this center. https://schooljusticepartnership.org/

• Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) 

National Training and Technical Assistance Center: provides 

training and technical assistance resources for juvenile justice 

practitioners and supports state and local efforts to build capacity and 

expand the use of evidence-based practices. The center offers 

assistance in various subject areas, including bullying and alternatives 

to detention. https://www.ojjdp.gov/programs/tta.html

• Reducing Exclusionary Discipline

• Guiding Principles: A Resource Guide for Improving School 

Climate and Discipline: 

https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/school-discipline/guiding-prin

ciples.pdf

• Rethink School Discipline: School District Leader Summit on 

Improving School Climate and Discipline, Resource Guide for 

Superintendent Action: 

https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/school-discipline/rethink-disci

pline-resource-guide-supt-action.pdf

• Reducing Expulsions in Preschool: 

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/occ/resource/im-2016-03

• Reducing Expulsions in Head Start: 

https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/policy/im/acf-im-hs-16-01

• Directory of Federal School Climate and Discipline Resources: 

https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/school-discipline/appendix-1-

directory.pdf

• Discrimination and Disparities in School Discipline

• Dear Colleague Letter: 

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201401

-title-vi.html

• Addressing the Root Causes of Disparities in School Discipline: 

An Educator’s Action Planning Guide 

https://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/addressing-root-causes-disp

arities-school-discipline

• Disciplinary Disparities Risk Assessment Tool: 

https://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/sites/default/files/RiskAsses

smentTool508.xlsx

Key Federal Guidance
Appendix III: Key Federal Resources Related to 

Student Behavior and School Discipline

Page 69 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

• Behavioral Supports for Students with Disabilities:

https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/school-discipline/files/dcl-on-pbis

-in-ieps—08-01-2016.pdf

• School Resource Officers

• Dear Colleague Letter: 

https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/school-discipline/files/ed-lette

r-on-sros-in-schools-sept-8-2016.pdf

• Policy rubric: 

https://www2.ed.gov/documents/press-releases/secure-policy.pdf

• Corporal Punishment: 

https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/school-discipline/files/corporal-pu

nishment-dcl-11-22-2016.pdf

• Restraint and Seclusion

• Dear Colleague Letter: 

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201612

-504-restraint-seclusion-ps.pdf

• Resources: 

https://www2.ed.gov/policy/seclusion/restraints-and-seclusion-res

ources.pdf

• Chronic Absenteeism: 

https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/secletter/151007.html

• Supporting Transgender Students: 

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oese/oshs/emergingpractices.p

df

• Education’s “What Works Clearinghouse” reviews existing research 

on different programs and policies in education to provide educators 

with the information they need to make evidence-based decisions. 

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/

• HHS’ Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 

provides the National Registry of Evidence-Based Programs and 

Practices to provide the public with reliable information on mental 

health and substance use interventions. 

https://www.samhsa.gov/nrepp

Other Related Resources
Appendix IV: Additional Discipline and 

Discipline-Related Data Tables

Page 70 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

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 2013-14.1 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.2

• 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.

 1

Data for school year 2013-14 were the most recent available for the CRDC. For 

consistency, we also used data from school year 2013-14 for our analysis of the CCD.

2

We also analyzed data on pre-school expulsions. Nationwide, there were 131 pre-school 

students expelled in school years 2013-14, representing 0.01 percent of all pre-school 

students that year. We do not present those data in this table because most counts were 

less than 30 when disaggregated by student and school characteristics.

Appendix IV: Additional Discipline and 

Discipline-Related Data Tables
Appendix IV: Additional Discipline and 

Discipline-Related Data Tables

Page 71 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

• 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.

Table 12: Number and Percent of K-12 Public School Students Who Received Disciplinary Actions, by Student Sex and Race, 

School Year 2013-14

Out-of-school 

suspension

In-school 

suspension

Referral to law 

enforcement

Expulsion Corporal 

punishment

Schoolrelated 

arrest

Total 

enrollment

All students Number 2,828,564 2,769,460 223,747 130,397 110,296 65,405 50,035,746

Percent 5.7% 5.5% 0.4% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1%

Sex

Boys Number 1,972,012 1,872,811 157,546 95,978 86,941 46,357 25,711,953

Percent 7.7% 7.3% 0.6% 0.4% 0.3% 0.2%

Girls Number 856,552 896,649 66,201 34,419 23,355 19,048 24,323,793

Percent 3.5% 3.7% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%

Race or Ethnicity

White Number 918,440 1,065,405 85,098 57,101 55,277 21,886 25,167,453

Percent 3.6% 4.2% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1%

Boys Number 680,877 762,760 61,915 42,967 45,486 16,037 12,993,277

Percent 5.2% 5.9% 0.5% 0.3% 0.4% 0.1%

Girls Number 237,563 302,645 23,183 14,134 9,791 5,849 12,174,176

Percent 2.0% 2.5% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.05%

Black Number 1,094,214 883,371 58,045 39,259 41,463 22,812 7,754,355

Percent 14.1% 11.4% 0.7% 0.5% 0.5% 0.3%

Boys Number 713,322 558,080 38,998 27,501 30,653 15,369 3,964,347

Percent 18.0% 14.1% 1.0% 0.7% 0.8% 0.4%

Girls Number 380,892 325,291 19,047 11,758 10,810 7,443 3,790,008

Percent 10.0% 8.6% 0.5% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2%

Hispanic Number 605,761 642,992 50,334 23,035 8,651 15,711 12,378,645

Percent 4.9% 5.2% 0.4% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1%

Boys Number 429,055 431,439 35,603 17,625 6,910 11,403 6,343,579

Percent 6.8% 6.8% 0.6% 0.3% 0.1% 0.2%

Girls Number 176,706 211,553 14,731 5,410 1,741 4,308 6,035,066
Appendix IV: Additional Discipline and 

Discipline-Related Data Tables

Page 72 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

Out-of-school 

suspension

In-school 

suspension

Referral to law 

enforcement

Expulsion Corporal 

punishment

Schoolrelated 

arrest

Total 

enrollment

Percent 2.9% 3.5% 0.2% 0.1% 0.03% 0.1%

Asian Number 50,973 43,659 16,107 1,730 392 1,554 2,634,715

Percent 1.9% 1.7% 0.6% 0.1% 0.01% 0.1%

Boys Number 38,416 31,555 11,393 1,403 319 1,170 1,343,060

Percent 2.9% 2.3% 0.8% 0.1% 0.02% 0.1%

Girls Number 12,557 12,104 4,714 327 73 384 1,291,655

Percent 1.0% 0.9% 0.4% 0.03% 0.01% 0.03%

American 

Indian/ Alaska 

Native

Number 47,399 42,047 4,929 2,607 2,365 1,225 568,837

Percent 8.3% 7.4% 0.9% 0.5% 0.4% 0.2%

Boys Number 32,398 27,847 3,389 1,818 1,880 870 291,614

Percent 11.1% 9.5% 1.2% 0.6% 0.6% 0.3%

Girls Number 15,001 14,200 1,540 789 485 355 277,223

Percent 5.4% 5.1% 0.6% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1%

Two or more 

races

Number 111,777 91,986 9,234 6,665 2,148 2,217 1,531,741

Percent 7.3% 6.0% 0.6% 0.4% 0.1% 0.1%

Boys Number 77,944 61,130 6,248 4,664 1,693 1,508 776,076

Percent 10.0% 7.9% 0.8% 0.6% 0.2% 0.2%

Girls Number 33,833 30,856 2,986 2,001 455 709 755,665

Percent 4.5% 4.1% 0.4% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1%

English 

Language 

Learners

Number 210,466 182,547 15,708 7,516 2,323 4,575 4,964,636

Percent 4.2% 3.7% 0.3% 0.2% 0.05% 0.09%

Boys Number 157,830 131,137 11,867 5,990 1,908 3,483 2,662,667

Percent 5.9% 4.9% 0.4% 0.2% 0.07% 0.1%

Girls Number 52,636 51,410 3,841 1,526 415 1,092 2,301,969

Percent 2.3% 2.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.02% 0.05%

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Education, Civil Rights Data Collection. | GAO-18-258
Appendix IV: Additional Discipline and 

Discipline-Related Data Tables

Page 73 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

Table 13: Number and Percent of K-12 Public School Students Who Received Disciplinary Actions, by Student Disability 

Status, School Year 2013-14

Out-of-school 

suspension

In-school 

suspension

Referral to law 

enforcement

Expulsion Corporal 

punishment

Schoolrelated 

arrest

Total 

enrollment

All students with 

disabilities

Number 704,373 563,874 60,873 31,043 16,963 17,781 5,851,455

Percent 12.0% 9.6% 1.0% 0.5% 0.3% 0.3%

Boys with 

disabilities

Number 543,966 427,827 47,129 24,966 14,026 13,752 3,938,567

Percent 13.8% 10.9% 1.2% 0.6% 0.4% 0.3%

Girls with

disabilities

Number 160,407 136,047 13,744 6,077 2,937 4,029 1,912,888

Percent 8.4% 7.1% 0.7% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2%

White students with 

disabilities

Number 262,963 236,832 24,106 14,630 9,057 6,347 3,112,821 

Percent 8.4% 7.6% 0.8% 0.5% 0.3% 0.2%

Black students with 

disabilities

Number 252,028 174,807 17,318 8,854 5,843 6,236 1,086,327 

Percent 23.2% 16.1% 1.6% 0.8% 0.5% 0.6%

Hispanic students 

with disabilities

Number 138,241 115,753 12,473 5,266 1,202 3,957 1,357,823

Percent 10.2% 8.5% 0.9% 0.4% 0.1% 0.3%

Asian students with 

disabilities

Number 8,657 6,037 3,172 218 - 264 115,324

Percent 7.5% 5.2% 2.8% 0.2% - 0.2%

American Indian/ 

Alaska Native 

students with 

disabilities

Number 11,819 9,239 1,201 538 536 308 58,859

Percent 20.1% 15.7% 2.0% 0.9% 0.9% 0.5%

Two or more races 

students with 

disabilities

Number 30,665 21,206 2,603 1,537 - 669 120,301

Percent 25.5% 17.6% 2.2% 1.3% - 0.6%

All students 

without 

disabilities

Number 2,124,191 2,205,586 162,874 99,354 93,333 47,624 44,184,291

Percent 4.8% 5.0% 0.4% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1%

Boys without 

disabilities

Number 1,428,046 1,444,984 110,417 71,012 72,915 32,605 21,773,386

Percent 6.6% 6.6% 0.5% 0.3% 0.3% 0.1%

Girls without

disabilities

Number 696,145 760,602 52,457 28,342 20,418 15,019 22,410,905

Percent 3.1% 3.4% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%

White students 

without disabilities

Number 655,477 828,573 60,992 42,471 46,220 15,539 22,054,632

Percent 3.0% 3.8% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1%

Black students 

without disabilities

Number 842,186 708,564 40,727 30,405 35,620 16,576 6,668,028

Percent 12.6% 10.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.2%

Hispanic students 

without disabilities

Number 467,520 527,239 37,861 17,769 7,449 11,754 11,020,822

Percent 4.2% 4.8% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1%

Asian students 

without disabilities

Number 42,316 37,622 12,935 1,512 366 1,290 2,519,391

Percent 1.7% 1.5% 0.5% 0.1% 0.01% 0.1%
Appendix IV: Additional Discipline and 

Discipline-Related Data Tables

Page 74 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

Out-of-school 

suspension

In-school 

suspension

Referral to law 

enforcement

Expulsion Corporal 

punishment

Schoolrelated 

arrest

Total 

enrollment

American Indian/ 

Alaska Native 

students without 

disabilities

Number 35,580 32,808 3,728 2,069 1,829 917 509,978

Percent 7.0% 6.4% 0.7% 0.4% 0.4% 0.2%

Two or more races 

students without 

disabilities

Number 81,112 70,780 6,631 5,128 1,849 1,548 1,411,440

Percent 5.7% 5.0% 0.5% 0.4% 0.1% 0.1%

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Education, Civil Rights Data Collection. | GAO-18-258

Note: Numbers and percentages based on counts less than 30 students are not presented in this 

table and instead are replaced with a “-” due to the small number of incidents.

Table 14: Number and Percent of K-12 Public School Students Who Received Disciplinary Actions, by Level of School 

Poverty, School Year 2013-14

Level of 

School Poverty

Out-of-school 

suspension

In-school 

suspension

Referral to law 

enforcement

Expulsion Corporal 

punishment

Schoolrelated 

arrest

Total 

enrollment

0 to 25% lowincome 

students

Number 217,072 235,486 26,463 13,296 736 6,551 9,892,019

Percent 2.2% 2.4% 0.3% 0.1% 0.01% 0.1%

Boys Number 162,352 171,557 19,062 10,022 644 4,694 5,060,790

Percent 3.2% 3.4% 0.4% 0.2% 0.01% 0.1%

Girls Number 54,720 63,929 7,401 3,274 92 1,857 4,831,229

Percent 1.1% 1.3% 0.2% 0.1% 0.002% 0.0%

White Number 128,502 147,501 16,226 8,013 480 3,746 7,208,337

Percent 1.8% 2.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.01% 0.1%

Black Number 37,458 36,025 3,558 2,407 155 1,191 497,624

Percent 7.5% 7.2% 0.7% 0.5% 0.03% 0.2%

Hispanic Number 29,599 32,118 3,556 1,602 65 1,025 914,184

Percent 3.2% 3.5% 0.4% 0.2% 0.01% 0.1%

Asian Number 8,647 8,159 1,459 302 - 217 895,800

Percent 1.0% 0.9% 0.2% 0.03% - 0.02%

American 

Indian/ Alaska 

Native

Number 2,332 2,335 353 100 - 93 47,361

Percent 4.9% 4.9% 0.7% 0.2% - 0.2%

Two or more 

races

Number 10,534 9,348 1,311 872 - 279 328,713

Percent 3.2% 2.8% 0.4% 0.3% - 0.1%

Students with 

disabilities

Number 66,316 58,654 7,621 3,507 94 1,990 1,022,457

Percent 6.5% 5.7% 0.7% 0.3% 0.01% 0.2%
Appendix IV: Additional Discipline and 

Discipline-Related Data Tables

Page 75 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

Level of 

School Poverty

Out-of-school 

suspension

In-school 

suspension

Referral to law 

enforcement

Expulsion Corporal 

punishment

Schoolrelated 

arrest

Total 

enrollment

25.1 to 49.9% 

low-income 

students

Number 596,139 704,774 67,832 34,344 12,889 16,910 13,253,440

Percent 4.5% 5.3% 0.5% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1%

Boys Number 425,501 486,748 47,819 25,533 10,548 12,130 6,794,461

Percent 6.3% 7.2% 0.7% 0.4% 0.2% 0.2%

Girls Number 170,638 218,026 20,013 8,811 2,341 4,780 6,458,979

Percent 2.6% 3.4% 0.3% 0.1% 0.04% 0.1%

White Number 311,281 394,195 35,660 21,034 8,812 8,632 8,808,534

Percent 3.5% 4.5% 0.4% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1%

Black Number 139,202 145,811 11,893 5,891 1,905 3,939 1,241,215

Percent 11.2% 11.7% 1.0% 0.5% 0.2% 0.3%

Hispanic Number 94,558 115,805 11,319 4,574 1,648 2,824 1,997,388

Percent 4.7% 5.8% 0.6% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1%

Asian Number 12,771 12,066 4,470 565 77 509 634,050

Percent 2.0% 1.9% 0.7% 0.1% 0.01% 0.1%

American 

Indian/ Alaska 

Native

Number 9,712 9,691 1,370 443 131 287 125,131

Percent 7.8% 7.7% 1.1% 0.4% 0.1% 0.2%

Two or more 

races

Number 28,615 27,206 3,120 1,837 316 719 447,122

Percent 6.4% 6.1% 0.7% 0.4% 0.1% 0.2%

Students with 

disabilities

Number 164,119 152,701 18,577 8,688 2,012 5,003 1,517,675

Percent 10.8% 10.1% 1.2% 0.6% 0.1% 0.3%

50 to 74.9% 

low-income 

students

Number 874,555 966,263 66,495 42,801 51,732 18,935 13,068,190

Percent 6.7% 7.4% 0.5% 0.3% 0.4% 0.1%

Boys Number 606,648 645,415 46,593 31,321 41,821 13,252 6,718,720

Percent 9.0% 9.6% 0.7% 0.5% 0.6% 0.2%

Girls Number 267,907 320,848 19,902 11,480 9,911 5,683 6,349,470

Percent 4.2% 5.1% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1%

White Number 312,638 384,598 23,578 19,205 32,251 6,556 6,468,519

Percent 4.8% 5.9% 0.4% 0.3% 0.5% 0.1%

Black Number 317,018 312,210 17,213 12,332 12,543 6,553 2,186,178

Percent 14.5% 14.3% 0.8% 0.6% 0.6% 0.3%

Hispanic Number 175,917 207,113 13,988 7,550 4,415 4,142 3,276,874

Percent 5.4% 6.3% 0.4% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1%

Asian Number 15,010 12,548 6,988 515 186 499 518,448

Percent 2.9% 2.4% 1.3% 0.1% 0.04% 0.1%

American Number 15,715 15,385 1,693 931 1,177 475 183,931
Appendix IV: Additional Discipline and 

Discipline-Related Data Tables

Page 76 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

Level of 

School Poverty

Out-of-school 

suspension

In-school 

suspension

Referral to law 

enforcement

Expulsion Corporal 

punishment

Schoolrelated 

arrest

Total 

enrollment

Indian/ Alaska 

Native 

Percent 8.5% 8.4% 0.9% 0.5% 0.6% 0.3%

Two or more 

races

Number 38,257 34,409 3,035 2,268 1,160 710 434,240

Percent 8.8% 7.9% 0.7% 0.5% 0.3% 0.2%

Students with 

disabilities

Number 216,326 188,737 17,463 9,841 8,511 4,927 1,610,349

Percent 13.4% 11.7% 1.1% 0.6% 0.5% 0.3%

75 to 100% 

low-income 

students

Number 1,048,852 772,133 52,836 34,558 43,698 21,384 11,500,244

Percent 9.1% 6.7% 0.5% 0.3% 0.4% 0.2%

Boys Number 713,310 507,067 37,016 25,151 32,922 15,080 5,924,710

Percent 12.0% 8.6% 0.6% 0.4% 0.6% 0.3%

Girls Number 335,542 265,066 15,820 9,407 10,776 6,304 5,575,534

Percent 6.0% 4.8% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1%

White Number 134,855 107,905 7,159 6,588 13,038 2,344 1,844,738

Percent 7.3% 5.8% 0.4% 0.4% 0.7% 0.1%

Black Number 562,395 356,611 20,975 16,459 26,396 10,459 3,338,395

Percent 16.8% 10.7% 0.6% 0.5% 0.8% 0.3%

Hispanic Number 288,498 266,779 18,819 8,647 2,481 7,471 5,486,014

Percent 5.3% 4.9% 0.3% 0.2% 0.05% 0.1%

Asian Number 13,160 8,478 2,923 308 119 309 370,083

Percent 3.6% 2.3% 0.8% 0.1% 0.03% 0.1%

American 

Indian/ Alaska 

Native

Number 18,218 13,091 1,405 1,039 1,039 344 185,461

Percent 9.8% 7.1% 0.8% 0.6% 0.6% 0.2%

Two or more 

races

Number 31,726 19,269 1,555 1,517 625 457 275,553

Percent 11.5% 7.0% 0.6% 0.6% 0.2% 0.2%

Students with 

disabilities

Number 232,405 139,781 13,590 7,746 6,164 5,297 1,344,563

Percent 17.3% 10.4% 1.0% 0.6% 0.5% 0.4%

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Education, Civil Rights Data Collection and Common Core of Data. | GAO-18-258

Note: School poverty level is measured by the percentage of students eligible for free or reducedprice lunch. Numbers and percentages based on counts less than 30 students are not presented in 

this table and instead are replaced with a “-” due to the small number of incidents.
Appendix IV: Additional Discipline and 

Discipline-Related Data Tables

Page 77 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

Table 15: Number and Percent of K-12 Public School Students Who Received Disciplinary Actions, by Type of Public School, 

School Year 2013-14

Type of public school Out-of-school 

suspension

In-school 

suspension

Referral to law 

enforcement

Expulsion Corporal 

punishment

Schoolrelated 

arrest

Total 

enrollment

Traditional 

schools

Number 2,342,566 2,433,969 191,161 112,036 107,329 52,761 43,800,055

Percent 5.3% 5.6% 0.4% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1%

Boys Number 1,645,800 1,655,290 134,342 82,814 84,617 37,243 22,522,725

Percent 7.3% 7.3% 0.6% 0.4% 0.4% 0.2%

Girls Number 696,766 778,679 56,819 29,222 22,712 15,518 21,277,330

Percent 3.3% 3.7% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%

White Number 830,558 998,249 76,836 52,984 54,348 19,343 23,130,336

Percent 3.6% 4.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1%

Black Number 837,211 727,195 45,465 30,461 39,795 17,328 6,057,162

Percent 13.8% 12.0% 0.8% 0.5% 0.7% 0.3%

Hispanic Number 491,809 547,787 41,099 18,759 8,401 11,828 10,437,091

Percent 4.7% 5.2% 0.4% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1%

Asian Number 44,177 39,116 15,231 1,514 384 1,348 2,312,907

Percent 1.9% 1.7% 0.7% 0.1% 0.02% 0.1%

American 

Indian/ Alaska 

Native 

Number 42,498 39,075 4,436 2,372 2,302 1,046 511,268

Percent 8.3% 7.6% 0.9% 0.5% 0.5% 0.2%

Two or more 

races 

Number 96,313 82,547 8,094 5,946 2,099 1,868 1,351,291

Percent 7.1% 6.1% 0.6% 0.4% 0.2% 0.1%

Students with 

disabilities

Number 588,920 496,610 50,630 27,239 16,487 13,945 5,068,630

Percent 11.6% 9.8% 1.0% 0.5% 0.3% 0.3%

Magnet 

schools

Number 225,246 214,997 18,586 6,255 1,845 7,507 2,939,149

Percent 7.7% 7.3% 0.6% 0.2% 0.1% 0.3%

Boys Number 148,293 136,051 12,899 4,551 1,427 5,225 1,477,007

Percent 10.0% 9.2% 0.9% 0.3% 0.1% 0.4%

Girls Number 76,953 78,946 5,687 1,704 418 2,282 1,462,142

Percent 5.3% 5.4% 0.4% 0.1% 0.03% 0.2%

White Number 33,393 36,245 3,639 1,019 481 1,134 847,552

Percent 3.9% 4.3% 0.4% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%

Black Number 125,901 103,982 8,266 3,402 1,146 3,573 813,708

Percent 15.5% 12.8% 1.0% 0.4% 0.1% 0.4%

Hispanic Number 53,756 64,977 5,434 1,384 133 2,389 988,950

Percent 5.4% 6.6% 0.5% 0.1% 0.01% 0.2%

Asian Number 3,523 2,907 433 93 - 148 189,993
Appendix IV: Additional Discipline and 

Discipline-Related Data Tables

Page 78 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

Type of public school Out-of-school 

suspension

In-school 

suspension

Referral to law 

enforcement

Expulsion Corporal 

punishment

Schoolrelated 

arrest

Total 

enrollment

Percent 1.9% 1.5% 0.2% 0.05% - 0.1%

American 

Indian/ Alaska 

Native

Number 1,606 1,181 173 74 52 82 16,238

Percent 9.9% 7.3% 1.1% 0.5% 0.3% 0.5%

Two or more 

races

Number 7,067 5,705 641 283 - 181 82,708

Percent 8.5% 6.9% 0.8% 0.3% - 0.2%

Students with 

disabilities

Number 50,805 39,441 5,026 1,460 297 1,739 309,312

Percent 16.4% 12.8% 1.6% 0.5% 0.1% 0.6%

Charter 

schools

Number 156,880 74,884 3,458 4,854 660 710 2,470,354 

Percent 6.4% 3.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.03% 0.03%

Boys Number 103,295 49,120 2,404 3,191 525 499 1,224,086 

Percent 8.4% 4.0% 0.2% 0.3% 0.04% 0.04%

Girls Number 53,585 25,764 1,054 1,663 135 211 1,246,268 

Percent 4.3% 2.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.01% 0.02%

White Number 22,729 14,597 1,052 1,149 184 185 843,999 

Percent 2.7% 1.7% 0.1% 0.1% 0.02% 0.02%

Black Number 94,777 37,447 1,101 2,597 372 305 711,999 

Percent 13.3% 5.3% 0.2% 0.4% 0.1% 0.04%

Hispanic Number 31,768 18,826 822 860 90 159 714,868 

Percent 4.4% 2.6% 0.1% 0.1% 0.01% 0.02%

Asian Number 1,920 1,125 283 - - - 106,463 

Percent 1.8% 1.1% 0.3% - - -

American 

Indian/ Alaska 

Native

Number 1,134 782 63 - - - 20,589 

Percent 5.5% 3.8% 0.3% - - -

Two or more 

races

Number 4,552 2,107 137 179 - - 72,436 

Percent 6.3% 2.9% 0.2% 0.2% - -

Students with 

disabilities

Number 28,599 12,363 901 902 60 207 221,695

Percent 12.9% 5.6% 0.4% 0.4% 0.003% 0.1%

Alternative 

schools

Number 82,270 34,176 8,412 6,637 279 3,674 501,496

Percent 16.4% 6.8% 1.7% 1.3% 0.1% 0.7%

Boys Number 58,549 23,986 6,237 4,948 232 2,793 289,805

Percent 20.2% 8.3% 2.2% 1.7% 0.1% 1.0%

Girls Number 23,721 10,190 2,175 1,689 47 881 211,691

Percent 11.2% 4.8% 1.0% 0.8% 0.02% 0.4%

White Number 23,304 11,086 2,690 1,701 111 961 183,499

Percent 12.7% 6.0% 1.5% 0.9% 0.1% 0.5%
Appendix IV: Additional Discipline and 

Discipline-Related Data Tables

Page 79 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

Type of public school Out-of-school 

suspension

In-school 

suspension

Referral to law 

enforcement

Expulsion Corporal 

punishment

Schoolrelated 

arrest

Total 

enrollment

Black Number 28,574 11,608 2,465 2,594 140 1,304 117,022

Percent 24.4% 9.9% 2.1% 2.2% 0.1% 1.1%

Hispanic Number 24,848 9,415 2,648 1,959 - 1,206 163,243

Percent 15.2% 5.8% 1.6% 1.2% - 0.7%

Asian Number 1,123 386 116 74 - 36 12,292

Percent 9.1% 3.1% 0.9% 0.6% - 0.3%

American 

Indian/ Alaska 

Native

Number 1,447 471 225 116 - 68 9,829

Percent 14.7% 4.8% 2.3% 1.2% - 0.7%

Two or more 

races

Number 2,974 1,210 268 193 - 99 15,611

Percent 19.1% 7.8% 1.7% 1.2% - 0.6%

Students with 

disabilities

Number 20,985 8,971 2,492 1,188 86 1,235 68,309

Percent 30.7% 13.1% 3.6% 1.7% 0.1% 1.8%

Special 

Education 

schools

Number 21,602 11,434 2,130 615 183 753 324,692

Percent 6.7% 3.5% 0.7% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2%

Boys Number 16,075 8,364 1,664 474 140 597 198,330

Percent 8.1% 4.2% 0.8% 0.2% 0.1% 0.3%

Girls Number 5,527 3,070 466 141 43 156 126,362

Percent 4.4% 2.4% 0.4% 0.1% 0.03% 0.1%

White Number 8,456 5,228 881 248 153 263 162,067

Percent 5.2% 3.2% 0.5% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2%

Black Number 7,751 3,139 748 205 - 302 54,464

Percent 14.2% 5.8% 1.4% 0.4% - 0.6%

Hispanic Number 3,580 1,987 331 73 - 129 74,493

Percent 4.8% 2.7% 0.4% 0.1% - 0.2%

Asian Number 230 125 44 - - - 13,060

Percent 1.8% 1.0% 0.3% - - -

American 

Indian/ Alaska 

Native

Number 714 538 32 - - - 10,913

Percent 6.5% 4.9% 0.3% - - -

Two or more 

races

Number 871 417 94 64 - 45 9,695

Percent 9.0% 4.3% 1.0% 0.7% - 0.5%

Students with 

disabilities

Number 15,064 6,489 1,824 254 33 655 183,509

Percent 8.2% 3.5% 1.0% 0.1% 0.02% 0.4%

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Education, Civil Rights Data Collection. | GAO-18-258

Note: Numbers and percentages based on counts less than 30 students are not presented in this 

table and instead are replaced with a “-” due to the small number of incidents.
Appendix IV: Additional Discipline and 

Discipline-Related Data Tables

Page 80 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

Table 16: Number and Percent of K-12 Public School Students Who Received Disciplinary Actions, by Grade Level, School 

Year 2013-14

Grades Offered Out-of-school 

suspension

In-school 

suspension

Referral to law 

enforcement

Expulsion Corporal 

punishment

Schoolrelated 

arrest

Total 

enrollment

Grade 5 or below

All students Number 420,310 305,760 16,222 9,644 33,473 1,615 17,084,429

Percent 2.5% 1.8% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.01%

Boys Number 330,913 234,911 12,848 7,783 26,442 1,298 8,815,621

Percent 3.8% 2.7% 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 0.01%

Girls Number 89,397 70,849 3,374 1,861 7,031 317 8,268,808

Percent 1.1% 0.9% 0.04% 0.02% 0.1% 0.004%

White Number 132,161 115,850 5,204 4,699 16,229 512 8,390,558

Percent 1.6% 1.4% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.01%

Black Number 180,175 106,992 4,674 2,811 13,196 671 2,662,876

Percent 6.8% 4.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.5% 0.03%

Hispanic Number 73,714 59,182 3,037 1,175 2,604 320 4,383,284

Percent 1.7% 1.4% 0.1% 0.03% 0.1% 0.01%

Asian Number 5,427 4,190 1,914 80 156 - 862,487

Percent 0.6% 0.5% 0.2% 0.01% 0.02% -

American 

Indian/ Alaska 

Native

Number 5,577 4,370 292 203 448 - 169,345

Percent 3.3% 2.6% 0.2% 0.1% 0.3% -

Two or more 

races

Number 23,256 15,176 1,101 676 840 67 615,879

Percent 3.8% 2.5% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.01%

Students with 

disabilities

Number 121,662 70,137 4,998 2,859 5,517 488 1,949,913

Percent 6.2% 3.6% 0.3% 0.1% 0.3% 0.03%

Grade 6 or above

All students Number 2,407,828 2,463,538 207,493 120,739 76,823 63,774 32,909,674

Percent 7.3% 7.5% 0.6% 0.4% 0.2% 0.2%

Boys Number 1,640,828 1,637,800 144,682 88,183 60,499 45,051 16,871,173

Percent 9.7% 9.7% 0.9% 0.5% 0.4% 0.3%

Girls Number 767,000 825,738 62,811 32,556 16,324 18,723 16,038,501

Percent 4.8% 5.1% 0.4% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1%

White Number 786,172 949,516 79,878 52,400 39,048 21,368 16,759,190

Percent 4.7% 5.7% 0.5% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1%

Black Number 913,772 776,258 53,363 36,436 28,267 22,133 5,079,269

Percent 18.0% 15.3% 1.1% 0.7% 0.6% 0.4%

Hispanic Number 532,005 583,810 47,293 21,860 6,047 15,391 7,986,771
Appendix IV: Additional Discipline and 

Discipline-Related Data Tables

Page 81 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

Grades Offered Out-of-school 

suspension

In-school 

suspension

Referral to law 

enforcement

Expulsion Corporal 

punishment

Schoolrelated 

arrest

Total 

enrollment

Percent 6.7% 7.3% 0.6% 0.3% 0.1% 0.2%

Asian Number 45,544 39,469 14,193 1,650 236 1,527 1,770,820

Percent 2.6% 2.2% 0.8% 0.1% 0.01% 0.1%

American 

Indian/ Alaska 

Native

Number 41,818 37,677 4,635 2,404 1,917 1,207 398,621

Percent 10.5% 9.5% 1.2% 0.6% 0.5% 0.3%

Two or more 

races

Number 88,517 76,808 8,131 5,989 1,308 2,148 915,003

Percent 9.7% 8.4% 0.9% 0.7% 0.1% 0.2%

Students with 

disabilities

Number 582,451 493,674 55,859 28,178 11,446 17,287 3,890,043

Percent 15.0% 12.7% 1.4% 0.7% 0.3% 0.4%

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Education, Civil Rights Data Collection. | GAO-18-258

Note: Numbers and percentages based on counts less than 30 students are not presented in this 

table and instead are replaced with a “-” due to the small number of incidents.

Table 17: Number and Percent of Pre-school Public School Students Suspended 

Out of School, by Student and School Characteristics, School Year 2013-14

Out-of-school suspension Total enrollment

All students Number 6,751 1,441,057

Percent 0.5%

Sex

Boys Number 5,235 775,858

Percent 0.7%

Girls Number 1,516 665,199

Percent 0.2%

Race or Ethnicity

White students Number 1,866 594,902

Percent 0.3%

Boys Number 1,510 329,332

Percent 0.5%

Girls Number 356 265,570

Percent 0.1%

Black students Number 3,167 280,218

Percent 1.1%

Boys Number 2,351 146,583

Percent 1.6%
Appendix IV: Additional Discipline and 

Discipline-Related Data Tables

Page 82 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

Out-of-school suspension Total enrollment

Girls Number 816 133,635

Percent 0.6%

Hispanic students Number 1,290 428,225

Percent 0.3%

Boys Number 1,043 225,547

Percent 0.5%

Girls Number 247 202,678

Percent 0.1%

Asian students Number - 59,313

Percent -

Boys Number 50 32,267

Percent 0.2%

Girls Number - 27,046

Percent -

American Indian/ 

Alaska Native 

students

Number - 22,531

Percent -

Boys Number 81 12,052

Percent 0.7%

Girls Number - 10,479

Percent -

Two or more races 

students

Number 266 55,868

Percent 0.5%

Boys Number 200 30,077

Percent 0.7%

Girls Number 66 25,791

Percent 0.3%

School poverty level

0 to 25% low income 

students 

Number 212 151,896

Percent 0.1%

25.1 to 49.9% low 

income students

Number 605 245,466

Percent 0.2%

50 to 74.9% low income 

students

Number 1,833 362,700

Percent 0.5%

75 to 100% low income Number 3,929 557,121
Appendix IV: Additional Discipline and 

Discipline-Related Data Tables

Page 83 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

Out-of-school suspension Total enrollment

students Percent 0.7%

Type of public school

Traditional Number 5,796 1,283,222

Percent 0.5%

Magnet Number 261 58,560

Percent 0.4%

Charter Number 666 45,860

Percent 1.5%

Alternative Number - 5,048

Percent -

Special Education Number - 48,367

Percent -

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Education, Civil Rights Data Collection, and Common Core of Data. | GAO-18-258

Note: School poverty level is measured by the percentage of students eligible for free or reducedprice lunch. Numbers and percentages based on counts less than 30 students are not presented in 

this table and instead are replaced with a “-” due to the small number of incidents. Additional numbers 

may also be suppressed in this table if they would allow for calculating a suppressed number.

Table 18: Number and Percent of K-12 Public School Students Who Were Restrained or Secluded, by Student and School 

Characteristics, School Year 2013-14

Mechanical restraint Physical restraint Seclusion Total enrollment

All students Number 7,001 61,440 33,578 50,035,746

Percent 0.01% 0.1% 0.1%

Sex

Boys Number 5,220 48,530 25,682 25,711,953

Percent 0.02% 0.2% 0.1%

Girls Number 1,781 12,910 7,896 24,323,793

Percent 0.01% 0.1% 0.03%

Race or Ethnicity

White students Number 2,322 33,320 19,870 25,167,453

Percent 0.01% 0.1% 0.1%

Boys Number 1,802 26,657 15,387 12,993,277

Percent 0.01% 0.2% 0.1%

Girls Number 520 6,663 4,483 12,174,176

Percent 0.004% 0.1% 0.04%

Black students Number 2,346 15,200 7,449 7,754,355

Percent 0.03% 0.2% 0.1%
Appendix IV: Additional Discipline and 

Discipline-Related Data Tables

Page 84 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

Mechanical restraint Physical restraint Seclusion Total enrollment

Boys Number 1,616 11,564 5,481 3,964,347

Percent 0.04% 0.3% 0.1%

Girls Number 730 3,636 1,968 3,790,008

Percent 0.02% 0.1% 0.1%

Hispanic students Number 1,980 8,161 3,430 12,378,645

Percent 0.02% 0.1% 0.03%

Boys Number 1,538 6,511 2,682 6,343,579

Percent 0.02% 0.1% 0.04%

Girls Number 442 1,650 748 6,035,066

Percent 0.01% 0.03% 0.01%

Asian students Number - 904 437 2,634,715

Percent - 0.03% 0.02%

Boys Number 41 754 357 1,343,060

Percent 0.003% 0.1% 0.03%

Girls Number - 150 80 1,291,655

Percent - 0.01% 0.01%

American Indian/ Alaska 

Native students

Number 106 886 562 568,837

Percent 0.02% 0.2% 0.1%

Boys Number 84 704 424 291,614

Percent 0.03% 0.2% 0.1%

Girls Number - 182 138 277,223

Percent - 0.1% 0.05%

Two or more races students Number 194 2,969 1,830 1,531,741

Percent 0.01% 0.2% 0.1%

Boys Number 139 2,340 1,351 776,076

Percent 0.02% 0.3% 0.2%

Girls Number 55 629 479 755,665

Percent 0.01% 0.1% 0.1%

Students with disabilities

All students with disabilities Number 2,376 46,435 19,857 5,851,455

Percent 0.04% 0.8% 0.3%

Boys Number 1,920 37,379 16,002 3,938,567

Percent 0.05% 0.9% 0.4%

Girls Number 456 9,056 3,855 1,912,888

Percent 0.02% 0.5% 0.2%

School poverty level

0 to 25% low income students Number 343 8,694 4,762 9,892,019
Appendix IV: Additional Discipline and 

Discipline-Related Data Tables

Page 85 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

Mechanical restraint Physical restraint Seclusion Total enrollment

Percent 0.003% 0.1% 0.05%

25.1 to 49.9% low income 

students

Number 1,660 16,080 9,610 13,253,440

Percent 0.01% 0.1% 0.1%

50 to 74.9% low income 

students

Number 1,917 17,910 10,177 13,068,190

Percent 0.01% 0.1% 0.1%

75 to 100% low income 

students

Number 2,004 14,169 6,347 11,500,244

Percent 0.02% 0.1% 0.1%

Type of public school

Traditional Number 5,555 48,088 27,150 43,800,055

Percent 0.01% 0.1% 0.1%

Magnet Number 558 1,891 939 2,939,149

Percent 0.02% 0.1% 0.03%

Charter Number 126 1,648 474 2,470,354

Percent 0.01% 0.1% 0.02%

Alternative Number 641 2,822 1,231 501,496

Percent 0.1% 0.6% 0.2%

Special Education Number 121 6,991 3,784 324,692

Percent 0.04% 2.2% 1.2%

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Education, Civil Rights Data Collection, and Common Core of Data. | GAO-18-258

Note: School poverty level is measured by the percentage of students eligible for free or reducedprice lunch. Numbers and percentages based on counts less than 30 students are not presented in 

this table and instead are replaced with a “-” due to the small number of incidents. Additional numbers 

may also be suppressed in this table if they would allow for calculating a suppressed number.

Table 19: Number and Percent of K-12 Public School Students Who Were 

Chronically Absent, by Student and School Characteristics, School Year 2013-14

Chronic absenteeism Total enrollment

All students Number 7,101,843 50,035,746

Percent 14.2%

Sex

Boys Number 3,634,536 25,711,953

Percent 14.1%

Girls Number 3,467,307 24,323,793

Percent 14.3%

Race or Ethnicity

White students Number 3,194,191 25,167,453

Percent 12.7%

Boys Number 1,621,276 12,993,277
Appendix IV: Additional Discipline and 

Discipline-Related Data Tables

Page 86 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

Chronic absenteeism Total enrollment

Percent 12.5%

Girls Number 1,572,915 12,174,176

Percent 12.9%

Black students Number 1,428,327 7,754,355

Percent 18.4%

Boys Number 745,109 3,964,347

Percent 18.8%

Girls Number 683,218 3,790,008

Percent 18.0%

Hispanic students Number 1,861,071 12,378,645

Percent 15.0%

Boys Number 952,010 6,343,579

Percent 15.0%

Girls Number 909,061 6,035,066

Percent 15.1%

Asian students Number 239,721 2,634,715

Percent 9.1%

Boys Number 124,732 1,343,060

Percent 9.3%

Girls Number 114,989 1,291,655

Percent 8.9%

American Indian/ Alaska 

Native students

Number 128,804 568,837

Percent 22.6%

Boys Number 65,512 291,614

Percent 22.5%

Girls Number 63,292 277,223

Percent 22.8%

Two or more races 

students

Number 249,729 1,531,741

Percent 16.3%

Boys Number 125,897 776,076

Percent 16.2%

Girls Number 123,832 755,665

Percent 16.4%

Students with disabilities

All students with 

disabilities

Number 1,212,631 5,851,455

Percent 20.7%

Boys Number 785,487 3,938,567
Appendix IV: Additional Discipline and 

Discipline-Related Data Tables

Page 87 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

Chronic absenteeism Total enrollment

Percent 19.9%

Girls Number 427,144 1,912,888

Percent 22.3%

School poverty level

0 to 25% low income 

students 

Number 931,068 9,892,019

Percent 9.4%

25.1 to 49.9% low income 

students

Number 1,742,062 13,253,440

Percent 13.1%

50 to 74.9% low income 

students

Number 2,028,505 13,068,190

Percent 15.5%

75 to 100% low income 

students

Number 1,901,757 11,500,244

Percent 16.5%

Type of public school

Traditional Number 6,022,547 43,800,055

Percent 13.8%

Magnet Number 463,766 2,939,149

Percent 15.8%

Charter Number 333,082 2,470,354

Percent 13.5%

Alternative Number 207,454 501,496

Percent 41.4%

Special Education Number 74,994 324,692

Percent 23.1%

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Education, Civil Rights Data Collection, and Common Core of Data. | GAO-18-258

Note: School poverty level is measured by the percentage of students eligible for free or reducedprice lunch.

Table 20: Number and Percent of K-12 Public Schools Reporting the Presence of a School Counselor or Law Enforcement 

Officer, by School Characteristics, School Year 2013-14

Presence of a school 

counselor

Presence of a sworn law 

enforcement officer

Total number of 

schools

All schools Number 68,288 27,531 95,507

Percent 71.5% 28.8%

School poverty level

0 to 25% low income 

students 

Number 11,103 3,947 16,421

Percent 67.6% 24.0%

25.1 to 49.9% low income 

students

Number 18,840 7,122 24,145

Percent 78.0% 29.5%
Appendix IV: Additional Discipline and 

Discipline-Related Data Tables

Page 88 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

Presence of a school 

counselor

Presence of a sworn law 

enforcement officer

Total number of 

schools

50 to 74.9% low income 

students

Number 19,363 7,937 25,798

Percent 75.1% 30.8%

75 to 100% low income 

students

Number 15,335 6,051 22,511

Percent 68.1% 26.9%

Type of public school

Traditional schools Number 60,092 23,901 79,618

Percent 75.5% 30.0%

Magnet schools Number 2,747 1,430 3,616

Percent 76.0% 39.5%

Charter schools Number 2,664 653 5,726

Percent 46.5% 11.4%

Alternative schools Number 2,103 1,178 4,519

Percent 46.5% 26.1%

Special Education schools Number 682 369 2,028

Percent 33.6% 18.2%

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Education, Civil Rights Data Collection, and Common Core of Data. | GAO-18-258

Note: School poverty level is measured by the percentage of students eligible for free or reducedprice lunch. There were 6,632 schools in school year 2013-14 for which data on school-level poverty 

were not available. Those schools are not included in the school poverty level section of this table, 

but are included in the overall total number of schools, as well as in the type of public school section 

of this table.

Table 21: Number and Percent of K-12 Public School Students Disciplined for Engaging in Harassment or Bullying, by 

Student Characteristics, School Year 2013-14

Students disciplined for engaging in harassment or bullying

Based on sex Based on race, color, or 

national origin

Based on disability 

status

Total 

enrollment

All students Number 93,334 47,289 23,263 50,035,746

Percent 0.2% 0.1% 0.05%

Sex

Boys Number 66,490 33,232 15,984 25,711,953

Percent 0.3% 0.1% 0.1%

Girls Number 26,844 14,057 7,279 24,323,793

Percent 0.1% 0.1% 0.03%

Race or Ethnicity

White students Number 39,397 22,887 11,555 25,167,453

Percent 0.2% 0.1% 0.05%
Appendix IV: Additional Discipline and 

Discipline-Related Data Tables

Page 89 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

Students disciplined for engaging in harassment or bullying

Based on sex Based on race, color, or 

national origin

Based on disability 

status

Total 

enrollment

Boys Number 29,007 16,768 8,264 12,993,277

Percent 0.2% 0.1% 0.1%

Girls Number 10,390 6,119 3,291 12,174,176

Percent 0.1% 0.1% 0.03%

Black students Number 18,615 11,001 5,249 7,754,355

Percent 0.2% 0.1% 0.1%

Boys Number 13,749 7,227 3,460 3,964,347

Percent 0.3% 0.2% 0.1%

Girls Number 4,866 3,774 1,789 3,790,008

Percent 0.1% 0.1% 0.05%

Hispanic students Number 28,494 9,670 4,795 12,378,645

Percent 0.2% 0.1% 0.04%

Boys Number 18,679 6,675 3,157 6,343,579

Percent 0.3% 0.1% 0.05%

Girls Number 9,815 2,995 1,638 6,035,066

Percent 0.2% 0.05% 0.03%

Asian students Number 2,478 1,160 566 2,634,715

Percent 0.1% 0.04% 0.02%

Boys Number 1,759 829 361 1,343,060

Percent 0.1% 0.1% 0.03%

Girls Number 719 331 205 1,291,655

Percent 0.1% 0.03% 0.02%

American Indian/ Alaska 

Native students

Number 1,333 1,010 300 568,837

Percent 0.2% 0.2% 0.1%

Boys Number 1,033 673 213 291,614

Percent 0.4% 0.2% 0.1%

Girls Number 300 337 87 277,223

Percent 0.1% 0.1% 0.03%

Two or more races students Number 3,017 1,561 798 1,531,741

Percent 0.2% 0.1% 0.1%

Boys Number 2,263 1,060 529 776,076

Percent 0.3% 0.1% 0.1%

Girls Number 754 501 269 755,665

Percent 0.1% 0.1% 0.04%
Appendix IV: Additional Discipline and 

Discipline-Related Data Tables

Page 90 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

Students disciplined for engaging in harassment or bullying

Based on sex Based on race, color, or 

national origin

Based on disability 

status

Total 

enrollment

Students with disabilities

All students with disabilities Number 16,136 7,673 4,865 5,851,455

Percent 0.3% 0.1% 0.1%

Boys Number 13,068 6,062 3,785 3,938,567

Percent 0.3% 0.2% 0.1%

Girls Number 3,068 1,611 1,080 1,912,888

Percent 0.2% 0.1% 0.1%

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Education, Civil Rights Data Collection. | GAO-18-258
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 91 GAO-18-258 School Discipline

Jacqueline M. Nowicki, (617) 788-0580, nowickij@gao.gov

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.

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(101246)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative 

arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the 

federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public 

funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through GAO’s website (https://www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to https://www.gao.gov

and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and 

distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether 

the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering 

information is posted on GAO’s website, https://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, 

Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at https://www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: https://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Orice Williams Brown, Managing Director, WilliamsO@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, 

Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison

Please Print on Recycled Paper.