Stand-downs, suspensions, exclusions and expulsions from school

Student attendance and engagement form fundamental foundations for students’ achievement. The level of stand-downs, suspensions, exclusions and expulsions help provide indications of where engagement in productive learning is absent and behavioural problems are present.  In 2009 stand-down rates have fallen for the third consecutive year, while suspensions, exclusions and expulsions rates increased. Schools continue to stand-down, suspend and exclude more Māori students than any other ethnic group. Male students are two-and-a-half times more likely to receive a stand-down, suspension or exclusion than their female counterparts. Over 20,000 stand-downs and over 4,000 suspensions took place in 2009.

Date Updated: August 2010

Indicator Description

Age-standardised rate per 1,000 students enrolled who receive a stand-down, suspension, exclusion or expulsion, respectively, from school. Age-standardised  rates are used as most stand-downs, suspensions and exclusions occur at ages 13-15, while most expulsions occur at 16. Age-standardised rates allow for comparison between different cohorts.

For ease of understanding, we have used quintiles instead of deciles in the graphs on pages 5 and 7.

Why This Data Is Important

A school principal may consider the formal removal of a student through a stand-down from school for a period of up to five school days. A stand-down, for any student, can total no more than five school days in any term, or 10 days in a school year. Students return automatically to school following a stand-down.

Quantity of instruction or potential 'opportunity to learn' strongly influences student outcomes. The New Zealand Smithfield study found student attendance during Year 11 to be one of the most significant variables influencing student achievement in senior secondary school. Hattie (1999) reported instructional quantity to have the fourth highest effect size (0.84) of any instructional variable. The practice of stand-downs cuts short, or interrupts potential opportunities to learn at school.

While stand-downs impact on actual opportunity to learn they are also a response to a wide range of concerning behaviours including drug and alcohol abuse and violence that are disruptive to the learning of the individuals concerned, and disruptive and unsafe for peers and adults in the school community. Stand-downs can offer an opportunity to reduce tension and reflect on the action which led to the stand-down. As such, if used in appropriate circumstances, a stand-down can be a positive mechanism for preventing escalation. However, its use should be part of a pro-active approach and should be kept to a minimum due to its inherent disruption.

A suspension is the formal removal of a student from a school until the school board of trustees decides the outcome at a suspension meeting. Following a suspension, the Board of Trustees decides how to address the student’s misbehaviour. The boards can either lift the suspension (with or without conditions), extend the suspension (with conditions), or terminate the student's enrolment at the school.

If the student is aged under 16, the board may decide to exclude him or her from the school, with the requirement that the student enrols elsewhere. This decision should be arrived at only in the most serious cases. If the student is aged 16 or over, the board may decide to expel him or her from the school, and the student may enrol at another school. Again, this decision should be arrived at only in the most serious cases. Exclusions and expulsions may lead to difficulties being accepted into other schools and may result in students:

• accessing correspondence schooling through Te Aho o te Kura Pounamu,
  
• entering Alternative Education provision
  
• dropping out of the education system.

In 2009, Board of Trustees’ decided to lift 44% of all suspensions. Ten out of eleven of these were lifted with conditions placed on the student. The decision was made to extend the suspension, or exclude or expel, 20%, 32% and 4% of the time, respectively.

Research emphasises the importance of pro-active partnerships with parents and a strategy focused on both achievement and behaviour. Approaches that are focused only on disciplinary or pastoral responses have been found to be ineffective for positive outcomes.  The Positive Behaviour for Learning Action Plan, released in 2009, is a major shift in the management of disruptive behaviour in the education system. It provides proactive support for parents, teachers and schools that benefit everyone. The result will be better learning environments for all students and staff, improved teacher ability to support children’s behaviour and emotional needs, improved engagement in learning, a lift in achievement for students and an increase in teacher confidence and satisfaction.

The Ministry of Education’s (2009) publication Ka Hikitia - Managing for Success: The Māori Education Strategy 2008 – 2012, emphasised that relationships between teachers and Māori students are at the heart of student engagement and achievement and that the system has been inequitable for Māori learners.

How We Are Going

Stand-downs

The age-standardised stand-down rate increased from 26.0 students per 1,000 in 2000 to 31.2 students per 1,000 in 2006, but has decreased by 9.6% from 2006 to 28.2 students per 1,000 in 2009.

There were 20,146 stand-down cases in 2009, which were received by 15,848 different students. This equates to 2.2% of the student population receiving stand-downs and 78.7% of stand-downs being single instances.

In 2009, 71.3% of stand-downs took place in secondary schools. Only 5.7% of secondary schools did not use stand-downs compared to 55.8% of primary schools.

Figure 1: Age-standardised stand-down rates by ethnic group (2000 to 2009)

Figure 2: Age-standardised stand-down rates by ethnic group and school quintile (2009)

Schools are standing-down more Māori students than any other ethnic group. In 2009, the age-standardised stand-down rate for Māori students (52.9 students per 1,000) was 1.5 times higher than Pasifika (35.4 students per 1,000), and 2.6 times as high as European/Pākehā (20.2 students per 1,000). The stand-down rate for Asian students is the lowest of all ethnic groups.

There is a clear correlation between the socio-economic mix of the school the student attended and age-standardised stand-down rates. Schools in the lowest quintile (deciles 1 and 2) draw their students from communities with the highest degree of socio-economic disadvantage. Students from these schools are almost four times more likely to be stood-down from school than students in the highest quintile (deciles 9 and 10).

When considering age-standardised stand-down rates by quintile the general pattern for the different ethnic groups largely remains. Age-standardised stand-down rates are highest for Māori and Pasifika in each quintile, with the exception of quintile 1 schools where the European/Pākehā rate is higher than that of Pasifika.

 

Table 1: Age-standardised stand-down rates per 1,000 students, by behaviour (2000 to 2009)

Behaviour	Year
	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009
Continual Disobedience	6.4	6.6	6.8	7.0	7.2	7.8	8.1	7.5	7.1	6.6
Drugs (Including Substance Abuse)	1.3	1.4	1.6	1.3	1.4	1.8	1.4	1.4	1.7	2.0
Physical Assault on Other Students	6.0	6.1	5.9	6.7	7.1	7.5	7.6	7.4	7.3	7.3
Physical Assault on Staff	0.6	0.5	0.6	0.6	0.6	0.8	0.8	0.8	0.8	0.8
Verbal Assault on Other Students	0.6	0.6	0.6	0.7	0.7	0.7	0.7	0.7	0.6	0.6
Verbal Assault on Staff	4.2	4.1	4.2	4.9	4.5	4.6	4.7	4.1	4.2	4.1
Smoking or Alcohol	2.6	2.5	2.5	2.1	2.1	2.1	2.3	2.3	2.0	1.8
Theft, Vandalism or Arson	2.1	2.0	1.9	2.2	2.2	2.1	2.4	2.3	2.2	2.3
Other	2.2	2.1	2.3	2.6	2.8	2.9	3.1	2.8	2.6	2.8
Total	26.0	25.9	26.4	28.3	28.5	30.3	31.2	29.2	28.4	28.2

Over time, male students have consistently received stand-downs far more frequently than female students. In 2009, the age-standardised stand-down rate for males was 2.4 times higher than the female rate as it has been since 2006.

In 2009, physical assault on other students was the main reason for stand-downs, accounting for 25.7% with an age-standardised rate of 7.3 per 1,000 students. This has increased from 6.0 per 1,000 students in 2000, but has shown slight decreases since 2006. Continual disobedience was second most prevalent, accounting for 23.3% of stand-downs with an age-standardised rate of 6.6 per 1,000 students. Along with verbal assault on staff (14.6% of stand-downs with an age-standardised rate of 4.1 per 1,000 students), these three behaviours made up almost two-thirds of all stand-downs. Between 2000 and 2005, the age-standardised rate of stand-downs for physical assault on staff increased gradually from 0.6 to 0.8 per 1,000 students. This figure has remained static since that time. The largest proportional increase was for Drugs (including Substance Abuse) with an age-standardised stand-down rate of 2.0 per 1,000 students in 2009 compared to 1.3 per 1,000 students in 2000. The largest proportional decrease was for Smoking or Alcohol with an age-standardised stand-down rate of 1.8 per 1,000 students in 2009 compared to 2.6 per 1,000 students in 2000.

The majority of stand-downs occurred for students aged 13 to 15, accounting for 62.5% of all stand-downs. The peak was age 14 years, which had a rate of 84.1 students per 1,000 stand-downs. This substantial variation is why analysis is undertaken using age-standardised rates.

Figure 3: Stand-down rates, by age (2009)

Suspensions

The incidence of suspensions has decreased by 16% over the last ten years, from an age-standardised rate of 7.9 students per 1,000 in 2000, to 6.7 students per 1,000 in 2009. This includes a 12% reduction from 2006 to 2008. There were 4,755 suspension cases in 2009, which were received by 4,295 different students. This equates to 0.6% of the student population receiving suspensions and 90.3% of suspensions being single instances.

In 2009, 73.0% of all state and state integrated schools did not use suspensions as a part of a behaviour management programme. When looking at just secondary schools, the peak age for suspensions, only 8.5% of all secondary schools did not use suspensions.

Schools are suspending more Māori students than any other ethnic group. In 2009, the age-standardised suspension rate for Māori students (14.6 students per 1,000) was 82% higher than Pasifika (8.0 students per 1,000) and 3.6 times as high as European/Pākehā (4.1 students per 1,000). The suspension rate for Asian students is the lowest in New Zealand.

Figure 4: Age-standardised suspension rates by ethnic group (2000 to 2009)

Figure 5: Age-standardised suspension rates by ethnic group and school quintile (2009)

There is a clear correlation between the socio-economic mix of the school the student attended and age-standardised suspension rates. Students from schools in quintile 1 (deciles 1 and 2) and from schools in quintile 2 (deciles 3 and 4) are 3.1 times and 3.4 times more likely to be suspended from school than students in the highest quintile (deciles 9 and 10).

When considering age-standardised suspension rates by quintile the general pattern for the different ethnic groups largely remains. Age-standardised suspension rates are highest for Māori and Pasifika in each quintile, except in quintile 1 schools where the European/Pākehā rate is higher than that of Pasifika.  This mirrors the situation for stand-downs.

Male students receive suspensions far more frequently than female students. In 2009, the male age-standardised suspension rate was 2.6 times that of females.  This pattern is similar to stand-downs.

Table 2: Age-standardised suspension rates per 1,000 students, by behaviour (2000-2009)

Behaviour	Year
	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009
Continual Disobedience	1.9	1.7	1.8	1.7	1.7	1.8	1.9	1.8	1.8	2.0
Drugs (Including Substance Abuse)	2.4	2.4	2.2	1.9	1.7	1.8	1.4	1.3	1.1	1.5
Physical Assault on Other Students	1.2	1.0	1.1	1.0	1.2	1.3	1.3	1.2	1.2	1.1
Physical Assault on Staff	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.3	0.2	0.3	0.3	0.3	0.3	0.3
Verbal Assault on Other Students	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.0	0.1
Verbal Assault on Staff	0.5	0.4	0.4	0.5	0.4	0.4	0.4	0.3	0.3	0.3
Smoking or Alcohol	0.4	0.4	0.3	0.3	0.3	0.2	0.3	0.3	0.2	0.2
Theft, Vandalism or Arson	0.7	0.6	0.5	0.7	0.5	0.5	0.6	0.5	0.5	0.5
Other	0.6	0.5	0.6	0.7	0.6	0.7	0.7	0.7	0.6	0.7
Total	7.9	7.3	7.3	7.0	6.7	7.1	7.0	6.5	6.1	6.7

In 2009, continual disobedience was the main reason for suspensions accounting for 30.2% with an age-standardised rate of 2.0 per 1,000 students. Drugs (including substance abuse) was second most prevalent, accounting for 22.6% of suspensions with an age-standardised rate of 1.5 per 1,000 students. This has decreased from 2.4 per 1,000 students in 2000. Along with physical assault on other students (17.0% of suspensions with an age-standardised rate of 1.1 per 1,000 students), these three behaviours made up more than two-thirds of all suspensions.

The majority of suspensions occurred for students aged 13 to 15, accounting for 67% of all suspensions. The peak age was 14 years, which had a suspension rate of 23.4 students per 1,000 in 2009. This is a similar pattern to stand-downs.

Figure 6: Suspension rates, by age (2009)

Exclusions and expulsions

Figure 7: Age-standardised exclusion rates by ethnic group (2000 to 2009)

The rates of exclusion have remained relatively constant over the last ten years. In 2009, the age-standardised exclusion rate was 2.4 students per 1,000. Between 2007 and 2008 the age-standardised exclusion rate decreased by 12%. However, this rate increased by 10% between 2008 and 2009.

Schools are excluding Māori students more than any other ethnic group. In 2009, the age-standardised exclusion rate for Māori students (5.3 students per 1,000) was 63% higher than the rate for Pasifika (3.3 students per 1,000), and almost 4 times as high as that for European/Pākehā (1.4 students per 1,000). The age-standardised exclusion rate for Asian students is the lowest for all ethnic groups. Exclusions among Pasifika students experienced a 21% reduction from 2006 to 2009, after substantial increases for both measures from 2003 to 2006.

With expulsions, the pattern differs slightly. Although the overall expulsion rate increased in 2009 this was due to a sharp increase in expulsions of European/Pākehā students. Māori, Pasifika, and Asian student expulsion rates all decreased slightly since 2008.

Figure 8: Age-standardised expulsion rates by ethnic group (2000 to 2009)

Schools are expelling more Pasifika students than any other group of students. In 2009, the age-standardised expulsion rate for Pasifika (4.7 students per 1,000), was almost twice as high as the rate for Māori (2.4 students per 1,000), and 3.4 times higher than the rate for European/Pākehā (1.4 students per 1,000).

Schools exclude and expel more male students than female students. In 2009, the age-standardised exclusion rate was 2.6 times higher for males than for females, while the age-standardised expulsion rate was 4.5 times higher. When compared to 2008 the exclusion rate has not changed, however the expulsion rate has increased by 31%. It should be kept in mind that the expulsions rate does fluctuate over time.

Even though, in 2009, there were actually more exclusions in quintile 2 schools than quintile 1 schools, there is a clear correlation between the socio-economic mix of the school the student attended and age-standardised exclusion rates. Students from these lowest quintile schools were 3.4 times more likely to be excluded from school than students in the highest quintile (deciles 9 and 10). This is a smaller gap than in 2008 (4.3 times more likely). This shows similar patterns to stand-downs and suspensions.

When considering age-standardised exclusion rates by quintile the general pattern for the different ethnic groups remains, albeit less clearly. Age-standardised exclusion rates were highest for Māori and Pasifika in each quintile,
except in quintile 1 schools where the European/Pākehā  exclusion rate was higher than that of Pasifika.

The relationship between school quintile and age-standardised expulsion rates is similar to that for exclusions.  Students from quintile 1 schools were 1.6 times more likely to be expelled from school than students in the highest quintile schools.  This is a smaller gap than in 2008 (2.5 times more likely).

Figure 9: Age-standardised exclusion rates by ethnic group and school quintile (2009)

Table 3: Age-standardised exclusion rates per 1,000 students, by behaviour (2000 to 2009)

Behaviour	Year
	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009
Continual Disobedience	0.89	0.75	0.82	0.78	0.79	0.90	0.95	0.85	0.88	0.99
Drugs (Including Substance Abuse)	0.65	0.56	0.52	0.51	0.41	0.48	0.34	0.32	0.27	0.34
Physical Assault on Other Students	0.46	0.38	0.41	0.35	0.45	0.45	0.43	0.41	0.42	0.42
Physical Assault on Staff	0.07	0.09	0.10	0.12	0.09	0.13	0.13	0.13	0.14	0.11
Verbal Assault on Other Students	0.04	0.02	0.02	0.02	0.02	0.03	0.02	0.02	0.01	0.03
Verbal Assault on Staff	0.15	0.11	0.18	0.14	0.13	0.12	0.14	0.09	0.10	0.12
Smoking or Alcohol	0.06	0.04	0.05	0.05	0.04	0.04	0.04	0.04	0.03	0.03
Theft, Vandalism or Arson	0.21	0.18	0.17	0.22	0.16	0.15	0.20	0.17	0.15	0.16
Other	0.19	0.16	0.21	0.23	0.19	0.23	0.21	0.24	0.19	0.21
Total	2.73	2.28	2.49	2.41	2.28	2.53	2.45	2.29	2.19	2.41

Table 4: Age-standardised expulsion rates per 1,000 students, by behaviour (2000 to 2009)

Behaviour	Year
	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009
Continual Disobedience	0.55	0.51	0.49	0.50	0.37	0.49	0.45	0.46	0.38	0.51
Drugs (Including Substance Abuse)	0.80	0.48	0.60	0.47	0.41	0.39	0.23	0.31	0.33	0.52
Physical Assault on Other Students	0.23	0.30	0.39	0.34	0.36	0.40	0.32	0.39	0.43	0.34
Physical Assault on Staff	0.08	0.07	0.04	0.06	0.02	0.05	0.06	0.13	0.11	0.03
Verbal Assault on Other Students	0.03	0.04	0.03	0.06	0.01	0.00	0.02	0.03	0.01	0.01
Verbal Assault on Staff	0.17	0.12	0.05	0.12	0.05	0.04	0.02	0.09	0.08	0.05
Smoking or Alcohol	0.10	0.13	0.13	0.09	0.08	0.05	0.10	0.09	0.02	0.07
Theft, Vandalism or Arson	0.28	0.14	0.19	0.24	0.12	0.20	0.23	0.22	0.16	0.23
Other	0.23	0.17	0.18	0.21	0.18	0.16	0.33	0.22	0.16	0.24
Total	2.46	1.96	2.10	2.10	1.60	1.77	1.74	1.93	1.69	2.0

 

In 2009, continual disobedience was the main reason for exclusions accounting for 41.2% with an age-standardised rate of 0.99 per 1,000 students. Physical assault on other students was second most prevalent, accounting for 17.3% of exclusions with an age-standardised rate of 0.42 per 1,000 students. The third most prevalent reason was drugs (including substance abuse) which made up 14.2 of exclusions with an age-standardised rate of 0.34 per 1,000 students. This is almost half of the 2000 age-standardised rate of 0.65 per 1,000 students. These three behaviours made over two-thirds of all exclusions. This mirrors general suspension statistics.

Drugs (including substance abuse) was the main reason for expulsions in 2009, accounting for 25.8% with an age-standardised rate of 0.52 per 1,000 students. Continual disobedience was second most prevalent, accounting for 25.3% of expulsions with an age-standardised rate of 0.51 per 1,000 students. The third most prevalent reason was physical assault on other students which made up 16.8 of expulsions with an age-standardised rate of 0.34 per 1,000 students. This is almost a halving of the 2000 age-standardised rate of 0.65 per 1,000 students. These three behaviours made over two-thirds of all expulsions.

References

• Alton-Lee, A. (2003). Quality Teaching for Diverse Students in Schooling: Best Evidence Synthesis. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
• Biddulph, F., Biddulph, J. and Biddulph, C. (2003). The Complexity of Community and Family Influences on Children's Achievement in New Zealand: Best Evidence Synthesis Wellington: Ministry of Education.
• Bishop, R and Berryman M (2007). Culture Speaks: Cultural Relationships and Classroom Learning . Huia Publishers
  
• Hattie, J. (Oct, 2003). Teachers Make a Difference: What is the Research Evidence? Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research Annual Conference on Building Teacher Quality.
  
• Hattie, J. (April, 1999). Influences on Student Learning. Inaugural Professorial Lecture, University of Auckland,  New Zealand.
  
• Hughes, D. et al. (1999). Do Schools Make a Difference?: Hierarchical Linear Modelling of School Certificate Results in 23 Schools: The Smithfield Project, Phase Three: Eighth Report to the Ministry of Education. Wellington.
  
• Ministry of Education (2009). Guidelines for Principals and Boards of Trustees on Stand-downs, Suspensions, Exclusions and Expulsions. Part 1: Legal Options and Duties. Wellington: Ministry of Education
  
• Ministry of Education (2009). Good Practice Guidelines for Principals and Boards of Trustees for Managing Behaviour that May or May not Lead to Stand-downs, Suspensions, Exclusions and Expulsions. Part 2: Wellington: Ministry of Education
  
• Ministry of Education (2008). Ka Hikitia – Managing for Success: The Māori Education Strategy 2008-2012. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
  
• Partington, G. (2001). Student Suspensions: The Influence on Students and their Parents. Australian Journal of Education, 45, (3), 323-340.
  
• UK Office of Standards in Education. (2001). Improving Attendance and Behaviour in Secondary Schools. Strategies to Promote Educational Inclusion. StrateLondon: Office for Standards in Education.