James P. Scanlan, Attorney at Law

Home Page

Curriculum Vitae

Publications

Published Articles

Conference Presentations

Working Papers

page1

Journal Comments

Truth in Justice Articles

Measurement Letters

Measuring Health Disp

Outline and Guide to MHD

Summary to MHD

Solutions

page3

Solutions Database

Irreducible Minimums

Pay for Performance

Between Group Variance

Concentration Index

Gini Coefficient

Reporting Heterogeneity

Cohort Considerations

Relative v Absolute Diff

Whitehall Studies

AHRQ's Vanderbilt Report

NHDR Measurement

NHDR Technical Issues

MHD A Articles

MHD B Conf Presentations

MHD D Journal Comments

Consensus/Non-Consensus

Spurious Contradictions

Institutional Corresp

page2

Scanlan's Rule

Outline and Guide to SR

Summary to SR

Bibliography

Semantic Issues

Employment Tests

Case Study

Case Study Answers

Case Study II

Subgroup Effects

Subgroup Effects NC

Illogical Premises

Illogical Premises II

Inevitable Interaction

Interactions by Age

Literacy Illustration

RERI

Feminization of Poverty S

Explanatory Theories

Mortality and Survival

Truncation Issues

Collected Illustrations

Income Illustrations

Framingham Illustrations

Life Table Illustrations

NHANES Illustrations

Mort/Surv Illustration

Credit Score Illustration

Intermediate Outcomes

Representational Disp

Statistical Signif SR

Comparing Averages

Meta-Analysis

Case Control Studies

Criminal Record Effects

Sears Case Illustration

Numeracy Illustration

Obesity Illusration

LIHTC Approval Disparitie

Recidivism Illustration

Consensus

Algorithm Fairness

Mortality and Survival 2

Mort/Survival Update

Measures of Association

Immunization Disparities

Race Health Initiative

Educational Disparities

Disparities by Subject

CUNY ISLG Eq Indicators

Harvard CRP NCLB Study

New York Proficiency Disp

Education Trust GC Study

Education Trust HA Study

AE Casey Profic Study

McKinsey Achiev Gap Study

California RICA

Nuclear Deterrence

Employment Discrimination

Job Segregation

Measuring Hiring Discr

Disparate Impact

Four-Fifths Rule

Less Discr Alt - Proc

Less Discr Altl - Subs

Fisher v. Transco Serv

Jones v. City of Boston

Bottom Line Issue

Lending Disparities

Inc & Cred Score Example

Disparities - High Income

Underadjustment Issues

Absolute Differences - L

Lathern v. NationsBank

US v. Countrywide

US v. Wells Fargo

Partial Picture Issues

Foreclosure Disparities

File Comparison Issues

FHA/VA Steering Study

CAP TARP Study

Disparities by Sector

Holder/Perez Letter

Federal Reserve Letter

Discipline Disparities

COPAA v. DeVos

Kerri K. V. California

Truancy Illustration

Disparate Treatment

Relative Absolute Diff

Offense Type Issues

Los Angeles SWPBS

Oakland Disparities

Richmond Disparities

Nashville Disparities

California Disparities

Denver Disparities

Colorado Disparities

Nor Carolina Disparitie

Aurora Disparities

Allegheny County Disp

Evansville Disparities

Maryland Disparities

St. Paul Disparities

Seattle Disparities

Minneapolis Disparities

Oregon Disparities

Beaverton Disparities

Montgomery County Disp

Henrico County Disparitie

Florida Disparities

Connecticut Disparities

Portland Disparities

Minnesota Disparities

Massachusetts Disparities

Rhode Island Disparities

South Bend Disparities

Utah Disparities

Loudoun Cty Disparities

Kern County Disparities

Milwaukee Disparities

Urbana Disparities

Illinois Disparities

Virginia Disparities

Behavior

Suburban Disparities

Preschool Disparities

Restraint Disparities

Disabilities - PL 108-446

Keep Kids in School Act

Gender Disparities

Ferguson Arrest Disp

NEPC Colorado Study

NEPC National Study

California Prison Pop

APA Zero Tolerance Study

Flawed Inferences - Disc

Oakland Agreement

DOE Equity Report

IDEA Data Center Guide

Duncan/Ali Letter

Crim Justice Disparities

U.S. Customs Search Disp

Deescalation Training

Career Criminal Study

Implicit Bias Training

Drawing Inferences

Diversion Programs

Minneapolis PD Investig

Offense Type Issues CJD

Innumerate Decree Monitor

Massachusetts CJ Disparit

Feminization of Poverty

Affirmative Action

Affirm Action for Women

Other Affirm Action

Justice John Paul Stevens

Statistical Reasoning

The Sears Case

Sears Case Documents

The AT&T Consent Decree

Cross v. ASPI

Vignettes

Times Higher Issues

Gender Diff in DADT Term

Adjustment Issues

Percentage Points

Odds Ratios

Statistical Signif Vig

Journalists & Statistics

Multiplication Definition

Prosecutorial Misconduct

Outline and Guide

Misconduct Summary

B1 Agent Cain Testimony

B1a Bev Wilsh Diversion

B2 Bk Entry re Cain Call

B3 John Mitchell Count

B3a Obscuring Msg Slips

B3b Missing Barksdale Int

B4 Park Towers

B5 Dean 1997 Motion

B6 Demery Testimony

B7 Sankin Receipts

B7a Sankin HBS App

B8 DOJ Complicity

B9 Doc Manager Complaints

B9a Fabricated Gov Exh 25

B11a DC Bar Complaint

Letters (Misconduct)

Links Page

Misconduct Profiles

Arlin M. Adams

Jo Ann Harris

Bruce C. Swartz

Swartz Addendum 2

Swartz Addendum 3

Swartz Addendum 4

Swartz Addendum 7

Robert E. O'Neill

O'Neill Addendum 7

Paula A. Sweeney

Robert J. Meyer

Lantos Hearings

Password Protected

OIC Doc Manager Material

DC Bar Materials

Temp Confidential

DV Issues

Indexes

Document Storage

Pre 1989

1989 - present

Presentations

Prosec Misc Docs

Prosec Misc Docs II

Profile PDFs

Misc Letters July 2008 on

Large Prosec Misc Docs

HUD Documents

Transcripts

Miscellaneous Documents

Unpublished Papers

Letters re MHD

Tables

MHD Comments

Figures

ASPI Documents

Web Page PDFs

Sears Documents

Pages Transfer


Kern County, California Disparities

(Dec. 6, 2017; rev. Dec. 23, 2019)

Prefatory notes:  This subpage discusses discipline disparities issues involving Kern County, California Public Schools.  The subpage discusses data showing that general reductions in discipline rates were accompanied by increased racial/ethnic differences in discipline rates.  In that regard, the subpage may be compared to the California Disparities, Colorado Disparities, Connecticut Disparities, Florida Disparities, Illinois Disparities, Maryland Disparities, Massachusetts Disparities,  Minnesota Disparities, North Carolina Disparities, Oregon Disparities, Rhode Island Disparities, Utah Disparities, Virginia Disparities, Allegheny County (PA) Disparities, Aurora (CO) Disparities, Beaverton (OR) Disparities, Denver Disparities, Evansville (IN) Disparities, Henrico County (VA) Disparities,  Los Angeles SWPBS, Loudoun County (VA) Disparities, Milwaukee Disparities,  Minneapolis Disparities, Montgomery County (MD) Disparities, Oakland (CA) Disparities, Portland (OR) Disparities, Seattle Disparities, St. Paul Disparities, South Bend Disparities, Urbana (IL) Disparities subpages of the Discipline Disparities page of jpscanlan.com. 

These subpages discuss data showing that when discipline rates were reduced in the referenced jurisdictions, relative racial/ethnic differences in discipline rates increased.  Simpler discussions of why generally reducing suspensions tends to increase relative differences in suspensions may be found in “The Paradox of Lowering Standards,” Baltimore Sun (Aug. 5, 2013), and “Misunderstanding of Statistics Leads to Misguided Law Enforcement Policies,” Amstat News  (Dec. 2012), and broader principles are discussed at length in my “Race and Mortality Revisited,” Society (July/Aug. 2014).

Recent treatments of this subject may be found in my “Innumeracy at the Department of Education and the Congressional Committees Overseeing It,” Federalist Society Blog (Aug. 24, 2017), “Measuring Discipline Disparities, a written statements prepared for U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Briefing “The School to Prison Pipeline: The Intersection of Students of Color with Disabilities” (Dec. 8, 2017),  “COPAA v. DeVos and the Government’s Continuing Numeracy Problem,” Federalist Society Blog (Sept. 12, 2019), and “Maryland Discipline Study Shows Usual – But Misunderstood – Effects of Policies on Measures of Racial Disparity,” Gunpowder Gazette (Dec. 16, 2019).  A June 2018 paper by the Berkeley Media Studies Group titled “Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline, A Case Study of Community-led Disciplinary Reform in Kern County,” which reflects the usual mistaken misunderstanding of the effects of reducing discipline rates on measures of disparity references Professor Jeffery Sprague of the University of Oregon as a pioneer in the promotion of Positive Behavioral Support and Interventions, the type of programs commonly promoted as a means of reducing relative racial differences in discipline rates.  Professor Sprague’s colleagues at the University of Oregon have recently recognized that generally reducing suspensions tends to increase relative differences in suspensions.  See Girvan et al., “Tail, Tusk, and Trunk: What Different Metrics Reveal About Racial Disproportionality in School Discipline” Educational Psychologist (2019). 


***

Kern County is a California County between Los Angles and Fresno comprising the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area.  Its population was about 840,000 (2010).  As of the December 2017 it had 264 public schools with approximately 176,000 students. 

In October 2014 a group individuals and organizations sued the Kern County High School District for racial and ethnic discrimination in the imposition of discipline.  The case was settled in June 2017 pursuant to an agreement that, in addition to providing $600,000 in fees for plaintiffs’ attorneys and certain monetary and other relief to particular individuals, provided for certain modifications to practices and the monitoring of data on disciplinary outcomes by race. 

Both the complaint and the agreement reflect the mistaken belief that programs that generally reducing discipline rates will tend to reduce (a) relative (percentage) racial/ethnic differences in rates of experiencing the outcomes and (b) the proportions racial/ethnic racial minorities make up of persons experiencing the outcomes.

According to the complaint the district had 2,205 expulsions in the 2009-10 school year, but reduced that figure to 256 in the 2012-13 school year and 80 in the 2013-14 school year.  In describing the effects of the reductions on measures of disparity, the complaint stated (at 2):

These reductions did not appear to reflect any change in the disparate effect of the expulsion polices, and in 2012-13, the last year for which disaggregated data is available, 56.6 % of Latino students were expelled (compared to 60.5% in 2009-10), 21.9% of African-American students were expelled (compared to 14.5% in 2009-10), and 17.9% of the White student population was expelled (compared to 22.7% in 2009-2010).

Statements like “56.6% of Latino students were expelled” obviously was intended to mean that 56.6% of expelled students were Latino.  But the statement nevertheless reflects both the view that one would expect such proportion to decline for more susceptible groups when there occur general reductions in expulsions and that in fact, at least for blacks, the proportion increased. 

From the figures cited in the complaint properly understood, and the proportions three identified groups made up students  – 62% Latino, 6 % African American, and 25% white in 2013-14, given at page 15 of the complaint ­­–  one can calculate rate ratios for expulsions in 2009-10 and 2012-13.   The formula would be ((a) proportion more susceptible group makes up of students/(b) proportion more susceptible group makes up of persons experiencing the outcome)/ ((c) proportion less susceptible group makes up of students/(d) proportion less susceptible group makes up of persons experiencing the outcome. 

(I use the proportion the various groups made up of students in 2013-14 as a proxy for the proportions they made up of students in the 2009-10 and 2012-13.  The proportions in those periods probably differ only slightly from the proportions for 2013-14 and differences are unlikely to materially affect the points that follow.)

The ratio of the black rate to the white rate increased from 2.66 to 5.10 and the ratio of the Latino rate to the white rates increased from 1.07 to 1.28.  The ratio of the black rate to the Hispanic rate also increased from 2.50 to 4.0.

Thus, we have the usual pattern whereby general reductions in the prevalence of an outcome were accompanied by increases in relative differences between rates at which more and less susceptible groups experience the outcome.

The Kern County situation, which involves more than two groups, differs from the situation of a universe of two groups that I use in many examples in a number of respects.  First, in Kern County, even though the Latino rate is higher than the white rate in both periods, the Latino rate is lower than the rate for all non-Latino persons and thus Latinos make up a smaller proportion of expelled students than they make up of all students.  Thus, according to the way some school districts would examine the matter Latinos would be underrepresented among expelled students.   Second, even though the relative difference between the Latino rate and the white rate increased between the two periods, the proportion Latinos made up of expelled students declined. 

Patterns like these are reasons it is always better to make comparisons between two groups at a time.  The IDEA Data Center Disproportionality Guide subpage of the Discipline Disparities page of jpscanlan.com mentions this issue in the context of explain the reasons why one should never analyze a disparities issue on the basis of the difference between the proportion a group makes up of persons potentially experiencing an outcome and the proportion it makes up of persons actually experiencing the outcome.

The Kern County situation is one worth following with respect to what occurs during implementation and monitoring an agreement that contemplates both reductions in rates of adverse outcomes and reductions in the aforementioned (a) and (b) as to the outcomes.  See Letter to Oklahoma City School District (Sept. 20, 2016).  See also “Compliance Nightmare Looms for Baltimore Police Department,” Federalist Society Blog (Feb. 8, 2017), and “The Government’s Uncertain Path to Numeracy,” Federalist Society Blog (July 21, 2017).