Journal of K-12 Educational Research 63 classroom management, and extracurricular activities—had a negative effect on student behavior (p. 87). On the other hand, some researchers attribute high recidivism rates to a failure to change student behavior during their placement at the DAEP (Dunworth, 2018; Phillips, 2011). Coleman (2002) claims that recidivism is not always correlated with program failure: in the study, teachers believed that some students with long-term, repeated DAEP placements preferred the DAEP due to the clear expectations and relative predictability. Similarly, Barrera (2011) found that the longer the initial length of stay and the fewer number of referrals students received at the DAEP resulted in an increased risk of recidivism. Although the recidivism research primarily focuses on factors that contribute to recidivism, a large portion of discipline literature remains fixated on the controversy of exclusionary discipline practices. Over the years, researchers have thoroughly probed the topic of exclusionary discipline. The investigation has led to consequences that are both urgent and insidious. In the literature, the attempt to pinpoint a cause for disparities in exclusionary discipline rates was coupled with the notion that researchers have not found evidence to show that Black and Hispanic/Latino students commit offenses at higher rates than their White peers (Fowler, 2011; Rocque, 2010; Tajalli & Garba, 2014). While some researchers maintain that there is no clear explanation for discipline disparities, other researchers are convinced that implicit bias and systemic racism are to blame (Ford, 2016; Fowler, 2011; Whitford et al., 2016). Methodology For the current study, the researcher used mixed methods to gather and analyze three types of data. Descriptive statistics were used for the analysis of quantitative data based on DAEP placement data. The qualitative data derived from two sources: open-ended interviews with ten school administrators representing each traditional campus within the District and expert panel responses from DAEP administrators. Although the data were collected simultaneously, the qualitative findings filled in gaps and offered depth to the quantitative results. Results The research findings for the current study were addressed according to four guiding research questions (RQ). Figure 1 provides a visual representation of the summary of findings. RQs 1 and 2 utilized quantitative methods to compile sociodemographic and placement characteristics of students assigned to an off-campus Grades 9-12 DAEP once in addition to students assigned more than once. There were composite differences between the features of each group. Although there were only 14 recidivists, trends based on placement reasons and placement length were revealed. RQ3 investigated the DAEP placement risk rate through the lens of proportionality. The findings from the District align with established research on the topic: Males, Black students, Hispanic/Latino students, and economically disadvantaged students are largely overrepresented in DAEP placement risk. The final research question focused on administrators’ perceptions of recidivism risk factors. Interview transcripts were tagged and coded to determine factors that contribute to the likelihood of recidivism. The organization and grouping of codes resulted in 20 codes that were identified as factors that impact repeated placement. The codes were categorized and tagged based on the factor’s orientation to the recidivist: external, internal, and organizational as shown in Figure 2. The results confirmed that the factors that impact recidivism risk fall under various spheres of influence, and several themes emerged from the analysis of the qualitative data. Emergent Themes Johnson and Christensen (2017) define emergent themes as frequently occurring codes or categories that help summarize the data. There were four factors that participants across all three campus types mentioned. These consensus codes are significant because they are considered the most valid responses to the question. When the individual perspective linked to the campus type is eliminated, the consensus codes remain. The consensus codes were chronic issues/addiction, pre-high school discipline, recidivists not feeling connected to the home
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy ODc4ODgx