Home

Exclusionary discipline policies, such as suspensions or expulsions, can have long-term negative consequences on youth (e.g. school dropout and involvement in the juvenile justice system) and school climate (White House Report: The Continuing Need To Rethink Discipline; HHS and U.S. DoE Policy Statement on Exclusionary Discipline). Although federal data demonstrate steady declines in suspensions and expulsions, data indicate that students of color and students with disabilities continue to be disproportionately suspended or expelled.

Several states have addressed the negative consequences and disparities related to exclusionary discipline by enacting policies that direct schools and districts to eliminate or reduce punitive discipline practices and/or implement restorative practices.

Sources: Data retrieved via an extensive independent review by the NCSMH and supplemented by additional sources, including: 

National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE). (2020). State Policy Database: Alternatives to Exclusionary Discipline. Retrieved from: https://statepolicies.nasbe.org/health/categories/social-and-emotional-climate/alternatives-exclusionary-discipline

Education Commission of the States. (2018). School Discipline: Are there non-punitive approaches outlined as alternatives to suspension or expulsion? Retrieved from: http://ecs.force.com/mbdata/MBQuest2RTanw?rep=SD1804

All 50 states and the District of Columbia have either anti-bullying laws, regulations, model policies, or a combination of all three. These require districts to engage in bullying prevention and to respond when bullying occurs. Although it is necessary to address bullying, there is concern regarding the reliance on punitive responses to bullying. Punitive discipline practices do not reduce incidents of bullying and do not address harm.

The links in the map lead to state pages on stopbullying.gov, a site hosted by the US Department of Health and Human Services. In addition to describing the laws, policies, and common components, each state page provides link to the policy itself.

Source: The information in the map was originally collected and compiled by several federal government agencies, including U.S. Department of Education (DoE), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and Department of Justice (DOJ).

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2018). Laws, Policies, & Regulations | StopBullying.gov. https://www.stopbullying.gov/resources/laws

Students, their families, and their communities thrive when school staff celebrate and integrate the societal contributions of people from different cultures in the classroom. According to the National Childhood Traumatic Stress Network (NCTSN), multicultural recognition in education increases personal meaning of classroom content, elevates student-teacher relationships, improves academic success, and enhances students’ sense of belonging at school. Recognizing and honoring the experiences of diverse people reduces disenfranchisement among communities that are marginalized. The New America’s report on culturally responsive teaching (CRT) notes that “the majority of states do not yet provide a description of CRT that is clear or comprehensive enough to support teachers in developing and strengthening their CRT practice throughout their careers.” The map below provides access to state professional teaching standards that incorporate aspects of CRT.

Source: The information in this map was originally compiled New America. 

Muñiz, J. Culturally responsive teaching: A 50-state survey of teaching standards. New America. https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/reports/culturally-responsive-teaching/

One of the most significant components of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) is the requirement that states include multiple measures in their accountability systems. In addition to academic indicators (academic achievement, academic growth, graduation rate, and progress in achieving English language proficiency (ELP)), states must select at least one indicator of “school quality or student success” such as:

• Rates of chronic absenteeism
• College and career readiness
• Student or educator engagement
• Student access to and completion of advanced coursework
• School climate

States have the flexibility to select multiple “school quality or student success” indicators and to use multiple measures within each indicator.

Chronic Absenteeism

Across the United States, over 8 million students each year are chronically absent, generally defined as missing 10 percent or more of school days. Chronic absence negatively affects school performance, graduation rate, and student success. Students of color, students living in poverty, and students with disabilities are more likely to be chronically absent. Chronic absence is often connected to physical or mental health problems, food and housing insecurity, or having an unsafe route to school. As part of their state ESSA plans, 37 states and the District of Columbia use a measure of chronic absenteeism in their accountability and improvement systems. Thirty-six states and the District of Columbia are also measuring chronic absenteeism to inform school improvement efforts. Each state outlines their approach and the measures they use in their ESSA plans, which are linked in the map below.

Source: The information in the map was originally collected and compiled by the Learning Policy Institute.

Learning Policy Institute (2018). Interactive Map: Making ESSA’s equity promise real: State strategies to close the opportunity gap. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/essa-equity-promise-interactive

School Climate

School climate is a multidimensional concept that includes several aspects of a school’s physical and social environment. The National School Climate Center outlines five key components of a positive school climate. As part of their ESSA plans, eight states selected school climate as an accountability measure. Several other states also measure school climate to inform improvement efforts. Each state outlines their approach and the measures they use in their ESSA plans, which are linked in the map below.

Source: The information in the map was originally collected and compiled by the Learning Policy Institute.

Learning Policy Institute (2018). Interactive Map: Making ESSA’s equity promise real: State strategies to close the opportunity gap. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/essa-equity-promise-interactive

In 2014, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) reversed the Free Care Rule, which restricted schools from getting reimbursement for services provided to Medicaid-enrolled students without an Individualized Education Plan (IEP). The reversal permits states to allow school districts to bill Medicaid for school-based health services, including mental health services, provided to all Medicaid-enrolled children, not just those with an IEP. To expand this eligibility, states need to take action, typically through modification of state Medicaid plans.  For more information on school Medicaid, please visit the Healthy Students, Promising Futures webpage, a Healthy Schools Campaign program.

The map below displays states that have leveraged the policy reversal by expanding Medicaid coverage in schools, states that are in the process, and states that have not yet taken action.

Source: This information was originally compiled by the Healthy Schools Campaign through their Healthy Students, Promising Futures program.

Partnering with and effectively engaging families is critical to the success of comprehensive school mental health systems. The map below displays states that have a policy directing districts to develop or implement plans, policies, or programs related to family engagement in schools.

The information in this map was compiled by the National Association of State Boards of Education.

National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE). (2020). State Policy Database: Family Engagement Plans. Retrieved from: https://statepolicies.nasbe.org/health/categories/family-engagement/family-engagement-plans 

Funding for school mental health comes from multiple and diverse funding sources, including federal, state, district, school, and private support. The maps below display states that use federal funding sources (U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services) and those that use state funding sources (e.g. specific appropriations in state budgets, state taxes, and state education funding).

This information was compiled by the Education Commission of the States. Their policy brief, State Funding for Student Mental Health, details these funding sources and includes several state examples.

The School Mental Health Quality Guide: Funding and Sustainability provides background information on funding and sustainability, best practices, examples from the field, and resources.

State Sources

Department of Education

Department of Health and Human Services

Source: The information in this map was originally compiled by the Education Commission of the States.

Education Commission of the States. (2021). State funding for student mental health. Retrieved from: https://www.ecs.org/wp-content/uploads/State-Funding-for-Student-Mental-Health.pdf

High school students have rated taking mental health breaks as similar in significance to having access to mental health professionals to youth in high school (Mental Health America, 2020). Advocates, including youth mental health advocates, across the U.S. have taken charge in advocating for bills that expand excused absences to include mental and behavioral health. Several states have passed legislation that allows students to use their allocated excused absences to care for their physical and mental health. The map below provides information on states that have passed mental health excused absences legislation and states with introduced legislation.