A GLOSSARY OF COMMON METHODS FOR CALCULATING

DISCIPLINE DISPARITIES
A variety of methods are used in schools and jurisdictions to calculate disparities in exclusionary discipline. This
glossary provides the most commonly used methods for quick reference. The goal of this glossary is to increase
awareness of these methods, but not to endorse any of the methods as being a best practice.
The table below includes the purpose of each method and an illustrative question, as well as guidance on how to
calculate each method. The following measures are described in detail:

TALKING POINTS
When calculating disparities in exclusionary
discipline, it is essential to keep in mind the
following points:

School communities should aim to both reduce

exclusionary discipline as well as eliminate
discipline disparities.
It is essential to measure progress in these areas
over time.
Every method has its strengths and limitations
making some methods more appropriate than
others under certain conditions and in response to
specific types of questions.
Using multiple methods is advised.
Exploring the relative advantages and
disadvantages of each method is beyond the
scope of this document.

Alternate Risk Ratio

E-Formula

Odds Ratio

Risk Gap

Risk Index

Risk Ratio

Calculating Discipline Disparities

METHOD

PURPOSE AND ILLUSTRATIVE QUESTION

CALCULATION

Risk Index 1,4,6

Purpose: Risk indicates the underlying rate at which a

demographic group (e.g., Black students or Black male
students) receives a disciplinary action or a set of
disciplinary actions (e.g., one or more suspensions).
Suspension rate and disciplinary action rate are
examples of risk.

Risk Calculation: Divide the number of students in a

demographic group in a discipline category by the total
number of students in the demographic group and multiply
this dividend by 100. This calculation is represented as:

Illustrative Question: What is the likelihood that Black

students will experience one or more suspensions?

Risk Gap1

Purpose: The risk gap indicates the difference between

a target group (e.g., Black students or Black male
students) and a comparison group (e.g., White
students or White male students, or all other students)
in receiving a disciplinary action or a set of disciplinary
actions (e.g., one or more suspensions).

Risk Gap Calculation: Subtract the risk of students from a

comparison group receiving a disciplinary action from the risk
of students in the target group receiving a disciplinary action.
This calculation is represented as:

Illustrative Question: To what extent do Black and

White students (or Black and all other students) differ
in the likelihood of receiving one or more suspensions?
Note: Risk values should be presented alongside the risk gap in
order to show the underlying rates.

Risk Ratio1,2,5,6,7,9

Purpose: The risk ratio indicates the likelihood of a

specific set of disciplinary action(s) (e.g., one or more
suspensions) for a target group (e.g., Black students,
Latino male students) relative to the likelihood for a
comparison group (e.g., White students, all other
students).
Illustrative Question: What is the likelihood of Black
students receiving one or more suspensions relative to
the likelihood of White students (or all other students)
receiving one or more suspensions?

Risk Ratio Calculation: Divide the risk for a disciplinary

outcome for a target demographic group by the risk for a
comparison group. This calculation is represented as:

A risk ratio of 1.0 indicates no differences between the

demographic groups.
A risk ratio greater than 1.0 indicates that the risk for the
target group is greater than the risk for the comparison group.
A risk ratio less than 1.0 indicates that the risk for the target
group is lower than the risk for the comparison group.
Note: Risk values should be presented alongside the risk ratio
in order to show the underlying rates.

P a g e |2

Calculating Discipline Disparities

METHOD

PURPOSE AND ILLUSTRATIVE QUESTION

CALCULATION

Alternate Risk
Ratio1

Purpose: The alternate risk ratio indicates the likelihood

of a specific set of disciplinary action(s) (e.g., one or
more suspensions) for a target group (e.g., Black
students, Latino male students) relative to all other
students one level up (e.g., if school is in the
numerator, use the district in the denominator).

Alternate Risk Ratio Calculation: Divide the risk for a

disciplinary outcome for a target demographic group by the
risk for a comparison group that is one level up (e.g., if the
school is reflected in the numerator, use the district in the
denominator). This calculation is represented as:

Illustrative Question: What is the likelihood of Black

students in the school receiving one or more
suspensions relative to the likelihood of all other
students in the district receiving one or more
suspensions?
An alternate risk ratio of 1.0 indicates no difference between
the risk for the target group and that of all other students in
the comparison group (e.g., in school district or state).
An alternate risk ratio greater than 1.0 indicates that the risk
for the target group is greater than the risk for all other
students in the comparison group (e.g., in school district or
state).
An alternate risk ratio less than 1.0 indicates that the risk for
the target group is lower than the risk for all other students in
the comparison group (e.g., in the school district or state).
Note: Risk values should be presented alongside the alternate
risk ratio in order to show the underlying rates.

P a g e |3

Calculating Discipline Disparities

METHOD

PURPOSE AND ILLUSTRATIVE QUESTION

CALCULATION

Odds Ratio3,7,8

Purpose: The odds ratio indicates the odds of the

occurrence of exclusionary discipline (e.g., one or more
suspensions) versus the nonoccurrence of exclusionary
discipline in a target group (e.g., Black students, Latino
male students) relative to the odds in a comparison
group.

Odds Ratio Calculation: Calculate the odds for each group

(number of students in a group who are in a discipline category
divided by number of students who are not in a discipline
category), and then divide the two odds. This calculation is
represented as:

Illustrative Question: What are the odds that Black

students will receive versus not receive one or more
suspensions relative to the odds for White students?

Odds of 1.0 indicate that both groups have equal odds of being
versus not being in an exclusionary discipline category.
Odds greater than 1.0 indicate how much greater the odds are
in the target group (e.g., odds of 4.0 indicates 4 times greater
odds).
Odds less than 1.0 indicate how much less the odds are in the
target group.

E-Formula1

Purpose: The e-formula indicates the extent to which a

target group (e.g., Black students, Latino male
students) is overrepresented (or underrepresented) in
an exclusionary discipline category (e.g., one or more
suspensions) by taking into account the expected value
given the share of that demographic group in a school.
Illustrative Question: Is the percentage of Black
students who experience one or more suspensions
above the upper bound of what is expected given the
school composition?

E-Formula Calculation of the Upper Bound:

A = Enrollment composition of target group in a school

N = Total population of students
One may also wish to calculate the lower bound, which is done
by subtracting rather than adding the square rooted portion of
the formula.
If the percentage of students in an exclusionary discipline
category is above the upper bound, then the target group is
overrepresented in the exclusionary discipline category.
If the percentage of students in an exclusionary discipline
category is below the lower bound, then the target group is
underrepresented in the exclusionary discipline category.

P a g e |4

Calculating Discipline Disparities

References
1 Westat. (2011). Methods for assessing racial/ethnic disproportionality in special education: A technical assistance guide (Revised).
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs. Retrieved from http://www.isbe.net/speced/pdfs/disproportionality_ta-guide.pdf
2 Coutinho, M. J., & Oswald, D. P. (2004). Disproportionate representation of culturally and linguistically diverse students in special
education: Measuring the problem (Practitioner Brief). Tempe, AZ: National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational Systems.
Retrieved from http://www.nccrest.org/Briefs/students_in_SPED_Brief.pdf

3 Artiles, A. J., & Harry, B. (2006). Addressing culturally and linguistically diverse student overrepresentation in special education: Guidelines
for parents (NCCREST Practitioner Brief). Tempe, AZ: National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational Systems. Retrieved from:
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED523871.pdf
4 Donovan, M. S., & Cross, C. T. (Eds.). (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10128&page=R2.

5 Hosp, J. L., & Reschly, D. J. (2003). Referral rates for intervention and assessment: A meta-analysis of racial differences. Journal of
Special Education, 37, 6781.

6 Indiana University. (n.d.). Using data. Retrieved from http://www.indiana.edu/~equity/usingdata.php

7 Gregory, A., Skiba, R. J., & Noguera, P. A. (2010). The achievement gap and the discipline gap two sides of the same coin? Educational
Researcher, 39(1), 5968.
8 Szumilas, M. (2010). Explaining odds ratios. Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 19(3), 227.
9 OSEP Technical Assistance Center. (2014). Using discipline data within SWPBIS to identify and address disproportionality: A guide for
school teams. Retrieved from http://indiana.edu/~pbisin/pdf/PBIS_Disproportionality_Data_Guidebook.pdf

Suggested Citation:
Katz, J., Losen, D., Osher, D., Skiba, R. & Amos, L. (2015). A glossary of common methods for calculating
discipline disparities. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Supportive School Discipline. Retrieved from
http://supportiveschooldiscipline.org/learn/reference-guides/measuring-discipline-disparities.

P a g e |5