bs_bs_banner
Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
1011
VOLUME 61 PART 11 pp 1011–1020 NOVEMBER 2017
Suspension rates of students with autism or intellectual
disabilities in Maryland from 2004 to 2015
M. P. Krezmien,1 J. C. Travers2 & K. Camacho1
1 Department of Student Development, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, USA
2 Department of Special Education, Kansas University, Lawrence, KS, USA
Abstract
Background Little research exists on suspension of
students with autism or intellectual disabilities. We
examined suspension rates of students with autism or
intellectual disability in Maryland from 2004 to 2015
to understand whether race and disability status
predicted the odds of being suspended.
Method We used school enrollment data and school
suspension data in Maryland for analysis. Descriptive
statistics by race and disability category were
calculated. Logistic regression was used to examine
differences in odds of suspension by race and by
disability (ID and autism) each year.
Results Suspension rates in Maryland decreased
overall from 2004 to 2015, but African American
students with intellectual disability or no disability
were significantly more likely to be suspended. White
students with autism and White students with
intellectual disability had significantly higher odds of
suspension than White students without a disability.
Conclusions Overall risk for suspension in Maryland
decreased over time. African American students with
autism or intellectual disability, as well as white
students with autism or intellectual disability,
experienced significantly higher odds of suspension
when compared to their White students without a
disability. This relatively unexplored issue commands
attention from researchers and policymakers alike.
Correspondence: M. P. Krezmien, University of Massachusetts,
Amherst, MA, USA (e-mail: krezmien@gmail.com).
© 2017 MENCAP and International Association of the Scientific Study of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and
John Wiley & Sons Ltd
doi: 10.1111/jir.12406
Keywords autism, behaviour, discipline, intellectual
disability, racial disparities, suspension
Students with autism and students with intellectual
disabilities (IDs) typically require specialised support
for social, behavioural, communicative and academic
development (Schalock et al. 2010; American
Psychiatric Association 2013). Accordingly, special
education law in the USA requires local education
agencies to provide positive behaviour interventions
and supports to students with disabilities whose
behaviour (e.g. self-stimulatory behaviour, self-injury,
aggression, property destruction and etc.) interferes
with educational progress of the learner or peers.
Much evidence exists demonstrating the efficacy of
function-based behaviour interventions and supports
for learners with behavioural challenges (Dunlap &
Fox 2011; Wong et al. 2015). Conversely, there is no
evidence that students with autism or ID benefit from
punitive exclusionary suspensions. Despite these
facts, suspension continues to be used to address
inappropriate behaviours. Although researchers and
policymakers have focused on inappropriate use of
physical restraint and seclusion for learners with
autism and/or ID, relatively little is known about
suspension practices for these students.
Learners with autism and/or ID have a tendency to
display limited social skills and maladaptive behaviour
that may expose them to unnecessary (i.e. ineffective)
disciplinary suspensions. These students may engage
in physical and verbal aggression towards adults and
 Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
1012
M. P. Krezmien, J. C. Travers & K. Camacho • Suspension of students with AUT or ID
peers, destroy property and may be highly disruptive
to the education of others. The socially inappropriate
behaviours of students with ID and autism also may
contribute to risk of suspension, which is consistent
with findings for students with learning disabilities
(LDs), emotional disturbance (ED) and attention-
deficit hyperactivity disorder (Duran et al. 2011).
Despite their social skill deficits, students with
autism and/or ID also have characteristics distinctly
different from students with LD, ED and attention-
deficit/hyperactivity disorder that warrant separate
rather than aggregate investigation. The Individuals
with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA)
of 2004 requires students to be identified with a
primary disability. Students with autism may have
comorbid conditions, including ID, but only be
reported eligible for special education due to autism.
Similarly, students eligible due to ID may have
comorbid conditions, but only be reported eligible
due to ID. An individual with average or superior
intelligence may be found eligible under the autism
category if s/he has Asperger syndrome or other mild
forms of autism that only require some support. Such
individuals are qualitatively different from learners
with ID, but nonetheless may be at risk for suspension
because of social difficulties. Thus, although learners
with autism and ID may share similar characteristics
with regards to social and behavioural development,
investigations of suspension practices for each group
may reveal different or relatively similar profiles.
Suspension by disability type
Despite decades of attention to the topic of disparate
application of disciplinary suspension of students with
disabilities, only a few studies have specifically
included analyses of autism or ID as a predictor of
suspension. Cooley’s (1995) state report for Kansas
appears to be the earliest available report on suspension
of students with ID. Cooley surveyed school principals
throughout the state and found that students with
educable ID (i.e. mild–moderate ID) constituted 3.7%
(n = 10) of suspended students with disabilities, and
students with trainable ID (i.e. severe ID) constituted
1.11% (n = 3) of suspended students with disabilities.
Cooley reported that only 0.04% (n = 192) of all
students in Kansas had autism and that none had been
suspended. Cooley’s report was limited by a reliance on
administrator report and only included descriptive
© 2017 MENCAP and International Association of the Scientific Study of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and
John Wiley & Sons Ltd
VOLUME 61 PART 11 NOVEMBER 2017
statistics for autism and ID. Skiba et al. (1997)
investigated rates of suspension following office
discipline referral for middle school students with
disabilities in an urban Midwestern district, including
students with mild or moderate mental handicaps.
Skiba et al. found significant differences in average
number of suspensions as a function of disability
label/type. Specifically, they found that students with
mild mental handicap were suspended significantly
more often than students without disabilities, but those
with moderate mental handicap were not suspended at
significantly different rates. Skiba et al. were the first to
find statistically significant differences in the application
of suspension for students with IDs, but these authors
did not examine suspension of students with autism or
whether disparate applications of suspension by race
occurred within disability categories.
Two studies have examined suspension of students
with autism or ID in aggregate with other groups.
Zhang et al. (2004) combined students with LD, ID
and ED for repeated measures MANOVA analyses of
suspension by disability category. Although
descriptive findings indicated that students with ID
were less likely to be suspended when compared with
students with LD or ED, Zhang et al. found that
disability (LD, ID and ED combined) was predictive of
short-term and long-term suspensions. These findings
were useful for helping shed light on disparate
discipline practices, but did not provide specific results
about whether ID predicted disciplinary suspension,
and autism suspensions were not analysed. Sullivan
et al. (2014) used multi-level modelling of data from
Wisconsin in an attempt to identify nested factors
predictive of suspension, including disability type at the
individual level. They combined speech language
impairment, autism, deaf blindness, developmental
disability, hearing impairment, traumatic brain injury
and visual impairment to form a reference group for
comparisons with LD, ID, ED and other health
impairment categories.
Sullivan et al. found no significant differences in
suspension between students with ID and the
comparison (i.e. combined) group. Because students
with autism were part of the comparison group,
disparities in suspension of students with autism were
not investigated. The findings from Zhang et al. and
Sullivan et al. illustrate how differences in
methodology and analysis at state and national levels
suggest disparate rates of suspension of students with
 Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
1013
M. P. Krezmien, J. C. Travers & K. Camacho • Suspension of students with AUT or ID
ID, but underscore the need for investigations that
reveal whether racially diverse students with autism
are subjected to suspension at rates consistent with
their white counterparts with and without autism.
Suspension by disability type and race
Two studies have directly examined suspension rates
for students with autism or ID by racial category.
Krezmien et al. (2006) examined suspension data
from the Maryland for students with ID, speech
language impairment, ED, other health impairment,
LD and autism in 2003. Using logistic regression,
Krezmien and colleagues found that white, Hispanic,
Asian and American Indian students with ID were
suspended at rates consistent with their non-disabled
white counterparts, but African American children
with ID were significantly more likely to be suspended
when compared with non-disabled white students.
Suspension rates for students with autism revealed no
differences in suspension for any racial group
included in their analysis (Krezmien et al. 2006).
More recently, Losen et al. (2014) found that children
in their national sample who were diagnosed with
autism were less likely to be suspended when
compared with their non-disabled peers, but black
students with autism had higher rates of suspension
than white students with autism.
One study examined suspension of racially diverse
students with autism at the state level and found no
significant differences (Krezmien et al. 2006), but this
is not surprisingly inconsistent with Losen et al.’s
(2014) findings at the national level—national profiles
of disproportionality do not often accurately represent
the situation of individual states (Sullivan et al. 2014).
For example, analyses of the administrative
prevalence of autism indicate differences between
state and national profiles. Travers et al. (2013) found
the national administrative prevalence profile of
African American children shifted from over-
representation to under-representation from 2000 to
2007. They also found that Hispanic and American
Indian students were significantly under-represented
for all years of the analysis. However, a state-level
analysis of administrative autism prevalence revealed
systemic under-identification of racially diverse
students in the autism category at rates that varied
between states (Travers et al. 2014). Discipline and
special education eligibility data indicate how state
© 2017 MENCAP and International Association of the Scientific Study of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and
John Wiley & Sons Ltd
VOLUME 61 PART 11 NOVEMBER 2017
and local education agencies differently interpret the
law, set policies and behaviour. Accordingly,
examination of disparate disciplinary practices at the
state level may provide results that can inform policy
and practices at the state and local levels.
The limited extant research examining disciplinary
suspension of students with autism and/or ID
indicates discrepant findings. Although suspension
may be disparately applied to students with ID, it
remains unclear whether race has moderating or
mediating effects on this disciplinary practice. The
ambiguity may be partly the result of limited datasets
available to support an analysis of suspensions by
disability and race. Researchers often must identify
and access suspension and enrolment data from local
and state education agencies to build databases for
examinations of suspension practices (e.g. Krezmien
et al. 2006). The challenges associated with these
tasks also may explain the varied methodologies (e.g.
survey, sampling methods, state population analyses)
used to answer questions pertinent to this topic.
Purpose of the study
The field remains largely uninformed about the
frequency of suspension as well as the role race plays
in the application of disciplinary suspension for
students with ID, and even less so for students with
autism. This is somewhat surprising given abundant
evidence indicating that suspension is used in
different ways contingent on student race and
disability status (e.g. Krezmien et al. 2006), and
because social deficits predict suspension of students
with disabilities (Duran et al. 2011). We were
interested in understanding whether the suspension
practices for students with autism and/or ID in
Maryland changed over the past decade and if racially
diverse students with these disabilities were
disproportionately suspended. If students with autism
and/or ID were more likely to be suspended than their
non-disabled white counterparts, and if disparities
existed between racial groups, this would suggest a
need for further investigations of suspension practices
for these particular students in other states as well as
in other nations who employ disciplinary removals
from school. Such results also may be useful for
informing policy and professional development at
state and local levels, particularly if disparate
suspension practices appear related to disability type
 Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
1014
M. P. Krezmien, J. C. Travers & K. Camacho • Suspension of students with AUT or ID
and race. We therefore acquired public and readily
available suspension data for the entire state of
Maryland since 2004 and sought to answer the
following research questions:
• How did suspension percentages of African American
and white students with autism, IDs and without
disabilities in Maryland change from 2004 to 2015?
• Were there differences in the odds of being
suspended by race and disability category?
• Did the odds of being suspended by race and dis-
ability category change from 2004 to 2015?
Method
We employed descriptive data analysis and logistic
regression analyses using all public school students in
Maryland from 2004 to 2015 to answer our research
questions. The data for analyses were acquired via
publicly available sources and were used to develop a
database with information relevant to our research
questions. After the database was compiled, the data
were imported into SPSS for analysis.
Data source and participants
Total enrolment data by race for each of the years
examined were obtained from the Maryland public
school enrolment reports, reported by the Maryland
State Department of Education, Division of
Curriculum, Assessment and Accountability. Special
Education data by race for each year were obtained
from the Maryland Special Education/Early
Intervention Services Census Data reports, published
by the Maryland State Department of Education,
Division of Curriculum, Assessment and
Accountability. Suspension data for each year were
drawn from Maryland Suspensions, Expulsions and
Health-Related Exclusions reports, published by the
Maryland State Department of Education, Division
of Curriculum, Assessment and Accountability. Data
were transferred to SPSS version 24 for analysis. Data
included number of public school students enrolled
by race (white = WH, African American = AA) and by
disability category (autism = AUT, intellectual
disability = ID and no disability (ND)). Data also
included the number of students suspended within
each category. The number of Hispanic students in
© 2017 MENCAP and International Association of the Scientific Study of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and
John Wiley & Sons Ltd
VOLUME 61 PART 11 NOVEMBER 2017
the AUT (n = 152) and ID (n = 211) groups during
2004 was comparatively small. Also, the highest
frequency of suspensions of Hispanic students with
AUT (11 suspensions) and ID (14 suspensions)
occurred in 2004, with the lowest number of
suspensions (3 and 7 suspensions respectively)
occurring in 2005. The small number of Hispanic
students and the low number of suspensions made
analysis of these groups inappropriate. We therefore
limited our analyses to the WH and AA groups.
Participants for the study were all white and African
American public school students with no disabilities,
AUT or ID in Maryland from 2004 to 2015.
According to IDEA of 2004, students are reported
eligible for special education due to a primary
disability, and comorbid conditions or secondary
eligibilities are not reported. In accordance with the
IDEA, each state must report the enrolment figures of
students according to disability (i.e. eligibility type),
race, disciplinary suspensions and other data.
However, no distinction was made within eligibility
categories, which means that so-called high
functioning students with autism (e.g. those with
Asperger syndrome) may have been found eligible
under the autism category along with learners who
have severe forms of autism and require very
substantial support. In 2015, the most recent data
available when the study occurred, 874 514, were
students enrolled in public schools across the state. In
2015, boys accounted for 51.3% and girls 48.7% of the
school population. Students in general education
represented 88.7% of the school population, with
12.3% of students having a disability necessitating
special education services according to the IDEA
(2004). High school students represented 29.1%,
middle school students represented 21.7%,
elementary students represented 38.2%, and
preschool students represented 3.5% of the
population. Table 1 shows the numbers of students by
race and by disability category in 2015. The state had
a majority of white students, but nearly one-third of
the population was African American.
Data analysis
We analysed the data in two ways. First, we
calculated the number of students suspended per
100 students enrolled to obtain a descriptive rate of
suspension. Second, we used the logistic regression
 Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
1015
M. P. Krezmien, J. C. Travers & K. Camacho • Suspension of students with AUT or ID
Table 1 Number and percent of students enrolled in Maryland
public schools by race and disability category
African American White
Count Percent Count
2004
AUT 1370 0.42% 2339
ID 4118 1.25% 2316
ND 283 845 86.14% 379 259
2015
AUT 3831 1.27% 4503
ID 3025 1.00% 1469
ND 259 348 85.69% 309 112
AUT, autism; ID, intellectual disability; ND, no disability.
(logit link) model to examine disproportionate
suspension rates for students by race and disability
category. Because we used aggregated data from the
state reports, we weighted the data by the number of
students in each category. For logistic regression
analyses, this created a count within each category
that represents the individuals in calculations of the
odds and odds ratios. Unduplicated suspensions
were used for the logistic regression analyses because
these numbers were the only numbers disaggregated
by race in Maryland. Suspension was the criterion
variable (i.e. 0 = not suspended, 1 = suspended).
Race by disability was a categorical variable and was
entered as a predictor. Each disability type for each
racial group had a unique category. For example,
‘white students with autism’ was a distinct category
(white autism) with a unique code (WH AUT).
There were a total of six categories representing each
disability category for each racial group (WH ND,
WHAUT, WH ID, AA ND, AA AUT, AA ID). The
WH ND group was the reference group because it
(1) was the largest group in our dataset and therefore
supported a conservative calculation and (2) has
been traditionally used for analyses of disparate
disciplinary suspension (Tabachnick et al. 2001).
Accordingly, each category was compared with the
WH ND category in the model. We did not conduct
a single analysis with year as a predictor because the
sample in the state changed each year. Each year, a
percentage of the population left the schools through
graduation, dropping out and mobility, and each
year, a percentage of the population arrived as
© 2017 MENCAP and International Association of the Scientific Study of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and
John Wiley & Sons Ltd
VOLUME 61 PART 11 NOVEMBER 2017
entering students and as transfers into the schools.
Of all students included in the study in 2004, only
those who (1) did not graduate on time, (2) did not
drop out and (3) did not move out of district would
be in the 2015 data. Additionally, every year includes
Percent a different population of students in the state,
making year comparisons problematic.
0.53%
0.53%
Results
86.50%
Numbers and percentages of suspensions
1.29% We examined the percentages of students suspended
0.42%
by race (AA, WH) and disability category (ND, AUT,
88.52%
ID). Figure 1 shows that the percentages decreased
from 2004 to 2015 for every group. In 2004, the
percentage was lowest for the AA AUT group (4.4%),
with a slightly higher percentage for the WH AUT
group (4.7%). In 2004, the percentage of students
suspended was highest for the AA ID group (16.3%),
with relatively high percentages for the AA ND group
(12.6%) and the WH ID group (7.3%). In 2015, the
percentage of students suspended was lowest for the
WH ND group (2.13%), with higher percentages for
the WH ID group (3.1%), the WH AUT group
(3.3%) and the AA AUT group (3.3%). The
percentage was highest for the AA ID group (10.5%),
which was approximately five times higher than the
percentage for the WH ND group. The percentage for
the AA ND group was also relatively high (6.6%) in
2015.
Trends in odds of suspension by race and disability
We conducted a logistic regression analysis of
suspension for each year in order to understand if
there were changes in the odds ratios of suspension
over time. In each analysis, the race by disability was
the predictor, and suspension was the criterion
variable. Consistent with our previous analyses, we
used WH ND as the reference category. Figure 2
displays the findings from the logistic regression
analysis. The models were significant each year
(P < 0.001). The chi-squared of the model ranged
from 12 267 (P < 0.001) in 2006 to 7274 (P < 0.001)
in 2015.
Table 2 shows that the ORs were significant for the
AA ID group for every year, and the ORs were higher
for the AA ID group than for any other group in every
year except for the AA ND group in 2010 and in 2013.
 Journal of Intellectual Disability Research VOLUME 61 PART 11 NOVEMBER 2017
1016
M. P. Krezmien, J. C. Travers & K. Camacho • Suspension of students with AUT or ID

Figure 1 Percent of suspension in

Maryland for African American and white
students with intellectual disability, autism
and no disability from 2004 to 2015.

Figure 2 Odds ratios of suspension by race

and disability in Maryland from 2004 to
2015. Odds ratio for white no disability is
1.00 (comparison group).

© 2017 MENCAP and International Association of the Scientific Study of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and
John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 Journal of Intellectual Disability Research VOLUME 61 PART 11 NOVEMBER 2017
1017
M. P. Krezmien, J. C. Travers & K. Camacho • Suspension of students with AUT or ID

Table 2 Odds ratios for suspension of WH AUT, AA AUT, WH ID, AA ID and AA ND in Maryland for each year from 2004 to 2015

WH ASD AA AUT W ID AA ID AA ND

2004 OR 0.94 0.87 1.49*** 3.70*** 2.50***

(p) (0.529) (0.302) (<0.001) (<0.001) (<0.001)
2005 OR 0.99 0.72* 1.28** 3.10*** 2.59***
(p) (0.921) (0.016) (0.005) (<0.001) (<0.001)
2006 OR 1.28** 0.70* 1.37*** 3.19*** 2.90***
(p) (0.002) (0.011) (0.001) (<0.001) (<0.001)
2007 OR 1.27** 1.06 1.32** 3.47** 2.79***
(p) (0.002) (0.617) (0.005) (<0.001) (<0.001)
2008 OR 1.31 0.83 1.40*** 3.02*** 2.78***
(p) (<0.001) (0.097) (<0.001) (<0.001) (<0.001)
2009 OR 1.24** 1.06 1.23* 2.49*** 2.46***
(p) (0.002) (0.551) (0.047) (<0.001) (<0.001)
2010 OR 1.29*** 1.18 1.41** 2.51*** 2.60***
(p) (<0.001) (0.065) (0.001) (<0.001) (<0.001)
2011 OR 1.19* 1.13 1.20 2.82*** 2.70***
(p) (0.014) (0.164) (<0.001) (<0.001) (<0.001)
2012 OR 1.50*** 1.29** 1.37** 3.03*** 2.90***
(p) (<0.001) (0.004) (<0.001) (0.009) (<0.001)
2013 OR 1.61*** 1.47*** 1.65*** 3.11*** 3.19***
(p) (<0.001) (<0.001) (<0.001) (<0.001) (<0.001)
2014 OR 1.78*** 1.74*** 1.44* 3.88*** 3.30***
(p) (<0.001) (<0.001) (<0.001) (0.014) (<0.001)
2015 OR 1.87*** 1.90*** 1.79*** 6.47*** 3.42***
(p) (<0.001) (<0.001) (<0.001) (<0.001) (<0.001)

OR, odds ratio; (p), p value.

*p < .05.
**p < .01.
***p < .001.

The ORs for the AA ND group were significant every
year and were at or above 2.5 for all but one year. The
ORs for the AA ID and the AA ND groups increased
each year from 2009 to 2015. The ORs for the WH ID
group were above 1.2 for all years and significantly
higher every year except 2011. The ORs for the
WHAUT group were above 1.0 and significant from
2006 to 2015. The ORs for the WH AUT group
increased from 1.2 in 2011 to 1.8 in 2015. The ORs for
the AA AUT group were below 1.0 and significant in
2006. The ORs for the AA AUT group increased
from 1.1 in 2011 to 1.9 in 2015 and were significant
from 2012 to 2015.
Discussion
We examined 12 years of suspension data in Maryland
to understand the odds of suspensions of students
with autism and ID by race. We found that Maryland
substantially reduced the numbers of students
suspended from 2004 to 2015, with decreases in the
numbers of students suspended for all groups
examined in this study. These laudable decreases
represent an important shift away from the broad use
of suspensions in Maryland public schools. However,
the broad reduction of disciplinary suspensions also
resulted in changes that placed students with ID and
with autism at disproportionately higher risks of being
suspended in 2015 than in 2004. This finding is
interesting given provision in the reauthorisation of
IDEA that permitted children with disabilities to be
suspended for up to 10 days. Policy makers,
researchers and practitioners should reflect on the
important trends in disciplinary outcomes in
Maryland, especially because policy change may have
reduced suspension practices while having the
undesirable effect of increasing the odds of suspending
students with autism or ID. They should consider and

© 2017 MENCAP and International Association of the Scientific Study of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and
John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
1018
M. P. Krezmien, J. C. Travers & K. Camacho • Suspension of students with AUT or ID
attend to the potential negative disparate impact of
systemic reductions in suspensions on students with
autism and/or ID. Findings from this study are
important because they showed state-wide reductions
in disciplinary outcomes co-occurring with increased
risk for some historically vulnerable groups, which has
implications for all discipline systems locally,
nationally and internationally.
With regards to our first research question, we
found that the percentages of African American and
white students with autism, IDs and without
disabilities suspended decreased from 2004 to 2015.
With regards to our second research question, we
found differences in the odds of being suspended by
race and disability category. More specifically, we
found that African American students with ID
consistently had the highest odds of being
suspended, with comparably high odds for African
American students without disabilities. We also
found that white students with ID also had
significantly higher odds of being suspended than
their non-disabled white peers in 2014 and 2015.
African American and white students with autism
had variable odds of being suspended over time, but
were more likely to be suspended than their white
peers without disabilities from 2012 to 2015. With
regards to our third research question, we found that
the odds of being suspended increased for all groups in
the analysis over time. Most importantly, we found
that the ORs of suspension were higher in 2015 than
2004 for white and African American students with
autism, white and African American students with ID
and African American students without a disability.
We also found that the ORs increased every year from
2011 to 2015 for each of these groups.
This study was the first longitudinal report of
suspension rates of students with autism by race. An
unprecedented and critical finding relates to the
disproportionate suspension of racially diverse
students with autism. Although Krezmien et al. (2006)
found no significant differences in the ways racially
diverse students with autism were suspended between
2001 and 2003, this follow-up study of the same state
found discrepant suspension outcomes between white
and African American students with autism. Although
white students with autism were more likely to be
suspended than their non-disabled white counterparts
beginning in 2006, African American students with
autism were significantly less likely to be suspended
© 2017 MENCAP and International Association of the Scientific Study of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and
John Wiley & Sons Ltd
VOLUME 61 PART 11 NOVEMBER 2017
than non-disabled white students in earlier years (i.e.
2005, 2006) and were proportionately suspended from
2007 to 2011. However, by 2015, African American
students with autism were at higher risk of suspension
than white students with autism.
Additional interesting findings related to differences
in suspension outcomes for students with ID. White
students with ID were significantly more likely to
experience suspension when compared with their
non-disabled white counterparts for all years except
2011, with a gradually increasing trend in odds over
time. However, this profile is starkly contrasted by the
odds of suspension for African American students
with ID. African American students with ID had
similar gradual upward trend in odds of suspension
that mimicked African American students without
disabilities, but experienced a dramatic spike in 2014
and 2015. That is, African American students with ID
in Maryland had higher odds of suspension than their
African American counterparts with disabilities in the
final two years of our analysis. We do not have any
evidence that these odds ratios represent a trend. It is
possible that the higher odds ratios in these two years
were an aberration. Subsequently, we recommend
cautious interpretation of this specific finding. Future
studies should examine the odds ratios of suspension
for these groups to determine whether our findings
reflect a trend or were anomalous.
Limitations
The findings of this study should be considered in
light of several limitations. First, we used extant data
obtained from publicly available sources in one state.
The findings therefore cannot be directly generalised
to other states or provinces with different
demographic profiles, educational structures or
educational disciplinary policies. Second, the special
education category ‘autism’ may or may not include
students with or without clinical diagnoses of autism
spectrum disorder (American Psychiatric Association
2013), and eligible students may be differently
affected by the disorder. We were unable to
differentiate between students who were high
functioning or low functioning within the with autism
category. Third, the conclusions were drawn from the
analyses that were descriptive and correlational in
nature. No causal inferences can therefore be made
about the behaviour of students or school personnel
 Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
1019
M. P. Krezmien, J. C. Travers & K. Camacho • Suspension of students with AUT or ID
or about the underlying causes of any observed odds
or changes in odds of suspension. Fourth, the data
examined in this study were records of individuals
who were suspended. These data were also
aggregated across school levels. Suspensions are more
commonly used in middle schools and high schools,
but we were unable to study suspensions at the
specific school levels. Consequently, we have likely
under-estimated the odds of suspension at the
secondary levels and overestimated the odds at the
primary level. Fifth, we did not have information
about the types of infractions resulting in the
suspension of the context of the infractions (e.g.
location, persons involved, source of referral).
Consequently, the findings cannot be used to explain
issues of school climate, potential bias or disciplinary
practices more broadly.
Finally, we lacked access to information at the
individual level. States report suspension frequency
by race and disability, but the reports did not include
other variables that may lead to a more refined
understanding of suspension predictors. For
example, suspension of African American students
with ID may be better understood and prevented if
factors such as socioeconomic status, disability
severity, age, previous suspensions and etcetera were
available. Without these details, we are constrained
to broad analyses like the one carried out in this
study and are only able to draw general conclusions
about correlations between race, special education
eligibility (i.e. disability type) and frequency of
suspension within Maryland. Future studies might
seek de-identified data at district levels for each
suspension to better understand what factors more
reliably predict suspension of students with autism
or ID.
Implications for policy, practice and future research
This follow-up study of Krezmien et al. (2006) has
several similar implications. Our findings suggest that
administrators and practitioners in Maryland
decreased the use of punitive disciplinary practices
and the number of students suspended since 2004.
However, we were unable to identify specific causes
for the decreases. A review of the codes of conduct in
the Maryland school districts revealed nothing to
explain the changes (Camacho 2016). We searched
for suspension reduction initiatives in the state, but
© 2017 MENCAP and International Association of the Scientific Study of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and
John Wiley & Sons Ltd
VOLUME 61 PART 11 NOVEMBER 2017
did not find anything that might explain our findings.
It is possible that the reauthorisation of the IDEA,
which aimed to restrict the use of suspension to no
more than 10 school days, may have played a role.
Although a speculative conclusion, it is possible that
the trends in suspensions of students with ID and
autism in Maryland reflect national changes, and
future studies should therefore directly investigate
whether racially related changes in suspension
practices for students with autism or ID occurred in
other states or provinces in the USA and elsewhere.
Nevertheless, researchers should investigate how
policies, strategies and practices result in overall
decreases in disciplinary suspensions to ensure that
practitioners and policymakers continue the
downward trend of suspension without exposing
specific groups of students to higher risk of
suspension.
Our findings suggest that additional attention to the
topic of disciplinary suspension for these students
may be warranted at the all educational levels
nationally and internationally. The lack of research on
suspensions of students with ID and autism may
simply reflect the absence of significant findings with
respect to disproportionate suspensions of students
with autism and ID (i.e. publication bias).
Alternatively, proportionate suspension of students
with autism or ID may be perceived as acceptable to
researchers and policy makers alike. Whatever the
case, we take issue with the suspension of students
who have autism or ID. We echo Krezmien et al.
(2006) who stated, “Disciplinary removal of students
with mental retardation is not an appropriate response
considering the nature of the disability, and it likely
inhibits appropriate and prosocial behaviors among
this population” (p. 223). We therefore argue that
researchers should find ways to eliminate the use of
disciplinary removal of students with autism, ID or
any other disability for which disciplinary removal
cannot be defended as an effective practice.
Conclusion
Students with autism and/or ID depend on highly
structured, consistent environments with explicit
instruction, repeated opportunities to practice new
skills and dense schedules of reinforcement to shape
behaviour. The use of disciplinary suspension for
students with autism or ID conflicts with the
 Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
1020
M. P. Krezmien, J. C. Travers & K. Camacho • Suspension of students with AUT or ID
fundamental values associated with specially designed
instruction and interventions. The only definitive
effect suspension can be said to have for every student
with autism or ID is that it impedes access to
specialised education aimed at improving
functioning. Furthermore, severe behaviour often
serves a function of escape from aversive stimuli. If
the school setting motivates severe behaviour caused
by escape, then suspension will have the effect of
worsening severe behaviour while limiting access to
specialised instruction. Consequently, suspension is
fundamentally incompatible with the overarching
goal of special education: improving social,
communicative, behavioural and academic
functioning. The suspension of students with autism
and/or ID cannot be reasonably construed to be an
effective mechanism for improving outcomes.
Instead, disciplinary removal from school should be
considered harmful to students with autism and ID.
Although our findings were specific to one state, the
implications are not restricted to the state or even
national boundaries. Broad reductions of disciplinary
suspensions are laudable, but may result in increased
risk of suspensions for these vulnerable learners. The
international education community should examine
disciplinary policies and practices to eliminate
disciplinary removal from school for students with
autism or ID with minimal exceptions for extreme
and dangerous behaviours. Such a prohibition is
aligned with research and is both ethical and
consistent with Article 24 of the UN Convention of
the Rights of Persons (2006) which ensures that
“Persons with disabilities are not excluded from the
general education system on the basis of disability”.
References
American Psychiatric Association (2013) Diagnostic and
statistical manual of mental disorders, 5th edn. Author,
Washington, D.C.
Assembly UG (2006) Convention on the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities. GA Res 61, 106.
Camacho K. A. (2016) Disproportionate suspension rates:
understanding policy and practice in one state.
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of
Massachusetts Amherst, Massachusetts.
© 2017 MENCAP and International Association of the Scientific Study of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and
John Wiley & Sons Ltd
VOLUME 61 PART 11 NOVEMBER 2017
Cooley S. (1995) Suspension/expulsion of regular and
special education students in Kansas: a report to the
Kansas State Board of Education.
Dunlap G. & Fox L. (2011) Function-based interventions
for children with challenging behavior. Journal of Early
Intervention 33, 333–43.
Duran J. B., Zhou Q., Frew L. A., Kwok O. M. & Benz M.
R. (2011) Disciplinary exclusion and students with
disabilities: the mediating role of social skills. Journal of
Disability Policy Studies 24, 15–26.
Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Act of 2004
(2004) Pub. L. No. 108-446, 118 Stat. 328.
Krezmien M. P., Leone P. E. & Achilles G. M. (2006)
Suspension, race, and disability: analysis of statewide
practices and reporting. Journal of Emotional and
Behavioral Disorders 14, 217–26.
Losen D. J., Ee J., Hodson C. & Martinez T. E. (2014)
Disturbing inequities. Closing the school discipline gap:
equitable remedies for excessive exclusion. Journal of
Applied Research on Children: Informing Policy for Children at
Risk 5, Article 15, 89–106.
Schalock R. L., Borthwick-Duffy S. A., Bradley V. J.,
Buntinx W. H., Coulter D. L., Craig E. M. et al. (2010)
Intellectual disability: definition, classification, and systems of
supports. American Association on Intellectual and
Developmental Disabilities, Washington, DC.
Skiba R. J., Peterson R. L. & Williams T. (1997) Office
referrals and suspension: disciplinary intervention in
middle schools. Education and Treatment of Children 20,
295–315.
Sullivan A. L., Van Norman E. R. & Klingbeil D. A. (2014)
Exclusionary discipline of students with disabilities:
dtudent and school characteristics predicting suspension.
Remedial and Special Education 35, 199–210.
Tabachnick B. G., Fidell L. S. & Osterlind S. J. (2001) Using
multivariate statistics, 5th edn. Pearson, New York, NY.
Travers J. C., Krezmien M., Mulcahy C. & Tincani M.
(2014) Racial disparity in administrative autism
identification across the United States during 2000 and
2007. The Journal of Special Education 48, 155–66.
Travers J. C., Tincani M. & Krezmien M. P. (2013) A multi-
year national profile of racial disparity in autism
identification. The Journal of Special Education 47, 41–9.
Wong C., Odom S. L., Hume K. A., Cox A. W., Fettig A.,
Kucharczyk S. et al. (2015) Evidence-based practices for
children, youth, and young adults with autism spectrum
disorder: a comprehensive review. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders 45, 1951–66.
Zhang D., Katsiyannis A. & Herbst M. (2004) Disciplinary
exclusions in special education: a 4-year analysis.
Behavioral Disorders 29, 337–47.
Accepted 25 July 2017