Discipline Isn’t the Whole Story: What Rock Island’s Data Reveals About School Safety

Concerns about safety and student behavior at Rock Island High School are no longer isolated complaints—they’ve become a consistent theme in public meetings and community conversations.

Teachers have described rising disruption and disrespect. Board members have used words like “chaos,” “dangerous,” and “crisis.” Students have argued their school environment is compromised, mainly in the hallways and bathrooms, by unpredictable consequences or lack of enforcement of basic code of conduct rules.

To understand what’s happening inside Rock Island schools, we have to ask a more grounded question:

What does discipline actually look like today—and what are schools being asked to do?

The Shift: How SB 100 Changed Discipline in Illinois

In 2015, Illinois passed Senate Bill 100 (SB 100), a major reform of school discipline designed to reduce reliance on exclusionary practices and address racial disparities. Taking effect in 2016, the law responded to longstanding concerns that schools were overusing suspensions and expulsions—often for non-violent behavior—removing students from the classroom and increasing their risk of negative long-term outcomes.

SB 100 requires schools to:

• Use suspension and expulsion only as a last resort

• First attempt non-exclusionary interventions

• Eliminate most zero-tolerance policies

• Consider the context and underlying causes of student behavior

  
  

How Rock Island's Policies Reflect SB 100

Rock Island’s discipline policy is not out of step with the state—it is a direct reflection of SB 100. The district emphasizes “restorative measures,” defined as school-based alternatives to suspension and expulsion that:

• Keep students in school

• Build and repair relationships

• Teach behavioral and social skills

• Address underlying causes of behavior

• Reduce future disruptions

  
  

The intent is not to avoid accountability—but to pair accountability with support.

At the same time, the district is explicit that removal is still sometimes necessary and reserves the ability to use in-school suspension, out-of-school suspension and expulsion based on individual situation. Blanket policies for all students and zero-tolerance approaches were effectively outlawed with the passage of SB 100. Additional protections exist for students with disabilities and Individualized Educational Plans (IEPs) that tie follow-through to processes that must be followed.

The code of conduct and discipline policies can be found here: RIMSD Code of Conduct

Statewide Issues in Implementing SB 100

A 2024 report from the Illinois Education Association helps explain the tension schools are navigating. While Senate Bill 100 aimed to reduce exclusionary discipline and address racial disparities, it required districts to rapidly shift to restorative practices without providing additional funding, training, or implementation support.

Survey data from more than 5,600 Illinois educators found that, on average, teachers did not believe their schools were effectively handling student behavior, and many reported increases in aggressive conduct and safety concerns. State data also shows that attacks on school personnel have nearly doubled in recent years, with one analysis showing 20% of Illinois Education Association (IEA) members reporting being assaulted at work.

Nearly a decade after passage, positive trends include some reductions in suspension rates and improvements in graduation outcomes in some districts. At the same time, most districts also report increased classroom disruptions, concerns about safety and teacher burnout with more teachers leaving the field, and difficulty consistently implementing alternative interventions.

Bottom line from Illinois educators: teachers feel pressure to manage more complex behavior with fewer effective tools, particularly when removal from the classroom or the building is restricted.

SB 1400: Acknowledging the Problem without Solving It

In the years following SB 100, concerns began to emerge from teachers and administrators who felt that, while well-intentioned, the law had made it more difficult to respond to serious behavioral issues in schools. Senate Bill 1400, passed in August 2024, reflects a growing recognition of that tension: reducing suspensions and exclusion alone is not enough—schools must also be able to maintain order, protect staff and students, and respond consistently to disruptive or dangerous behavior.

But while SB 1400 acknowledges these challenges, it largely stops short of providing concrete solutions like funding, comprehensive training, or additional resources.

Instead, the bill reinforces and expands the existing framework by pointing schools toward Evidence-based Interventions and Re-Engagement Practices, supported by guidance from the Illinois State Board of Education. That guidance makes clear just how complex this shift has become. Schools are not simply being asked to suspend fewer students—they are expected to implement comprehensive systems such as Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS), a multi-tiered approach that addresses behavior, mental health, and school climate.

Research shows these systems can improve outcomes, including student engagement and reductions in exclusionary discipline—but only when they are implemented with strong leadership, training, and sustained support. In practice, that means discipline reform is not just a policy change; it is a systems-level transformation, one that requires time, expertise, and staffing that not all districts currently have in place.

ISBE guidance further expands expectations by requiring structured re-engagement processes after discipline. When a student is removed from school, districts are now responsible for developing plans that address academic gaps, behavioral needs, and the root causes of the incident—all with the goal of preventing future disruptions and keeping students connected to learning. Discipline, in this model, is no longer a single decision point but an ongoing process that spans before, during, and after an incident.

Taken together, SB 1400 functions less as a reset and more as a reinforcement of SB 100—with added guidance but limited new resources. It offers schools a clearer blueprint for what they are expected to do, but not necessarily the tools to do it. The result is a system that asks more of schools—more intervention, more coordination, more follow-through—without a corresponding increase in funding, personnel, or training.

In that sense, SB 1400 highlights the central challenge facing districts today: not a lack of direction, but a gap between expectations and capacity.

What the Data Shows in Rock Island

The Rock Island Milan School District data illustrates the type of information policy makers examine when drafting legislation like SB 100. The Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) requires school districts to keep data on student discipline and racial disproportionality and key findings are included below.

Racial Disproportionality

Racial disproportionality refers to differences between a student group’s share of total enrollment and its share of disciplinary actions, and is commonly measured using a risk ratio. This metric is used to identify whether certain groups experience discipline at disproportionately higher or lower rates; for example, a risk ratio of 2.0 means students of color are twice as likely to be disciplined as white students. A rate of 0.5 means students of color are 0.5 times less likely to be disciplined than white students. A ratio of 1.0 would represent equal disciplinary outcomes.

Source: ISBE Discipline Data

	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024	2025
Rock Island	2.4434	2.468	1.8042	n/a	2.0579	1.992	1.4983	1.8697
Moline	2.1016	1.8359	1.6397	1.2079	1.6304	1.7976	2.0244	1.5931
East Moline	0.9262	1.5315	0.6378	0.5318	1.6419	1.1425	0.7433	0.7727

Data showing persistent racial disproportionality in school discipline was a key factor driving the development of Illinois’ Senate Bill 100, which aimed to reduce exclusionary discipline and promote more equitable practices. Currently, students of color in Rock Island are twice as likely to face discipline as their white counterparts.

Suspension Rates

Source: ISBE Discipline Data

State data shows suspension rates in Rock Island Milan SD are high -- and rising. Note that a year of reporting is missing, likely due to COVID 19 disruptions.

• 2018: 13.3%

• 2019: 9.95%

• 2020: 8.93%

• 2022: 13.27%

• 2023: 16.95%

• 2024: 18.42%

Rock Island has been in the top 20% of districts statewide for suspension rates every year from 2018–2024 and has gone from being ranked 80th in 2019 in the state for suspensions to 26th in 2024.

Rock Island is suspending students more frequently than most districts in the state

Type of Incidents Over Time

The labels are as follows:

• Weapn6: Use/Possession of Other Weapon

• Weapn5: Use/Possession of Other Firearm

• Weapn1: Use/Possession of Handgun

• VInt2: Violence with No Serious Injury

• VInt1: Violence with Serious Injury

Source: Rock Island Milan School District FOIA

This chart shows a steady increase in disciplinary incidents over time, driven almost entirely by violent behaviors without serious injury (Vint2), which rise significantly from 432 incidents in 2022 to 804 in 2025. In contrast, more serious categories—such as weapon-related incidents—remain relatively low and even decline in some years.

This pattern suggests that the overall increase in discipline is not being driven by more dangerous behavior, but by a growing number of lower-level infractions. It is also important to note that "serious injury" is subjective and may depend on the categorizer.

Type of Discipline Over Time

The labels are as follows:

• OSS: Out of school suspension

• ISS: In school suspension

• Expulsion (No Ed): Expulsion with no educational services provided

• Expulsion (Rec. Ed): Expulsion with educational services provided

Source: Rock Island Milan School District FOIA

This chart shows that disciplinary actions in Rock Island Milan School District remain heavily driven by out-of-school suspensions (OSS), even after the passage of SB 100, which was designed to reduce reliance on exclusionary discipline. Discipline totals declined between 2023 and 2025.

A point to notice is that while problematic behaviors continued to increase in 2025, disciplinary actions decrease, which would suggest that despite an increase in incidents, less disciplinary action was taken. The following data is taken from the previous two chart totals.

The Reality: Discipline Is Happening—But It’s Not Solving the Problem

This article aims to explore the argument that "we aren't disciplining kids" as cause for the recent concerns with Rock Island Milan SD. Data shows discipline is happening and at relatively high levels - higher than in neighboring districts and in the top 20% across the state, ranking 26th in suspensions overall.

Despite this, teachers, administrators and students are reporting serious behavioral challenges. So we’re left with a harder, more honest conclusion:

Even high levels of discipline are not producing stable, predictable school environments

Rock Island has a strong policy handbook with written procedures and protocols to address challenges. The handbook makes very clear what behaviors break the code of conduct and what procedures/steps shall be followed, taking into consideration the severity of the offense and the individual student characteristics, such as disability status.

Several teachers interviewed for this article reported that policy is not the problem. Teachers were actually frustrated by a revolving door of new policy initatives, like tardy sweeps, hallway pass systems, barriers to exiting the building, locking bathrooms, etc. that seem to fail and then rematerialize under a different name.

Teachers, administrators and students interviewed for this article conveyed a feeling that follow-through on discipline and re-engagement strategies for repeat rule violators is inconsistent. Teachers report that when policy is not followed or followed inconsistently, teachers develop apathy to solving behavior issues that occur outside the classroom environments they can control.

Why This Tension Exists

Rock Island is operating within a system that asks schools to do two things at once:

1. Reduce exclusion and keep students in school

2. Maintain safety and order in increasingly complex environments

   
   

Those goals are not always aligned. When behavior escalates, removing students may improve short-term safety but increases long-term risks for those students. When schools keep students in class or even just in the building, they preserve access to education and chances of graduation but increase strain on teachers, classrooms, and the quality of the learning environment for the majority of students.

This structural tension is built into the modern school discipline system. Double down on supporting the most at-risk youth without compromising a high quality academic environment for the majority of students.

What This Means for the Current Debate

Public frustration is understandable. When people hear about fights, threats, or disruption, the instinct is often:

“Remove the students causing the problem.”

In response to the social media uproar online, one district parent went so far as to say, "send them to jail now and let them get their GEDs."

But research consistently shows:

• Exclusion increases disengagement

• Increases dropout risk

• Increases likelihood of justice system involvement

• Potentially leads to a lifetime of disengagement from society

  
  

At the same time, dismissing teacher and student concerns about safety and classroom conditions is equally problematic.

Both realities are true:

• Students need to remain connected to school

• Schools must be safe and functional learning environments

  
  

What Rock Island’s Data Really Tells Us

The picture here is quite complex. Rock Island is disciplining, writing policy, and wrestling with the most egregious racial disproportionality statistics in the Illinois region. Rock Island is trying to follow state law, keep kids connected to school and continues to face serious behavioral challenges and rely heavily on suspension.

Final Thoughts and Next Direction

In this series, I’ve looked at two of the most visible levers in education: how we spend money and how we discipline students. What emerges in Rock Island is not a system choosing between discipline and support—it is trying to do both, within a structure that makes that balance difficult to achieve.

SB 100 changed how schools are expected to respond to behavior, and Rock Island’s policies reflect that shift. Discipline has not disappeared. In some cases, it has intensified. At the same time, investments in support systems have grown. And yet, the outcomes many people are hoping for—safer classrooms, fewer disruptions, stronger learning environments—remain uneven.

So the question isn’t: Are schools disciplining students? They are.

The real question is:Why isn’t discipline—on its own—creating the outcomes people want?

Until that question is answered, the conversation will remain stuck—cycling through debates about rules, consequences, and resources without resolving the underlying tension.

Which points to the next layer of this work.

Because what if the answer isn’t primarily found in policy, funding, or even data?

What if the real variable is relational?

Schools are not just systems—they are communities. And the fabric of those communities is built less on written rules and more on culture: leadership, trust, communication, and a shared sense of purpose. How adults relate to students. How teachers relate to families. How administrators support staff. How expectations are communicated—and whether they are believed.

My next hypothesis is this: outcomes in schools are driven, at their core, by relationships at every level—between parents, teachers, students, support staff, and administration.

In a setting shaped by differences in language, culture, race, and income, the challenge is not just managing behavior. It is building trust and belonging across those differences.

Because students don’t just respond to policies—they respond to people.

A system can set boundaries on paper. But those boundaries are lived—and enforced—through human connection. Through whether a student feels known, respected, and accountable to someone who believes in them.

Even the most complex environments depend on this:

A shared belief in every student.

A shared vision for what the school is trying to hold.

And relationships strong enough to carry both care and accountability.

Including the students who don’t fit neatly into traditional models—and the students who are showing up every day ready to learn.

Relationships are the invisible infrastructure holding it all together—or failing to.

That’s where this series is going next.