This powerpoint is a comprehensive overview of a June 16 webinar about advancing school discipline reform. The webinar was discussed at this month's GA-CAN! panel discussion on community-based programs. This powerpoint was provided by Brad Bryant, Executive Director, Georgia Foundation for Public Education

1. Advancing School
Discipline Reform
June 19, 2013
4:00 – 5:00 pm ET

2. To receive a call back, provide
your phone number when you
join the event, or call the
number below and enter the
access code.
Toll Free: 1 (855) 749-4750
Toll: 1 (415) 655-0001
If you have technical difficulties logging
into the web-based portion of the event,
please contact WebEx Customer
Support at 1 (866) 229-3239.
Logging into the Webinar
2

3. Q/A
1. Click on the blue bar of
the chat feature on the
right side of your
screen.
2. Make sure your
response will be
directed to all
participants.
3. Enter your response
into the chat text box.
4. Click send.
1
2
3 4
3

4. Providing Feedback
4
At the end of
today’s
webinar, we
will ask you to
complete a
brief feedback
form.

5. About Atlantic Philanthropies
• The Atlantic Philanthropies (Atlantic) are dedicated to bringing
about lasting changes in the lives of disadvantaged and
vulnerable people.
• Atlantic is a limited life foundation that makes grants through
its five program areas: Aging, Children & Youth, Population
Health, Reconciliation, Human Rights.
• Atlantic is generously supporting NASBE and AIR, among
others, in advancing school discipline reform.
• To learn more please visit: www.atlanticphilanthropies.org.
5

6. About NASBE
• Established in 1958 as a national, non-profit membership
association to strengthen state as the preeminent
policymaking bodies for students and citizens.
• NASBE’s Center for Safe and Healthy Schools partners with the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, state and local
education agencies, non-governmental organizations,
philanthropic organizations, and community leaders to
address important issues in student health and safety through
policy development and implementation.
6

7. About AIR
• The American Institutes for Research (AIR) is a nonpartisan,
not-for-profit behavioral and social science research
organization.
• AIR’s mission is to conduct and apply the best behavioral and
social science research and evaluation towards improving
peoples’ lives, with a special emphasis on the disadvantaged.
• AIR has extensive experience in analyzing school climate and
discipline, and in translating that research to support staff in
schools, districts, state education agencies, social service
providers, and courts via a range of projects. 7

8. Agenda
What the Latest Research Says About School Discipline
David Osher, PhD, Vice President, American Institutes for Research
What NASBE Is Doing to Advance School Discipline Reform
Kimberly Charis, Project Director
Maryland’s Experience in Advancing School Discipline Reform
James DeGraffenreidt, Member and former President, Maryland State
Board of Education
1
2
3
Georgia’s Experience in Advancing School Discipline Reform
Brad Bryant, Executive Director, Georgia Foundation for Public Education,
Georgia Department of Education
Garry McGiboney, Associate Superintendent of Policy and Charter Schools,
Georgia Department of Education
4
8

9. What the LATEST Research Says
About School Discipline
David Osher, PhD
Vice President, Human and Social Development Program of the
American Institutes for Research
9

10. Context for Schools
• Academic success for all students is imperative and is affected
by the conditions for learning.
• Most schools are implementing new curricula based on the
Common Core Standards, and they will not realize significant
success without addressing student needs and improving
conditions for learning.
• Schools are having to balance between the needs and
strengths of students and education initiatives.
• Doing something is not in question.
• How to do it is.
• There is solid evidence for improving academic achievement
via safe and supportive learning environments. 10

11. Conditions for Learning: Key Aspects
of School Climate and Discipline
Page  11
11

12. Page  12
12
Schools as Risk Factors
• Alienation
• Academic Frustration
• Chaotic Transitions
• Negative Relationships With Adults And
Peers
• Teasing, Bullying, Gangs
• Poor Adult Role Modeling
• Segregation With Antisocial Peers
• School-driven and Child Welfare-driven
Mobility &
• Harsh Discipline, Suspension, Expulsion,
Push Out/Drop Out

13. Students Who Are At Risk Are
Particularly Susceptible to…
• Low teacher efficacy
• Low teacher support
• Negative peer relationships
• Chaotic environments
• Poor instructional and behavioral practices
This will affect their ability to perform to and meet
Common Core expectations.
13

14. Page  14
14
Schools as Protective Factors that
Support Resilience
• Connection
• Academic Success
• Supported Transitions
• Positive Relationships With Adults And
Peers
• Caring Interactions
• Social Emotional Learning
• Positive Interactions With Pro-social (Not,
Anti-social) Peers
• Stability
• Positive Approaches To Disciplinary
Infractions &
• Services And Supports

15. Context of School Discipline
• Violence and problematic behavior exist in schools.
• It is imperative students are emotionally and physically safe.
• Doing something is not in question.
• How issues are addressed is.
• Research demonstrates that reactive and punitive approaches
are ineffective.
• Many police and judges are interested in advancing school
discipline reform in order to keep youth in school and out of
prison.
15

16. Discipline and “Zero Tolerance”
Policies
Citations  30
16

17. Council of State Governments Texas
Discipline Study
• Nearly 60 % suspended or expelled once in middle or high schools.
• ~15 percent were suspended or expelled 11 times or more
• Only three percent of the disciplinary actions were for conduct in
which state law mandated suspensions and expulsions.
• The rest were made at the discretion of school officials primarily in
response to violations of local schools’ conduct codes.
• African-American students and those with EBD were
disproportionately disciplined for discretionary actions.
• Schools that had similar characteristics, including the racial
composition and economic status of the student body, varied greatly
in how frequently they suspended or expelled students.
• Schools that had similar characteristics, including the racial
composition and economic status of the student body, varied greatly
in how frequently they suspended or expelled students.
(http://justicecenter.csg.org/resources/juveniles)
17

18. What Research Says About School
Discipline
• Punitive approaches do not work.
• Unfair and inconsistently applied
• Negatively affects outcomes of students with and without
behavior challenges
• Have been demonstrated to have iatrogenic effects
• Positive approaches to discipline can work when implemented
effectively.
18

19. What Research Says About School
Discipline (cont.)
• Improving conditions for learning, can prevent problematic
behavioral issues and improve academic achievement.
• An increasing number of states and districts are surveying the
conditions for learning and broader school climate.
• This includes 11 states that have Safe and Supportive School
Grants.
• Effective approaches include building upon and aligning, if
possible, social emotional learning and positive behavioral
approaches.
• SEL has been demonstrated to improve achievement.
• There are state SEL standards in KA and IL and in numerous
districts.
• PBIS is being used in districts in most states and has been shown
to reduce exclusionary discipline and improve time on task.
19

20. Paradox of Punitive Discipline
• Punitive discipline:
• Has detrimental effects on teacher-student relations
• Models undesirable problem solving
• Reduces motivation to maintain self-control
• Generates student anger and alienation
• Can result in more problems (e.g., truancy, vandalism, aggression)
• Does not teach: Weakens academic achievement
• Has limited long term effect on behavior
• Contributes to grade retention, drop out, and juvenile justice contact
• The more students are out of the classroom, the less likely they will
be to receive instruction, participate in class, complete work, and
graduate, and the common core will exacerbate this.
20

21. Alternatives to Punitive Discipline
• There are promising approaches available:
Multi-tiered intervention supports that include:
 Universal-teacher and student SEL, PBIS, Effective class
management, youth development approaches (e.g. class meetings
and service learning)
 Early intervention (e.g., planning centers not in school suspension)
 Intensive services that may include individualized wraparound
support and include support from other agencies
Restorative Practices and Justice and Peer Mediation
• Important characteristics of each include:
Family-driven and youth-guided
Culturally competent
Prevent problems proactively
Constructively address discipline issues when they arise 21

22. Conclusion
• Creating safe, orderly schools support learning for all
students.
• Punitive disciplinary approaches do not work.
• Universal approaches that aim to prevent behavioral issues
and address discipline positively.
• As CCS are implemented, it is critical for interpersonal and
intrapersonal domains be proactively addressed, which
ultimately means improving the conditions for learning.
• Collaborations are key to making change– at all levels of
education and beyond.
22

23. Questions?
1
2
3 4
23

24. What NASBE IS DOING to advance
school discipline reform
Kimberly Charis
Project Director, Center for Safe and Healthy Schools, NASBE
24

25. NASBE’s Two-Year School Discipline
Initiative: Examining and Reforming State
Disciplinary Policies from a State-Level
Perspective
• Goal: Advance school discipline policy reform by strengthening the
capacity of state boards of education to adopt and implement state
educational policies that support positive school discipline and limit
exclusionary discipline.
• 2013-2014 (PY1): NASBE issued grants to Georgia, Michigan, and
West Virginia to help extend their work in this area by:
• convening multidisciplinary task forces
• strengthening statewide advocacy and communication efforts
• proposing amendments to existing state board rules, new board
rules, or the removal of existing rules
• examining disaggregated discipline data in order to uncover any
disparate impacts on minorities and students receiving special
education
• supporting state departments of education in their efforts to provide
technical assistance to local districts
25

26. NASBE Technical Assistance
• NASBE’s TA to states working on school discipline reform
include:
• Mini-grants to states
• Online seminars
• School discipline discussion guide
• State policy workshops in collaboration with AIR
• Collaborative activities among multi-disciplinary stakeholders
26

27. MARYLAND’S EXPERIENCE IN
ADVANCING SCHOOL DISCIPLINE
REFORM
James DeGraffenreidt
Member and Former President, Maryland State Board of
Education
27

28. School Discipline and Maryland’s
Education Policy Objectives
Why focus on school discipline?
1.Maryland’s Goal is to create a world class education system that
prepares all students for college and careers in the 21st Century.
2.No student comes to school “perfect,” academically or behaviorally.
3.In order for students to get a world class education they need to be in
school.
4.Absences affect all students - implications for STEM disciplines and
closing the achievement gaps because of impact on team and experience
based learning.
5.Every student who stays in school and graduates college and career
ready adds to the health and wealth of the State as well as the Nation.
28

29. Maryland Experience - A
Collaborative Journey
• Revelations from Expulsion Appeal
• Lengthy absence from the classroom
• Lack of educational services during absence
• No steps during absence to improve prospects for returning student’s
success
• Nearing the end of fourth year of continuing engagement of
stakeholders
• Research and Study
• Reports by MSDE staff on available data and practices in the local districts
• 13 State Board Meetings featuring stakeholders and MSDE Staff
• 3 State Board Meetings featuring public comment by concerned citizens
• Feb.2012 -State Board published report and solicited comment on future
policy changes
• July 2012 -State Board revised published report and solicited further
comment
• Jan. 2013 -State Board withdrew report, convened task force for focused
stakeholder discussions
• See detailed timeline - Slides 33-35
29

30. Highlights of State Board Report - School
Discipline and Academic Success: Related
Parts of Maryland’s Education Reform –July
2012
• Putting 30,000 students out of school every year for
apparently non-violent conduct calls for careful look at
discipline policies and how applied.
• Concluded from the data that it is time for disproportional
impact to end. The Board believes disproportionate and
discrepant discipline is related to the achievement gap.
• Research tells us suspensions are a major factor leading to the
decision to drop out of school.
• There are numerous examples of how moving away from a
punitive discipline model to a rehabilitative one works to
improve school safety and academic achievement. 30

31. Proposed Changes
• Directed that State Superintendent appoint Workgroup to review and
recommend changes to the types of offenses listed in the State Code of
Conduct and defined in the Maryland Student Records Manual.
• Proposed regulation that requires MSDE to analyze the impact of school
discipline on minority and special education students within the school
system.
• Directed that school discipline policy in Maryland be based on the
rehabilitation goals of fostering and teaching positive behavior and the
use of discretion in imposing discipline.
• Re-defined in proposed regulations short-term suspension, long-term
suspension, extended suspensions, and expulsion.
• In proposed regulations, specified what minimum education services
must be provided to each student suspended or expelled.
• In proposed regulations, required that local boards of education render
their decisions in cases involving appeals of student suspensions and
expulsions within 30 days of the filing date.
31

32. Progress to Date
• Data shows that local districts have moved ahead
• 11 % Drop in Total Out-of-School Suspensions and Expulsions
• 30 % Drop in Expulsions
• 25% Drop in Suspensions for Over 10 Days
• Policy shifts in local districts
• Baltimore County eliminated zero tolerance policy.
• St. Mary’s County added multiple new alternative education
programs.
• Montgomery County initiated a review of disparate impact of its
disciplinary policies.
• Task Force discussions are proving fruitful. 32

33. Timeline of Maryland State Board
Actions
• August 2009 – State Board Issues Opinion in Appeal of Expulsion of 9th
Grade Student. Puts
local school systems on notice of Board concerns related to the lack of educational services
and time taken to process appeals.
• December 2009 – State Board approves Department plan to study the use of long-term
suspension/expulsion and the meaningful access to educational services. Public invited to
offer testimony on subject at Board meetings
• April 2010 – At Board’s invitation, representatives of 8 stakeholder groups (Maryland
Association of Boards of Education, Public School Superintendents’ Association of
Maryland, Secondary School Principals, Elementary School Principals, State Teachers
Association, Maryland Association of Student Councils, ACLU, Open Society Institute
Baltimore) provide comments on whether educational services should be continued when
a student is suspended for more than 10days or expelled from school and what types of
services, if any, should be provided.
• August 2010 – Board is briefed on and accepts the Report on the Study of Student Long
Term Suspensions and Expulsions prepared by the Department. Report includes results of
(1) survey of local systems concerning what educational services are currently offered to
long term and expelled students (2) Response of public to web based survey (3) Input from
Stakeholder Groups and (4) analysis of public comment at Board meetings. Report
included recommendations for amending state regulations and revisions to Student
Records manual to enhance data on long term suspensions and expulsions.
33

34. Timeline of Maryland State Board
Actions (cont.)
• February 2011 – Board, in response to news article on suicide of a suspended student in
another state, directs State Superintendent to discuss the tragedy with the 24 local
superintendents to determine if Maryland’s local school systems had similar zero-tolerance
discipline policies and to determine what steps could be taken to avoid such a tragedy in
Maryland.
• April 2011 – Board approves draft Guidelines for the Timely Disposition of Long Term
Discipline Cases and posts document for public comment.
• June 2011 – Board publishes proposed amendment to Student Records Manual to refine
data collection for long term suspensions and expulsions. Based on response to proposed
Guidelines for Timely Disposition, Board asks that panels of stakeholder be invited to
address Board on this topic
• August 2011 Panel Presentation –Public Schools Superintendents Association of Maryland,
Maryland Association of Boards of Education, Montgomery County Public Schools
• September 2011 – Maryland Disability Law Center, Legal Aid, Office of Public Defender,
Maryland Chapter of NAACP
• October 2011 – Maryland Foster Parents, Maryland PTA, Students 34

35. Timeline of Maryland State Board
Actions (cont.)
• December 2011 – Maryland State Education Association, Baltimore Teachers Union, 2011
National Teacher of the Year (Michelle Shearer of Maryland), 2012 Maryland Teacher of
the Year
• February 2012 – Board releases draft report and allows 30 day comment period.
• May 2012 – Staff provides Board an analysis of comments received on draft report.
• June 2012 – Board provides decision points for revised report.
• July 2012 – Board approves report along with granting permission to publish amendments
to disciplinary regulations.
• January 2013 – Board receives staff analysis of public comments received and votes to
withdraw draws regulatory proposal.
• May 2013 – Board receives progress report on workgroup, code of conduct, and best
practices.
35

36. Questions?
1
2
3 4
36

37. GEORGIA’S EXPERIENCE IN
ADVANCING SCHOOL DISCIPLINE
REFORM
Brad Bryant
Executive Director, Georgia Foundation for Public Education, Georgia
Department of Education
Garry McGiboney, PhD
Associate Superintendent of Policy and Charter Schools, Georgia
Department of Education
37

38.  School Climate
o Defining School Climate
o Measuring School Climate
o Improving School Climate
o Monitoring School Climate
 Student Discipline Reporting Matrix
 Statewide Plan Based on Collaboration
38
Georgia State Board of Education
School Discipline Reform

39. The Georgia State Board of Education supported the Georgia
Department of Education’s (GaDOE) development of a
defined method in the collection and analysis of schoolschool
climateclimate data through the implementation of a statewide
annual survey: Georgia Student Health Survey II.Georgia Student Health Survey II.
The SurveySurvey is an anonymous, statewide survey instrument
developed by the GaDOE in collaboration with the Georgia
Department of Public Health and Georgia State University.
The SurveySurvey identifies safety and health issues that can havesafety and health issues that can have
a negative impact on student achievement and schoola negative impact on student achievement and school
climateclimate..
39

40. The SurveySurvey is offered at no cost and provides Georgia public
school districts (and private schools that wish to participate)
with a measurement system for several categories: alcoholalcohol
and drug use, nutrition and dietary behaviors, thoughts ofand drug use, nutrition and dietary behaviors, thoughts of
dropping out of school, suicide and self-harm, bullying, usedropping out of school, suicide and self-harm, bullying, use
of unsupervised time, sense of safety and well-being, etc.of unsupervised time, sense of safety and well-being, etc.
113 middle school questions113 middle school questions
120 high school questions120 high school questions
School systems are given a unique URL addressURL address
for each of their middle and high schools.
40

41. The Survey is administered annually in October.
Baseline data was collected in the fall of 20072007.
2011-20122011-2012: 350,000 students took the Survey.350,000 students took the Survey.
2012-20132012-2013: 600,000 students took the Survey.600,000 students took the Survey.
Students who think drugs or alcohol are harmful
83 86 84 86
81
89
83
90
79
93
78
94
78
94
73
96
0
20
40
60
80
100
Alcohol Tobacco Marijuana Other drugs
Percent(%)
6th 8th 10th 12th
Alcohol and Drug Use,
Past 30 Days, By Grade
5 3 1 1
13 9 5 4
22
16 12
6
30
23
15
8
0
20
40
60
80
100
Alcohol Tobacco Marijuana Chew ing
Tobacco
Percent(%)
6th 8th 10th 12th
Unsupervised Time on Computer By Grade
28 29
17 15
5 7
19 23
17
22
8 11
16
22
18
24
9 10
15
24
20
25
9 8
0
20
40
60
80
100
None <1hour/day 1 hour/day 2-3
hours/day
4-5
hours/day
6+ hours
Percent(%)
6th 8th 10th 12th
School Safety, By Grade
1 3
13
3
12
29
3
22
36
3
20
34
0
20
40
60
80
100
I brought a w eapon to
school in past 30 days
I have been offered,given
or sold drugs on school
property w ithin the past
12 months
I have instant messaged
people I don’t know
Percent(%)
6th 8th 10th 12th
41

42. College and Career Readiness
Performance Index (CCRPI)

43. Georgia 8th
Grade Student Absences and
Graduation Rate (within four years)
20%20%
43

44. College and Career Readiness
Performance Index (CCRPI)
44

45. 45
Student Discipline Reporting:
Moving from Data to Information
Past (example)
• Offense – Fighting
• Consequence – ISS or OSS or Expulsion
Now (example)
• Offense – Fighting: Level 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5
• Consequence – Detention (1), ISS (2.1-2.9), OSS
(3.1-3.9), alternative edu. (4.1-4.9), Expulsion (5)

46. 46
Griffin-Spalding County School System
Spalding High School OSS
reduced by 32%.
Gwinnett County Public Schools
Dacula Middle School discipline
incidents reduced by 66% and OSS reduced by
24%.
Newton County School System
Newton High School OSS
reduced by 15%.
School Climate Strategic Results

47. 47
Savannah-Chatham School System
High School OSS reduced by 41%.
Savannah-Chatham School System
Middle School OSS reduced by 26%.
Gwinnett County Public Schools
GIVE Center (alternative school)
discipline incidents reduced 51%.
School Climate Strategic Results

48. 48
Focus onFocus on SchoolSchool
Climate andClimate and
CollaborationCollaboration
Governor’s Office of Children and Families
Georgia Family Connection Partnership
Georgia Advocacy Office
Georgia Appleseed
Georgia School Boards Association
Georgia Association of Educational Leaders
Anti-Defamation League
Department of Behavioral Health & Developmental Disabilities
Georgia State University School Safety/Student Discipline Center
Georgia State University Institute of Public Health
University of Georgia Safe and Welcoming Schools Project
Girls Scouts of America
Georgia PTA
Mental Health America – Georgia Chapter
The Carter Center Mental Health Center
Annie E. Casey Foundation
Georgia State Board ofGeorgia State Board of
EducationEducation

49. Questions?
1
2
3 4
49

50. Related Resources
• NASBE
www.nasbe.org
• Atlantic Philanthropies News and Updates on School Discipline
http://www.atlanticphilanthropies.org/search/news?
keywords=school+discipline&op.x=45&op.y=4&form_token=116c9af30900f9dab2d25
9dd477e54ca&form_id=search_form
• National School Justice Partnership
http://www.school-justicesummit.org/
• Supportive School Discipline Webinar Series (U.S. Departments of Education, Justice,
and Health)
http://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/index.php?
id=65&sort=grouped#supportive_school_discipline
• National Center on Safe Supportive Learning Environments and its
http://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov
• Supportive School Discipline Community of Practice
http://ssdcop.neglected-delinquent.org 50

51. Related Resources
• New website focused on positive approaches to discipline
Coming Soon!
• APA Zero Tolerance Report
http://www.apa.org/pubs/info/reports/zero-tolerance-report.pdf
• “Suspended Education”
http://splcenter.org/get-informed/publications/suspended-education
• Equity Project at Indiana University
http://ceep.indiana.edu/equity
• Educational Researcher Series
http://edr.sagepub.com/content/vol39/issue1/
51

52. Next Steps
• Coming Soon!
• NASBE-AIR School Discipline Discussion Guide will be
released in July.
• NASBE Annual Conference, July 28-30, 2013
• Session on School Discipline - Sunday, July 28 at 2:00
p.m.
For more information visit:
http://www.events.nasbe.org/annual-conference/
• Need Help or More Information? Contact Kimberly Charis at
(703) 684-4000, Ext. 1122
52

53. References
1. American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force (2008). Are Zero Tolerance Policies Effective in
the Schools? American Psychologist, 63(9), 852-862.
2. Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S. & Easton, J. Q. (2010)0. Organizing schools for
improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
3. Davidson, R. (2002). Anxiety and affective style: Role of prefrontal cortex and amygdala. Biological Psychiatry,
51(1), 68-80.
4. Durlak, J.A., Weissberg, R.P., Taylor, R.D., & Dymnicki, A.B. (2011). The effects of school-based social and
emotional learning: A meta-analytic review, Child Development, 82 (1), 405-432.
5. Fabelo, T, Thompson, M.D., Plotkin, M., Carmichael, D., Marchbanks, M. P. & Booth, E. A. (2011) Breaking
Schools’ Rules: A Statewide Study of How School Discipline Relates to Students’ Success and Juvenile Justice
Involvement (Lexington, KY: Council of State Governments; College Station, TX: Public Policy Research
Institute).
6. Fowler, D. & Vitris, M. (2012). Comparative Disciplinary Rates as a Tool for Reducing Exclusionary Discipline
and Eliminating the School to Prison Pipeline. Journal of Applied Research on Children: Informing Policy for
Children at Risk, 3(2), Article 15.
7. Giedd, J., Blumenthal, J., Jeffries, N., Castellanos, F., Liu, H., Zijdenbos, A., & Rapoport, J. (1999). Brain
development during childhood and adolescence: a longitudinal MRI study. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 861-863.
8. Gordon, R., Della Piana, L., & Keleher, T. (2000). Facing the consequences: An examination of racial
discrimination in U. S. Public Schools. Oakland, CA: Applied Research Center.
9. Greenberg, E., Skidmore, D., & Rhodes, D. (2004, April). Climates for learning: mathematics achievement and
its relationship to schoolwide student behavior, schoolwide parental involvement, and school morale. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Researchers Association, San Diego, CA.
53

54. References
10. Gregory, A., & Weinstein, R. S. (2008). The discipline gap and African Americans: Defiance or cooperation in
the high school classroom. Journal of School Psychology, 46(4), 455-475.
11. Gregory, A., Cornell, D., & Fan, X. (2011). The relationship of school structure and support to suspension rates
for Blacks and White high school students. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 904–934.
12. Gregory, A., & Weinstein, R. S. (2004). Connection and regulation at home and in school: Predicting growth in
achievement for adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 19, 405–427.
13. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York:
Routledge.
14. Hawkins, J. D., Doueck, H. J., & Lishner, D. M. (1988). Changing teaching practices in mainstream classrooms
to improve bonding and behavior of low achievers. American Educational Research Journal, 25, 31-50.
15. Losen, D. & Skiba, R. (2010). Suspended Education: Urban Middle Schools in Crisis. Southern Poverty Law
Center: Montgomery, AL.
16. Losen, D. & Martinez, T. E. (2013). Out of School & Off Track: The Overuse of Suspensions in American Middle
and High Schools. The Center for Civi l Rights Remedies: Los Angeles, CA.
17. Mattison, E., & Aber, M. S. (2007). Closing the achievement gap: The association of racial climate with
achievement and behavioral outcomes. American Journal of Community Psychology, 40(1), 1-12.
18. McNeely, C., Nonnemaker, J., & Blum R. (2002). Promoting School Connectedness Evidence from the
National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Journal of School Health, 72(4), 138-146.
19. Mendez, L.R. (2003). Predictors of suspension and negative school outcomes: A longitudinal investigation. In
Wald & Losen (Eds.), Deconstructing the School to Prison Pipeline, (p. 27). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
54

55. References
20. Muller, C. (2001). The role of caring in the teacher-student relationship for at-risk students. Sociological
Inquiry, 71, 241–255.
21. Nakkula, M. J., & Toshalis, E. (2006). Understanding youth: Adolescent development for educators.
Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.
22. Nicholson-Crotty, S., Birchmeier, Z., & Valentine, D. (2009). Exploring the impact of school discipline on
racial disproportion in the juvenile justice system. Social Science Quarterly, 90(4), 1003-1018.
23. Office of the Surgeon General (US) (2001). Youth Violence: A Report of the Surgeon General. Rockville,
MD: Office of the Surgeon General (US).
24. Osher, D., Bear, G., Sprague, J., & Doyle, W. (January-February, 2010). How we can improve school
discipline. Educational Researcher, 39 (1), 48-58.
25. Osher, D. & Kendziora, K. (2010). Building Conditions for Learning and Healthy Adolescent Development:
Strategic Approaches in B. Doll, W. Pfohl, & J. Yoon (Eds.) Handbook of Youth Prevention Science. New
York: Routledge.
26. Osher, D., Sprague, J., Weissberg, R. P., Axelrod, J., Keenan, S., Kendziora, K., & Zins, J. E. (2008). A
comprehensive approach to promoting social, emotional, and academic growth in contemporary schools.
In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.) Best practices in school psychology V, Vol. 4 (pp. 1263–1278). Bethesda,
MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
27. Public Policy Research Institute (2012). Positive Policing in Waco ISD: Re-Thinking Law Enforcement in
Texas Schools. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University.
20. Adapted from Rausch, M. K, & Skiba, R. (2004). Unplanned outcomes: Suspensions and expulsions in
Indiana. Bloomington, IN: Center for Evaluation and Education Policy.
21. Roch, C. H., Pitts, D. W., & Navarro, I. (2010). Representative bureaucracy and policy tools: Ethnicity,
student discipline, and representation in public schools. Administration & Society, 42(1), 38-65.
55

56. References
30. Ryan, A. M., & Patrick, H. (2001). The classroom social environment and changes in adolescents’ motivation
and engagement during middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 437–460.
31. Skiba, R. J., & Knesting, K. (2001). Zero tolerance, zero evidence: An analysis of school disciplinary practice.
In R. J. Skiba & G. G. Noam (Eds.), New directions for youth development (p. 17-43). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
32. Skiba, R. J., Michael, R. S., Nardo, A. C., & Peterson, R. (2002). The color of discipline: Sources of racial and
gender disproportionality in school punishment. Urban Review, 34, 317-342.
33. Skiba, R. J., Rausch, M.K., & Ritter, S. (2004). “Discipline is Always Teaching”: Effective Alternatives to Zero
Tolerance in Indiana’s Schools. Bloomington, IN: Center for Evaluation and Education Policy.
34. Skiba, R., Simmons, A., Ritter, S., Kohler, K., Henderson, M., & Wu, T. (2006). The context of minority
disproportionality: Practitioner perspectives on special education referral. Teachers' College Record, 108,
1424-1459.
35. Skiba, R., Trachok, M., Chung, C. G., Baker, T., & Hughes, R. L. (2012, April). Parsing Disciplinary
Disproportionality: Contributions of Behavior, Student, and School Characteristics to Suspension and
Expulsion. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Vancouver, B.C., Canada.
36. Sweeten, G. (2006). Who Will Graduate? Disruption of High School Education by Arrest and Court
Involvement. Justice Quarterly, 24.4, 462-480.
37. U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Helping to Ensure Equal Access to Education: Report to
the President and Secretary of Education, Under Section 203(b)(1) of the Department of Education
Organization Act, FY 2009 –12, Washington, D.C., 2012.
38. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press.
56