Advancing school discipline reform

Advancing School Discipline ReformJune 19, 20134:00 – 5:00 pm ET

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) 749-4750Toll: 1 (415) 655-0001

If you have technical difficulties logginginto the web-based portion of the event, please contact WebEx Customer Support at 1 (866) 229-3239.

Logging into the Webinar

2

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

23 4

3

Providing Feedback

4

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

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

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

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

Agenda

What the Latest Research Says About School DisciplineDavid Osher, PhD, Vice President, American Institutes for Research

What NASBE Is Doing to Advance School Discipline ReformKimberly Charis, Project Director

Maryland’s Experience in Advancing School Discipline ReformJames DeGraffenreidt, Member and former President, Maryland State Board of Education

1

2

3

Georgia’s Experience in Advancing School Discipline ReformBrad Bryant, Executive Director, Georgia Foundation for Public Education, Georgia Department of EducationGarry McGiboney, Associate Superintendent of Policy and Charter Schools, Georgia Department of Education

4 8

What the LATEST Research Says About School Discipline

David Osher, PhDVice President, Human and Social Development Program of the American Institutes for Research

9

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

Conditions for Learning: Key Aspects of School Climate and Discipline

Page 11

11

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

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

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

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

Discipline and “Zero Tolerance” Policies

Citations 30

16

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

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

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

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

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 agenciesRestorative Practices and Justice and Peer Mediation

• Important characteristics of each include:Family-driven and youth-guidedCulturally competentPrevent problems proactivelyConstructively address discipline issues when they arise 21

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

Questions?

1

23 4

23

What NASBE IS DOING to advance school discipline reform

Kimberly CharisProject Director, Center for Safe and Healthy Schools, NASBE

24

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

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

MARYLAND’S EXPERIENCE IN ADVANCING SCHOOL DISCIPLINE REFORM

James DeGraffenreidtMember and Former President, Maryland State Board of Education

27

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions?

1

23 4

36

GEORGIA’S EXPERIENCE IN ADVANCING SCHOOL DISCIPLINE REFORM

Brad BryantExecutive Director, Georgia Foundation for Public Education, Georgia Department of EducationGarry McGiboney, PhDAssociate Superintendent of Policy and Charter Schools, Georgia Department of Education

37

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

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 school school climate climate data through the implementation of a statewide annual survey: Georgia Student Health Survey II.Georgia Student Health Survey II.

The Survey Survey is an anonymous, statewide survey instrument developed by the GaDOE in collaboration with the Georgia Department of Public Health and Georgia State University. The Survey Survey identifies safety and health issues that can have safety and health issues that can have a negative impact on student achievement and school a negative impact on student achievement and school climateclimate..

39

The Survey Survey 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: alcohol alcohol and drug use, nutrition and dietary behaviors, thoughts of and drug use, nutrition and dietary behaviors, thoughts of dropping out of school, suicide and self-harm, bullying, use dropping 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 questions120 high school questions120 high school questions

School systems are given a unique URL address URL address for each of their middle and high schools.

40

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 8681

8983

90

79

93

78

94

78

94

73

96

0

20

40

60

80

100

Alcohol Tobacco Marijuana Other drugs

Per

cent

(%)

6th 8th 10th 12th

Students who think drugs or alcohol are harmful

83 86 84 8681

8983

90

79

93

78

94

78

94

73

96

0

20

40

60

80

100

Alcohol Tobacco Marijuana Other drugs

Per

cent

(%)

6th 8th 10th 12th

Alcohol and Drug Use, Past 30 Days, By Grade

5 3 1 113 9 5 4

2216 12 6

3023

158

0

20

40

60

80

100

Alcohol Tobacco Marijuana Chew ingTobacco

Per

cen

t (%

)

6th 8th 10th 12th

Alcohol and Drug Use, Past 30 Days, By Grade

5 3 1 113 9 5 4

2216 12 6

3023

158

0

20

40

60

80

100

Alcohol Tobacco Marijuana Chew ingTobacco

Per

cen

t (%

)

6th 8th 10th 12th

Unsupervised Time on Computer By Grade

28 29

17 155 7

19 2317

22

8 1116

22 1824

9 1015

24 2025

9 8

0

20

40

60

80

100

None <1hour/day 1 hour/day 2-3hours/day

4-5hours/day

6+ hours

Per

cen

t (%

)

6th 8th 10th 12th

Unsupervised Time on Computer By Grade

28 29

17 155 7

19 2317

22

8 1116

22 1824

9 1015

24 2025

9 8

0

20

40

60

80

100

None <1hour/day 1 hour/day 2-3hours/day

4-5hours/day

6+ hours

Per

cen

t (%

)

6th 8th 10th 12th

School Safety, By Grade

1 313

312

29

3

22

36

3

20

34

0

20

40

60

80

100

I brought a w eapon toschool in past 30 days

I have been offered,givenor sold drugs on schoolproperty w ithin the past

12 months

I have instant messagedpeople I don’t know

Per

cen

t (%

)

6th 8th 10th 12th

School Safety, By Grade

1 313

312

29

3

22

36

3

20

34

0

20

40

60

80

100

I brought a w eapon toschool in past 30 days

I have been offered,givenor sold drugs on schoolproperty w ithin the past

12 months

I have instant messagedpeople I don’t know

Per

cen

t (%

)

6th 8th 10th 12th

41

College and Career Readiness Performance Index (CCRPI)

Georgia 8th Grade Student Absences and Graduation Rate (within four years)

20%20%

43

College and Career Readiness Performance Index (CCRPI)

44

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

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

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

Focus on Focus on School School Climate and Climate and

CollaborationCollaboration

Governor’s Office of Children and FamiliesGeorgia Family Connection PartnershipGeorgia Advocacy OfficeGeorgia AppleseedGeorgia School Boards AssociationGeorgia Association of Educational LeadersAnti-Defamation LeagueDepartment of Behavioral Health & Developmental DisabilitiesGeorgia State University School Safety/Student Discipline CenterGeorgia State University Institute of Public HealthUniversity of Georgia Safe and Welcoming Schools ProjectGirls Scouts of AmericaGeorgia PTAMental Health America – Georgia ChapterThe Carter Center Mental Health CenterAnnie E. Casey Foundation

Georgia State Board of Georgia State Board of EducationEducation

Questions?

1

23 4

49

Related Resources • NASBE

www.nasbe.org

• Atlantic Philanthropies News and Updates on School Disciplinehttp://www.atlanticphilanthropies.org/search/news?keywords=school+discipline&op.x=45&op.y=4&form_token=116c9af30900f9dab2d259dd477e54ca&form_id=search_form

• National School Justice Partnershiphttp://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 itshttp://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov

• Supportive School Discipline Community of Practicehttp://ssdcop.neglected-delinquent.org 50

Related Resources • New website focused on positive approaches to discipline

Coming Soon!

• APA Zero Tolerance Reporthttp://www.apa.org/pubs/info/reports/zero-tolerance-report.pdf

• “Suspended Education”http://splcenter.org/get-informed/publications/suspended-education

• Equity Project at Indiana Universityhttp://ceep.indiana.edu/equity

• Educational Researcher Serieshttp://edr.sagepub.com/content/vol39/issue1/

51

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

References1. 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

References10. 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

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.

28. Adapted from Rausch, M. K, & Skiba, R. (2004). Unplanned outcomes: Suspensions and expulsions in Indiana. Bloomington, IN: Center for Evaluation and Education Policy.

29. 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

References30. 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