Alternatives to Suspensions: Rationale and Recommendations

This article was downloaded by: [Princeton University]On: 09 July 2013, At: 10:12Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of School ViolencePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjsv20

Alternatives to Suspensions: Rationaleand RecommendationsJenna K. Chin a , Erin Dowdy a , Shane R. Jimerson a & W. JeremyRime aa Department of Counseling, Clinical, and School Psychology,University of California, Santa Barbara, California, USAAccepted author version posted online: 20 Jan 2012.Publishedonline: 03 Apr 2012.

To cite this article: Jenna K. Chin , Erin Dowdy , Shane R. Jimerson & W. Jeremy Rime (2012)Alternatives to Suspensions: Rationale and Recommendations, Journal of School Violence, 11:2,156-173, DOI: 10.1080/15388220.2012.652912

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2012.652912

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjsv20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/15388220.2012.652912

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2012.652912

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of School Violence, 11:156–173, 2012Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1538-8220 print/1538-8239 onlineDOI: 10.1080/15388220.2012.652912

Alternatives to Suspensions: Rationaleand Recommendations

JENNA K. CHIN, ERIN DOWDY, SHANE R. JIMERSON,and W. JEREMY RIME

Department of Counseling, Clinical, and School Psychology, University of California,Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California, USA

Suspensions are often used as an individual disciplinary conse-quence in attempts to reduce problem behaviors in the future.However, suspensions have shown to be less effective for studentswith specific behavioral challenges and problems. When examin-ing suspensions in the context of behaviorist and social-ecologicallearning theories, suspending may be inappropriate and ineffec-tive to promote learning or behavioral compliance, specifically forstudents with behavioral skill deficits. A literature review of effec-tive prevention methods (e.g., positive behavior supports) informs apotential paradigm shift in how student misbehavior may be effec-tively addressed. A proposed model for alternatives to suspensionsis presented, with special attention to implications and guidelinesfor practitioners. Additionally, a pilot initiative implementing alter-natives to suspensions is discussed, and a case study serves asan example for recommendations in replacing punitive disciplinepractices with proactive, learning opportunities.

KEYWORDS alternatives to suspension, school discipline, positivebehavioral supports, student behavior problems

Many schools in the United States use suspension (requiring the student toleave school for a designated amount of time) as a reaction to or punishmentfor student disciplinary infractions. In 2006, approximately 1 out of every14 students (7%) was suspended from school at least once during the school

Received September 15, 2011; accepted December 18, 2011.Address correspondence to Jenna K. Chin, University of California, Santa Barbara, Gevirtz

Graduate School of Education, Department of Counseling, Clinical, and School Psychology,Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

156

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

12 0

9 Ju

ly 2

013

Alternatives to Suspensions 157

year (U.S. Department of Education, 2008c). Over the past few decades, sus-pension rates have been increasing due, in part, to zero-tolerance policiesin which students are suspended for disciplinary violations ranging in sever-ity (Brown, 2007; Mental Health America, 2009). The percentage of UnitedStates public schools using out-of-school suspensions or removal with nocurriculum or additional services provided increased from 34% in 1999/2000(U.S. Department of Education, 2008b) to 41% in 2007/08 (U.S. Departmentof Education, 2008a). However, there is no empirical evidence to support thealleged deterrent effect of suspensions (American Psychological AssociationZero Tolerance Task Force, 2008; Losen & Skiba, 2010). Moreover, suspen-sions appear to be counterproductive, as research has demonstrated thatstudents who get suspended have a variety of negative outcomes includ-ing associated increases in problem behaviors (Mayer, 1995; Sprott, Jenkins,& Doob, 2005), missed academic instruction time (Brown, 2007), and aremore likely to be suspended again (Theriot, Craun, & Dupper, 2010) andincarcerated (Christle, Jolivette, & Nelson, 2005). Such a pattern has beentermed the “school-to-prison pipeline” (Christle et al., 2005; Nicholson-Crotty, Birchmeier, & Valentine, 2009). Escalating punitive consequenceshave proven ineffective for incarcerated youth; moreover, the high ratesof recidivism following incarceration further belie the logic that penalizingconsequences will modify individual behaviors (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006).

Schools do not use a one-size-fits-all approach to academic instruction.Students are taught according to grade and ability level based on considera-tions regarding intellectual development and different learning abilities andneeds. A similar rationale should support teaching behavior and disciplinesince children also have different backgrounds and capacities in these areasas well. While suspensions may work for some students who fail to reof-fend after being suspended once (Atkins et al., 2002), theory and relatedresearch shows that suspensions may be less effective for students with par-ticular needs and histories. For example, students who have behavioral andemotional disabilities (Krezmien, Leone, & Achilles, 2006), problems withaggression, hyperactivity, and social skills (Atkins et al., 2002), and negativeexperiences with school and academics (Scott, Nelson, & Liapusin, 2001)are less likely to positively change their behavior as a result of being sus-pended. Therefore, similar to modified approaches to academic instruction,schools should not use a one-size-fits-all approach to discipline. An alterna-tives to suspensions (ATS) model that promotes learning and reduces futureincidents of behavior problems is needed.

THEORETICAL RATIONALE FOR AN ATS MODEL

Dupper, Theriot, and Craun (2009) described the goals that out-of-schoolsuspension as an educational practice is designed to accomplish, as follows:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

12 0

9 Ju

ly 2

013

158 J. K. Chin et al.

(a) remove the offending student, (b) provide temporary relief to teach-ers and administrators, and (c) get the attention of parents. Similarly, theAmerican Academy of Pediatrics (2003) stated “suspension and expulsionfrom school are used to punish students, alert parents, and protect otherstudents and school staff” (p. 1206). Thus, rather than conceptualizing sus-pensions within a learning framework (i.e., what the students gain or learn asa result of being suspended), it appears that the goals of suspension ignorethe problem in favor of a temporary solution. With the exception of whena student presents an immediate threat (e.g., possession of a weapon), thelogic of sending a student home as a disciplinary infraction does not seemclear, especially when what students are learning and gaining (or not gain-ing) from suspensions is examined (Mizell, 1978). By examining the functionof suspensions within various learning frameworks, including a behavioristperspective and a social-ecological perspective, an explanation is providedas to why suspensions may lead to undesirable and counterproductiveoutcomes.

Suspensions Through the Lens of Behaviorist and Social-EcologicalTheories of Learning

Wheeler and Richey (2005) described the behaviorist model as recognizing“that all behavior serves a function and has evolved as a direct result of theindividual’s learning history coupled with interactions within their environ-ment” (Sulzer-Azaroff & Mayer, 1991, pp. 14–15). Behaviorist theory refersto how stimuli and reinforcements can change and affect behavior in a clas-sical conditioning framework (Sharf, 2008). By pairing stimuli with certainreinforcements, the stimuli may invoke a new type of response dependingon the paired reinforcement. Similarly, the Law of Effect states, “if a behaviorproduces a favorable outcome on the environment, it is more likely to berepeated in the future” (Wheeler & Richey, p. 14).

Many discipline models reflect the principles of behaviorist theory, inwhich an undesirable consequence is given (e.g., spanking, a fee/ticket)in response to an undesired behavior (e.g., breaking the rules, speeding).Considering suspensions through the behaviorist perspective of learning,unacceptable behavior is conceptualized as, for example, initiating a physicalfight, disrespecting a teacher, or destroying school property. The associatedconsequence, suspension, should serve as a punishment and reduce thebehavior from reoccurring. However, for some students, the consequenceof being suspended is a reinforcer (increases the likelihood of the behavior)rather than a punishment (decreases the likelihood of the behavior), as thesuspended students perceive suspensions as an “officially sanctioned schoolholiday” (Rossow & Parkinson, 1999, as cited by Dupper et al., 2009).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

12 0

9 Ju

ly 2

013


Students who are suspended and expelled often have poor past aca-demic experiences; therefore, it is likely that being required to leave schoolfor a determined amount of time is not a punishment (Brown, 2007).Scott et al. (2001) described how academic tasks could become an aver-sive experience for students who demonstrate challenging behaviors inthe classroom. Scott and colleagues cite research showing that childrenwith behavior and academic deficits are more likely to receive negativeand/or punitive interactions with their teachers and less engaged instructiontime. Consequently, when a student views suspension as a school sanc-tioned holiday, the suspension becomes a reinforcer of problem behaviors.Some students may experience suspension as a punishment; however, alack of established research on positive outcomes of suspensions (AmericanPsychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force, 2008; Losen & Skiba,2010), combined with research on high rates of recidivism of problem behav-iors proceeding suspensions (Mayer, 1995; Sprott et al., 2005; Theriot et al.,2010), suggests that for many students suspension is not having the desiredimpact and could be actually reinforcing for some.

The social-ecological perspective values the importance of how indi-vidual behavior is influenced by their various environments, includinghome, school, and the community (Wheeler & Richey, 2005). From thisperspective, it is critical to examine relevant social contexts, such as a stu-dent’s home environment, and their potential impact on child learning.According to the 2000 U.S. Census, students who are suspended are lesslikely to have supervision at home, and they are more likely to come fromhomes in or near the poverty level, to come from a single parent fam-ily, and to have a variety of home-life stressors (Advocates for Childrenand Youth, 2006; American Academy of Pediatrics, 2003; Bruns, Moore,Stephan, Pruitt, & Weist, 2005). Additionally, in a study examining studentsin special education, students who were more frequently suspended weremore likely to have parents who themselves expressed low school satisfac-tion (Achilles, Mclaughlin, & Croninger, 2007). Despite the good intentionsof most parents, it is possible that students who are suspended will notlearn from their actions or receive attention and consequences in the waythat many administrators anticipate. Parents may be less likely to be athome to discipline the child during the suspension, or they may pay lessattention to the suspension due to various other pressing sociological stres-sors (e.g., poverty, single parenthood; Advocates for Children and Youth,2006; American Academy of Pediatrics, 2003; Bruns et al., 2005) or theirown lack of satisfaction with the school system. In considering learningand social-ecological theories and avoiding a one-size-fits-all disciplinaryapproach, alternative methods of reacting to behavioral problems may provebeneficial.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

12 0

9 Ju

ly 2

013


INTERVENTIONS TO REDUCE SUSPENSIONS

The literature on positive behavior support interventions (PBIS) repre-sents a recent trend in education that has shown a variety of effectson student behavior and provides insight on potentially effective waysto reduce suspensions. PBIS emphasizes a proactive, learning, preventionapproach (rather than a punitive approach) to respond to behavior prob-lems (Bradshaw, Mitchell, & Leaf, 2010). Similar to how students are taughtother skills (e.g., reading, swimming), PBIS frameworks emphasize teach-ing appropriate behaviors and setting forth clear behavior guidelines andexpectations. PBIS is based on behaviorist theory and social learning mod-els (Bradshaw et al., 2010). PBIS includes components such as having(a) universally adopted, consistently applied, well-defined expectations ofbehavior, (b) staff and students who are informed/trained on these expec-tations, (c) a reward system for students’ appropriate behaviors, and (d)additional intensive supports to address student needs in addition to sys-tematic universal, school-wide procedures (Bradshaw et al., 2010; Luiselli,Putnam, Handler, & Feinberg, 2005). Schools implementing PBIS have expe-rienced reductions in office disciplinary referrals and suspension rates,compared to schools not implementing PBIS (Bradshaw et al., 2010; Curtis,Van Horne, Robertson, & Karvonen, 2010; Luiselli et al., 2005; Muscott,Mann, & LeBrun, 2008).

Though not as widespread in the literature as distinct PBIS efforts, thereare emerging research examples that address problem behaviors in school-wide, universal approaches emphasizing proactive learning opportunities,with methods similar to PBIS models. Cantrell, Parks-Savage, and Rehfuss(2007) examined the effects of implementing a school-wide peer media-tion program in a diverse, suburban elementary school of 825 students. Themediation program was based on social learning theory, capitalizing on theidea that students will imitate and learn from peer responses in social situa-tions. During the 3-year longitudinal study, a decrease in infractions relatedto both physical and verbal conflict was evident, which coincided with asignificant decrease in out-of-school suspensions. Suspensions were signif-icantly lower during the 3 years of the study (2.1%–2.9% of the studentpopulation) compared to the 1 year preceding implementation (9.6% of thestudent population). Student mediators showed improvements in knowl-edge related to conflict resolution and problem solving, as demonstratedby a pretest and posttest assessment. A similar study conducted in a lowsocioeconomic, rural elementary with students in Grades 6–8 (Bell, Coleman,Anderson, Whelan, & Wilder, 2000) found that following the implementationof a peer mediation program, school-wide suspensions decreased com-pared to three previous years of baseline data, and the student mediatorsdemonstrated reduced office referrals compared to a control group.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

12 0

9 Ju

ly 2

013


THE CURRENT STUDY

Although there is research and theory that points to the potential suc-cess of a discipline system that focuses on prevention and skill buildinginstead of punitive consequences, there is limited research on actual ATSinterventions and their effectiveness. This study first created an ATS pro-gram, based on the rationale of learning theories and research illustratingthe need to teach appropriate behaviors to students. Then, the programwas piloted at an elementary school with students from families experienc-ing low socioeconomic circumstances. When students engaged in an act ofmisbehavior that would previously warrant a suspension per the schools’discipline policies, specific strategies and interventions were implementedto replace the suspension. It was hypothesized that providing offendingstudents with interventions that fulfilled skill deficits or responded to emo-tional needs of the student would result in less future problem behaviorscompared to if the student had been suspended. The ATS program processand design was derived from the review of the literature and is presentednext.

METHOD

Participants

The ATS program was piloted in an elementary school during the2010/11 school year. There were a total of 553 students in preschool throughGrade 6. The student population included 94% Latino/a, 3% Anglo, and1% African American youths. Most of the students were eligible for free orreduced-price lunch (92%) and over three quarters were identified as EnglishLanguage Learners (79%). Standardized test data from the 2009/10 year forthe California Standards Tests (Educational Testing Services, 2010) showedthat 31% of students had scores in the proficient or advanced levels onthe English-Language Arts portion (compared to 52% in the district and52% in the state), and 43% of students had scores in the proficient oradvanced levels on Mathematics portion (compared to 58% in the dis-trict and 48% in the state). The school was in its fifth year in programimprovement under the Federal Intervention Program at the time of thestudy.

A total of nine students were administered ATS interventions. Of thesestudents, 22% were in fourth grade (n = 2), 22% were in fifth grade (n= 2), and 56% were in sixth grade (n = 5). All students (n = 9) wereLatino/a, in general education, and were identified as English LanguageLearners.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

12 0

9 Ju

ly 2

013


Procedure

PBIS PROGRAM

An ATS approach was implemented as part of a school-wide PBIS initiativeby a team including the school psychologist, school psychology gradu-ate students, and university faculty. The administration at the elementaryschool expressed interest in reducing suspensions at the beginning of theschool year. The 2010/11 school year was the first year of PBIS imple-mentation. The PBIS program consisted of assessment and intervention atschool-wide, class-wide, small-group, and individualized levels. School-widebehavioral expectations were taught to all students and staff at the begin-ning of the school year. All students received class-wide weekly lessonsfrom a social-emotional curriculum taught by school psychology graduatestudents, which covered topics such as anger management, emotional regu-lation, problem solving, and strategies to deal with and prevent bullying. Allstudents were screened for risk of behavioral and emotional problems usingthe Behavioral and Emotional Screening System (Kamphaus & Reynolds,2007), using the teacher-report form for all grades and the student self-report form for Grades 3–6. The assessment results and teacher referralsinformed small group and individual interventions, implemented by thePBIS team, as needed. The ATS program consisted solely of individual-ized interventions for students referred following a significant behavioralinfraction. Parental consent was obtained prior to participation in theprogram.

STRATEGIES AND INTERVENTIONS TO REPLACE SUSPENSIONS

The PBIS team designed the ATS program based on reviewed literature andresearch on suspension practices. Table 1 lists ATS strategies and inter-ventions the PBIS team selected, which are based on skill-building andproactive learning, designed to address the behavioral needs of the student.These skill-building interventions also responded to the research, whichfound that students with behavioral problems often have (a) poor expe-riences with school, (b) families with little supervision and various stressorsat home (Advocates for Children and Youth, 2006; American Academy ofPediatrics, 2003; Bruns et al., 2005), and/or (c) parents who also had poorexperiences with school (Achilles et al., 2007). Table 1 is compiled withinterventions that addressed the ability or skill deficit, in addition to otherempirically based methods that have been effective in changing behav-ior (e.g., cognitive-behavioral support, solution-focused counseling, directinstruction, and progress monitoring).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

12 0

9 Ju

ly 2

013

TAB

LE1

Alte

rnat

ives

toSu

spen

sions:

Stra

tegi

esan

dIn

terv

entio

ns

Alte

rnat

ive

tosu

spen

sion

Des

crip

tion

Self-m

anag

emen

tpla

ns

•Indiv

idual

ized

self-m

anag

emen

tpla

ns

can

hel

pre

duce

undes

ired

beh

avio

r(P

eter

son,20

05;

K.W

alke

r,20

09).

•Beh

avio

rm

onito

ring

stra

tegi

essu

chas

dai

lyre

port

card

s,se

lf-c

har

ting

ofbeh

avio

rs,an

doth

erst

rate

gies

that

pro

vide

feed

bac

kto

the

studen

tca

nbe

util

ized

(Advo

cate

sfo

rChild

ren

and

Youth

,20

06;Fr

ankl

in,Pet

erso

n,Sk

iba,

&Sk

iba,

2007

).D

ebriefi

ng

and

reflec

tion

assi

gnm

ents

(for

imm

edia

teuse

)•D

isru

ptiv

est

uden

tsca

nbe

sentto

aquie

tpla

cein

the

clas

sroom

or

outs

ide

ofth

ecl

assr

oom

tofill

outa

“CoolD

ow

nW

ork

shee

t”or

deb

riefi

ng

work

shee

t,w

her

eth

est

uden

tdes

crib

esth

ein

frac

tion,w

hy

they

did

it,an

dw

hat

they

nee

dto

do

diffe

rently

.The

teac

her

then

revi

ews

this

with

the

studen

tduring

the

nex

tunst

ruct

ure

dper

iod

(e.g

.,re

cess

;Posi

tive

Envi

ronm

ent,

Net

work

ofTra

iner

s;PEN

T,20

09).

Rel

evan

tre

sourc

esca

nbe

found

atth

ePEN

TW

ebsi

teat

http:/

/ww

w.p

ent.c

a.go

v/dsk

/bsp

man

ual

.htm

lD

ebriefi

ng

and

reflec

tion

assi

gnm

ents

(for

less

imm

edia

teuse

)•S

tuden

tsca

nbe

assi

gned

hom

ework

that

invo

lves

rese

arch

ing

ato

pic

rele

vantto

thei

rbeh

avio

ralin

frac

tion

(e.g

.,if

the

studen

tw

asphys

ical

lyag

gres

sive

,th

eyca

nre

sear

ch“s

oci

alan

dle

galco

nse

quen

ces

for

aggr

essi

on”)

Studen

tsca

nth

enpre

senta

post

er,Pow

erPoin

tpre

senta

tion,or

video

pre

senta

tion

toth

eir

clas

sin

whic

hth

eyte

ach

oth

ers

the

skill

they

lear

ned

(PEN

T,20

09).

Beh

avio

rco

ntrac

ts•H

ave

studen

tsbe

activ

ely

invo

lved

incr

eatin

ga

contrac

tdel

inea

ting

goal

san

dposi

tive

and

neg

ativ

eco

nse

quen

ces.

When

studen

tsar

een

gage

din

the

pro

ble

m-s

olv

ing

pro

cess

,th

eyar

ebei

ng

taugh

tpro

activ

ebeh

avio

rs(F

rankl

inet

al.,

2007

;Pet

erso

n,20

05).

•Ifco

ntrac

tsar

ebro

ken,a

par

entco

nfe

rence

can

be

calle

dto

revi

ewth

eco

ntrac

t.The

hom

ean

dsc

hoolca

nco

llabora

tein

dev

elopin

gco

nse

quen

ces

(Dep

artm

entofJu

venile

Just

ice

and

Del

inquen

cyPre

ventio

n,20

03).

Nat

ura

lco

nse

quen

ces

•Dis

ciplin

ary

conse

quen

ces

should

be

rela

ted

toth

est

uden

t’sin

appro

priat

ebeh

avio

r.They

should

be

des

igned

tote

ach

the

studen

tto

hav

ein

crea

sed

awar

enes

sor

know

ledge

aboutw

hy

thei

rbeh

avio

rw

asunac

cepta

ble

,th

eref

ore

faci

litat

ing

beh

avio

rch

ange

(Pet

erso

n,20

05;

K.W

alke

r,20

09;e.

g.,des

truct

ion

ofpro

per

tyor

afo

od

figh

tm

ayre

sult

ina

conse

quen

ceth

atin

volv

esth

est

uden

tcl

eanin

gth

eca

fete

ria,

wal

ls,sw

eepin

gup

room

s;ac

cess

ing

inap

pro

priat

eW

ebsi

tes

on

schoolco

mpute

rsm

ayre

sult

inlo

stco

mpute

rprivi

lege

s).

•Nat

ura

lco

nse

quen

ces

invo

lvin

gth

est

uden

tre

pla

cing

or

repai

ring

what

they

hav

edam

aged

allo

wth

est

uden

tto

feel

empow

ered

tore

store

or

modify

the

schoolen

viro

nm

ent(F

rankl

inet

al.,

2007

).

(Con

tin

ued

)

163

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

12 0

9 Ju

ly 2

013

TAB

LE1

(Contin

ued

)

Alte

rnat

ive

tosu

spen

sion

Des

crip

tion

Indiv

idual

ized

soci

al-e

motio

nal

trai

nin

g/le

arnin

g•S

kill

build

ing

rela

ted

tost

uden

tpro

ble

mca

nbe

done

thro

ugh

indiv

idual

or

group

counse

ling,

or

clas

s-w

ide

less

ons

(Pet

erso

n,20

05;K

.W

alke

r,20

09).

•Pee

rm

edia

tion

pro

gram

sdev

eloped

tohel

poffen

din

gst

uden

tsle

arn

how

tobe

effe

ctiv

epro

ble

m-s

olv

ers

and

are

then

assi

gned

tohel

poth

erst

uden

tsso

lve

pro

ble

ms

during

unst

ruct

ure

dtim

e(A

dvo

cate

sfo

rChild

ren

and

Youth

,20

06;K

.W

alke

r,20

09).

Counse

ling

•Gen

eral

counse

ling

can

be

use

dto

under

stan

dth

epro

ble

mbeh

avio

ran

dco

llabora

tivel

ypro

ble

mso

lve

tore

duce

futu

repro

ble

mbeh

avio

rs(S

kiba

&Rau

sch,20

06;K

.W

alke

r,20

09)

•Counse

ling

can

iden

tify

per

sonal

issu

esin

terf

erin

gw

ithst

uden

tpro

gres

s(P

eter

son,20

05).

•Counse

ling

can

hel

pth

est

uden

tse

ehow

thei

rbeh

avio

rin

terf

ered

with

oth

ers’

lear

nin

g(e

.g.,

empat

hy

trai

nin

g)(G

arib

aldi,

1979

).Par

entin

volv

emen

t•P

aren

tsca

nbe

required

toco

me

tosc

hoolw

ithth

est

uden

tto

hel

pm

onito

rth

eir

beh

avio

ran

dhold

the

studen

tac

counta

ble

(Pet

erso

n,20

05;K

.W

alke

r,20

09).

•Par

enttrai

nin

gor

par

entco

unse

ling

refe

rral

sca

npro

vide

par

ents

with

nee

ded

skill

sto

impro

veth

eir

child

’sbeh

avio

ras

anad

ded

com

ponen

tto

the

direc

tst

uden

tin

terv

entio

n(e

.g.,

H.M

.W

alke

ret

al.,

2009

).•P

aren

t–te

acher

confe

rence

sca

nbe

required

when

studen

tsm

isbeh

ave.

The

teac

her

/ad

min

istrat

or,

par

ents

,an

dst

uden

tca

nco

llabora

teon

apla

nfo

rth

est

uden

tto

impro

vebeh

avio

r(D

epar

tmen

tofJu

venile

Just

ice

and

Del

inquen

cyPre

ventio

n,20

03).

Inte

rven

tion

room

s/in

-sch

ool

susp

ensi

on

•Inte

rven

tion

room

sar

em

ore

pro

activ

eal

tern

ativ

esto

time-

outs

,tim

e-aw

ay,or

susp

ensi

ons,

bec

ause

they

invo

lve

psy

choed

uca

tion

and

addre

ssin

gth

epro

ble

mbeh

avio

r(G

arib

aldi,

1979

;Sk

iba

&Rau

sch,20

06).

•Bef

ore

mak

ing

anoffi

cere

ferr

alor

sendin

gth

est

uden

taw

ayfr

om

the

room

,te

acher

sse

nd

studen

tsto

anin

terv

entio

nro

om

.The

inte

rven

tion

room

teac

her

shel

pth

est

uden

tpro

cess

the

inci

den

t,at

tem

ptto

hel

pth

est

uden

tta

kere

sponsi

bili

tyfo

rhis

or

her

beh

avio

r,an

das

sist

the

studen

tin

retu

rnin

gto

the

clas

sroom

with

dev

elopin

ga

pla

nto

avoid

futu

repro

ble

ms.

Res

earc

hat

the

hig

hsc

hoolle

velsh

ow

edth

ism

ethod

tobe

effe

ctiv

e(S

kiba

&Rau

sch,20

06).

•Inte

rven

tion

room

sar

est

affe

dw

ithte

acher

san

ddai

lyas

sign

men

tsar

epro

vided

.A

ssig

nm

ents

can

focu

son

dec

isio

nm

akin

g,dev

elopin

gva

lues

,an

dpro

cess

ing

beh

avio

rm

isdem

eanors

(Gar

ibal

di,

1979

).

164

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

12 0

9 Ju

ly 2

013


DECISION-MAKING GUIDE: CHOOSING APPROPRIATE ALTERNATIVES

TO SUSPENSIONS

To move away from a one-size-fits-all approach to discipline, it was impor-tant to delineate, within the ATS program, which interventions should bechosen for different functions of behavior. Figure 1 summarizes the mainfindings presented in this literature review in the format of a practical guideto decision-making for interventions to be used within an ATS programmodel. When a student committed an offense, a debriefing and reflectionassignment was implemented in order for both the student and the schoolstaff to be aware of the student’s behavioral function. Additionally, furtherassessment, including interviews and observations, was conducted to eval-uate the function of the student offense. This assessment process, designedto align with behaviorist theory, aimed to evaluate what was reinforcing thestudent behavior so as to inform subsequent interventions. The interven-tion needed to account for the function of the students’ problem behavior(McIntosh, Campbell, Carter, & Dickey, 2009), as well as components ofa student’s background and systems, as described by the social-ecologicaltheory (e.g., home, parents, and friends).

Figure 1 refers to types of interventions described in Table 1, whichare divided into three categories based on various functions of the problembehavior: interventions appropriate for defiance/bad choices, skill/abilitydeficit, or social/emotional need. While it is likely that certain studentoffenses are committed in situations where students know what is right,but choose to do what is wrong (defiance/bad choices), there are also situ-ations where students may not know how to appropriately act (skill/abilitydeficit) or where student behavior is being influenced by home and lifestressors (social/emotional need; Advocates for Children and Youth, 2006;American Academy of Pediatrics, 2003; Bruns et al., 2005). Interventionswere selected to match various functions of behavior, with considerationsfrom learning theories and relevant research. For instance, recommend-ing social-emotional training for students with skill/ability deficits can helpstudents learn how to achieve desired reinforcements through appropriatebehaviors. Additionally, parent involvement is suggested as an importantcomponent for each function of behavior as social-ecological theory wouldsupport parent behavior as significantly impacting child behavior (Wheeler& Richey, 2005). Furthermore, suggesting parent involvement through parenttrainings or sharing the students’ social-emotional curriculums with parentsmay achieve the goal of getting parent attention in a proactive, constructiveway (Dupper et al., 2009).

This decision-making guide informed the third-tier, individualized stu-dent intervention, within a school that had various school-wide, class-wide,and small-group supports in place. As the PBIS literature supports, it isimportant and more efficient to primarily utilize and implement broader

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

12 0

9 Ju

ly 2

013

FIG

UR

E1

Dec

isio

n-m

akin

ggu

ide:

choosi

ng

appro

priat

eal

tern

ativ

esto

susp

ensi

ons.

166

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

12 0

9 Ju

ly 2

013


interventions, and then progress to individualized interventions if thebroader interventions are ineffective (Sugai & Horner, 2009). For instance,if a particular grade level of students is committing a similar offense (e.g.,bullying), a grade-wide intervention would first be appropriate. Similarly,if five or six students engage in an act of stealing, a small-group inter-vention would first be appropriate. The decision-making guide in Figure 1can also be utilized to assess for commonalities among offenses to informwhether interventions can be conducted broadly or individually, in an effortto maximize efficiency.

RESULTS

When comparing suspension data from the 5 years previous to the ATSprogram implementation, 2005/06 (N = 57), 2006/07 (N = 49), 2007/08 (N= 45), 2008/09 (N = 42), and 2009/10 (N = 66) to the suspension data fromthe 2010/11 school year (N = 23), there were fewer suspensions duringthe year the ATS model was implemented. Of the nine students receivingspecific activities from the ATS program, two of these students (22%) eachhad one reoffense of suspension, and seven (78%) did not. Among the36 students suspended the previous year (2009/10), 18 students (46%) hadat least one subsequent reoffense resulting in additional suspensions. Whilethere is an insufficient amount of data to statistically compare the number ofsuspensions and number of reoffenses in years preceding the ATS programwith numbers from the year of the ATS program, these numbers do providesome support for the success of the ATS program in reducing suspensionsand reoffenses.

The following case study provides an example of how the ATS modelwas applied, following the approach delineated in Table 1 and Figure 1.Although data are qualitative in nature, and with no control groups to exam-ine the effectiveness of the intervention, this case study illustrates how toimplement and make decisions within an ATS model. However, the quantita-tive data on number of suspensions and reoffenses of suspensions followingthe intervention, compared to the number of suspensions and reoffense ofsuspensions from the previous year when the ATS program was not in place,provide a preliminary indication of program success.

CASE STUDY: TEACHING SKILLS TO ADDRESS PHYSICAL AND VERBAL BULLYING

Amy was a 9-year-old student in fourth grade. She was as an EnglishLanguage Learner and part of the school district’s free/reduced-price lunchprogram. Throughout her fourth-grade year, she consistently scored in thebelow average and average range in language arts and mathematics, receiv-ing more below average grades at the beginning of the school year and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

12 0

9 Ju

ly 2

013


more average grades towards the end of the school year. She had frequentabsences (n = 17) and tardies (n = 47) throughout the 172-day school year.Her grades for development of personal and citizenship skills were belowaverage in the first trimester and average in the second and third trimester.Amy did not have any previously documented suspensions in her schoolrecords. However, Amy admitted that she had a history of “getting in trou-ble” for behavioral problems in school for as long as she could remember.There were no documented social-emotional or behavioral interventions inher school cumulative file.

In the first trimester of fourth grade, Amy was brought to the adminis-tration’s attention due to her verbal and physical bullying of other students.She had verbally threatened two students during school hours and physicallyhit another student while participating in the school’s after-school program.Amy’s behaviors warranted school disciplinary action, as reported by theprincipal, and Amy was also in danger of being expelled from the after-school program. Following the steps in Figure 1, Amy and the PBIS teammembers completed various worksheets that facilitated an assessment ofthe function of Amy’s behavior; this took place during a 45-minute ses-sion on the school day following the principal’s report of Amy’s disciplinaryinfraction. The worksheets were titled, “Thinking about My Behavior,”“Understanding Feelings Can Affect My Behavior,” and “Problem SolvingSteps,” and are available through the Positive Environment, Network ofTrainers (2009) Web site (URL provided in Table 1). The worksheets providequestions that prompt students to think about their choices, reasons fortheir behavior, and better options for choosing future behaviors. From thedebriefing/reflection assignment process, Amy and the PBIS team memberconcluded that Amy often got angry when she felt out of control, and inresponse to being angry, she became aggressive with peers. Additionally, thePBIS team member consulted with teachers and after-school program staffto understand the presenting problem and goals that her parents and schoolstaff had for Amy. School staff members wanted Amy to reduce her physicaland verbal aggression and increase her prosocial behaviors. Amy’s parentssigned and returned a consent form that allowed Amy to be involved withservices from the PBIS team. Unfortunately, after several attempts to contactAmy’s parents, the parents could not be reached for additional information.

Based on information derived from the debriefing and reflection assign-ment and student and teacher interviews, it was determined that Amydemonstrated a skill/ability deficit in controlling her anger, for which Amyhad received no previous interventions. The goal of the alternative to sus-pension activity was to increase Amy’s knowledge and ability to calm downwhen angry, with the selected intervention of social-emotional training. Aftergetting input from Amy’s teachers and Amy, the PBIS team decided that Amywould work on strategies to calm down in four weekly pull-out counselingsessions, culminating with a final project demonstrating what Amy learned.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

12 0

9 Ju

ly 2

013


In the counseling sessions, the PBIS team member taught and practicedself-calming strategies with Amy, directed by the Second Step curriculum(Committee for Children, 2002). The complete Second Step curriculum wassimultaneously being taught class-wide, so the PBIS member selected twoSecond Step lessons relevant to Amy’s goals that had not yet been pre-sented in Amy’s class, which Amy would subsequently help teach. The firsttwo counseling sessions focused on Amy learning these two Second Steplessons, “Managing Strong Feelings” and “Calming Down Anger.” In the thirdand fourth counseling sessions, they reviewed the curriculum and rehearsedteaching the two lessons. Since Amy had an interest in art, the third andfourth counseling sessions were also used to make a “Ways to Calm Down”poster for Amy to present during one of the class lessons. Following thefour weeks of intervention, Amy assisted the PBIS member in teaching twoweekly lessons to Amy’s class.

Amy’s progress was monitored weekly during counseling sessions andshe consistently verbally reported improvement in how she felt about schooland the after-school program. Additionally, the PBIS team member met withAmy’s teacher biweekly following the start of the alternative to suspensionactivity until the activity was completed and then monthly thereafter. Amy’steacher reported seeing progress in Amy’s behavior and noted satisfactionwith the alternative to suspension activity, saying that it resulted in behav-ioral change. For the remainder of the school year (6 months), Amy didnot have a reoffense. There was one report of Amy engaging in physicalaggression in her after-school program, compared to weekly complaintsabout Amy’s behavior from the after-school program prior to the interven-tion. When this event occurred, the PBIS team member met with Amy fortwo booster/review counseling sessions. In these sessions, Amy was ableto verbally recall the strategies she learned to calm down, demonstrate thestrategies in role-play scenarios, and discuss how she will better apply thestrategies in the future. The PBIS team member continued to check in withAmy and her teachers on a regular basis, and Amy demonstrated (basedon student report and teacher observation) that she remembered and usedstrategies to calm down when she became angry. Additionally, Amy verballyreported to the PBIS team member that she herself felt more in control ofher emotions, more confident in her calming-down skills, and more satis-fied in her participation in the after school program, which she previouslyexpressed dislike towards. The support processes implemented for Amyyielded the desired behaviors throughout the remainder of the school year.

DISCUSSION

Findings from this pilot study provide preliminary evidence that schoolscan find success in implementing an ATS program that promotes prosocial

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

12 0

9 Ju

ly 2

013


behaviors by engaging students to facilitate their understanding and enhancetheir knowledge. This pilot study demonstrated a reduction in suspensionscompared with previous years, within a small city elementary school, withpredominantly Latino/a students and students with families experiencinglow socioeconomic circumstances. Additionally, the case study demonstratedhow a proactive, learning approach to behavioral problems could poten-tially effectively replace punitive school discipline practices that frequentthe country.

Future studies should be conducted to further examine how an ATSmodel affects suspension reoffenses, improvements in behavioral and social-emotional functioning (e.g., based on diagnostic scales, student report, andteacher report), and other disciplinary actions. Additionally, studies shouldexplore how an ATS model may function differently in schools with or with-out other PBIS programs in place. Individualized approaches, such as theATS model, are likely to be more effective when they are included as onepart of a comprehensive school-wide positive behavior approach (Sugai &Horner, 2009). Consideration of student access to both universal and grouplevel supports is needed. Future research is needed to determine the optimalamount and timing of activities within an ATS program, as well as how tobest integrate them within a comprehensive PBIS program.

Based on our experiences, we propose that the ATS model as pre-sented can serve as a beginning base for future proactive practices inresponding to student behavioral misdemeanors. Although such a proposedsystem change takes effort, time, and staff and administration buy-in, theseguidelines encourage education professionals to use a discipline model thatresponds to the needs of the students and aims to implement evidence-based strategies to promote learning and reduce recidivism. Consistent withPBIS frameworks and learning theories, students should not be solely pun-ished for misbehavior; they need to be taught behavior when there is a clearindication that there is a deficit in their skills.

STATEMENT ON FUNDING

This research was supported in part by funding from the ThriveWestside/Harding Early Years Program.

COMPETING INTERESTS

We do not have any conflicts of interest to disclose.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We wish to thank the students and staff for their participation and support.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

12 0

9 Ju

ly 2

013


REFERENCES

Achilles, G. M., Mclaughlin, M. J., & Croninger, R. G. (2007). Sociocultural corre-lates of disciplinary exclusion among students with emotional, behavioral, andlearning disabilities in the SEELS national dataset. Journal of Emotional andBehavioral Disorders, 15, 33–45. doi:10.1177/10634266070150010401

Advocates for Children and Youth. (2006). School suspension: effects and alterna-tives. Voices for Maryland’s Children, 3(6), 1–14. Retrieved from http://www.acy.org/upimages/news_document1149532362-1.pdf

American Academy of Pediatrics. (2003). Out-of-school suspension and expulsion.Pediatrics, 112, 1206–1209. doi:10.1542/peds.112.5.1206

American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force. (2008). Are zero tol-erance policies effective in the schools? An evidentiary review and recommen-dations. American Psychologist, 63, 852–862. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.63.9.852

Atkins, M. S., McKay, M. M., Frazier, S. L., Jakobsons, L. J., Arvanitis, P., Cunningham,T., et al. (2002). Suspensions and detentions in an urban, low-income school:punishment or reward? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30, 361–371.doi:10.1023/A:1015765924135

Bell, S. K., Coleman, J. K., Anderson, A., Whelan, J. P., & Wilder, C. (2000). The effec-tiveness of peer mediation in a low-SES rural elementary school. Psychologyin the Schools, 37 , 505–516. doi:10.1002/1520-6807(200011)37:6<505::AID-PITS3>3.0.CO;2-5

Bradshaw, C. P., Mitchell, M. M., & Leaf, P. J. (2010). Examining the effectsof school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports on studentoutcomes: Results from a randomized controlled effectiveness trial in ele-mentary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12, 133–148.doi:10.1177/1098300709334798

Brown, T. M. (2007). Lost and turned out: Academic, social, and emotional expe-riences of students excluded from school. Urban Education, 42, 432–455.doi:10.1177/0042085907304947

Bruns, E. J., Moore, E., Stephan, S. H., Pruitt, D., & Weist, M. D. (2005). The impactof school mental health services on out-of-school suspension rates. Journal ofYouth and Adolescence, 34, 23–30. doi:10.1007/s10964-0005-1333-z

Cantrell, R., Parks-Savage, A., & Rehfuss, M. (2007). Reducing levels ofelementary school violence with peer mediation. Professional SchoolCounseling, 10, 475–481. Retrieved from http://www.schoolcounselor.org/content.asp?contentid=235

Christle, C. A., Jolivette, K., & Nelson, C. M. (2005). Breaking the school to prisonpipeline: Identifying school risk and protective factors for youth delinquency.Exceptionality, 13(2), 69–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327035ex1302_2

Committee for Children. (2002). Second Step: A violence prevention curriculumgrades 4–5 teacher’s guide (3rd ed.). Seattle, WA: Author.

Curtis, R., Van Horne, J. W., Robertson, P., & Karvonen, M. (2010). Outcomesof a school-wide positive behavioral support program. Professional SchoolCounseling, 13, 159–164. doi:10.5330/PSC.n.2010-13.159

Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2003). Project EASE(Educational Alternatives to Suspension and Expulsion): Promising strate-gies document. Retrieved from http://www.ncdjjdp.org/cpsv/toolkit/acrobat/project_ease.pdf

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

12 0

9 Ju

ly 2

013


Dupper, D. R., Theriot, M. T., & Craun, S. W. (2009). Reducing out-of-school sus-pensions: Practice guidelines for school social workers. Children & Schools,31(1), 6–14. Retrieved from http://titania.naswpressonline.org/vl=6317369/cl=15/nw=1/rpsv/cw/nasw/01627961/v31n1/s2/p6

Educational Testing Services. (2010). The guide to your STAR student reportCalifornia Standards Test. Retrieved from http://www.startest.org/pdfs/STAR.CST_interpretation_guide.2011.pdf

Franklin, N., Peterson, R., Skiba, L., & Skiba, R. (2007). Top ten alterna-tives to suspension. Retrieved from http://www.stonesoupgroup.org/Assets/Alternatives%20to%20Suspension.PDF

Garibaldi, A. M. (1979). In school-alternatives to suspension: Trendy educationalinnovations. The Urban Review, 11, 97–103. doi:0042-0972/79/020097-07$01.50

Kamphaus, R. W., & Reynolds, C. R. (2007). Behavior Assessment Systemfor Children–Second Edition (BASC-2): Behavioral and Emotional ScreeningSystem (BESS). Bloomington, MN: Pearson.

Krezmien, M. P., Leone, P. E., & Achilles, G. M. (2006). Suspension, race, and dis-ability: Analysis of statewide practices and reporting. Journal of Emotional andBehavioral Disorders, 14, 217–226. doi:10.1177/10634266060140040501

Losen, D. J., & Skiba, R. (2010). Suspended education: Urban middle schools in cri-sis. Retrieved from http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/school-discipline/suspended-education-urban-middle-schools-in-crisis

Luiselli, J. K., Putnam, R. F., Handler, M. W., & Feinberg, A. B. (2005).Whole school positive behavior support: Effects on student discipline prob-lems and academic performance. Educational Psychology, 25, 183–198.doi:10.1080/0144341042000301265

Mayer, G. R. (1995). Preventing antisocial behavior in the schools. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis, 28, 467–478. doi:10.1901/jaba.1995.28-467

McIntosh, K., Campbell, A. L., Carter, D. R., & Dickey, C. R. (2009).Differential effects of a tier two behavior intervention based on functionof problem behavior. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11, 82–93.doi:10.1177/1098300708319127

Mental Health America. (2009). Position statement 46: Zero tolerance policies inschools. Retrieved from www.mentalhealthamerica.net/

Mizell, M. H. (1978, April). Designing and implementing effective in-school alter-natives to suspension. Paper presented at the National Institution of EducationConference on In-School Alternatives to Suspension, Washington, DC.

Muscott, H. S., Mann, E. L., & LeBrun, M. R. (2008). Positive behavior interven-tions and supports in New Hampshire: Effects of large-scale implementationof school-wide positive behavior support on student discipline and aca-demic achievement. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 10, 190–195.doi:10.1177/1098300708316258

Nicholson-Crotty, S., Birchmeier, Z., & Valentine, D. (2009). Exploring the impact ofschool discipline on racial disproportion in the juvenile justice system. SocialScience Quarterly, 90, 1003–1018. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2009.00674.x

Peterson, R. L. (2005). Ten alternatives to suspension. Impact: Feature Issue onFostering Success in School and Beyond for Students with Emotional/BehavioralDisorders, 18(2), 10–11. Retrieved from http://ici.umn.edu/products/impact/182/182.pdf

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

12 0

9 Ju

ly 2

013


Positive Environment, Network of Trainers. (2009). The BSP desk reference.Retrieved from www.pent.ca.gov

Scott, T. M., Nelson, C. M., & Liaupsin, C. J. (2001). Effective instruc-tion: The forgotten component in preventing school violence.Education and Treatment of Children, 24, 309–322. Retrieved fromhttp://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/external?sid=ea13983e-538a-4c91-8cc3-064ea32580ee%40sessionmgr10&vid=3&hid=9

Sharf, R. S. (2008). Theories of psychotherapy and counseling: Concepts and cases(4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks Cole.

Skiba, R., & Rausch, M. K. (2006). School disciplinary systems: Alternatives to sus-pension and expulsion. In G. G. Bear & K. M. Minke (Eds.) Children’s needsIII: Development, prevention, and intervention (pp. 87–102). Washington, DC:National Association of School Psychologists.

Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (2006). Juvenile offenders and victims: 2006 nationalreport. Retrieved from www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp

Sprott, J. B., Jenkins, J. M., & Doob, A. N. (2005). Protecting at-risk youthfrom early offending. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 3, 59–77.doi:10.1177/1541204004270943

Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2009). Responsiveness-to-intervention and school-wide positive behavior supports: Integration of multi-tiered system approaches.Exceptionality, 17 , 223–237. doi:10.1080/09362830903235375

Sulzer-Azaroff, B., & Mayer, R. G. (1991). Behavioral analysis for lasting change.Orlando, FL: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Theriot, M. T., Craun, S. W., & Dupper, D. R. (2010). Multilevel evaluation of factorspredicting school exclusion among middle and high school students. Childrenand Youth Services Review, 32, 13–19. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.06.009

U.S. Department of Education. (2008a). Percentage of public schools reporting thatspecified disciplinary actions were allowed, and used during the school year,by selected disciplinary actions: School year 2007–08. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ssocs/tables/all_2008_tab_11.asp

U.S. Department of Education. (2008b). Percentage of public schools reportingthat specified disciplinary actions were available but not feasible, availablebut not used, available and used, or not available, by selected disciplinaryactions: 1999–2000. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ssocs/tables/all_2000_tab_12.asp?referrer=css

U.S. Department of Education. (2008c). Percentage of students suspended andexpelled from public elementary and secondary schools, by sex, race/ethnicity,and state: 2006. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_170.asp

Walker, K. (2009). Research brief: Alternatives to suspension. Retrieved http://www.educationpartnerships.org/

Walker, H. M., Seeley, J. R., Small, J., Severson, H. H., Graham, B. A., Feil, E. G.,et al. (2009). A randomized controlled trial of the First Step to Success EarlyIntervention: Demonstration of program efficacy outcomes in a diverse, urbanschool district. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 17 , 197–212.doi:10.1177/1063426609341645

Wheeler, J. L., & Richey, D. D. (2005). Behavioral management: Principles andpractices of positive behavior supports. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Prin

ceto

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

12 0

9 Ju

ly 2

013

Alternatives to Suspensions: Rationale and Recommendations

Documents