Advancing school discipline reform


Published on

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

Published in: Education
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • technical support number for WebEx (866) 229-3239
  • Unfortunately, discipline in our society seems to be more and more equated with zero tolerance, suspension and expulsion.
  • Advancing school discipline reform

    1. 1. Advancing SchoolDiscipline ReformJune 19, 20134:00 – 5:00 pm ET
    2. 2. To receive a call back, provideyour phone number when youjoin the event, or call thenumber below and enter theaccess code.Toll Free: 1 (855) 749-4750Toll: 1 (415) 655-0001If you have technical difficulties logginginto the web-based portion of the event,please contact WebEx CustomerSupport at 1 (866) 229-3239.Logging into the Webinar2
    3. 3. Q/A1. Click on the blue bar ofthe chat feature on theright side of yourscreen.2. Make sure yourresponse will bedirected to allparticipants.3. Enter your responseinto the chat text box.4. Click send.123 43
    4. 4. Providing Feedback4At the end oftoday’swebinar, wewill ask you tocomplete abrief feedbackform.
    5. 5. About Atlantic Philanthropies• The Atlantic Philanthropies (Atlantic) are dedicated to bringingabout lasting changes in the lives of disadvantaged andvulnerable people.• Atlantic is a limited life foundation that makes grants throughits five program areas: Aging, Children & Youth, PopulationHealth, Reconciliation, Human Rights.• Atlantic is generously supporting NASBE and AIR, amongothers, in advancing school discipline reform.• To learn more please visit:
    6. 6. About NASBE• Established in 1958 as a national, non-profit membershipassociation to strengthen state as the preeminentpolicymaking bodies for students and citizens.• NASBE’s Center for Safe and Healthy Schools partners with theCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, state and localeducation agencies, non-governmental organizations,philanthropic organizations, and community leaders toaddress important issues in student health and safety throughpolicy development and implementation.6
    7. 7. About AIR• The American Institutes for Research (AIR) is a nonpartisan,not-for-profit behavioral and social science researchorganization.• AIR’s mission is to conduct and apply the best behavioral andsocial science research and evaluation towards improvingpeoples’ lives, with a special emphasis on the disadvantaged.• AIR has extensive experience in analyzing school climate anddiscipline, and in translating that research to support staff inschools, districts, state education agencies, social serviceproviders, and courts via a range of projects. 7
    8. 8. AgendaWhat the Latest Research Says About School DisciplineDavid Osher, PhD, Vice President, American Institutes for ResearchWhat NASBE Is Doing to Advance School Discipline ReformKimberly Charis, Project DirectorMaryland’s Experience in Advancing School Discipline ReformJames DeGraffenreidt, Member and former President, Maryland StateBoard of Education123Georgia’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 Education48
    9. 9. What the LATEST Research SaysAbout School DisciplineDavid Osher, PhDVice President, Human and Social Development Program of theAmerican Institutes for Research9
    10. 10. Context for Schools• Academic success for all students is imperative and is affectedby the conditions for learning.• Most schools are implementing new curricula based on theCommon Core Standards, and they will not realize significantsuccess without addressing student needs and improvingconditions for learning.• Schools are having to balance between the needs andstrengths of students and education initiatives.• Doing something is not in question.• How to do it is.• There is solid evidence for improving academic achievementvia safe and supportive learning environments. 10
    11. 11. Conditions for Learning: Key Aspectsof School Climate and DisciplinePage  1111
    12. 12. Page  1212Schools as Risk Factors• Alienation• Academic Frustration• Chaotic Transitions• Negative Relationships With Adults AndPeers• Teasing, Bullying, Gangs• Poor Adult Role Modeling• Segregation With Antisocial Peers• School-driven and Child Welfare-drivenMobility &• Harsh Discipline, Suspension, Expulsion,Push Out/Drop Out
    13. 13. Students Who Are At Risk AreParticularly Susceptible to…• Low teacher efficacy• Low teacher support• Negative peer relationships• Chaotic environments• Poor instructional and behavioral practicesThis will affect their ability to perform to and meetCommon Core expectations.13
    14. 14. Page  1414Schools as Protective Factors thatSupport Resilience• Connection• Academic Success• Supported Transitions• Positive Relationships With Adults AndPeers• Caring Interactions• Social Emotional Learning• Positive Interactions With Pro-social (Not,Anti-social) Peers• Stability• Positive Approaches To DisciplinaryInfractions &• Services And Supports
    15. 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 approachesare ineffective.• Many police and judges are interested in advancing schooldiscipline reform in order to keep youth in school and out ofprison.15
    16. 16. Discipline and “Zero Tolerance”PoliciesCitations  3016
    17. 17. Council of State Governments TexasDiscipline 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 inwhich state law mandated suspensions and expulsions.• The rest were made at the discretion of school officials primarily inresponse to violations of local schools’ conduct codes.• African-American students and those with EBD weredisproportionately disciplined for discretionary actions.• Schools that had similar characteristics, including the racialcomposition and economic status of the student body, varied greatlyin how frequently they suspended or expelled students.• Schools that had similar characteristics, including the racialcomposition and economic status of the student body, varied greatlyin how frequently they suspended or expelled students.(
    18. 18. What Research Says About SchoolDiscipline• Punitive approaches do not work.• Unfair and inconsistently applied• Negatively affects outcomes of students with and withoutbehavior challenges• Have been demonstrated to have iatrogenic effects• Positive approaches to discipline can work when implementedeffectively.18
    19. 19. What Research Says About SchoolDiscipline (cont.)• Improving conditions for learning, can prevent problematicbehavioral issues and improve academic achievement.• An increasing number of states and districts are surveying theconditions for learning and broader school climate.• This includes 11 states that have Safe and Supportive SchoolGrants.• Effective approaches include building upon and aligning, ifpossible, social emotional learning and positive behavioralapproaches.• SEL has been demonstrated to improve achievement.• There are state SEL standards in KA and IL and in numerousdistricts.• PBIS is being used in districts in most states and has been shownto reduce exclusionary discipline and improve time on task.19
    20. 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 willbe to receive instruction, participate in class, complete work, andgraduate, and the common core will exacerbate this.20
    21. 21. Alternatives to Punitive Discipline• There are promising approaches available:Multi-tiered intervention supports that include: Universal-teacher and student SEL, PBIS, Effective classmanagement, youth development approaches (e.g. class meetingsand service learning) Early intervention (e.g., planning centers not in school suspension) Intensive services that may include individualized wraparoundsupport 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. 22. Conclusion• Creating safe, orderly schools support learning for allstudents.• Punitive disciplinary approaches do not work.• Universal approaches that aim to prevent behavioral issuesand address discipline positively.• As CCS are implemented, it is critical for interpersonal andintrapersonal domains be proactively addressed, whichultimately means improving the conditions for learning.• Collaborations are key to making change– at all levels ofeducation and beyond.22
    23. 23. Questions?123 423
    24. 24. What NASBE IS DOING to advanceschool discipline reformKimberly CharisProject Director, Center for Safe and Healthy Schools, NASBE24
    25. 25. NASBE’s Two-Year School DisciplineInitiative: Examining and Reforming StateDisciplinary Policies from a State-LevelPerspective• Goal: Advance school discipline policy reform by strengthening thecapacity of state boards of education to adopt and implement stateeducational policies that support positive school discipline and limitexclusionary discipline.• 2013-2014 (PY1): NASBE issued grants to Georgia, Michigan, andWest 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 boardrules, or the removal of existing rules• examining disaggregated discipline data in order to uncover anydisparate impacts on minorities and students receiving specialeducation• supporting state departments of education in their efforts to providetechnical assistance to local districts25
    26. 26. NASBE Technical Assistance• NASBE’s TA to states working on school discipline reforminclude:• Mini-grants to states• Online seminars• School discipline discussion guide• State policy workshops in collaboration with AIR• Collaborative activities among multi-disciplinary stakeholders26
    27. 27. MARYLAND’S EXPERIENCE INADVANCING SCHOOL DISCIPLINEREFORMJames DeGraffenreidtMember and Former President, Maryland State Board ofEducation27
    28. 28. School Discipline and Maryland’sEducation Policy ObjectivesWhy focus on school discipline?1.Maryland’s Goal is to create a world class education system thatprepares 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 inschool.4.Absences affect all students - implications for STEM disciplines andclosing the achievement gaps because of impact on team and experiencebased learning.5.Every student who stays in school and graduates college and careerready adds to the health and wealth of the State as well as the Nation.28
    29. 29. Maryland Experience - ACollaborative 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’ssuccess• Nearing the end of fourth year of continuing engagement ofstakeholders• 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 futurepolicy changes• July 2012 -State Board revised published report and solicited furthercomment• Jan. 2013 -State Board withdrew report, convened task force for focusedstakeholder discussions• See detailed timeline - Slides 33-3529
    30. 30. Highlights of State Board Report - SchoolDiscipline and Academic Success: RelatedParts of Maryland’s Education Reform –July2012• Putting 30,000 students out of school every year forapparently non-violent conduct calls for careful look atdiscipline policies and how applied.• Concluded from the data that it is time for disproportionalimpact to end. The Board believes disproportionate anddiscrepant discipline is related to the achievement gap.• Research tells us suspensions are a major factor leading to thedecision to drop out of school.• There are numerous examples of how moving away from apunitive discipline model to a rehabilitative one works toimprove school safety and academic achievement. 30
    31. 31. Proposed Changes• Directed that State Superintendent appoint Workgroup to review andrecommend changes to the types of offenses listed in the State Code ofConduct and defined in the Maryland Student Records Manual.• Proposed regulation that requires MSDE to analyze the impact of schooldiscipline on minority and special education students within the schoolsystem.• Directed that school discipline policy in Maryland be based on therehabilitation goals of fostering and teaching positive behavior and theuse of discretion in imposing discipline.• Re-defined in proposed regulations short-term suspension, long-termsuspension, extended suspensions, and expulsion.• In proposed regulations, specified what minimum education servicesmust be provided to each student suspended or expelled.• In proposed regulations, required that local boards of education rendertheir decisions in cases involving appeals of student suspensions andexpulsions within 30 days of the filing date.31
    32. 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 educationprograms.• Montgomery County initiated a review of disparate impact of itsdisciplinary policies.• Task Force discussions are proving fruitful. 32
    33. 33. Timeline of Maryland State BoardActions• August 2009 – State Board Issues Opinion in Appeal of Expulsion of 9thGrade Student. Putslocal school systems on notice of Board concerns related to the lack of educational servicesand time taken to process appeals.• December 2009 – State Board approves Department plan to study the use of long-termsuspension/expulsion and the meaningful access to educational services. Public invited tooffer testimony on subject at Board meetings• April 2010 – At Board’s invitation, representatives of 8 stakeholder groups (MarylandAssociation of Boards of Education, Public School Superintendents’ Association ofMaryland, Secondary School Principals, Elementary School Principals, State TeachersAssociation, Maryland Association of Student Councils, ACLU, Open Society InstituteBaltimore) provide comments on whether educational services should be continued whena student is suspended for more than 10days or expelled from school and what types ofservices, if any, should be provided.• August 2010 – Board is briefed on and accepts the Report on the Study of Student LongTerm Suspensions and Expulsions prepared by the Department. Report includes results of(1) survey of local systems concerning what educational services are currently offered tolong term and expelled students (2) Response of public to web based survey (3) Input fromStakeholder Groups and (4) analysis of public comment at Board meetings. Reportincluded recommendations for amending state regulations and revisions to StudentRecords manual to enhance data on long term suspensions and expulsions.33
    34. 34. Timeline of Maryland State BoardActions (cont.)• February 2011 – Board, in response to news article on suicide of a suspended student inanother state, directs State Superintendent to discuss the tragedy with the 24 localsuperintendents to determine if Maryland’s local school systems had similar zero-tolerancediscipline policies and to determine what steps could be taken to avoid such a tragedy inMaryland.• April 2011 – Board approves draft Guidelines for the Timely Disposition of Long TermDiscipline Cases and posts document for public comment.• June 2011 – Board publishes proposed amendment to Student Records Manual to refinedata collection for long term suspensions and expulsions. Based on response to proposedGuidelines for Timely Disposition, Board asks that panels of stakeholder be invited toaddress 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. 35. Timeline of Maryland State BoardActions (cont.)• December 2011 – Maryland State Education Association, Baltimore Teachers Union, 2011National Teacher of the Year (Michelle Shearer of Maryland), 2012 Maryland Teacher ofthe 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 amendmentsto disciplinary regulations.• January 2013 – Board receives staff analysis of public comments received and votes towithdraw draws regulatory proposal.• May 2013 – Board receives progress report on workgroup, code of conduct, and bestpractices.35
    36. 36. Questions?123 436
    37. 37. GEORGIA’S EXPERIENCE INADVANCING SCHOOL DISCIPLINEREFORMBrad BryantExecutive Director, Georgia Foundation for Public Education, GeorgiaDepartment of EducationGarry McGiboney, PhDAssociate Superintendent of Policy and Charter Schools, GeorgiaDepartment of Education37
    38. 38.  School Climateo Defining School Climateo Measuring School Climateo Improving School Climateo Monitoring School Climate Student Discipline Reporting Matrix Statewide Plan Based on Collaboration38Georgia State Board of EducationSchool Discipline Reform
    39. 39. The Georgia State Board of Education supported the GeorgiaDepartment of Education’s (GaDOE) development of adefined method in the collection and analysis of schoolschoolclimateclimate data through the implementation of a statewideannual survey: Georgia Student Health Survey II.Georgia Student Health Survey II.The SurveySurvey is an anonymous, statewide survey instrumentdeveloped by the GaDOE in collaboration with the GeorgiaDepartment of Public Health and Georgia State University.The SurveySurvey identifies safety and health issues that can havesafety and health issues that can havea negative impact on student achievement and schoola negative impact on student achievement and schoolclimateclimate..39
    40. 40. The SurveySurvey is offered at no cost and provides Georgia publicschool districts (and private schools that wish to participate)with a measurement system for several categories: alcoholalcoholand drug use, nutrition and dietary behaviors, thoughts ofand drug use, nutrition and dietary behaviors, thoughts ofdropping out of school, suicide and self-harm, bullying, usedropping out of school, suicide and self-harm, bullying, useof 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 questionsSchool systems are given a unique URL addressURL addressfor each of their middle and high schools.40
    41. 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 harmful83 86 84 86818983907993789478947396020406080100Alcohol Tobacco Marijuana Other drugsPercent(%)6th 8th 10th 12thAlcohol and Drug Use,Past 30 Days, By Grade5 3 1 113 9 5 42216 1263023158020406080100Alcohol Tobacco Marijuana Chew ingTobaccoPercent(%)6th 8th 10th 12thUnsupervised Time on Computer By Grade28 2917 155 719 2317228 11162218249 10152420259 8020406080100None <1hour/day 1 hour/day 2-3hours/day4-5hours/day6+ hoursPercent(%)6th 8th 10th 12thSchool Safety, By Grade1 313312293223632034020406080100I brought a w eapon toschool in past 30 daysI have been offered,givenor sold drugs on schoolproperty w ithin the past12 monthsI have instant messagedpeople I don’t knowPercent(%)6th 8th 10th 12th41
    42. 42. College and Career ReadinessPerformance Index (CCRPI)
    43. 43. Georgia 8thGrade Student Absences andGraduation Rate (within four years)20%20%43
    44. 44. College and Career ReadinessPerformance Index (CCRPI)44
    45. 45. 45Student Discipline Reporting:Moving from Data to InformationPast (example)• Offense – Fighting• Consequence – ISS or OSS or ExpulsionNow (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. 46Griffin-Spalding County School SystemSpalding High School OSSreduced by 32%.Gwinnett County Public SchoolsDacula Middle School disciplineincidents reduced by 66% and OSS reduced by24%.Newton County School SystemNewton High School OSSreduced by 15%.School Climate Strategic Results
    47. 47. 47Savannah-Chatham School SystemHigh School OSS reduced by 41%.Savannah-Chatham School SystemMiddle School OSS reduced by 26%.Gwinnett County Public SchoolsGIVE Center (alternative school)discipline incidents reduced 51%.School Climate Strategic Results
    48. 48. 48Focus onFocus on SchoolSchoolClimate andClimate andCollaborationCollaboration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 FoundationGeorgia State Board ofGeorgia State Board ofEducationEducation
    49. 49. Questions?123 449
    50. 50. Related Resources•• Atlantic Philanthropies News and Updates on School Discipline• National School Justice Partnership• Supportive School Discipline Webinar Series (U.S. Departments of Education, Justice,and Health)• National Center on Safe Supportive Learning Environments and its• Supportive School Discipline Community of Practice 50
    51. 51. Related Resources• New website focused on positive approaches to disciplineComing Soon!• APA Zero Tolerance Report• “Suspended Education”• Equity Project at Indiana University• Educational Researcher Series
    52. 52. Next Steps• Coming Soon!• NASBE-AIR School Discipline Discussion Guide will bereleased in July.• NASBE Annual Conference, July 28-30, 2013• Session on School Discipline - Sunday, July 28 at 2:00p.m.For more information visit:• Need Help or More Information? Contact Kimberly Charis at(703) 684-4000, Ext. 112252
    53. 53. References1. American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force (2008). Are Zero Tolerance Policies Effective inthe 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 forimprovement: 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 andemotional 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) BreakingSchools’ Rules: A Statewide Study of How School Discipline Relates to Students’ Success and Juvenile JusticeInvolvement (Lexington, KY: Council of State Governments; College Station, TX: Public Policy ResearchInstitute).6. Fowler, D. & Vitris, M. (2012). Comparative Disciplinary Rates as a Tool for Reducing Exclusionary Disciplineand Eliminating the School to Prison Pipeline. Journal of Applied Research on Children: Informing Policy forChildren at Risk, 3(2), Article 15.7. Giedd, J., Blumenthal, J., Jeffries, N., Castellanos, F., Liu, H., Zijdenbos, A., & Rapoport, J. (1999). Braindevelopment 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 racialdiscrimination in U. S. Public Schools. Oakland, CA: Applied Research Center.9. Greenberg, E., Skidmore, D., & Rhodes, D. (2004, April). Climates for learning: mathematics achievement andits relationship to schoolwide student behavior, schoolwide parental involvement, and school morale. Paperpresented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Researchers Association, San Diego, CA.53
    54. 54. References10. Gregory, A., & Weinstein, R. S. (2008). The discipline gap and African Americans: Defiance or cooperation inthe 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 ratesfor 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 inachievement 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 classroomsto 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 LawCenter: Montgomery, AL.16. Losen, D. & Martinez, T. E. (2013). Out of School & Off Track: The Overuse of Suspensions in American Middleand 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 withachievement 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 theNational 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. InWald & Losen (Eds.), Deconstructing the School to Prison Pipeline, (p. 27). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.54
    55. 55. References20. Muller, C. (2001). The role of caring in the teacher-student relationship for at-risk students. SociologicalInquiry, 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 onracial 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 schooldiscipline. 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. NewYork: Routledge.26. Osher, D., Sprague, J., Weissberg, R. P., Axelrod, J., Keenan, S., Kendziora, K., & Zins, J. E. (2008). Acomprehensive 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 inTexas Schools. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University.20. Adapted from Rausch, M. K, & Skiba, R. (2004). Unplanned outcomes: Suspensions and expulsions inIndiana. 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. 56. References30. Ryan, A. M., & Patrick, H. (2001). The classroom social environment and changes in adolescents’ motivationand 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 andgender 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 ZeroTolerance 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 minoritydisproportionality: 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 DisciplinaryDisproportionality: Contributions of Behavior, Student, and School Characteristics to Suspension andExpulsion. 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 CourtInvolvement. Justice Quarterly, 24.4, 462-480.37. U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Helping to Ensure Equal Access to Education: Report tothe President and Secretary of Education, Under Section 203(b)(1) of the Department of EducationOrganization Act, FY 2009 –12, Washington, D.C., 2012.38. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press.56