Turning the Page on School Discipline

Introduce the article. Your introduction should include a description of the article’s purpose, audience, and significance. Why was the article written? Who was it written for? Why is it important / why did it need to be written?

Describe two key points from the article. The points can be something you think is particularly important or interesting; however, they should also be central to the article. You should summarize the key points in your own words. Don’t forget to use in-text citations when paraphrasing. For each point, provide sufficient detail to show that you truly understand the article

Describe what this article means to you. What experiences have you had with the topic? What do you take away from it?

4 AMERICAN EDUCATOR | WINTER 2015–2016

By Russell J. Skiba and Daniel J. Losen

We stand today in the middle of an important debate
on the role, function, and practice of school disci-
pline. There can be no question that any approach
we implement should strive to create school cli-

mates that are safe, orderly, and civil, and that teach our children
basic values of respect and cooperation. The key question revolves
around the best way to accomplish that goal.

For some 20 years, numerous policymakers responded to
concerns about school safety and disruption with a “get tough”
philosophy relying upon zero-tolerance policies and frequent
out-of-school suspensions and expulsions. But research has
overwhelmingly shown that such approaches are ineffective and
increase the risk for negative social and academic outcomes,
especially for children from historically disadvantaged groups.
In response to these findings, educational leaders and profes-
sional associations have led a shift toward alternative models and
practices in school discipline.1 District, state, and federal policy-
makers have pressed for more constructive alternatives that
foster a productive and healthy instructional climate without
depriving large numbers of students the opportunity to learn.

The recent beginnings of strong models in states, districts, and
schools throughout the nation can serve as a guide to more effec-
tive and research-based school discipline approaches. Yet there
is also resistance to changing the status quo. Bolstered by a get-
tough political discourse, some schools and districts have not had
the chance to consider effective alternatives to zero tolerance.
Educators in environments characterized by excessive suspension
rates may see themselves with few alternatives to suspension and

From Reaction to Prevention
Turning the Page on School Discipline

Russell J. Skiba is a professor of counseling and educational psychology and
directs the Equity Project at Indiana University. A member of the American
Psychological Association’s Task Force on Zero Tolerance and the lead
author of its report, he has worked with schools across the country, directed
numerous federal and state research grants, and written extensively about
school violence, school discipline, classroom management, and educa-
tional equity. Daniel J. Losen is the director of the Center for Civil Rights
Remedies at the University of California, Los Angeles, an initiative at the
Civil Rights Project. A former public school teacher, lawyer, and researcher,
he has analyzed the trends in school discipline of nearly every school and
district in the nation. This article draws upon the latest research on alterna-
tives to punitive discipline and Losen’s Closing the School Discipline Gap
(Teachers College Press, 2015).IL

LU
ST

R
A

TI
O

N
S

B
Y

D
A

N
IE

L
B

A
X

TE
R

AMERICAN EDUCATOR | WINTER 2015–2016 5

expulsion. Therefore, a successful transition toward a positive
school climate will require strong support and training for both
teachers and administrators.

In this article, we trace the course of school discipline over the
past 20 years and examine the status of school discipline reform
today. We begin with an examination of zero-tolerance, suspen-
sion, and expulsion policies, as well as their assumptions and
effects. We discuss alternatives that have been proposed and the
guidance that has been offered by the federal government, and
examine state changes that may be models for others. Finally, for
any new model to be effective, support of teachers and adminis-
trators is essential; thus, we consider what educators really need
if we are to successfully reform school discipline.

How Did We Get to “Get Tough”?
In the 1970s, suspension rates for students of color, especially
those who were black, began to rise, prompting concerns from
civil rights groups. In 1975, the Children’s Defense Fund published
a report, School Suspensions: Are They Helping Children?, about
high and racially disparate rates of out-of-school suspensions.
Unjust suspensions were also the subject of several court chal-
lenges in the 1970s and 1980s.

Pressure to expand the use of suspension and expulsion
increased further with the advent of zero-tolerance policies. Grow-
ing out of federal drug policy in the 1980s, zero tolerance was
intended primarily as a method of using severe and invariant
consequences to send a message that certain behaviors would not
be tolerated.2 Beginning in the late 1980s, fear of increased violence
in schools led school districts throughout the country to promote
zero-tolerance policies, calling for expulsion for guns and all weap-
ons, drugs, and gang-related activity, and to mandate increased
suspension and expulsion for less serious offenses such as school
disruption, smoking, and dress code violations3 (although later
research showed no significant rise in school violence in that
period4). This movement also resulted in the increased use of secu-
rity personnel and security technology,5 especially in urban schools.6

In 1994, the federal government stepped in to mandate zero-
tolerance policies nationally when President Bill Clinton signed
the Gun-Free Schools Act into law, requiring a one-year calendar
expulsion for possession of firearms on any school campus. Some
states had already passed similar requirements, and many others
that adopted the federal law into their state codes of conduct
further expanded them to cover much more than the mandated
expulsion for bringing a firearm to school.

Ultimately, these policies led to significant increases in disciplin-
ary removal and expansion in inequities in suspension and expul-
sion rates. Since 1973, the percentage of students suspended from
school has at least doubled for all racial and ethnic groups.7 Nearly
3.5 million public school students were suspended at least once in
2011–2012,8 more than one student suspended for every public
school teacher in America.9 Given that the average suspension is
conservatively put at 3.5 days, and that many students are sus-
pended more than once, these figures mean that U.S. public school
children lost nearly 18 million days of instruction in just one school
year because of exclusionary discipline.10 While an estimated 6
percent of all enrolled students are suspended at least once during
a given year, national longitudinal research indicates that between
one-third and one-half of students experience at least one suspen-
sion at some point between kindergarten and 12th grade.11

Out-of-school suspension and expulsion, and their associated
risks, fall far more heavily on

historically disadvantaged groups,
especially black students.

Data reported on disciplinary removals
for the 2011–2012 academic year show that black students face the
highest risk of out-of-school suspension, followed by Native Ameri-
can and then Latino students.12 White, Asian, and Hawaiian/Pacific
Islander students are typically suspended at the lowest rates.

Although the percentage of students who receive at least one
suspension in a school year has increased for all groups, that
increase has been most dramatic for historically disadvantaged
groups, resulting in a widening of the discipline gap. As depicted
in Figure 1 below, 7.6 percent of all black elementary school stu-
dents were suspended from school in 2011–2012, and that rate is

Figure 1. Elementary and Secondary Suspension Rates by Group, 2011–2012 

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Elementary

Secondary

All

2.6%

10.1%

Am
erican Indian/Alaska Native

2.9%

11.9%

Hawaiian/Paci�c Islander

1.2%

7.3%

Asian

0.5%

2.5%

Black

7.6%

23.2%

Latino

2.1%

10.8%

W
hite

1.6%

6.7%

English Language Learners

1.5%

11.0%

Students with Disabilities

5.4%

18.1%

This graphic shows the
percentage of U.S. public
school students who
received at least one
out-of-school suspension
during the 2011–2012
school year, by grade level
and group. As depicted,
23.2 percent of black
secondary school students
were suspended at least
once in 2011–2012,
compared with just 6.7
percent of white students.

SOURCE: DATA FROM THE CENTER FOR CIVIL
RIGHTS REMEDIES, WWW.SCHOOLDISCIPLINE
DATA.ORG. THE TERM “SECONDARY” HERE
REFERS TO ALL MIDDLE, JUNIOR HIGH, AND
HIGH SCHOOLS.

6 AMERICAN EDUCATOR | WINTER 2015–2016

6 percent higher than for white elementary school students (1.6
percent). As the frequency of suspension rises dramatically at the
secondary level, this 6 percentage-point difference in suspension
rates (the black-white gap) expands almost threefold, becoming
a nearly 17 percentage-point black-white gap at the secondary
level (middle school and high school). Across the nation, in just
one year—2011–2012—nearly one out of every four black students
in middle and high school was suspended at least once.

These differences are not simply due to poverty or more severe
misbehavior on the part of students of color. Sophisticated statisti-
cal models have consistently shown that race remains a significant
predictor of school exclusion even when controlling for poverty.13
Nor is there evidence that racial discipline gaps are due to differ-
ences in severity of misbehavior; black students appear to be
disciplined more frequently for more subjective or more minor
offenses and disciplined more harshly than their white peers, even
when engaging in the same conduct.14

Other groups are also at
increased risk for suspension
and expulsion. Discipline dis-
parities for Latino students
appear to increase at the sec-
ondary level.15 Students with
disabilities are suspended
nearly twice as often as stu-
dents without disabilities,16
and are removed for longer
periods of time, even after con-
trolling for poverty.17 Although
males, in particular black
males, are more likely to be
suspended,18 black and Latina
females are also at increased risk.19 Finally, recent research has
found that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students are at
increased risk for expulsion, for encountering a hostile school
climate, and for being stopped by the police and arrested.20

Another response in U.S. schools to perceptions of increased
threat has been the more prevalent use of school security mea-
sures, such as video cameras, metal detectors, and increased
security personnel. Yet over a 20-year period in which use of these
measures increased, there are very few empirical evaluations of
their effectiveness. Regardless of perceptions of their effective-
ness, the data on school security measures that do exist do not
provide support for using such measures to deter violence. Sur-
veys and statistical analyses in the United States have found that
schools that rely heavily on school security policies continue to
be less safe than schools serving similar communities that imple-
ment fewer components of zero tolerance.21 Moreover, qualitative
research suggests that invasive school security measures such as
locker or strip searches can create an emotional backlash in stu-
dents.22 More recent studies have found that greater security
measures at a school are associated with black students’ increased
risk for suspension but no benefits to the overall school environ-
ment.23 A study of Cleveland’s investments following a school
shooting found that money spent on security “hardware” did not
result in higher safety ratings.24 While a belief that security hard-
ware will instill a sense of safety informs these decisions, survey
data, including a controlled study of all of Chicago’s schools,25 has

found that the quality of student, teacher, and parent relationships
was a far stronger predictor of feelings of safety.

What Are the Effects of
Suspension and Expulsion?
A large body of research findings has failed to find that the use
of suspension and expulsion contributes to either improved
student behavior or improved school safety. Schools with higher
rates of suspension have lower ratings of school safety from
students26 and have significantly poorer school climate,27 espe-
cially for students of color.28 In terms of student behavior, rather
than reducing the likelihood of being suspended, a student’s
history of suspension appears to predict higher rates of future
antisocial behavior and higher rates of future suspensions in the
long term.29 These and other findings led the American Psycho-
logical Association to conclude that zero tolerance was ineffec-
tive in either reducing individual misbehavior or improving

school safety.30

School exclusion also appears
to carry with it substantial risk for
both short- and long-term nega-
tive outcomes. Use of suspension
and expulsion is associated with
lower academic achievement at
both the school31 and the indi-
vidual32 level, and increased risk
of negative behavior over time.33
In the long term, suspension is
significantly related to students
dropping out of school or failing
to graduate on time.34

Finally, exclusionary discipline
appears to be associated with increased risk of contact with the
juvenile justice system. The Council of State Governments’ report
Breaking Schools’ Rules: A Statewide Study of How School Discipline
Relates to Students’ Success and Juvenile Justice Involvement found
that suspension and expulsion for a discretionary school violation,
such as a dress code violation or disrupting class, nearly tripled a
student’s likelihood of involvement with the juvenile justice system
within the subsequent year.35 Together, these data show that out-
of-school suspension and expulsion are, in and of themselves, risk
factors for negative long-term outcomes.36

Alternative Strategies
The good news is that a number of universal, schoolwide interven-
tions have been found effective in improving school discipline or
school climate and have the potential to reduce discipline disparities
based on race.37 Such strategies address three important components
of school climate and school discipline: (1) relationship building,
through approaches such as restorative practices; (2) social-emo-
tional learning approaches that improve students’ ability to under-
stand social interactions and regulate their emotions; and (3)
structural interventions, such as Positive Behavioral Interventions
and Supports (PBIS) or changing disciplinary codes of conduct.

Relationship Building. Interventions that focus on strengthen-
ing teacher-student relationships can reduce the use of exclusionary
discipline, particularly for black students. For example, MyTeach-
ingPartner, a sustained and rigorous professional development

Out-of-school suspension and
expulsion fall more heavily on

historically disadvantaged groups,
especially black students.

AMERICAN EDUCATOR | WINTER 2015–2016 7

program focusing on teachers’ interactions with students, reduced
teachers’ reliance on exclusionary discipline with all of their stu-
dents, and that effect was the most pronounced for black students.
Interestingly, although the training did not focus on racial disparities
per se, there was a substantial reduction in discipline disparities in
the classrooms of teachers who received the training.38

Restorative practices, implemented throughout the school to
proactively build relationships and a sense of community and to
repair harm after conflict, are beginning to be widely used in
schools across the country. A review of teacher and student
reports of restorative practices implemented in two high schools
found that individual teachers with better implementation of
restorative practices had better relationships with their students,
were perceived as more respect-
ful by their students from differ-
ent racial and ethnic groups,
and issued fewer exclusionary
discipline referrals to black and
Latino students.39

After implementation of
restorative practices in the Den-
ver Public Schools, suspension
rates were reduced by nearly 47
percent across the district, and
all racial groups saw reductions,
with the largest drops in sus-
pension rates for black and
Latino students. During the
same period, achievement
scores in Denver improved for
each racial group each year.40

Social-Emotional Learning.
Social and emotional learning
programs vary greatly but generally build students’ skills to (a)
recognize and manage their emotions, (b) appreciate the perspec-
tives of others, (c) establish positive goals, (d) make responsible
decisions, and (e) handle interpersonal situations effectively.41
Several studies have linked the completion of social and emotional
learning programs to an increase in prosocial behaviors and a
decrease in misbehaviors.42

For instance, the Cleveland Metropolitan School District
engaged in comprehensive reform efforts that included the
implementation of data-driven improvement efforts, districtwide
implementation of research-based social and emotional learning
programs, and the creation of student support teams that
addressed early warning signals such as discipline referrals and
attendance issues. Results included improved student atten-
dance districtwide, a 50 percent decline in negative behavioral
incidents, and a districtwide reduction in use of out-of-school
suspension.43

Structural Interventions. Changing the structure of the dis-
ciplinary system can reduce the use of suspension and expulsion,
and may reduce disparities in exclusionary discipline. Positive
Behavioral Interventions and Supports* can reduce exclusionary
discipline, but specific attention to issues of race and diversity

may be necessary if PBIS is to reduce disciplinary disparities. A
four-year project implementing PBIS in 35 middle schools showed
that schools using proactive support instead of reactive punish-
ment saw reductions in disciplinary exclusion rates for Latino and
American Indian/Alaska Native students, but not for black stu-
dents,44 suggesting that modifications of PBIS may be necessary
to reduce racial disparities in discipline.

Another study, through a survey of 860 schools that were
implementing or preparing to implement PBIS, identified the
most commonly cited “enablers” and “barriers” to using this
model. Among the most common enablers were “staff buy-in,
school administrator support, and consistency” of a common
approach among school personnel, while the most common bar-

riers were lack of “staff buy-in,
resources: time, and resources:
money.”45

Other research has shown
that a systematic response to
threats of violence can reduce
suspensions and racial dispari-
ties. Schools across the state of
Virginia using the Virginia Stu-
dent Threat Assessment Guide-
lines, a tiered process of review
designed to help schools iden-
tify and respond appropriately
to the full spectrum of behavior
perceived as threatening, were
25 percent less likely to sus-
pend students, and black-white
racial disparities in suspen-
sion were significantly lower
than in schools not using the

guidelines.46

Finally, changes in policy at the district level are a key first step
in developing more positive and effective school climate. An exten-
sive examination of school codes of conduct found that many of the
codes reviewed were rated as punitive/reactive, even for minor
behavioral infractions such as repeated tardiness, foul language,
dress code violations, or horseplay in the hallway.47 Thus, rewriting
district codes of conduct has been a major focus of school discipline
reform. A number of major urban school districts, including the Los
Angeles Unified School District48 and Broward County (Florida)
Public Schools,49 have revised their codes of conduct to eliminate
out-of-school suspensions for minor offenses and to focus on pre-
ventative alternatives to suspension and expulsion. To ensure suc-
cess, such revisions should go hand in hand with providing school
staff with effective training on these preventative alternatives and
the support needed to implement them.

A Comprehensive Model for Reducing
Exclusion and Disproportionality
Among the recent national initiatives addressing disproportion-
ality in school discipline has been the Discipline Disparities
Research-to-Practice Collaborative, a group of 26 nationally
recognized researchers, educators (including the AFT), advo-
cates, and policy analysts who came together to address the
problem of disciplinary disparities. After three years of meetings

*PBIS is a framework for assisting school personnel in adopting evidence-based
behavioral interventions to support positive academic and social behavior outcomes
for all students. To read more about PBIS, see www.pbis.org.

8 AMERICAN EDUCATOR | WINTER 2015–2016

with stakeholders and reviews of the relevant literature, the col-
laborative released a series of four briefing papers on the status
of discipline disparities, with a particular focus on increasing
the availability of practical and evidence-based interventions.50
The collaborative also sponsored a major national conference,
“Closing the School Discipline Gap,” that resulted in an edited
volume of papers.51

In the second paper in the series, “How Educators Can Eradi-
cate Disparities in Discipline: A Briefing Paper on School-Based
Interventions,” Anne Gregory, James Bell, and Mica Pollock pres-
ent what may be the most comprehensive model to date for
addressing disparities in school discipline by focusing on conflict
prevention and conflict intervention.52

Conflict in the classroom leading to office referral and possible
school exclusion is not inevitable. Rather, a number of strategies
can defuse potential conflict and
keep students in class:

• Building supportive relation-
ships. Forging authentic rela-
tionships with all students
communicates high expecta-
tions and sends a message that
all students will be fairly and
consistently supported in reach-
ing those goals.

• Ensuring academic rigor. Offering
engaging and relevant instruc-
tion, while setting high expecta-
tions, has shown remarkable
results in dramatically raising the
achievement and graduation rate
in schools some might regard as too challenging.53

• Engaging in culturally relevant and responsive teaching. By inte-
grating students’ racial/ethnic, gender, and sexual identities into
curricula, resources, and school events, effective schools find
that students feel safer, report lower rates of victimization and
discrimination, and have higher achievement.

• Creating bias-free classrooms and respectful school environ-
ments. Research on implicit bias has shown that racial stereo-
types can influence an individual’s judgments, unbeknownst
to that individual. For teachers, this means that implicit bias
can influence their judgments about a student’s behavior.54
(For more on implicit bias, see the article on page 29.) Gregory
and her colleagues suggest that the potential effects of implicit
bias—which all individuals, regardless of profession, may
hold—can be mitigated by self-reflection, avoiding snap judg-
ments, and examining data on discipline disparities and the
key decision points that might contribute to them.55

Gregory and her colleagues point out that some conflict and
disruption are inevitable in schools. However, they note that
schools can reduce the effects of conflict by targeting “hot spots”
of disciplinary conflict or differential treatment in order to identify
solutions, examining what caused the behavior or conflict and
addressing the identified needs, reaching out to include the per-
spectives and voices of students and families in resolving conflicts,
and implementing procedures to reintegrate students into the
learning community after a conflict has occurred.56

Changes in Disciplinary Policy
In response to the accumulating research and growing public
awareness of high suspension rates, leading educational profes-
sional associations and policymakers have begun to embrace
national, state, and local initiatives intended to reduce rates of
suspension and expulsion and increase the use of alternatives.
Professional associations such as the American Psychological
Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics have
issued reports on the ineffectiveness of and risks associated with
disciplinary exclusion, and have recommended the use of such
measures only as a last resort.57 Statements issued by the Ameri-
can Federation of Teachers, the National Education Association,
the National School Boards Association, and the American
Association of School Administrators have similarly endorsed a
policy shift away from frequent reliance on disciplinary exclu-

sion and toward more constructive
interventions.

Research in Texas links frequent
and disparate school discipline to a
three- to fivefold increase in stu-
dents’ risk of dropping out of school
and coming in contact with the juve-
nile justice system.58 Inspired in part
by this research, the U.S. depart-
ments of Education and Justice
undertook a national initiative, the
Supportive School Discipline Initia-
tive, to reduce the use of suspension
and expulsion, and the correspond-
ing flow of students into the juvenile
justice system.59

This initiative included the
departments’ joint release of a two-part federal guidance docu-
ment intended to reduce the use of suspension and expulsion,
and the disparities associated with those, and offer guidance on
moving toward more-effective alternatives. (For more about this
federal guidance, see page 12.) One critically important document
was the legal guidance, issued as a “Dear Colleague” letter to
schools and districts, alerting recipients of the need to review
discipline policies, practices, and data for evidence of unjustifi-
able racial disparities, in order to ensure compliance with federal
anti-discrimination law.

The legal guidance highlights the importance of the “disparate
impact” analysis. To illustrate disparate impact, it uses a policy of
suspending students for truancy as an example because of obvious
questions about the underlying justification. If suspending truant
students was found to burden one racial group more than others,
unless the district could show that the suspensions were educa-
tionally necessary, it would likely be found to violate federal anti-
discrimination law, even if there was no intent to discriminate. As
the letter makes clear, even if the school district had some justifica-
tion for suspending truant students, the policy might still be found
to be unlawful if less-discriminatory alternatives were available
that were equally or more effective at deterring truant behavior.

With this guidance has also come stepped-up federal review
of district discipline practices for possible violations. In several
large districts, including Dade County, Florida; Los Angeles and
Oakland, California; and Oklahoma City, reviews for compliance

A number of interventions
have been found effective in
improving school discipline or
school climate and have the

potential to reduce discipline
disparities based on race.

AMERICAN EDUCATOR | WINTER 2015–2016 9

with civil rights law have resulted in major changes.
The Center for Civil Rights Remedies’ review of federal investiga-

tions between September 2009 and July 2012 indicates the level of
federal involvement with school discipline.60 As that report notes,
there were 821 discipline-based complaints and agency-initiated
compliance reviews during that time, of which 789 were resolved.
As of fall 2014, 55 of those resolutions resulted in an agreement to
address discipline policies and/or practices, with 32 districts cur-
rently under investigation. Geographically, discipline-based com-
plaints or compliance reviews were found in all states except
Alaska, Montana, North Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming.

Ultimately, federal enforcement of disparate impact can help
leverage the replacement of harsh and often counterproductive
approaches with better policies and practices that help all chil-
dren. As the research (and contents of resolution agreements)
suggests, such changes entail districts providing teachers and
administrators the support and training necessary to implement
more effective approaches. In its position statement on school

discipline, the AFT supports more effective disciplinary alterna-
tives. At the same time, the union emphasizes that to implement
these approaches, educators require proper training. This training
and professional development must be ongoing, provided to all
school staff, and “aligned with school and district reform goals,
… with a focus on evidenced-based positive school discipline,
conflict resolution, cultural relevancy and responsiveness, behav-
ior management, social justice and equity.”61 Similarly, the
National Education Association has joined efforts to end school
discipline disparities, and both organizations have supported
replacing harsh discipline with restorative practices.62

Concurrent with changes at the federal level, states and school
districts across the nation have formulated new policies shifting
codes of conduct away from punitive and exclusionary practices,
and toward comprehensive and restorative approaches. Often
driven by local advocates, at least 19 states have passed legislation
moving policy and practice away from zero-tolerance strategies
toward an increased emphasis on promoting positive school

• California: In 2014, the California
legislature passed a bill limiting the
authority of superintendents and
principals to suspend K–3 students or
to recommend expulsion for minor
violations under the category of
disruption or willful defiance. State
legislation also limits suspension to
cases where other disciplinary actions
have failed and encourages the use of
nonexclusionary alternatives in
response to disruption and defiance.

• Colorado: Led by the citizen advocacy
organization Padres & Jóvenes Unidos,
Colorado passed legislation in 2012
directing schools to minimize referrals
to law enforcement for minor infrac-
tions and to align the severity of
consequences with the seriousness of
the offense. In 2011, the legislature
passed HB 11-1032, promoting the
adoption of, and schoolwide training
in, restorative practices in schools
throughout the state.

• Georgia: Beginning in 2014, Georgia
established a statewide school climate
management program as part of its
school accountability system. The state
board is authorized to develop model
codes of discipline and annually
release ratings of schools’ disciplinary
practices and use of research-based
practices promoting positive
interventions.

• Maryland: In 2012, the Maryland State
Board of Education released a study
recommending a significant shift away

from exclusionary disci-
pline. In 2014, the state
approved and released a
progressive discipline
framework. The new state
code of conduct guidelines
emphasize out-of-school
suspensions as a last resort
and provide steps for
districts to move away
from zero-tolerance
practices. In 2015, the
board approved regula-
tions calling for the
elimination of racial
disparities in out-of-school
suspensions.

• Massachusetts: Statutory
changes that went into
effect for the 2014–2015
school year require districts to provide
students with educational services
when they are suspended or expelled,
and discourage the use of long-term
suspension unless alternatives such as
mediation, conflict resolution, and
positive behavioral interventions and
supports have been tried and have
failed.

• Oregon: In 2014, the Oregon legisla-
ture revised Oregon’s school discipline
code, requiring school boards and
districts to develop and implement
policies and practices that focus on
reducing unnecessary suspensions and
expulsions. The law requires districts to
develop codes of conduct or a student

handbook defining acceptable
behavior, a respectful learning climate,
and procedures for promoting positive
behavior.

There are already some indications that
these changes in state policy are affecting
state rates of suspension and exclusion. In
Maryland, for example, the state passed a
law in 2004 requiring any elementary
school that suspends more than 10
percent of its total enrollment to engage
in corrective action. Connecticut passed a
law in 2009, implemented in 2011, aimed
at eliminating out-of-school suspensions
except as a measure of last resort. Both
states are currently on the lower end of
the overall state rankings on suspensions.

Box 1. States with Legislative Changes around School Discipline

10 AMERICAN EDUCATOR | WINTER 2015–2016

climates.63 (For more on these state and local policies, see Boxes
1 and 2 on pages 9 and 10.)

The Need to Support Educators
Research has led educators and policymakers across the nation
to an understanding that exclusionary approaches to discipline
are neither an effective nor equitable method for ensuring safe
and productive schools for all students. This has led to the devel-
opment of alternative and more effective strategies in reducing
disruption, maintaining a positive school climate, and keeping
students in school. Federal, state, and district policies and guide-
lines have begun to mirror this shift.

But change is rarely an easy, straightforward process. When it
comes to school discipline, effective implementation of new
approaches typically depends upon substantial levels of support
for educators and schools. In particular, where remedies call for
widespread systemic change, in order to successfully replace
counterproductive practices with more effective disciplinary
alternatives, it is critically important that educators be fully sup-
ported with resources and training.

Professional Development and Technical Assistance. As
noted, numerous strategies for maintaining safe and productive
school climates are emerging as more effective alternatives to
suspension and expulsion. In order for teachers to integrate these
strategies into their instruction, schools and districts must ensure
that sufficient time for professional development and technical
assistance are available to train and coach teachers in implement-
ing such approaches as restorative practices, culturally responsive

approaches to PBIS, social and emotional learning, implicit bias
training, and culturally responsive classroom management.

Some professional development on positive discipline strategies
can be integrated into ongoing school and district professional
development schedules. In other cases, however, implementation
of new programming will require additional training and resources
(e.g., teacher release time) to ensure adequate training in new
practices, and especially guidance on how those strategies can be
best fit within (not in addition to) existing instructional time.
Teacher-to-teacher support programs, such as professional learn-
ing communities or mentoring, are also important.

Administrative Support. Instructional leaders must stand by
teachers throughout this process. The Blueprint for School-Wide
Positive Behavior Support Training and Professional Development
from the National Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behav-
ioral Interventions and Supports includes strong support from a
district leadership team among the criteria for implementing
PBIS with fidelity. With the backing, support, and commitment
of administrators, school districts can avoid the myriad problems
often associated with mandated changes.

Ongoing Collection of and Access to Disaggregated Disci-
pline Data. There are three reasons why data collection and
reporting are also essential. First, within most districts, disciplin-

Box 2. Major School Districts’ Progress in School Discipline Reform

• Baltimore: Beginning in 2008, the
Baltimore City Public Schools imple-
mented a new discipline code to
reduce exclusionary discipline and
encourage prevention and interven-
tion, especially for cases of minor
offenses and truancy, and began an
expansion of the implementation of
Positive Behavioral Interventions and
Supports into schools throughout the
district. The district reports that,
compared with a decade ago, suspen-
sions have dropped by about two-
thirds, from more than 26,000 in 2004
to 8,600 in 2013.

• Chicago: In 2012, the Chicago Public
Schools amended its student code of
conduct to reduce the use and length
of suspensions and encourage
restorative practices. In 2014, the
district released its Suspension and
Expulsion Reduction Plan to further
efforts in improving approaches to
discipline.

• Denver: Beginning in 2005, the Denver
Public Schools, in partnership with

Padres & Jóvenes Unidos, implemented
restorative justice practices in selected
pilot schools, and has since expanded
them to much of the district. Between
2006 and 2013, the overall suspension
rate dropped from 10.58 percent to
5.63 percent, and the suspension gap
between black and white students
decreased from a 12- to an 8-point gap.

• Oakland: In 2005, the Oakland Unified
School District in California initiated a
pilot program of restorative justice at
Cole Middle School and saw an 87
percent decrease in suspensions in
three years. Restorative justice
practices have
been expanded
throughout the
district and are
now being used in
24 schools, with a
goal of full
implementation in
all of the district’s
K–12 schools by
2020. The district
reports that the

suspension rates for schools imple-
menting the program have been cut in
half since 2011–2012, while high
schools implementing restorative
justice report a 56 percent decline in
dropout rates.

• Vallejo: Beginning in 2011, California’s
Vallejo City Unified School District has
implemented restorative justice
practices, schoolwide PBIS, and the
Positive Youth Justice Initiative
program. The district reports a
decrease in school suspensions from
nearly 7,200 suspensions in 2010–2011
to 2,604 in 2014–2015.

AMERICAN EDUCATOR | WINTER 2015–2016 11

ary approaches, the frequency of suspensions, and the ensuing
disparities can vary greatly. Thus, data can establish baselines
describing current areas of need, as well as schools that are doing
well. If schools do not routinely pay attention to their discipline
data, it will be difficult to respond and build upon what is working
in a timely manner, or to modify a policy that is not working as
well as expected. Second, data enable teachers and administrators
to track their progress as they implement new alternatives, in
order to change or revise interventions that are not working and
to celebrate those that are. Finally, the school community needs
transparency about both minor violations and those involving
safety or resulting in arrests or referrals to law enforcement. To
meet that need, the school and community need data that are
publicly reported and disaggregated, including complete infor-
mation about which groups are disciplined more than others, and
for what types of offenses.

Collaboration with Community Agencies. No one agency can
or should be expected to handle
the needs of struggling students
alone. Schools and school dis-
tricts can form collaborative part-
nerships with mental health,
probation, juvenile justice, and
social service agencies, as well as
business and union leaders, to
help support teachers for stu-
dents whose problems are severe.

Codes of Conduct That Sup-
port Alternative Strategies.
School districts across the nation,
from Denver to Chicago to Balti-
more to Indianapolis, have
restructured their codes of con-
duct, replacing simple lists of behaviors that lead to suspension
and expulsion with comprehensive plans for creating positive
school climates. By shifting the focus from punishment to preven-
tion, and providing guidance for alternate strategies, such codes
support and encourage teachers who are already seeking to
implement strategies for supporting positive student behavior in
the classroom.

Helping Parents Understand and Support Less Punitive
Approaches. Parents and community members are often mixed
in their support of zero-tolerance and exclusionary measures.64
In the face of school disruption, some parents and community
members may see few options other than school removal, and
they may support or even demand suspension or expulsion. On
the other hand, the excessive use of punitive and exclusionary
tactics often leads to pushback and resistance by community
groups advocating for reform.65

Parent involvement is always critical, but never more so than
in times of change. Effective reform of school discipline demands
open lines of communication with parents and the community
(including annual public reporting of data disaggregated by race,
gender, and disability status) in order to emphasize the school
community’s commitment to safe and productive schools, and
where needed, to provide evidence-based information that can
reassure all stakeholders that new, more comprehensive systems
are in fact more effective in meeting those goals.

Increased Presence of Mental Health and Instructional Sup-
port Personnel in Schools. Programs such as PBIS or restorative
practices can improve the climate of schools overall, leading to
reductions in rates of disruption, office discipline referral, and
suspension. Yet, other support, in the form of the increased pres-
ence of mental health and instructional support personnel, is an
invaluable addition to school climate improvement in any number
of ways, including assistance in developing individualized behavior
programs for challenging students, acting as a liaison with families,
providing counseling services, and coordinating school-based and
community-based programming for students and families.

We Can Get There from Here
Our nation’s students deserve safe, productive, and positive
school climates that promote teaching and learning for all chil-
dren. The idea that a zero-tolerance philosophy based on pun-
ishment and exclusion could create effective learning climates

has proven to be illusory. As the
evidence of what does work has
grown, strategies emphasizing
relationship building, social-
emotional learning, and struc-
tural change have emerged as
promising paths to a compre-
hensive approach for developing
positive school climates. Signifi-
cant shifts in federal, state, and
district policy are moving our
nation toward the adoption of
these more effective and evi-
dence-based practices.

Yet it is critical that educators
(including teachers, administra-

tors, paraprofessionals, and other school staff) be fully supported
through professional development, sufficient resources, and
opportunities to collaborate, both among school professionals
and with outside agencies. Together, these developments repre-
sent a fundamental sea change toward more effective and equi-
table school discipline, one that holds promise for reducing the
loss of educational opportunity and increasing the likelihood of
safe and healthy learning environments for all students. ☐

Endnotes
1. See especially, American Federation of Teachers, “Reclaiming the Promise: A New Path
Forward on School Discipline Practices,” accessed September 17, 2015, www.aft.org/position/
school-discipline.

2. Russell J. Skiba and Reece L. Peterson, “The Dark Side of Zero Tolerance: Can Punishment
Lead to Safe Schools?,” Phi Delta Kappan 80, no. 5 (1999): 372–376, 381–382.

3. Russell J. Skiba and Kimberly Knesting, “Zero Tolerance, Zero Evidence: An Analysis of School
Disciplinary Practice,” in Zero Tolerance: Can Suspension and Expulsion Keep Schools Safe?, ed.
Russell J. Skiba and Gil G. Noam, New Directions for Youth Development, no. 92 (San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 2001), 17–43.

4. See, for example, Irwin A. Hyman and Donna C. Perone, “The Other Side of School Violence:
Educator Policies and Practices That May Contribute to Student Misbehavior,” Journal of School
Psychology 36 (1998): 7–27.

5. Ronnie Casella, At Zero Tolerance: Punishment, Prevention, and School Violence (New York:
Peter Lang, 2001); and Aaron Kupchik, Homeroom Security: School Discipline in the Age of Fear
(New York: New York University Press, 2010).

6. John Devine, Maximum Security: The Culture of Violence in Inner-City Schools (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1996).

7. Daniel J. Losen and Tia Elena Martinez, Out of School & Off Track: The Overuse of Suspensions in
American Middle and High Schools (Los Angeles: Center for Civil Rights Remedies, 2013).

(Continued on page 44)

Revised codes of conduct
should go hand in hand with

providing school staff effective
training on preventative

alternatives and the support
needed to implement them.

www.aft.org/position/school-discipline

www.aft.org/position/school-discipline

44 AMERICAN EDUCATOR | WINTER 2015–2016

From Reaction to Prevention
(Continued from page 11)

8. For a summary, see U.S. Department of Education Office for
Civil Rights, “Data Snapshot: School Discipline,” Civil Rights
Data Collection, issue brief no. 1 (Washington, DC:
Department of Education, 2014). The actual number of
out-of-school suspension of 3.45 million represents 99 percent
of responding public schools. The Office for Civil Rights
reported that 1.9 million students were suspended just once
and 1.55 million students were suspended more than once. A
separate 130,000 students were expelled.

9. Daniel J. Losen, Cheri Hodson, Michael A. Keith II, et al., Are
We Closing the School Discipline Gap? (Los Angeles: Center
for Civil Rights Remedies, 2015). For comparison to the
number of teachers, see “Number of Teachers in Elementary
and Secondary Schools, and Instructional Staff in Postsecond-
ary Degree-Granting Institutions, by Control of Institution:
Selected Years, Fall 1970 through Fall 2021,” in National
Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics,
2012, table 4.

10. Losen et al., Are We Closing the School Discipline Gap?

11. Tracey L. Shollenberger, “Racial Disparities in School
Suspension and Subsequent Outcomes: Evidence from the
National Longitudinal Survey of Youth,” in Closing the School
Discipline Gap: Equitable Remedies for Excessive Exclusion, ed.
Daniel J. Losen (New York: Teachers College Press, 2015), 31–43.

12. Losen et al., Are We Closing the School Discipline Gap?

13. John M. Wallace Jr., Sara Goodkind, Cynthia M. Wallace,
and Jerald G. Bachman, “Racial, Ethnic, and Gender
Differences in School Discipline among U.S. High School
Students: 1991–2005,” Negro Educational Review 59 (2008):
47–62; and Shi-Chang Wu, William Pink, Robert Crain, and
Oliver Moles, “Student Suspension: A Critical Reappraisal,”
Urban Review 14 (1982): 245–303.

14. Anne Gregory and Rhona S. Weinstein, “The Discipline
Gap and African Americans: Defiance or Cooperation in the
High School Classroom,” Journal of School Psychology 46
(2008): 455–475; and Russell J. Skiba, Robert S. Michael, Abra
Carroll Nardo, and Reece L. Peterson, “The Color of Discipline:
Sources of Racial and Gender Disproportionality in School
Punishment,” Urban Review 34 (2002): 317–342.

15. Daniel J. Losen and Jonathan Gillespie, Opportunities
Suspended: The Disparate Impact of Disciplinary Exclusion
from School (Los Angeles: Civil Rights Project, 2012); and
Russell J. Skiba, Robert H. Horner, Choong-Geun Chung, et
al., “Race Is Not Neutral: A National Investigation of African
American and Latino Disproportionality in School Discipline,”
School Psychology Review 40 (2011): 85–107.

16. Losen and Gillespie, Opportunities Suspended.

17. Robert Balfanz, Vaughn Byrnes, and Joanna Fox, “Sent
Home and Put Off Track: The Antecedents, Disproportionali-
ties, and Consequences of Being Suspended in the 9th
Grade,” in Losen, Closing the School Discipline Gap, 17–30.

18. Ivory A. Toldson, Tyne McGee, and Brianna P. Lemmons,
“Reducing Suspensions by Improving Academic Engagement
among School-Age Black Males,” in Losen, Closing the School
Discipline Gap, 107–117.

19. Jamilia J. Blake, Bettie Ray Butler, and Danielle Smith,
“Challenging Middle-Class Notions of Femininity: The Cause
of Black Females’ Disproportionate Suspension Rates,” in
Losen, Closing the School Discipline Gap, 75–88.

20. Kathryn E. W. Himmelstein and Hannah Brückner,
“Criminal-Justice and School Sanctions against Nonhetero-
sexual Youth: A National Longitudinal Study,” Pediatrics 127
(2011): 49–57.

21. Sheila Heaviside, Cassandra Rowand, Catrina Williams, et
al., Violence and Discipline Problems in U.S. Public Schools:
1996–97 (Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Statistics, 1998); and Matthew J. Mayer and Peter E. Leone,
“A Structural Analysis of School Violence and Disruption:
Implications for Creating Safer Schools,” Education and
Treatment of Children 22, no. 3 (1999): 333–356.

22. Hyman and Perone, “The Other Side of School Violence.”

23. Jeremy D. Finn and Timothy J. Servoss, “Security Measures
and Discipline in American High Schools,” in Losen, Closing
the School Discipline Gap, 44–58.

24. David M. Osher, Jeffrey M. Poirier, G. Roger Jarjoura, and
Russell C. Brown, “Avoid Quick Fixes: Lessons Learned from a
Comprehensive Districtwide Approach to Improve Conditions
for Learning,” in Losen, Closing the School Discipline Gap,
192–206.

25. Matthew P. Steinberg, Elaine Allensworth, and David W.
Johnson, “What Conditions Support Safety in Urban Schools?

The Influence of School Organizational Practices on Student
and Teacher Reports of Safety in Chicago,” in Losen, Closing
the School Discipline Gap, 118–131.

26. Steinberg, Allensworth, and Johnson, “What Conditions
Support Safety in Urban Schools?”

27. Frank Bickel and Robert Qualls, “The Impact of School
Climate on Suspension Rates in the Jefferson County Public
Schools,” Urban Review 12 (1980): 79–86; and Wallace et al.,
“Racial, Ethnic, and Gender Differences.”

28. Erica Mattison and Mark S. Aber, “Closing the
Achievement Gap: The Association of Racial Climate with
Achievement and Behavioral Outcomes,” American Journal of
Community Psychology 40 (2007): 1–12.

29. Sheryl A. Hemphill, John W. Toumbourou, Todd I.
Herrenkohl, et al., “The Effect of School Suspensions and
Arrests on Subsequent Adolescent Antisocial Behavior in
Australia and the United States,” Journal of Adolescent Health
39 (2006): 736–744; and Linda M. Raffaele Mendez and
Howard M. Knoff, “Who Gets Suspended from School and
Why: A Demographic Analysis of Schools and Disciplinary
Infractions in a Large School District,” Education and
Treatment of Children 26, no. 1 (2003): 30–51.

30. American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task
Force, “Are Zero Tolerance Policies Effective in the Schools? An
Evidentiary Review and Recommendations,” American
Psychologist 63 (2008): 852–862.

31. James Earl Davis and Will J. Jordan, “The Effects of School
Context, Structure, and Experiences on African American
Males in Middle and High School,” Journal of Negro
Education 63 (1994): 570–587; and M. Karega Rausch and
Russell J. Skiba, “The Academic Cost of Discipline: The
Relationship between Suspension/Expulsion and School
Achievement” (paper, annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Montreal, April 2005).

32. Emily Arcia, “Achievement and Enrollment Status of
Suspended Students: Outcomes in a Large, Multicultural School
District,” Education and Urban Society 38 (2006): 359–369;
Linda M. Raffaele Mendez, Howard M. Knoff, and John M.
Ferron, “School Demographic Variables and Out-of-School
Suspension Rates: A Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of a
Large, Ethnically Diverse School District,” Psychology in the
Schools 39 (2002): 259–277; and Michael Rocque, “Office
Discipline and Student Behavior: Does Race Matter?,” American
Journal of Education 116 (2010): 557–581.

33. Tary Tobin, George Sugai, and Geoff Colvin, “Patterns in
Middle School Discipline Records,” Journal of Emotional and
Behavioral Disorders 4 (1996): 82–94.

34. Balfanz, Byrnes, and Fox, “Sent Home and Put Off Track”;
Christine A. Christle, Kristine Jolivette, and C. Michael Nelson,
“School Characteristics Related to High School Dropout
Rates,” Remedial and Special Education 28 (2007): 325–339;
Raffaele Mendez and Knoff, “Who Gets Suspended”; and
Suhyun Suh and Jingyo Suh, “Risk Factors and Levels of Risk
for High School Dropouts,” Professional School Counseling 10
(2007): 297–306.

35. Tony Fabelo, Michael D. Thompson, Martha Plotkin, et al.,
Breaking Schools’ Rules: A Statewide Study of How School
Discipline Relates to Students’ Success and Juvenile Justice
Involvement (New York: Council of State Governments Justice
Center, 2011).

36. Russell J. Skiba, Mariella I. Arredondo, and Natasha T.
Williams, “More Than a Metaphor: The Contribution of
Exclusionary Discipline to a School-to-Prison Pipeline,” Equity
and Excellence in Education 47 (2014): 546–564.

37. Losen, Closing the School Discipline Gap; and David M.
Osher, George G. Bear, Jeffrey R. Sprague, and Walter Doyle,
“How Can We Improve School Discipline?,” Educational
Researcher 39 (2010): 48–58.

38. Anne Gregory, Joseph P. Allen, Amori Yee Mikami, et al.,
“The Promise of Teacher Professional Development Program in
Reducing Racial Disparity in Classroom Exclusionary Discipline,”
in Losen, Closing the School Discipline Gap, 166–179.

39. Anne Gregory, Kathleen Clawson, Alycia Davis, and
Jennifer Gerewitz, “The Promise of Restorative Practices to
Transform Teacher-Student Relationships and Achieve Equity
in School Discipline,” Journal of Educational and Psychological
Consultation (forthcoming), published electronically November
4, 2014, doi:10.1080/10474412.2014.929950.

40. Thalia González, “Socializing Schools: Addressing Racial
Disparities in Discipline through Restorative Justice,” in Losen,
Closing the School Discipline Gap, 151–165.

41. Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional
Learning (CASEL), Safe and Sound: An Educational Leader’s
Guide to Evidence-Based Social and Emotional Learning
Programs (Chicago: CASEL, 2003); and John Payton, Roger P.
Weissberg, and Joseph A. Durlak, et al., The Positive Impact of

Social and Emotional Learning for Kindergarten to
Eighth-Grade Students: Findings from Three Scientific Reviews
(Chicago: CASEL, 2008).

42. CASEL, Safe and Sound; and Joseph E. Zins, “Examining
Opportunities and Challenges for School-Based Prevention
and Promotion: Social and Emotional Learning as an
Exemplar,” Journal of Primary Prevention 21 (2001): 441–446.

43. Osher et al., “Avoid Quick Fixes.”

44. Claudia G. Vincent, Jeffrey R. Sprague, CHiXapkaid
(Michael Pavel), et al., “Effectiveness of Schoolwide Positive
Interventions and Supports in Reducing Racially Inequitable
Disciplinary Exclusion,” in Losen, Closing the School Discipline
Gap, 207–221.

45. Sarah E. Pinkelman, Kent McIntosh, Caitlin K. Rasplica, et
al., “Perceived Enablers and Barriers Related to Sustainability
of School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and
Supports,” Behavioral Disorders 40, no. 3 (2015): 171–183.

46. Dewey Cornell and Peter Lovegrove, “Student Threat
Assessment as a Method of Reducing Student Suspensions,”
in Losen, Closing the School Discipline Gap, 180–191.

47. Pamela Fenning, Therese Pigott, Elizabeth Engler, et al., “A
Mixed Methods Approach Examining Disproportionality in
School Discipline” (paper, Closing the School Discipline Gap
Conference, Washington, DC, January 2013).

48. “Back to School Means Big Changes, Challenges at
LAUSD,” Los Angeles Daily News, August 11, 2013.

49. Lizette Alvarez, “Seeing the Toll, Schools Revise Zero
Tolerance,” New York Times, December 3, 2013.

50. Prudence Carter, Russell Skiba, Mariella Arredondo, and
Mica Pollock, You Can’t Fix What You Don’t Look At:
Acknowledging Race in Addressing Racial Discipline
Disparities, Discipline Disparities Briefing Paper Series
(Bloomington, IN: Equity Project at Indiana University, 2014);
Anne Gregory, James Bell, and Mica Pollock, How Educators
Can Eradicate Disparities in School Discipline: A Briefing Paper
on School-Based Interventions, Discipline Disparities Briefing
Paper Series (Bloomington, IN: Equity Project at Indiana
University, 2014); Daniel J. Losen, Damon Hewitt, and Ivory
Toldson, Eliminating Excessive and Unfair Exclusionary
Discipline in Schools: Policy Recommendations for Reducing
Disparities, Discipline Disparities Briefing Paper Series
(Bloomington, IN: Equity Project at Indiana University, 2014);
and Russell J. Skiba, Mariella I. Arredondo, and M. Karega
Rausch, New and Developing Research on Disparities in
Discipline, Discipline Disparities Briefing Paper Series
(Bloomington, IN: Equity Project at Indiana University, 2014).

51. Losen, Closing the School Discipline Gap.

52. Gregory, Bell, and Pollock, How Educators Can Eradicate
Disparities in School Discipline.

53. Hugh Mehan, In the Front Door: Creating a College-Bound
Culture of Learning (Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers, 2012).

54. Jason A. Okonofua and Jennifer L. Eberhardt, “Two
Strikes: Race and the Disciplining of Young Students,”
Psychological Science 26 (2015): 617–624.

55. Gregory et al., “Promise of Teacher Professional
Development.”

56. Gregory, Bell, and Pollock, How Educators Can Eradicate
Disparities.

57. American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task
Force, “Are Zero Tolerance Policies Effective in the Schools?”;
and American Academy of Pediatrics, “Policy Statement:
Out-of-School Suspension and Expulsion,” Pediatrics 131, no.
3 (2013): e1000–e1007.

58. Fabelo et al., Breaking Schools’ Rules.

59. “Key Policy Letters from the Education Secretary and
Deputy Secretary,” U.S. Department of Education, January 8,
2014, www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/secletter/140108.html.

60. Losen et al., Are We Closing the School Discipline Gap?

61. American Federation of Teachers, “A New Path Forward
on School Discipline Practices.”

62. National Education Association, “NEA and Partners
Ramping Up Efforts to End School Discipline Disparities,” news
release, March 20, 2014, www.nea.org/home/58464.htm.

63. Greta Colombi and David Osher, Advancing School
Discipline Reform, Education Leaders Report, vol. 1, no. 2
(Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Boards of
Education, 2015).

64. American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task
Force, “Are Zero Tolerance Policies Effective in the Schools?”

65. Padres & Jóvenes Unidos and Advancement Project,
Lessons in Racial Justice and Movement Building: Dismantling
the School-to-Prison Pipeline in Colorado and Nationally
(Denver: Padres & Jóvenes Unidos, 2014).

ED 500: Criteria for Article Summary Assignments

In ED 500, you will be assigned various articles to read and summarize. These assignments serve two main purposes. First, the articles will build upon what you read in your text, thereby, expanding your understanding of the material. Secondly, the article summary assignments will allow you to practice your skills of reading and synthesizing academic research and policy briefs. You will use these skills in your future classes.

Your summaries must include a description of the article’s purpose, a discussion of two main points from the article, and a discussion of what the article means to you. Be sure to follow the directions below and read the assigned articles carefully.

Article Summary Content Requirements

· In the first paragraph, introduce the article. Your introduction should include a description of the article’s purpose, audience, and significance.
Why was the article written? Who was it written for? Why is it important / why did it need to be written?

· In the second and third paragraphs, describe two key points from the article. The points can be something you think is particularly important or interesting; however, they should also be central to the article. You should summarize the key points in your own words. Don’t forget to use in-text citations when paraphrasing. For each point, provide sufficient detail to show that you truly understand the article.

· In the final paragraph, describe what this article means to you. What experiences have you had with the topic? What do you take away from it?

Article Summary Formatting Requirements

· Your critique must be typed in Microsoft Word, 12-point font, 1” margins on all sides, and double spaced.

· The summary should be between approximately 500-650 words.

· No abstract is required; do not include a title page. Do not include a header or any other information on the summary page.

· The summary must include references in APA format.
The only source you should reference for the summary is the assigned article. Include in-text citations when needed and a reference list.

· If you need help with APA formatting, you can consult the APA Resources Page in Blackboard, the APA Manual, the APA Website, or the Purdue OWL Website.

· Use direct quotes sparingly. You are expected to summarize the article in your own words. By paraphrasing, you show that you truly understand the article. You will lose points if your summary primarily consists of quoted material.

For a full description of the grading scale for article summaries in this course, see the Article Summary Grading Rubric that is posted in Blackboard.

Page 1 of 1