Disparities in school discipline are a serious problem. 

Frequent use of disciplinary removal from school is 

associated with a range of negative student outcomes, 

including lower academic achievement, increased risk 

of dropout, and increased contact with the juvenile justice system. The evidence is clear: excessive discipline 

harms all students, teachers, and school cultures. It is 

neither educationally sound nor economically efficient. 

Nor does it create safe schools. To the contrary, schools 

with excessive discipline tend to be and feel less safe 

than schools that have developed rich cultures of support, dignity, and evidence-based discipline practices. 

While excessive discipline affects all students in negative ways, over 40 years of research confirms that unjustifiable approaches to discipline harm historically 

disadvantaged and discriminated against groups more 

than others. In particular, Black males; students who 

receive special education services; and students who 

identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, have 

disproportionately received exclusionary discipline, 

placing them at increased risk of experiencing those 

negative outcomes. Disproportionality in discipline 

cannot be fully explained by higher rates of student 

misbehavior or the challenges associated with poverty. 

Hence, a more complete understanding of where and 

The Discipline Disparities Research to Practice Collaborative

Disparities in the use of school discipline by race, gender, and sexual orientation have been well-documented 

and continue to place large numbers of students at risk for short- and long-term negative outcomes. In order 

to improve the state of our knowledge and encourage effective interventions, the Discipline Disparities Research to Practice Collaborative, a group of 26 nationally known researchers, educators, advocates, and policy 

analysts, came together to address the problem of disciplinary disparities. Funded by Atlantic Philanthropies 

and Open Society Foundations, the Collaborative has spent nearly three years conducting a series of meetings 

with groups of stakeholders—advocates, educators, juvenile justice representatives, intervention agents, researchers, and policymakers—in order to increase the availability of interventions that are both practical and 

evidence-based, and to develop and support a policy agenda for reform to improve equity in school discipline. 

The project has funded 11 new research projects to expand the knowledge base, particularly in the area of 

intervention, and commissioned papers from noted researchers presented at the Closing the School Discipline 

Gap Conference. A culminating report of the Collaborative’s work is the formal release of the Discipline Disparities Briefing Paper Series, three papers on policy, practice, and new research summarizing the state of our 

knowledge and offering practical, evidence-based recommendations for reducing disparities in discipline in 

our nation’s schools. 

Discipline Disparities 

Series: Overview

Discipline Disparities Series: Overview

 Prudence Carter, Michelle Fine, and Stephen Russell 

why disparities occur and developing approaches that 

effectively reduce both overall use of exclusionary 

discipline and the discipline gap is an urgent national 

priority. Yet reducing the use of exclusionary discipline 

and eliminating disparities is possible and is beginning 

to happen in many places across the country.

Persistent racial and gender disparities in school discipline have received attention from both the advocacy 

and research communities for at least ten years. Yet the 

lack of coordination of policy and practice efforts has 

limited progress in translating concern for unequal educational opportunities and support for some students 

and not others. A preliminary analysis of a national 

survey of more than 72,000 K-12 schools serving 85% 

of the nation’s students, collected by the U.S. Department of Education’s (ED) Office for Civil Rights, 

shows profound disparities between how groups of 

students are disciplined. African-American students, 

particularly males, are far more likely to be suspended 

or expelled from school than their peers. Nearly one 

out of every five African American male students was 

suspended out of school at least once during the school 

year 2009-10, a rate three and a half times that of their 

peers. These statistics suggest a complex interplay between the factors of race, gender, and discipline. Why 

 March 2014

In the Series:

Discipline Disparities 

Series: Overview 

Interventions for Reducing 

Disparities

Policy Recommendations for 

Reducing Disparities

New and Developing 

Research
 

 2 Discipline Disparities Series: Overview

is it that African American boys’ educational 

experiences render them so vulnerable to radical disproportionality in discipline, suspensions, and expulsions--more than any other 

social group?

African American males are not entirely 

alone, however: Disproportionality in discipline harms other groups of students as 

well. Although absolute rates of suspension 

for males are higher than females in general, 

some have found that the discrepancy in suspensions between Black and White girls is 

even greater than the disparity between Black 

and White boys.1

 Students with disabilities 

across racial groups are suspended nearly 

twice as often as their non-disabled peers, 

13% versus 7%.2

 While there is little data 

directly addressing disciplinary measures 

among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender 

(LGBT), and gender non-conforming youth, 

there is evidence that non-heterosexual 

youth, particularly girls, are up to three times 

more likely to be punished at school than 

their heterosexual peers who engaged in the 

same level of misbehavior.3

 These conspicuous patterns in disciplinary matters, suspensions and expulsions, marked by significant 

social group differences, have mandated a 

call to reform and action. 

We can be encouraged by the fact that some 

cities and school districts now realize the severity of the disproportionate incidence and 

impact of rigid disciplinary policies and have 

begun to reform discipline codes to better 

match offenses and punishments, and encourage school exclusion only as a last resort. 

Reform has occurred within schools and law, 

initiated by youth organizers, advocates, and 

educators. In May 2013, parents and community activists celebrated a major victory 

when the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) Board of Education approved 

a School Climate Bill of Rights that bans suspensions for willful defiance; calls for stepped 

up implementation of School-Wide Positive 

Behavior Support and Restorative Justice; 

makes discipline, citation, and school arrest 

data available to students and parents; and 

clarifies the role of police in schools. Other 

important initiatives include new policies 

in the Meridian, Mississippi, public schools 

that forbid exclusionary discipline for lowlevel infractions, and a new action plan New 

York City, calling upon city officials to reduce the use of suspensions, summonses, 

and arrests. Such initiatives are just a start, 

however, since unjust and ineffective disciplinary policies continue to threaten the education of entire groups of students in school 

districts throughout the nation. A deeper and 

more institutionalized commitment to the 

fair treatment of all students is still required.

Until recently, national dialogue on school 

discipline has focused on the behavior and 

discipline of individual students; less attention in policy and practice has focused on 

the cultures and climate of schools. There 

are clear and urgent material implications 

for individual students that demand attention. At the same time, the fact of discipline 

disparities suggests a focus on cultures (of 

schools, administrators, communities, policies) that systematically produce inequalities 

and then punish those who typically receive 

the short end of the achievement opportunities. The assumption of egalitarian values 

in U.S. education systems make implicit or 

unconscious bias difficult to acknowledge 

and address; a focus on discipline can expose the ways in which federal, state, and 

local policies produce schools that over-rely 

on suspension and expulsion, or that deposit 

large numbers of difficult-to-educate students into the juvenile justice system. By 

engaging in punitive discipline and testing 

practices, schools end up re-distributing but 

not resolving the problem, and criminalizing a substantial cadre of youth of color 

and queer or gender-non-conforming youth.

The Problem of Discipline 

Disparities

Clear evidence of systematic disparities in 

discipline practices in U.S. schools based 

on race and ethnicity exists: youth of color 

(especially African American and Latino) 

are disproportionately disciplined at school, 

and are over-represented in rates of exclusionary discipline (school suspension and 

expulsion). It is crucial to note that disparities are less apparent for clearly defined objective infractions such a violence, drugs, 

or weapons charges, and most apparent for 

those infractions that are more open to subjective interpretation, such as defiance, disrespect, insubordination, clothing, or “talking 

back” violations. Historically, policy and 

research attention has focused appropriately 

on young men of color (in particular, African 

American young men), who are persistently 

and disproportionately disciplined at school. 

Recently, however, scholars and practitioners 

have begun to uncover a more complicated 

picture of these disparities and the dynamics that provoke them. That is, in addition 

to discipline disproportionality for African 

American young men, there is growing evidence of school discipline inequalities for 

a number of other student subgroups who 

are marginalized, bullied, and/or alienated 

within their schools or communities. These 

include students from other non-dominant 

racial and ethnic groups, those who speak 

a language other than English, youth living in poverty and/or foster care, young 

women, students with disabilities, gender nonconforming students, and students 

who are or may be perceived to be LGBT.

... some cities and school 

districts now realize 

the severity of the 

disproportionate incidence 

and impact of rigid 

disciplinary policies and 

have begun to reform 

discipline codes to better 

match offenses and 

punishments, and 

encourage school exclusion 

only as a last resort. 

We have learned that who is disciplined is 

more complex than previously understood, 

and where discipline is over-used is equally 

significant. Disparities in discipline are ubiquitous, occurring in both urban high poverty 

schools and more highly resourced suburban schools, but are widened in “drop out” 

factories, in schools with substantial police 

presence, and in schools with rigid zero tolerance policies. In addition, we see new and 

emerging evidence that rigid, “no-excuses” 

disciplinary codes are deployed in some selective admissions charter schools around the 

nation which, as a consequence, filter out students who show signs of underperformance 

and/or threaten to lower school averages on 

high-stakes accountability tests.4 With such a 

wide, intersectional lens focused on affected 

populations and the characteristics of highdiscipline contexts, we begin to understand 

that “discipline” has become a field of practice in which a wide swath of marginalized 

youth are over-represented as the alleged 

problem and victim, and that discipline has 

become a management strategy for schools 

pressured by financial constraints, high concentrations of struggling students, substantial numbers of transient teachers/long-term 

substitutes, heavy presence of police/security 

forces, and severe accountability mandates. 
Discipline Disparities Series: Overview 3

Consequences of Discipline 

Disparities for Youth

The excessive use of discipline for minor offenses adversely affects the human rights of 

all students and educators, and the culture 

of their schools. In this series, we document 

the excess and the differential and disproportionate impact on historically marginalized youth, and we offer evidence based 

alternative strategies. Needless to say, there 

is ample evidence that persistent discipline 

disparities produce a cascade of problems 

for marginalized youth beyond academic 

outcomes: lower school commitment, lower 

academic engagement, higher rates of school 

dropout, and also increased rates of physical and mental health consequences, as well 

as heightened criminal justice involvement. 

While these consequences are problematic, 

involvement in the youth justice system as 

a result of school discipline is of particular 

importance to the Discipline Disparities Research to Practice Collaborative. The same 

disparities in school discipline are evident 

in the youth justice system, developing a 

“school-to-prison pipeline” for marginalized youth, with few opportunities for exit. 

Further, the consequences of discipline disparities are complicated by the intersections 

of youths’ marginal statuses or identities, 

which are already often implicated in school 

disengagement and lack of achievement.

While education and juvenile justice share 

young people in common, rarely do practitioners in each sector understand the implications of their actions across disciplines. 

Classroom teachers and school officials know 

very little about the processes of the youth 

justice system, while probation officers and 

courts have little knowledge about school 

discipline or climate. Traditionally, schools 

have been formal socializing institutions with 

a public mandate to maintain sufficient order 

and to provide an organizational climate conducive to the education of students. In this 

way, schools have exercised a more informal 

and educational influence over young people, 

while the youth justice system has traditionally imposed more formal social controls, 

including incarceration. Healthy schools are 

a kind of “micro-community” that relies on 

informal relationships between individual 

teachers, coaches, other educational staff, 

students, and parents. Zero tolerance policies 

have increasingly transferred this informal 

influence, and even some of the official authority and decision-making discretion of educational professionals, to law enforcement, 

probation, and the courts.

Although there is a lack of uniform national 

data on school arrests, data for specific states 

and locales indicate high and increasing 

rates of school-based arrest for school conduct violations which were once addressed 

within the school environment. Of the 27,000 

juveniles arrested in Chicago in 2010, for 

example, a fifth of them were taken into custody at school.5

 As is the case for suspension 

and expulsion, a large proportion of these 

school-based arrests is for relatively minor or 

discretionary offenses. Of the 26,990 schoolrelated referrals to the Florida Department 

of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) during the 2004-05 

school year, 76% were for misdemeanor offenses such as disorderly conduct, trespassing, or fighting.6

 The goal of the Discipline 

Disparities Research to Practice Collaborative is to provide information aimed at disrupting this flow of children and youth, especially children and youth of color, from 

schools to detention by providing researchbased recommendations on intervention, 

policy, and future research directions. 

Safety in Schools

Recently, a number of high-profile cases of school and community violence, such as the tragedy of Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, have commanded the attention of the media and our national discussion. In times of 

threat, the policy and practice temptation is to focus on implementing more extreme solutions to address what is perceived 

as a severe threat. It is, of course, critical that our nation implement the most effective procedures that can preserve the 

safety of our schools and the integrity of learning environments. Yet a focus on a single or small number of unique tragic 

events often does not serve the cause of violence prevention well. Studies by the Secret Service and others have found 

that there are few commonalities among school shootings that can guide effective intervention, and the incident in Newtown was, in fact, one of a very small minority of incidents characterized by an external rather than an internal threat. In 

response to fear of violent incidents in schools in the 1980’s and 1990’s, many schools and districts implemented reactive 

policies such as zero tolerance, or increases in suspension, expulsion, or arrests. Careful study has shown, however, that 

such approaches were not successful in improving school safety or student behavior.7 Over the past 15 years, a solid basis 

of best practice knowledge in the area of violence prevention has been developing. Those findings consistently show that 

comprehensive planning and prevention is far more likely than a reactive response to a single incident to yield careful 

policy development and evidence-based reflection on how we might build schools that are strengthened by diversity, 

rooted in cooperation, committed to strong and sustained relationships, and attentive to bias across lines of race/ethnicity, gender, sexuality, disability, and/or immigration status. As opposed to a reactive response to a single incident, careful 

consideration of the best recent data shows that students are safest in schools where teachers view parents as partners in 

children’s education; where teachers offer academic support to students; and where there is mutual trust between students, 

teachers, administrators, and parents. Those relationships are even more important than neighborhood crime and poverty 

in predicting school safety, and are at least as strong as the relationship between safety and school achievement level.8

Creating safe schools includes creating school safety and security plans; training students, educators, and staff to follow 

those plans; and having relevant professional development for all school personnel.9 These proactive, relationship-building strategies have been found to be more likely than reactive approaches to guarantee the safety and order of schools. 
 4 Discipline Disparities Series: Overview

The Research-to-Practice 

Collaborative: What We 

Have Learned

For more than three years, leading academic 

and non-profit experts, policymakers, practitioners, and funders who comprised the 

Discipline Disparities Research to Practice 

Collaborative have convened throughout the 

country to assess the landscape of discipline 

disparities in American schools. The Collaborative has considered research, policy, and 

practice both of student experiences and outcomes, as well as structural conditions and 

potential for change. Three features of the 

Collaborative are unique:

• A dedicated focus on school discipline through a systematic review of 

policy, practice, and research

• A rigorous commitment to intersectional analyses of gender, sexuality, 

and race/ethnic disparities in school 

discipline

• A broad consideration of disparities 

and institutional linkages across the 

sectors of education and juvenile 

justice

The Collaborative has both reviewed and 

stimulated comprehensive research on discipline disparities, and has analyzed this work 

from the perspective of advocates, educators, 

and policy-makers. Key insights that have 

emerged include the following:

Issues of Policy and Institutional 

Interface

• A number of prominent education 

policies and practices operate separately and in combination in ways 

that buttress and widen discipline 

disparities (e.g., zero tolerance; highstakes accountability test systems).

Practices and policies related to police 

presence in schools (school resource 

officers) vary significantly, but the 

consequences rarely enhance safety 

and more often include the heightened criminalization of what might 

otherwise be considered adolescent 

misbehaviors, particularly for African 

American youth. More information is 

needed about the dynamics of police 

presence and practices, school climate 

and culture, student experiences, and 

discipline disparities. However, the 

existent evidence suggests that police 

presence in schools, particularly 

armed police, should be a very last 

resort in school discipline strategies.

• There is a dramatic disconnect between educational and juvenile justice 

systems: Their policies and practices 

are, at times, at cross-purposes or 

even directly contradictory (e.g., in 

many communities expelled students 

are by definition in violation of 

juvenile laws). This disconnect is an 

important contributor to the schoolto-prison pipeline. Coordination 

across systems is crucial.

Issues of Research on Interventions

• Much more information is needed 

regarding intervening in or preventing discipline disparities in schools. 

There is a paucity of research-based 

interventions that show promise for 

reducing discipline disparities; at the 

same time, promising examples do 

exist and require more investigation 

and dissemination.

• Current systems and approaches to 

monitoring or studying discipline disparities do not pay sufficient attention 

to important subgroups of youth (e.g., 

LGBTQ, youth living in poverty) or 

issues central to discipline disparities 

(e.g., discriminatory bullying). Critical gaps include data on conditions in 

schools, disaggregation of/reasons for 

discipline, outcomes associated with 

discipline, and inclusion of LGBTQ 

students/issues.

We have learned that 

who is disciplined is more 

complex than previously 

understood, and where 

discipline is over-used is 

equally significant.

Promising Intervention Strategies

• Restorative justice practices appear 

to be most promising for reducing 

school-wide reliance on suspension 

and expulsion, and for reducing 

racial/ethnic disparities. Restorative 

justice practices that are explicitly 

keyed to cultural and sexual diversity 

appear to be most effective, although 

there is relatively little research available to date.

• Youth organizing has been a powerful, if under-researched, strategy 

for engaging young people in youth 

development, leadership, conflict 

resolution, and restorative justice 

techniques in school and in communities.

• There is a need for deeper understanding of the relationship of bullying and school discipline; that is, the 

relationship between being bullied 

and then acting out in aggressive 

ways in response.

• Interventions must be attentive to 

issues of race/ethnicity, but also 

sexuality, immigration status, special 

education status, and gender. Faculty 

and students would benefit from 

broad-based diversity training.

Within a national context of troubling disparities and promising solutions, the Discipline 

Disparities Research to Practice Collaborative has used information from stakeholder 

groups, as well as knowledge of the current 

status of research in the field, to craft a series 

of three informational briefs with targeted 

recommendations customized for different 

audiences, including: 

•	 How Educators Can Eradicate 

Disparities in School Discipline: 

Based on current research, the brief 

describes promising, evidencedbased approaches that schools and 

juvenile justice practitioners can use 

to address disparities in discipline 

that move away from using punitive 

approaches and support educators 

in building academically rigorous and engaging schools that are 

strengthened by diversity; rooted in 

cooperation; committed to strong and 

sustained relationships; and attentive 

to bias across lines of race/ethnicity, 

gender, sexuality disability, and/or 

immigrant status. 

•	 Policy Recommendations for 

Reducing Disparities: This brief 

describes the implications of what 

we know about discipline disparities: the greater risks in disciplinary 

exclusions that certain populations 

of students face (students of color, 

students with disabilities, LGBT and 

gender-non-conforming students). It 

catalogues what we know about effective alternatives, and offers recommendations for federal, state, and 

local policymakers.

•	 New and Developing Research on 

Disparities in Discipline: This brief 

highlights findings of new research 
Discipline Disparities Series: Overview 

5

that emerged from Collaborative 

Funded Research Grant Program, a 

national conference on disciplinary 

disparities, Closing the School Disci-

pline Gap (Washington, DC, January, 

2013), and peer-reviewed literature. 

Each briefing paper considers the definition 

and nature of the problem, describes what 

we know from research and practice, exam-

ines promising solutions and interventions, 

and offers recommendations and available 

resources for change. This series signals a 

significant turn in the “discipline disparities” 

literature, from a discipline-focus on indi-

viduals toward a more systemic and cultural 

view of the conditions under which disci-

pline emerges as the management strategy 

of choice in schools; challenging the dispro-

portionate use of suspension and expulsion 

for relatively minor infractions; revealing 

the substantial levels of marginalization and 

over-disciplining experienced by students at 

varied margins; troubling the lack of coopera-

tion between educational and juvenile justice 

systems; and inviting policymakers and prac-

titioners to consider alternatives to criminal-

ization of youth, suspension, and expulsion.

The Discipline Disparities Research to Prac-

tice Collaborative has produced this series, 

synthesizing the state of our knowledge, in or-

der to educate policymakers, educators, juve-

nile justice practitioners, and the general pub-

lic about the problem of racial, gendered, and 

sexuality-related discipline disparities. Just 

as importantly, the series focuses on solutions 

that are increasingly gaining acceptance. 

While this field is relatively young, promis-

ing interventions are being tested and validat-

ed in communities, schools, juvenile facili-

ties, and youth leadership/organizing groups. 

Thus, the goal of this series is to outline the 

size and contours of the problem, the sig-

nificant collateral consequences of zero tol-

erance, and the evidence on promising prac-

tices. Our hope is that fully informed of the 

scope of and alternatives to current practice, 

constituencies of policymakers, practitioners, 

and the general public will press for less pu-

nitive and more developmentally appropriate 

and educationally sound interventions. These 

papers are premised on the belief, supported 

by research evidence, that two key values—

school safety and supporting students in 

staying connected with school and learning 

opportunities—are not mutually contradic-

tory, but integrally related. By choosing a different course, the findings presented in this 

series argue that all young people, including 

those most marginalized, can be safe and en-

gaged in their schools and their communities. 

Endnotes

1. Wallace, J. M., Jr., Goodkind, S., Wallace, 

C. M., & Bachman, J. G. (2008). Racial, 

ethnic, and gender differences in school 

discipline among U.S. high school students: 

1991-2005. The Negro Educational Review, 

59(1-2), 47-62. 

2. Losen, D. J., & Gillespie, J. (2012). Op-

portunities suspended: The disparate impact 

of disciplinary exclusion from school. Los 

Angeles, CA: The Civil Right Project, The 

Center for Civil Rights Remedies.

3. Himmelstein, K. E. W., & Bruckner, H. 

(2011). Criminal-justice and school sanc-

tions against nonheterosexual youth: A 

national longitudinal study. Pediatrics. 

Originally published online December 6, 

2010.

4. Fabricant, M., & Fine, M. (2013). The 

changing politics of education: Privatiza-

tion and the dispossessed lives left behind.

Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.

5. Kaba, M., & Edwards, F. (2011). Policing 

Chicago Public Schools: A gateway to the 

school-to-pipeline. Project NIA: Building 

Peaceful Communities. www.project-nia.org

6. NAACP Legal Defense and Educational 

Fund, Inc. and the Florida State Confer-

ence NAACP Advancement Project (2006). 

Arresting development: Addressing the 

school discipline crisis in Florida. Retrieved 

from http://b.3cdn.net/advancement/

e36d17097615e7c612_bbm6vub0w.pdf

7. American Psychological Association Zero 

Tolerance Task Force. (2008). Are zero 

tolerance policies effective in the schools? 

An evidentiary review and recommenda-

tions. American Psychologist, 63, 852-862; 

American Academy of Pediatrics. (2013). 

Out-of-school suspension and expulsion. Elk 

Grove Village, IL: Author. Retrieved from 

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/

early/2013/02/20/peds.2012-3932

8. Steinberg, M. P., Allensworth, E., & John-

son, D. W. (In press). What conditions jeop-

ardize and support safety in urban schools? 

The influence of community characteristics, 

school composition and school organization-

al practices on student and teacher reports of 

safety in Chicago. In D. J. Losen, D. (Ed.), 

Closing the school discipline gap: Research 

for policymakers. New York: Teachers Col-

lege Press. 

9. U.S. Department of Education. (2014). 

Guiding principles: A resource guide for 

improving school climate and discipline. 

Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved January 

10, 2014, from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/

gen/guid/school-discipline/guiding-princi-

ples.pdf
About the Authors

Prudence L. Carter, Ph.D.

is a Professor of Education and (by courtesy) of Sociology at Stanford, and Faculty 

Director of the John W. Gardner Center for 

Youth and Their Communities. Her expertise 

ranges from issues of youth identity and race, 

class, and gender, urban poverty, social and 

cultural inequality, the sociology of education and mixed research methods. She is the 

author of the award-winning book, Keepin’ 

It Real: School Success beyond Black and 

White (2005); Stubborn Roots: Race, Culture, and Inequality in U.S. & South African 

Schools (2012); and more recently co-editor 

of Closing the Opportunity Gap: What America Must Do to Give Every Child an Even 

Chance (all published by Oxford University 

Press), along with numerous other journal articles, book chapters, and essays.

Michelle Fine, Ph.D.

is the Distinguished Professor of Social Psychology, Women’s Studies and Urban Education at the Graduate Center, CUNY. Dr. 

Fine has taught at CUNY since 1992 and is 

a founding member of the Participatory Action Research Collective at the Graduate 

Center at the City University of New York. 

Her research has been organized through 

participatory action research and focuses on 

how youth think about and contest injustice in schools, communities, and prisons. 

Recent awards include the 2014 Debbie 

Meier Hero in Education Award from Fair 

Test, the 2013 Distinguished Contributions 

to Policy Research from the American Psychological Association, the 2012 Kurt Lewin 

Award from the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, the 2011 Henry 

Murray Award from the Society of Personality at the American Psychological Association, the 2011 Social Justice Award from 

the Community and College Fellowship, and 

an Honorary Doctoral Degree for Education 

and Social Justice from Bank Street College. 

Dr. Fine has published widely on issues of 

youth participatory action research, social 

justice, and many other educational topics.

Stephen T. Russell, Ph.D.

is the Distinguished Professor and Fitch Nesbitt Endowed Chair in Family and Consumer 

Sciences in the John & Doris Norton School 

of Family and Consumer Sciences at the University of Arizona, and Director of the Frances McClelland Institute for Children, Youth, 

and Families. Professor Russell conducts research on adolescent pregnancy and parenting; cultural influences on parent-adolescent 

relationships; and the health and development of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth. He received a Wayne F. 

Placek Award from the APA (2000), was a 

William T. Grant Foundation Scholar (2001-

2006), a board member of the National Council on Family Relations (2005-2008), and 

is President of the Society for Research on 

Adolescence.

 6 Discipline Disparities Series: Overview 

Additional writing, editing, 

research, design, and formatting 

on the series was contributed by 

the staff of The Equity Project at 

Indiana University:

Russell J. Skiba, Ph.D.

Director

Mariella I. Arredondo, Ph.D.

Research Associate

M. Karega Rausch

Project Coordinator

Natasha Williams

Graduate Assistant

D. Leigh Kupersmith

Copyeditor
Members of the Discipline Disparities Collaborative

Discipline Disparities Series: Overview 7

James Bell, J.D.

Founder and Executive Director

W. Hayward Burns Institute

Judith Browne-Dianis, J.D.

Co-Director

Advancement Project

Prudence L. Carter, Ph.D.

Professor

Stanford University, School of Education 

and (by courtesy) Sociology

Christopher Chatmon

Executive Director of African American 

Male Achievement

Oakland Unified School District

Tanya Coke, J.D.

Distinguished Lecturer

John Jay College of Criminal Justice

Matt Cregor, J.D.

Staff Attorney

Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights 

and Economic Justice

Manuel Criollo

Director of Organizing

The Labor/Community Strategy Center

Jim Eichner, J.D.

Managing Director, Programs

Advancement Project

Edward Fergus, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor

New York University

Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, 

and Human Development 

Michelle Fine, Ph.D.

Distinguished Professor of Psychology

City University of New York (CUNY)

The Graduate Center

Phillip Atiba Goff, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor

University of California Los Angeles (UCLA)

Department of Psychology

Paul Goren, Ph.D.

Senior Vice President

Collaborative for Academic, Social, 

and Emotional Learning

Anne Gregory, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

Rutgers University, Graduate School of 

Applied and Professional Psychology

Damon T. Hewitt, J.D.

Senior Advisor, U.S. Programs

Open Society Foundations

Daniel J. Losen, J.D.

Director, Center for Civil Rights Remedies

The Civil Rights Project at UCLA

Tammy B. Luu

Associate Director

The Labor/Community Strategy Center

Kavitha Mediratta, Ph.D.

Children and Youth Programme Executive

Atlantic Philanthropies

Pedro Noguera, Ph.D.

Executive Director

The Metropolitan Center for

Urban Education

Blake Norton, M.Ed.

Division Director, Local Government 

Initiatives

The Justice Center

Mica Pollock, Ph.D.

Director

University of California San Diego (UCSD)

Center for Research on Equity, 

Assessment, and Teaching Excellence

Stephen T. Russell, Ph.D.

Distinguished Professor

University of Arizona

Norton School of Family and 

Consumer Services

Russell Skiba, Ph.D.

Director

The Equity Project at Indiana University

Leticia Smith-Evans, J.D., Ph.D.

Interim Director, Education Practice

NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund

Lisa Thomas, Ed.D.

Associate Director

American Federation of Teachers

Michael Thompson

Director

The Justice Center 

Ivory A. Toldson, Ph.D.

Deputy Director 

The White House Initiative on Historically 

Black Colleges and Universities
 8 Discipline Disparities Series: Overview 0311140300

The Equity Project at Indiana University

Center for Evaluation and Education Policy

1900 East Tenth Street

Bloomington, Indiana 47406

812-855-4438

equity@indiana.edu

rtpcollaborative.indiana.edu