Principles and Programs to 

Reduce Disparities in School 

Discipline

The number of students issued suspensions in U.S. 

schools continues to be extremely high, resulting in 

thousands of students missing school every day. Simultaneously, disparities in school suspension continue to worsen, indicating that students in some groups 

are missing school far more often and disproportionately (particularly, boys, African American students, 

students with disabilities, and in some regions, Latino and American Indian students). These disparities are also true of referrals to law enforcement and 

school-based arrests nationwide. According to recent 

data collected by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, students of color made up 75% 

of referrals to law enforcement and 79% of schoolbased arrests, even while students of color comprise 39% of the nation’s public school population.

Punitive school discipline matters tremendously to the 

educational opportunity of young people: New knowledge on school discipline shows that even a single suspension or a single referral to the juvenile court system1 

increases the odds of low achievement and dropping out 

of school altogether.2 Moreover, research shows that 

schools and educators—not just students themselves—

make a difference in how discipline is meted out.

Research also shows that highly punitive discipline 

is often not as “necessary” as some might think: for 

example, the most common reasons for suspension and law enforcement referrals are for infractions seemingly unrelated to school safety.3

 Further, 

the same student behavior may be viewed differently 

depending on who exhibits it. Disparities in discipline are greatest in more “subjective” categories of 

infraction (some educators may see a student behavior as defiant and others as innocuous). More objectively determined indicators (e.g., a student either 

hit a peer or didn’t) tend to be applied more fairly.4

Regardless of its subjectivity or objectivity, effective 

school discipline is important in building school climates that are both safe and productive. This makes 

intervention to improve disciplinary conflicts and 

suspensions all the more important and possible. 

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: Interventions

How Educators Can Eradicate Disparities in School Discipline: 

A Briefing Paper on School-Based Interventions

Anne Gregory, James Bell, and Mica Pollock 

 March 2014

In the Series:

Discipline Disparities Series: Overview

Interventions for Reducing 

Disparities 

Policy Recommendations for 

Reducing Disparities

New and Developing 

Research
The key question for educators is how to initiate change in school discipline so that more 

young people remain in school.

The Discipline Disparities Research to Practice Collaborative (Collaborative), supported 

by the Atlantic Philanthropies and the Open 

Society Foundation, has convened diverse 

stakeholders—advocates, educators, juvenile 

justice representatives, intervention agents, 

researchers, and policymakers—in a series of 

meetings from 2011 to 2013. Our goal was 

to address and reduce disparities in both discipline and juvenile justice system involvement by supporting educators in building 

academically rigorous and engaging schools 

strengthened by diversity, rooted in cooperation, committed to strong and sustained relationships, and attentive to bias or disparity 

across lines of race/ethnicity, gender, sexuality, disability and/or immigration status (see 

the Collaborative’s Discipline Disparities Series: Overview, 2014).

Synthesizing what we have learned, we 

here provide starting points that educators—including teachers, administrators, 

paraprofessionals, and support personnel—might use to begin shifting disciplinary conflicts and consequences toward a 

less conflict-ridden school climate, benefitting both educators and students. 

Throughout, we offer interventions and solutions to help educators avoid the criminalization of child and adolescent behaviors and 

to literally keep students out of the juvenile 

justice system, with an eye toward supporting positive youth development. By criminalization we mean the tendency for adults 

to unjustifiably perceive student appearance, 

body language, or behavior as threatening 

or defiant of authority and rules, which then 

leads to adults issuing punitive sanctions including suspension and often, justice system 

referrals (rather than engaging the student in 

school-based prevention and intervention). 

Discipline Disparities in the 

Larger Context of Schooling

Avoiding unnecessary or unfair discipline is often not just good school policy, 

but the law. Recent guidance from the US 

Department of Justice and Education outlines ways in which discipline policies having “disparate impact” –students from some 

groups are subjected to discipline more often, 

or discipline for the same offense is harsher 

for some groups than others—may violate 

civil rights.5

 If the groups in question are 

protected by civil rights laws, this disparate 

impact is potentially unlawful if either of 

the two following conditions is met: 1) The 

policy or practice is not educationally necessary; or 2) even when necessary, if other 

less discriminatory alternatives are available 

and could reasonably meet the objectives 

of the policy or practice in question.6

 Concerned about the possibility of civil rights 

violations, many schools and school districts have begun to change discipline policies that emphasize removal from instruction 

as the primary response to rule infractions.

Discipline issues in schools both cause a 

denial of education opportunity and can 

reflect a need for opportunities to learn. 

Research shows that disparities arise from 

some student groups being treated differently than others: members of some groups 

are disciplined heavily for behaviors that 

others either don’t get disciplined for, or 

that they are disciplined less harshly, or receive non-punitive responses. Research also 

shows that disparities arise from differential access to opportunity. This means that 

some students have access to more exciting opportunities to learn than others—and 

students more engaged in exciting or supportive education projects are less likely to 

have disciplinary conflicts with educators.7 

Interventions resolve and 

educate, rather than 

deport or discipline. 

School discipline cannot be viewed in isolation from the rest of schooling. Clearly, 

some schools more than others face tremendous challenges. For example, many of the 

schools charged with educating a disproportionate share of students who are struggling 

learners are under-resourced in terms of financing and staffing. Even in these environments however, it is not possible to simply 

remove the “bad apple” student or the “bad 

apple” teacher; without a change in school 

climate more “bad apples” may arise that 

simply replace the old ones. Research shows 

that school discipline cannot be viewed in 

isolation from the rest of schooling. Instead, 

behavior is produced throughout the school 

day as students and educators interact with 

one another in classrooms and hallways. To 

reduce disparities in discipline and decrease 

the time and energy put into punishing rulebreaking, effective schools move away from 

blaming individual educators for discipline 

disparities and consider the conditions for 

learning and the school climate more broadly. 

Thus, we need sophisticated ways to think 

about school safety and discipline that can 

promote orderly and healthy instructional 

climates while reducing time out of school, 

inequitable discipline and criminalization. 

Research is showing that effective discipline creates a shift from a climate in which 

many students are suspended, expelled, overpoliced, or punished regularly, to a culture 

that promotes healthy relationships and academic success across classrooms, hallways, 

and lunchrooms. Interventions resolve and 

educate, rather than deport or discipline. 

Moving beyond Punitive Discipline to Conflict Prevention and Conflict Intervention

In this brief, we present research-based principles to support educators in moving toward 

a diverse community of highly engaged student and staff learners, grouped into the categories of “Conflict Prevention” and “Conflict Intervention.” The likelihood of conflict 

is reduced (prevention) when schools create diverse communities of motivated, invested, and engaged learners. As with all 

communities, some conflict is inevitable. 

When conflict happens, it can be addressed 

in a constructive and equitable manner (intervention). Such constructive responses to 

conflict reduce unnecessary discipline, teach 

students appropriate alternatives, and build 

a school climate that is ultimately stronger.

While the most persistent and well-documented school discipline disparities are for 

African American males and students with 

disabilities,8 there is growing evidence that 

African American females, gender nonconforming youth, and sexual minorities 

(LGBT) are increasingly filling the ranks of 

those issued disciplinary exclusion9 and excessive criminal sanctions. The increasing 

number of groups who are at-risk for school 

exclusion and arrest suggests that school 

discipline can be an inadvertent strategy for 

handling difference—differences that may 

fall along many lines (race, gender, social 

class, immigrant status, gender identity, sexual orientation, language status, disability). 

Thus, this paper is based on an explicit equity orientation, guiding educators through 

the principles of prevention and intervention. 

 2 Interventions for Reducing Disparities Briefing Paper
Fulfilling the promise of schools as hubs for 

student development requires that a commitment to equity be in the forefront of efforts to 

reduce discipline and discipline disparities. 

Nor can it be assumed that new programming will, in and of itself, reduce differential 

treatment in discipline or change differential 

access to learning opportunity. Research has 

shown that it is possible to reduce suspension and expulsion10 or the use of schoolbased ticketing and arrests without changing racial disparities in those outcomes.11

The equity-oriented principles of prevention 

and intervention are discussed in detail in the 

following pages. We describe how each principle relates to disparities in school discipline, 

and offer strategies and sample programs to 

help guide schools in enacting the principles.

Principles of Conflict 

Prevention

Offer Supportive Relationships

What do supportive relationships have to do 

with racial and gender disparities in school 

discipline?

Both research and practice show that trusting, 

supportive relationships between students 

and educators are key to preventing conflict.12 Through caring relationships, school 

staff can communicate high expectations for 

student engagement in learning as well as 

demonstrate their fair and consistent application of school rules.13

All too often, however, supportive relationships are not evenly distributed among student groups. Compared to White students, 

Black and Latino students believe fewer 

adults are supportive and fair,14 which has 

real consequences for school outcomes. In 

a national sample of LGBT youth from over 

3,000 school districts, almost half of surveyed 

youth reported that school staff did nothing when they heard homophobic remarks.15

From adults’ perspectives, establishing relationships with students is not as simple as it 

might seem. Some educators worry about getting “too close,” or about “crossing the line” 

from teacher to “social worker.” Many educators now fear they will not be able to stay 

true to the role of “confidant” if they need to 

switch to the role of “mandated reporter” when 

they hear hints of victimization or bullying. 

But educators who have supportive relationships with their students know much more 

about those students than just their academic 

performance. They are aware of major family 

events that are affecting a student’s mood or 

focus in class. They read a student’s subtle 

body language, which helps them identify the student’s feelings or comfort level 

in a social setting. They identify student 

strengths outside of the classroom. Adults 

who know their students well tend to view 

behavior in context (e.g., “he’s struggling 

right now at home and is taking it out on his 

peers”) and avoid rigid and global judgments 

about the student (e.g., “she is a bad seed”). 

Knowing students well goes a long way. 

Effective educators get to know their students well, especially those students whose 

lived experience differs substantially from 

their educators’ experience. While race and 

class categories do not totally determine our 

lived experiences, they shape them. Given 

that America’s teaching force is predominantly White and middle-class, differences 

in lived experience can be (or are perceived 

to be) pronounced for low-income students 

and students of color. Educators’ connectedness to their individual students, as well as 

to ongoing events in students’ communities, 

can bridge any “identity gulf” and stop misjudgments, unintentionally hurtful comments 

(“microaggressions”), or overly harsh reactions to child and adolescent misbehavior.16

Getting to know the strengths in students’ 

communities has similar effects. Administrators highlight how essential it is for them 

to regularly engage with families and community leaders outside of school in order to 

build trust and open lines of communication. 

Supportive relationships may reduce negative stereotyping and implicit bias (measurable bias that people don’t even know 

they have). When students and educators get 

to know each other well, understanding and 

trust are built.17 Through trust and good will, 

students may feel accepted and honored for 

who they are, even if who they are differs 

radically from the teachers’ own experience 

Interventions for Reducing Disparities Briefing Paper 3

Principles of Conflict Prevention

Research suggests that to prevent unnecessary discipline and to prevent the overrepresentation of particular 

groups of children and adolescents in school discipline, educators can equitably offer all students:

• Supportive Relationships (Forge authentic connections with all students)

• Academic Rigor (Promote the potential of all students, hold high expectations, and provide high-level 

learning opportunities)

• Culturally Relevant and Responsive Teaching (Teaching that responds respectfully to students’ real lives)

• Bias-free Classrooms and Respectful School Environments (Create inclusive, positive classroom and school 

environments in which students feel fairly treated)

Principles of Conflict Intervention

Research suggests that when discipline problems arise, educators can engage in equity-driven:

• Inquiry into the Causes of Conflicts

• Problem-solving Approaches to Discipline

• Recognition of Student and Family Voice and their Perspectives on Conflicts’ Causes and Solutions

• Re-integration of Students after Conflict
and identity. And knowing who students actually are is what counteracting stereotypes 

is all about.

How can schools engage in supportive relationships with youth? 

• Systematically integrate “getting to 

know you” activities into instruction: 

Regularly include instructional activities that help adults and students learn 

about one another. For instance, many 

teachers have daily morning circles 

or check-ins about students’ thoughts, 

feelings, and experiences. Teachers assign autobiographies18 or portfolios of 

students’ interests, skills, and accomplishments, which can be developed, 

interactively, online, or using multimedia.19 Teachers can also share about 

themselves in morning circles and 

present their own autobiographies. 

• In addition to getting to know students 

individually, provide students opportunities to share any community-specific 

experiences and aspects of their identities, such as information about students’ country of origin, neighborhood 

affiliation, and encounters with racism 

and other forms of bias.

Identify student strengths and avoid defining 

students by their deficits:

• Provide consistent and positive feedback to students in the classroom,20

including supportive critical feedback 

on how to reach high standards.21

• Send positive notes home and pursue 

positive interactions with the families 

of youth.

• Seek to regularly attend student events 

outside of the classroom. 

Improve interactions among educators and 

students through professional development 

programs:

• Teachers can systematically reflect on 

how their actions create student reactions. In the My Teaching Partner-Secondary (MTP-S) program, teachers are 

paired with a coach for an entire school 

year, regularly reflect on video recordings of their classroom instruction, and 

carefully observe how they interact 

with students. A recent study of the 

program showed the Black-White gap 

in student discipline referral was eliminated for teachers in the program.22

• Restorative Practices (RP) are schoolwide programs aiming to transform 

how peers and adults interact with 

one another. RP program components 

include community-building activities 

in classrooms (circles) and a relationship-based process to resolve disputes 

(restorative conferences).23 Recent 

research has shown evidence that RP 

has promise for reducing racial disparities in discipline (see www.SaferSanerSchools.org).24

• Increasing educator “cultural competence”—the ability to connect with and 

respond respectfully and skillfully to 

students’ actual lived experiences—has 

been shown to be a key to good schoolstudent relationships.25 Programs 

providing professional development in 

cultural responsiveness may explicitly 

help educators understand lived experiences outside of what is familiar to 

them given their own cultural identities and histories (e.g., learning about 

others’ experiences with immigration, 

poverty, English Language Learning, 

racism, homophobia).26

Offer Academic Rigor

What does rigor have to do with racial and 

gender gaps in school discipline? 

When students are deeply engaged in and 

excited about academic activities, school 

discipline referrals plummet.27 Yet, we know 

academic rigor is not evenly distributed in 

our school system today.28 Some groups 

have greater access to enriched and dynamic 

instruction than others. Within schools, remedial and honors levels are typically racially divided and norms of control can systematically differ.29 In many lower-tracked 

classrooms, student and teacher boredom, 

shame, and frustration can contribute to 

student-teacher conflict. Contrast that with 

a high-achieving classroom, where lively 

teacher and student engagement and student autonomy, interactive teaching styles, 

and novel or enriching materials are prioritized over tight management of behavior. It 

is not surprising that students in the typical 

lower-tracked classroom, more often students of color and low-income students, 

become less engaged and less on task.30

Educators can inadvertently send messages 

that some groups will “make it” and other 

groups are destined for failure.31 Students 

are astute at picking up these subtle (or not 

so subtle) messages,32 which can be inferred 

from adults’ voice tone or body language. 

How groups of students are treated extends 

to school structure as well. Some student 

groups have access to a variety of supportive programs when they are off-track. Other 

groups are treated punitively when they are 

off-track, with far less regard to their positive 

development. Students can internalize such 

differential messages and lose confidence 

in their own abilities for academic progress, and thereby become less invested in 

schooling.33 Discipline struggles often result.

How can schools provide academic rigor to 

historically underserved youth? 

High expectations for all. To avoid conflicts 

in schools, high expectations must be communicated through access to high-level and 

engaging instruction, which includes access 

to necessary learning supports.34 Despite the 

current pressures in an era of high-stakes 

testing, many schools have successfully 

provided both flexible academic supports 

and high-level instruction. For instance, the 

Preuss School in San Diego has successfully 

offered single-track, college-preparatory curricula and created a college-bound culture for 

all students (all of whom are low income, and 

most students of color), offering flexible supports and remediation programming through 

expanded school days.35 By doing so, Preuss 

systematically scaffolds struggling students 

back into the core instructional program. 

A partner school down the road, Gompers 

Preparatory Academy in San Diego, expects 

that 100% of its senior class graduate and be 

accepted to college. Gompers turned a highsuspension, chaotic campus into a collegeprep school culture of high expectations for 

every single youth, through relentless attention to student struggles. Gompers has now 

met this 100/100 goal for two years running.36

If teachers are to become more supportive 

of their students, they in turn need support 

and resources in offering motivating, relevant, and engaging instruction to classrooms 

that include diverse learners. Successful 

schools take professional development and 

teacher learning very seriously. One way 

to provide teacher support is through pairing teachers with coaches, who identify and 

expand specific ways teachers are already 

successfully motivating their students.37

Offer Cultural Relevancy and 

Responsiveness in Instruction 

and Interactions with Students

What do cultural relevancy and responsiveness have to do with racial and gender 

disparities in school discipline?

To create a climate where all students feel 

respected and engaged, educators can 

shape school practices and course material to reflect and welcome the diversity of 

the people in the school. School curricula 

 4 Interventions for Reducing Disparities Briefing Paper
and discipline practices can be more relevant 

and responsive to some student groups than 

others. All school practices have a cultural 

basis that aligns or misaligns with varying 

student communities; practices seen as valued and normal in one community might feel 

undervalued or atypical in another.38 More 

effective schools integrate racial, ethnic, 

cultural, gender, and sexual identities and 

experiences of students and communities in 

school curricula, school-wide events, library 

resources, and other forums and activities.39

When students’ identities and cultures are 

reflected back to them, they feel safer and report less victimization and discrimination.40

They also feel more connected to school41

and report higher academic achievement.42

Knowing students well 

also helps adults see 

students as individuals—

potentially breaking the link 

to an unconsciously held 

negative belief about the 

students’ racial group. 

How can schools offer cultural relevancy 

and responsiveness to youth? 

• Classroom material and schoolwide 

events reflect diversity, including the 

range of racial, ethnic, cultural, gender, 

and sexual identities of the students 

themselves. Material and events 

(thoughtful literature, films, assemblies) can also demonstrate and prompt 

discussion over the complexity of any 

identity, rather than presenting stereotypical visions of “groups.”43

• Through a process of self-reflection and 

careful observation of their instructional style, educators can detect ways 

in which their practices understandably embody their own beliefs and 

customs, and ask themselves: Am I 

reacting negatively in an unfair way to 

a behavior that is simply unfamiliar to 

me? A teacher thinking this way might 

ask questions about the norms she sets 

around noise level in her classroom,44

or, stop and reflect for a moment before 

describing a typical “family,” recognizing that her diverse students might have 

varying household configurations (e.g., 

living with a single caregiver or with 

two dads).

• Relatedly, educators can acknowledge school staff’s own personal and 

community histories, including racial/

cultural histories, to consider how 

our backgrounds cause us all to make 

numerous assumptions about what behavior in school is normal and desirable 

(“personal autobiographies” can launch 

this inquiry).45

• Use book discussion groups to learn 

about the experiences of students who 

have commonalities with groups of 

students in the school; since no one 

automatically shares any group experience, always set up activities that help 

people in the school get to know one 

another personally, as well. Suggested 

reading includes Sonia Nieto’s (2010) 

edited volume, The Light in Their 

Eyes: Creating Multicultural Communities. Nieto’s work also suggests 

that teachers create “case studies” of 

complex individual students. 

• Professional development programming could include the Double-Check 

program, which uses a framework to 

help teachers self-assess on their culturally responsive teaching. Teachers 

reflect on the following dimensions of 

their teaching: Sensitivity to Student’s 

Cultural and Situational Messages, 

Reflective Thinking about Children 

and “Group Membership,” Effective 

Communication, and Connection to 

Curriculum.46 Teachers have used the 

Double-Check framework in conjunction with input from instructional 

coaches to help them offer positive 

behavioral supports in a culturally 

competent manner in their classrooms 

(a manner that responds with respect to 

people’s complex life experiences).47

• Educators could be trained in other 

culturally competent classroom 

management strategies. Weinstein 

and colleagues’ model includes: (a) 

recognizing one’s own ethnocentrism 

(the tendency to see one’s own cultural 

norms as neutral, universal, normal, 

and correct); (b) developing knowledge 

of students’ lived cultural and community backgrounds; (c) understanding broader social, economic, and 

political context; and (d) demonstrating a commitment to building caring 

classrooms.48

Establish Bias-Free Classrooms 

and Respectful School 

Environments 

When some student groups experience 

school as uncaring or, as culturally irrelevant and non-responsive, they may also be 

detecting unfair treatment driven by implicit 

bias—biases that all of us share without even 

being aware of them. Research on implicit 

bias shows that many people across race 

lines have an easier time associating faces 

that look “White” with words like “smart” 

and that “Black” faces are more likely associated with criminality.49 Implicit bias operates outside of conscious awareness, yet it 

has a very real impact on decision-making. 

In juvenile justice, unconscious attitudes toward darker skin have been shown to influence more punitive responses to the behavior 

of darker-skinned youth.50 These attitudes 

may fuel the harsher sanctions issued to students of color—a good example of what we 

above have called the “criminalization” of 

youth.51 Implicit bias may also fuel negative 

reactions to students’ hair, dress, speech, or 

even body language, in a way that can break 

students’ positive relationships to school. 

Self-reflect – Avoid Snap Judgments. Educators who become aware of the subtle ways 

implicit bias can affect decision-making 

can learn to slow down when they realize 

that they are perhaps making snap judgments, asking themselves whether they have 

considered the whole context when they 

respond to students.52 Educators can also 

ask themselves tough questions about the 

potential of bias in discipline: Am I overreacting to youth from particular groups 

when I discipline my students? Knowing 

students well also helps adults see students as individuals—potentially breaking 

the link to an unconsciously held negative 

belief about the students’ racial group.53

Schools serving marginalized communities, or communities with whom educators 

are unfamiliar, may resort to a security 

infrastructure, including both police presence and technology, that can create barriers to developing trusting relationships 

between educators and students. Although 

some schools and school districts may feel 

strongly that such approaches are necessary, 

it is unclear from the data whether such measures actually contribute to school safety. 

The overuse of security measures such as law 

enforcement presence, daily check-points, 

random searches, and drug-sniffing canines 

in many lower-income schools serving predominantly communities of color can lead 

to an increase in school-based referrals to 

the juvenile court; some studies have found 

Interventions for Reducing Disparities Briefing Paper 5
that such measures can also cause students 

to disengage from school, as they begin to 

see school as a hostile “prison-like” environment.54 Recent guidance from the US Departments of Justice and Education stresses 

that, in cases where law enforcement officers 

are placed in schools, it is important that (a) 

their role be strictly defined as pertaining to 

law enforcement, rather than day-to-day discipline, (b) they be trained as thoroughly in 

conflict resolution and child development as 

all other staff, and (c) they abide by written 

memorandums of understanding (MOUs) 

between the school and law enforcement.55

Communicate Trust and Respect Throughout the School. The data have consistently 

shown that positive climate and proactive 

prevention are more effective in promoting 

safe and productive schools. Not only does a 

positive and welcoming greeting at the front 

door of the school feel very different than a 

security officer checking bags for weapons, 

but research has shown that schools that 

build positive relationships among students, 

teachers, and administrators are actually 

judged as safer than those that rely heavily 

on security technology.56 Many schools systematically aim to convey a general sense of 

adult support and fair and consistent application of rules. These schools tend to issue fewer suspensions across racial groups and foster 

a sense of safety and higher achievement.57

How can schools pursue bias-free discipline 

and respectful interactions with youth? 

Educators can create opportunities for staff to 

critically reflect on how stereotyping and implicit bias can affect students in their schools:

• Through analysis of school discipline 

data, educators can identify whether 

students of varying races or other social 

groups routinely receive different sanctions for similar rule infractions. 

• Educators can review typical disciplinary responses and ask tough questions about when and whether those 

responses are outsized, truly necessary, 

or effective, and whether they are applied equally to all students. They can 

use school discipline data to launch 

discussions on how educators’ reactions 

to students from various race, gender, 

disability, and sexual identity groups 

might be contributing to discipline 

disparities.58

• Educators can examine key discretionary decision points in discipline and, 

utilize a multi-step check and balance 

or screening procedure before issuing 

discipline referrals for more subjective 

offenses, such as “insubordination” or 

“defiance.” 

• Educators can learn about the structural 

nature and historical context of racism, 

in part to understand that racism is a 

historic creation rather than a personal flaw; they then can consider how 

implicit bias affects decision-making.59

School staff might take the Implicit 

Association Tests (IAT) and discuss the 

results.

Principles of Intervention

Some conflict in schools is inevitable. However, it is possible for schools to handle conflict in equitable ways—with clear, fair, and 

consistent enforcement of rules, a focus on 

helping both students and educators to learn 

skills in constructive resolution of conflict, 

and through re-engagement and reparation 

of trust and community for all those involved 

in disputes. When discipline problems arise, 

schools can engage in equity-driven approaches:

•	 Inquiry into the Causes of Conflicts.

Use regular equity-focused inquiry 

to target “hot spots” of disciplinary 

conflict or of differential treatment 

for particular groups, and to identify 

remedies. 

•	 Problem-Solving Approaches to Discipline. When discipline issues arise, 

aim to uncover what fuels the behavior 

or student-teacher conflict, and address 

the identified needs.

•	 Recognition of Student and Family 

Voice. Explicitly integrate student and 

family voice in resolving conflict, 

especially the perspectives of youth and 

their caregivers.

•	 Re-integration after Conflict. Systematically bring students back into a 

community of learners after conflict has 

occurred.

Regular Inquiry into the Causes 

of Conflicts 

What does equity-driven inquiry have to do 

with racial and gender disparities in school 

discipline?

All too often, schools simply examine their 

discipline records in the aggregate. They 

declare success when suspension rates go 

down. Obscured within the patterns of the 

whole school may be glaring disparities by 

subgroup. In fact, the promise of some widespread interventions such as School-Wide 

Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) has been tempered by new research showing the program may reduce the 

overall use of punitive discipline without 

reducing racial disparities.60 Without equitydriven inquiry, schools may celebrate one-dimensional successes and overlook the fact that 

disparities remain entrenched. Also, without 

ongoing review of school data—including review of which specific infractions by whom 

are receiving which consequences—schools 

could replace one problem (e.g., overreliance 

on suspension) with another (e.g., letting students wander the hallways for long periods).

School discipline data can be used to help understand why and how discipline policies impact some student groups more than others. 

For instance, one middle school principal presented data on dress code violations and revealed to her staff that they were not enforcing 

rules against short skirts to the same degree 

they were against baggy pants, more typically 

worn by many of the male students of color.61

Communities and families also need access 

to information. Families, advocates, and students in Los Angeles took action when they 

identified the sheer number of students of 

color being disciplined under the subjective 

category, “Willful Defiance.” Through their 

organizing efforts to question why so many 

students of color were being deemed “defiant,” they changed school discipline policy 

for the whole district; their work helped to 

pass the School Climate Bill of Rights, which 

includes the abolition of the category “Willful Defiance” on the grounds that it is dangerously vague.62 This now also motivates 

schools to consider methods to more effectively handle low-level conflict in the schools 

rather than lumping all negative interactions 

into the punishable “defiance” category. 

Data can take many forms. Many schools 

are systematically collecting school climate 

surveys to understand student experiences 

of fairness, support, and school discipline. 

By disaggregating survey data by subgroups, 

schools ensure that the focus on equity also 

remains central. Disaggregated survey data 

can help answer questions such as, “Are certain groups particularly vulnerable to feeling 

unsupported and treated unfairly in schools?”; 

“How does school discipline affect students 

who are members of multiple groups (Black/

Latino girls; ethnic minority students with 

a disability)?”; “How do students experience law enforcement and security measures 

such as metal detectors and surveillance?”; 

and “How do students who have had criminal justice involvement experience school?”

 6 Interventions for Reducing Disparities Briefing Paper
consider which consequences for the 

specific “offense” are actually merited 

with exclusion from instruction being 

used as a last resort.

Educators can also create groups of youth 

participatory researchers who can analyze 

the disparities data, offer interpretations, and 

generate interventions with and for educators 

(see www.publicscienceproject.org). Groups 

including students have been shown to:

• Systematically include questions 

about gender identity, sexual identity, 

and gender non-conformity in school 

surveys. Note, however, that safeguarding student confidentiality in disclosing 

personal information is essential given 

the potential harm that can come from 

adult and peer misuse of such data. 

Educators can also identify and showcase 

what is working to reduce discipline interactions in their school:

• Shine a spotlight on positive examples 

of what is working in the school. 

Frequently share the positive examples 

with parents, students, and school staff. 

Using Problem-Solving 

Approaches to Discipline

What does problem-solving have to do with 

racial and gender disparities in school 

discipline?

In contrast to a punitive, zero-tolerance approach to conflict, a problem-solving approach aims to identify contextual contributions to school discipline issues so that 

responses to conflict are sufficiently nuanced. 

A multi-faceted understanding of rule-breaking would incorporate multiple perspectives 

(disputants, supporters) and multiple sources 

of information.69 A problem-solving approach helps people understand the greater 

context around any behavior or response, by 

inquiring in depth into the “why” of a student’s behavior or teacher’s response and 

eliciting relevant information (e.g., a student 

is angry or stressed because he is up at night 

caring for a younger sibling, a teacher is angry because she is in the midst of a divorce).70

A problem-solving approach can also include 

an “environmental scan” of the student’s life 

including his or her experience of school 

safety, group membership, academic learning, sense of belonging, and adult support.71

Many schools do not engage in such systematic problem-solving when it comes to handling struggling students. Struggling students 

may have little adult support—they may feel 

Equity-driven inquiry goes beyond simple 

disaggregation of data by student subgroup. 

It is a mindset that shows determination to 

deeply understand the experience of historically marginalized groups in the school 

and beyond its walls. Actively engaging 

youth in the inquiry process itself can help 

reveal hidden or overlooked needs of subgroups of students.63 School districts are 

beginning to unearth such needs by collecting student data on, for instance, the 

experience of LGBT students.64 Once vulnerable groups are identified, schools may 

need group-specific programming, such as 

ongoing discussion and training of culturally 

responsive practice, or an anti-bias LGBT 

training for school staff.65 Supportive groups 

such as Gay-Straight Alliances can also reduce anti-LGBT stigma in a school setting, 

improving the experience for students.66

How can schools conduct equity-driven 

inquiry to intervene in discipline patterns 

involving youth? 

To intervene in existing discipline patterns as well as to prevent unnecessary discipline, educators can review discipline 

data regularly to conduct equity audits: 

• At the school and district level, 

educators can track and disaggregate 

discipline data by offense type, teacher/

school, location of offense, referral to 

law enforcement, and whether students 

receive a school-based ticket or arrest. 

Unnecessary referrals to law enforcement are a major contributor to the 

“school-to-prison pipeline,” the literal 

tracking of students (even if unintentionally) into the justice system.67

• Analyze discipline data intersectionally (meaning, consider students who 

belong to multiple subgroups simultaneously) to identify how school 

discipline is impacting subpopulations 

(for instance, research suggests gender 

non-conforming students of color are 

particularly over-disciplined, often after 

bullying).68

• As with preventative analysis, educators can investigate important discretionary points in the discipline process 

to figure how best to intervene. For 

instance, they can closely examine the 

specific reasons why students are being 

referred for “defiance,” “disrespect,” or 

“insubordination.” Then, educators can 

refine these more subjective categories 

by describing more specific behaviors 

regarding the nature of the offense 

(e.g., used inflammatory language 

toward adult). Then, educators can 

unfairly treated and react adversely when 

they feel educators single them out. Often, 

seemingly small disciplinary incidents pile 

up without sufficient response. Many students then find themselves ensnared with 

police and the courts—parts of the justice 

system which are increasingly linked to everyday disciplinary procedures in schools. 

Small discipline decisions can have longterm, multiplicative effects over time.72 There 

are collateral consequences of tickets, violations, and misdemeanor convictions. Many 

school-based tickets and arrests, in some cases a majority, occur as a result of relatively 

minor, non-safety threatening behavior such 

as property damage and student fighting, and 

status offenses such as possessing a marker, 

tobacco or a lighter, alcohol, or marijuana.73 

Further, referrals to the justice system are 

expensive, and they set up an ongoing legalized, adversarial process with perpetrator 

and victim that rarely changes the types of 

problem behaviors students exhibit in school.

How can schools use problem-solving approaches to respond to conflict and support

youth? 

Educators can learn problem-solving approaches to conflict:

• A problem-solving response includes 

the following: a) Inquiry into the “why” 

of the behavior or incident, b) Inquiry 

into family or situational issues that 

may be aggravating behavior, c) Provision of a period of reflection for student 

and school staff member, d) Facilitation 

of a restoration process that allows for 

student voicing of their experience (including disputants and those affected in 

the school community), e) Provision of 

appropriate services for those students 

suffering from traumatic events or other 

more serious mental health issues.

• One problem-solving program is the 

Virginia Threat Assessment Guidelines, which moves schools away from 

applying a fixed rule, regardless of 

circumstances. Staff are instead trained 

to conduct a systematic investigation 

into the circumstances and underlying 

problems that culminate in a student 

making threats. Research has shown 

schools using threat assessment issued 

fewer suspensions to both Black and 

White students who had issued threats, 

and have more favorable school environments (e.g., less bullying).74

• Restorative justice and restorative practice programs train staff to engage in a 

structured process of problem-solving 

to identify contributors to conflict and 

Interventions for Reducing Disparities Briefing Paper 7
 8 Interventions for Reducing Disparities Briefing Paper

harm, and to support participants to 

voice, explain, and (if appropriate) 

make amends for their actions.75

• Higher education credentialing programs for educators (e.g., for teachers, 

administrators, school counselors) can 

systematically integrate conflict resolution and problem-solving approaches 

to student behavior into their required 

courses. Pre-service training opportunities in classrooms and schools could 

also include supervised opportunities 

to implement these approaches with 

students. 

Through problem-solving, educators can identify needs for vulnerable groups in the school:

• A thorough understanding of the 

common underlying reasons driving 

behavior can lead to comprehensive 

and effective interventions to change 

behavior. Some rule-breaking behavior 

may be a consequence of traumatic 

experiences, for example. Schools 

that identify such needs can provide 

services to address the consequences of 

trauma. For example, if LGBT students 

feel unsafe and are skipping school 

(and receiving truancy suspensions), 

the school might provide targeted 

mentorship.76 Other programming 

may reach vulnerable groups through 

a strength-based, culturally affirming 

approach to their development.77

Through problem-solving, the school might 

identify school-wide student and staff needs 

in social and emotional learning: 

• Students can learn to effectively navigate the social and emotional demands 

of school. This requires skills in selfawareness, self-management, social 

awareness, relationship skills, and 

responsible decision-making.78 Students 

with these abilities more effectively 

manage conflict with adults and peers. 

In addition, programs might support 

students to acquire and incorporate 

skills needed to navigate bicultural 

contexts and implicit rules of power.79

Students might also be taught to engage 

in effective self-advocacy.80

• Programs might include a focus on the 

social, emotional, and cultural literacy 

skills and needs of school staff.81 Given 

the frequent stressors in daily school 

life, school staff may need support to 

manage emotions (their own and that 

of the students), to address cultural differences, and to constructively resolve 

conflict.82

Recognizing Student and Family 

Voice 

What does recognizing student and family 

voice have to do with racial and gender 

disparities in school discipline?

Seldom are students given an authentic opportunity to participate in “righting wrongs.” 

Typically, students and staff who are affected 

by a rule infraction do not have a forum to 

discuss their experience of the events. The 

offended parties rarely have the opportunity to face the person who harmed them.83

By formally integrating into procedures a 

habit of tapping into both student and staff 

experience after a rule infraction, all parties involved can learn essential social and 

emotional skills, such as perspective-taking, 

empathy, and problem-solving—skills which 

are also essential for life-long success in 

work settings.84 Further, when students feel 

they are granted appropriate autonomy, they 

tend to be more engaged and invested.85

Whose voices are heard after a conflict has 

occurred is a matter of equity. The families 

and students with the most influence are typically the ones who are heard in the administrator’s office—not only heard, but attended 

to in a manner that can soften the blow of 

a disciplinary consequence. Thus, schools 

need to mindfully bring in the voices of students and families who have less influence on 

policies and practices in the school setting. 

How do schools integrate student and family 

voice into school discipline?

Educators can explicitly integrate student and parent voice in resolving conflict:

• Conflict resolution programs and 

restorative justice programs systematically integrate student and family voice 

after an incident has occurred. Student 

accountability is achieved when students and all parties involved take responsibility for their actions, recognize 

the impact of their actions on others, 

and offer ways to repair the harm.86

By implementing conflict resolution 

or restorative justice programming, 

schools stay attuned to whether the 

programming systematically includes 

the voices of marginalized students and 

their families.87

Educators can establish forums with community organizing groups and families:

• Across the nation, community organizing, such as the work of Padres y 

Jovenes Unidos in Denver or CADRE 

in Los Angeles, has helped place the 

discipline experiences of families and 

students “at the table.”88 Schools can 

proactively reach out to such groups 

in their own communities to better 

understand the needs and concerns of 

students who are issued discipline sanctions at disproportionate rates. 

• Youth organizing has been documented 

as a powerful approach to youth development and community change. Young 

people learn how to identify problems 

in their campuses or communities and 

determine solutions to address them—

becoming critical thinkers and developing their own voice in the process. 

At the core of many of the important 

reforms on school discipline across the 

nation are youth- and parent-led movements. Many such activists partner 

directly with educators. Educators and 

schools can reach out to such organizations for youth organizing trainings or 

to host a chapter/student club on their 

campus.89

• Student-led movements are present 

throughout the nation and lead major 

changes in some of the worst documented school-to-prison-pipeline areas, 

including, for example, in Broward 

County, Florida, and throughout the 

state of Texas. Sometimes, such organizing simply removes the option of 

law enforcement tickets or arrests for 

behaviors that can be handled within 

the schools.90

Reintegrating Students after 

Conflict

What does reintegration of students after 

conflict and absences have to do with racial

and gender disparities in school discipline?

After receiving a punitive disciplinary action, students can become increasingly alienated from the school community. Schools 

often do not systematically help students 

re-integrate into courses and re-establish 

positive relationships with school staff and 

peers. For instance, students re-entering 

school from a 10-day suspension or from 

juvenile detention can be placed back into 

school with little guidance on how to reconnect. Students need to be re-engaged in 

the process of learning and in the school 

community after an incident has occurred.

For example, imagine a student being initially suspended for slapping another student. 

Upon return, the student can be stigmatized 

by the suspending instructor or other adults 
at the school. The young person, on his or 

her own, is left to figure out how to repair 

the harm. Feeling shamed and alienated, the 

young person may cope by lashing out at 

others.91 Many young people need support 

to develop the social and emotional skills 

necessary for renegotiating a new social contract with all those affected by the incident. 

Similarly, the burden to make up instructional 

time often falls on the returning student. For 

example, students are often the ones expected 

to compile days and days of make-up homework, which is essential for keeping up with 

coursework. If the young person is engaged 

with the justice system while on probation or 

is facing current charges because of school 

behavior, the problem of school absence and 

its effects is exacerbated. In most jurisdictions, young people are not entitled to bail; 

therefore, if school resource officers refer 

them to juvenile court, they are most likely 

to be detained between 23 to 40 days. Regaining lost instructional time is particularly 

difficult in this circumstance because young 

people become overwhelmed negotiating 

two systems. With lost instructional time 

accruing, students can fall seemingly irrevocably behind in their academics. This is one 

way racial and gender gaps in school discipline fuel the gaps in school achievement.92

How do schools reintegrate students? 

Schools need to develop reintegration rituals 

and connect support services to students, both 

after short absences and after long-term absences due to suspension or juvenile detention:

• One approach is to have a “transition 

center” that involves collaboration 

between the probation departments, 

mental health/child welfare services, 

and school districts.93 Such collaboration offers wraparound support services 

to young people exiting juvenile hall. 

For example, a transition manager 

from the school district may enroll a 

re-entering youth in his or her former 

school or another appropriate educational setting. Community-based organizations provide case management and 

advocacy for the young person at the 

school. Case managers can also provide 

critical referrals to other community 

support services, family support, and 

after-school employment programs. 

Additionally, the case manager works 

with the probation officer to support 

positive behaviors in the community. 

As in this example, it is important 

for professionals to assist youth and 

parents by helping the youth justice 

and educational systems work together 

in an efficient manner, using a positive 

youth development framework. 

• Schools can link with youth advocate 

and mentoring programs that provide 

support for youth as they re-enter communities after they have been detained 

in the justice system. Well-trained 

and matched mentors can help youth 

navigate the stressors and demands 

that occur for youth who have missed 

instruction from their local schools for 

extended periods of time.94

Conclusion

Districts and schools across the nation are 

engaging in long-term change to transform 

their approaches to school discipline. Equityoriented principles and examples of conflict 

prevention and intervention can help guide 

the change. Schools that prevent punitive 

discipline responses increase children and 

adolescents’ access to supportive relationships, academic rigor, and culturally relevant 

and responsive teaching. They teach students 

and educators social and emotional skills and 

coping strategies, and they improve relationships between educators, students, and parents. When conflict and rule-breaking arise, 

effective schools intervene by engaging in 

problem-solving to identify underlying contributors to the problem, while integrating 

student and family perspectives on how to 

repair the harm. When students are excluded 

from school, schools systematically reintegrate them back into the community and back 

into their coursework. Schools enacting equity-oriented principles also regularly use data, 

such as school disciplinary records and student surveys, to track their progress in resolving conflict and educating young people rather 

than ejecting or punishing them excessively. 

Reducing unnecessary or unequal discipline 

requires transforming instruction and school 

practice overall to promote all students’ 

academic, social-emotional, and behavioral 

development. It requires educators rethinking how staff members interact with youth 

and how youth treat each other. It requires 

new interactions between schools and other 

agencies, including juvenile justice—interactions focused on supporting youth development rather than punishing students primarily through exclusion. All constituencies, 

including school staff, students, parents, 

community-based organizations, police, and 

juvenile justice, need to meaningfully engage 

in such changes, creating sustainable routines and embedded practices that have staying power as school personnel come and go. 

The prospect of undertaking an equity-oriented transformation in school discipline may 

seem daunting. But, efforts across the nation 

are already underway. States are considering new legislation to reduce the overuse 

of school suspension for non-safety related 

student misbehavior.95 Districts are rewriting 

student codes of conduct to undo numerous 

zero tolerance policies that mandate rigid, 

exclusionary responses to student behavior.96

Urban districts are implementing restorative 

approaches to school discipline and thereby 

reducing their use of suspension.97 A recent 

national report highlighted over 7,500 secondary schools without gaps in suspension 

across racial groups, English learners, and 

students with disabilities.98 Parents, students, 

and advocates are joining together to support 

the positive development of youth.99 These national efforts reflect the growing recognition 

that educators can disrupt discipline disparities, which for too long have been seen as inevitable and unchangeable, and replace them 

with strategies and programs that build a safe 

and healthy school climate for all students.

Interventions for Reducing Disparities Briefing Paper 9
Endnotes

1. Kirk, D. S., & Sampson, R. L. (2013). 

Juvenile arrest and collateral educational 

damage in the transition to adulthood. Sociology of Education, 86(1), 36-62; Sweeten, 

D. (2006). Who will graduate? Disruption 

of high school education by arrest and 

court involvement. Justice Quarterly, 462, 

473-477.

2. Balfanz, R., Byrnes, V., & Fox, J. (in press). 

Sent home and put off-track: The antecedents, disproportionalities, and consequences 

of being suspended in the ninth grade. In 

D. J. Losen (Ed.), Closing the school discipline gap: Research for policymakers. New 

York: Teachers College Press.

3. Skiba, R. J., Peterson, R. L., & Williams, 

T. (1997). Office referrals and suspension: 

Disciplinary intervention in middle schools. 

Education & Treatment of Children, 20(3), 

295-316; 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. 

4. Blake, J. J., Butler, B. R., Lewis, C. W., 

& Darensbourg, A. (2011). Unmasking 

the inequitable discipline experiences of 

urban Black girls: Implications for urban 

educational stakeholders. The Urban Review, 43(1), 90-106; Skiba, R. J., Michael, 

R. S., Nardo, A. C., & Peterson, R. (2002). 

The color of discipline: Sources of racial 

and gender disproportionality in school 

punishment. The Urban Review, 34, 317-

342; Raffaele Mendez, L. M., & Knoff, 

H. M. (2003). 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, 30-51; Gregory, A., 

& Weinstein, R. S. (2008). The discipline 

gap and African Americans: Defiance or 

cooperation in the high school classroom. 

Journal of School Psychology, 46(4), 455-

475.

5. U.S. Department of Education and U.S. 

Department of Justice. (January 8, 2014). 

Dear colleague letter on the nondiscriminatory administration of school discipline.

Retrieved from www.ed.gov/schooldiscipline 

6. Losen, D. J. (2011). Discipline policies, 

successful schools, and racial justice. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. 

Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/

publication/discipline-policies

7. Gregory, A., Skiba, R. J., & Noguera, P. 

A. (2010). The achievement gap and the 

discipline gap: Two sides of the same coin? 

Educational Researcher, 39, 59-68. 

8. Fabelo, T., Thompson, M. D., Plotkin, M., 

Carmichael, D., Marchbanks, M. P., III, 

& Booth, E. A. (2011). Breaking schools’ 

rules: A statewide study of how school 

discipline relates to students’ success and 

juvenile justice involvement. Washington, 

DC: Council of State Governments and 

College Station, TX: Texas A&M University.. Retrieved from http://justicecenter.

csg.org/resources/juveniles

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

(2011). Criminal-justice and school sanctions against nonheterosexual youth: A 

national longitudinal study. Pediatrics, 

127(1), 49-57; Toldson, I. A., McGee, T., 

& Lemmons, B. P. (in press). Reducing 

suspensions by improving academic engagement among school-age Black males. 

In D. J. Losen (Ed.), Closing the school 

discipline gap: Research for policymakers.

New York: Teachers College Press. 

10. Vincent, C. G., Sprague, J. R., & Gau, J. 

(in press). The effectiveness of school-wide 

positive behavior support for reducing racially inequitable disciplinary exclusions in 

middle schools. In D. J. Losen (Ed.), Closing the school discipline gap: Research for 

policymakers. New York: Teachers College 

Press; Vincent, C. G., & Tobin, T. J. (2011). 

An examination of the relationship between 

implementation of school-wide positive behavior support (SWPBS) and exclusion of 

students from various ethnic backgrounds 

with and without disabilities. Journal of 

Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 19, 

217-232.

11. Community Rights Campaign, The Labor/

Community Strategy Center. (2013). Black, 

brown and over-policed in L.A. schools. 

Structural proposals to end the school-toprison-pipeline in the Los Angeles Unified 

School District and to build a national 

movement to stop the mass incarceration 

of Black and Latino communities. Los Angeles: Author. Retrieved from http://www.

thestrategycenter.org/blog/2013/10/30/

black-brown-and-over-policed-la-schoolsreport

12. Osher, D., Coggshall, J., Colombi, G., 

Woodruff, D., Francois, S., & Osher, 

T. (2012). Building school and teacher 

capacity to eliminate the school-to-prison 

pipeline. Teacher Education and Special 

Education: The Journal of the Teacher 

Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 35(4), 284-295.

13. Gregory, A., Cornell, D., & Fan, X. (2011). 

The relationship of school structure and 

support to suspension rates for Black and 

White high school students. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 904-934.

14. Wald, J., & Kurlaender, M. (2003). Connected in Seattle? An exploratory study of 

student perceptions of discipline and attachments to teachers. New Directions for Youth 

Development, 2003(99), 35-54. 

15. Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Bartkiewicz, 

M. J., Boesen, M. J., & Palmer, N. A. 

(2012). The 2011 National School Climate 

Survey. The experiences of lesbian, gay,

bisexual and transgender youth in our 

nation’s schools. New York: Gay, Lesbian, 

and Straight Education Network (GLSEN).

16. Sue, D. W. (2010). Microaggressions in 

everyday life: Race, gender, and sexual orientation. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 

Inc.; Sue, D. W., Lin, A. I., Torino, G. C., 

Capodilupo, C. M., & Rivera, D. P. (2009). 

Racial microaggressions and difficult dialogues on race in the classroom. Cultural 

Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 

15, 183-190. 

17. Gregory, A., & Ripski, M. (2008). Adolescent trust in teachers: Implications for behavior in the high school classroom. School 

Psychology Review, 37, 337-353. 

18. Nieto, S. (2008). Affirming diversity: The

sociopolitical context of multicultural education (5th ed.). New York: Allyn & Bacon 

Publishers. 

19. See the Oneville project and eportfolios at 

http://wiki.oneville.org/main/The_OneVille_Project and http://wiki.oneville.org/

main/Eportfolio

20. Tobin, T. J., & Vincent, C. G. (2011). 

Strategies for preventing disproportionate 

exclusions of African American students. 

Preventing School Failure: Alternative 

Education for Children and Youth, 55(4), 

192-201.

21.Cohen, G. (2008). Providing supportive 

feedback. In M. Pollock, Everyday antiracism: Getting real about race (pp. 82-85). 

New York: The New Press.

22. Gregory, A., Allen, J. P., Mikami, A. Y., 

Hafen, C. A., & Pianta, R. C. (in press). 

The promise of a teacher professional 

development program in reducing the 

racial disparity in classroom exclusionary 

discipline. In D. J. Losen (Ed.), Closing the 

school discipline gap: Research for policymakers. New York: Teachers College Press; 

see www.mtpsecondary.net

23.Costello, B. Wachtel, J., & Wachtel, T. 

(2010). Restorative circles in schools: 

Building community and enhancing 

learning. A practical guide for educators.

Bethlehem, PA: International Institute for 

Restorative Practices (IIRP).

24. Gregory, A., Clawson, K., Davis, A., & 

Gerewitz, J. (forthcoming). The promise of 

restorative practices to transform teacherstudent relationships and achieve equity 

in school discipline. For a special issue 

on Restorative Justice in the Journal of 

Educational and Psychological Consultation; Lewis, S. (2009). Improving school 

climate: Findings from schools implementing restorative practices. Bethlehem, PA: 

 10 Interventions for Reducing Disparities Briefing Paper
Interventions for Reducing Disparities Briefing Paper 11

International Institute of Restorative Practices. Retrieved from http://www.iirp.edu/

pdf/IIRP-Improving-School-Climate.pdf

25. Monroe, C. R., & Obidah, J. E. (2004). The 

influence of cultural synchronization on a 

teacher’s perceptions of disruption: A case 

study of an African American middleschool classroom. Journal of Teacher 

Education, 55(3), 256-268. 

26. Singleton, G. E., & Linton, C. (2006). 

Courageous conversations about race: A 

field guide for achieving equity in schools.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

27. Gregory, Clawson,, Davis, & Gerewitz. 

(forthcoming); Doyle, W. (2006). Ecological approaches to classroom management. 

In C. M. Evertson & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), 

Handbook of classroom management (pp. 

97-125). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum 

Associates. 

28.Ross, T., Kena, G., Rathbun, A., KewalRamani, A., Zhang, J., Kristapovich, P., 

& Manning, E. (2012). Higher education: 

Gaps in access and persistence study.

(NCES 2012-046). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, U.S. Department 

of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 

29. Noguera, P., & Wing, L. (Eds.). Unfinished

business: Closing the racial achievement 

gap in our schools (pp. 121-150). San 

Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

30. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, 

A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential 

of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59-109. 

31. Weinstein, R. S. (2002). Reaching higher: 

The power of expectations in schooling.

Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

32. Howard, T. C. (2008). Who really cares? 

The disenfranchisement of African American males in pre K-12 schools: A critical 

race theory perspective. Teachers College 

Record, 110(5), 954-985.

33. Kuklinski, M., & Weinstein, R. S. (2001). 

Classroom and developmental differences 

in a path model of teacher expectancy effects. Child Development, 72, 1554-1578.

34. Weinstein. (2002). 

35. For an example, see the Preuss School, 

http://preuss.ucsd.edu/about-preuss/modelfor-success.html

36. Mehan, H. (2012). In the front door: Creating a college-bound culture of learning.

Herndon, VA: Paradigm Publishers.

37. Gregory, Clawson, Davis, & Gerewitz. 

(forthcoming); Pianta, R. C., & Hamre, B. 

K. (2009). Classroom processes and positive youth development: Conceptualizing, 

measuring, and improving the capacity of 

interactions between teachers and students. 

New Directions for Youth Development, 

2009(121), 33-46; Reinke, W. M., Herman, 

K. C., Darney, D., Pitchford, J., Becker, 

K., Domitrovich, C., & Ialongo, N. (2012). 

Using the classroom check-up to support 

implementation of PATHS to PAX. Advances in School Mental Health Promotion, 

5, 220-232.

38.Boykin, A. W., Tyler, K. M., & Miller, 

O. (2005). In search of cultural themes 

and their expressions in the dynamics 

of classroom life. Urban Education, 40, 

521-549; Irvine, J. J. (2002). In search of 

wholeness: African American teachers 

and their culturally competent classroom 

practices. New York: Palgrave; Jenkins, M. 

(2006). Gullah Island dispute resolution an 

example of Afrocentric restorative justice. 

Journal of Black Studies, 37(2), 299-319; 

Townsend, B. L. (2000). The disproportionate discipline of African American learners: 

Suspensions and expulsions. Exceptional 

Children, 66, 381-391; Gay, G. (2006). 

Connections between classroom management and culturally responsive teaching. In 

C. M. Evertson & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), 

Handbook of classroom management (pp. 

343-372). Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.

39.Cammarota, J. (2007). A social justice approach to achievement: Guiding Latina/o 

students toward educational attainment 

with a challenging, socially relevant curriculum. Equity & Excellence in Education, 40, 87-96; GLSEN. (2011). Teaching 

respect: LGBT-inclusive curriculum and 

school climate (Research Brief). New York: 

Author; Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., 

Diaz, E. M., & Bartkiewicz, M. J. (2010). 

The 2009 national school climate survey: 

The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, 

and transgender youth in our nation. New 

York: Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education 

Network (GLSEN); Ladson-Billings, G. 

(1995). But that’s just good teaching! The 

case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34, 159-165; Moll, L. C. 

(2010). Mobilizing culture, language, and 

educational practices: Fulfilling the promises of Mendez and Brown. Educational 

Researcher, 39, 451-460; Nieto, S. (2000). 

Placing equity front and center: Some 

thoughts on transforming teacher education for a new century. Journal of Teacher 

Education, 51, 180-187; O’Shaughnessy, 

M., Russell, S. T., Heck, K., Calhoun, C., 

& Laub, C. (2004). Safe place to learn: 

Consequences of harassment based on 

actual or perceived sexual orientation and 

gender non-conformity and steps for making schools safer. San Francisco: California 

Safe Schools Coalition; Russell, S. T., 

McGuire, J. K., Laub, C., & Manke, E. 

(2006). LGBT student safety: Steps schools 

can take. (California Safe Schools Coalition 

Research Brief No. 3). San Francisco: California Safe Schools Coalition; Sleeter, C. E. 

(2011). The academic and social value of 

ethnic studies. A research review. Washington, DC: National Education Association. 

Retrieved from http://hin.nea.org/assets/

docs/NBI-2010-3-value-of-ethnic-studies.

pdf; Sleeter, C. E. (2012). Confronting the 

marginalization of culturally responsive 

pedagogy. Urban Education, 47, 562-584. 

40.Russell et al., 2006; Sleeter, 2012; Szalacha, L. A. (2003). Safer sexual diversity climates: Lessons learned from an evaluation 

of Massachusetts safe schools program for 

gay and lesbian students. American Journal 

of Education, 110, 58-88; Toomey, R. B., & 

Russell, S. T. (2011). Gay-straight alliances, 

social justice involvement, and school 

victimization of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and 

queer youth: Implications for school wellbeing and plans to vote. Youth & Society, 

20, 1-23. 

41. Sleeter, 2011.

42.Burdge, H., Sinclair, K., Laub, C., & 

Russell, S. T. (2012). Lessons that matter: 

LGBTQ inclusivity and school safety. (GayStraight Alliance Network and California 

Safe Schools Coalition Research Brief No. 

14). San Francisco, CA: Gay-Straight Alliance Network; Burdge, H., Snapp, S., Laub, 

C., Russell, S.T., & Moody, R. (2013). 

Implementing lessons that matter: The 

impact of LGBTQ-inclusive curriculum on 

student safety, well-being, and achievement.

San Francisco, CA: Gay-Straight Alliance 

Network, and Tucson, AZ: Frances McClelland Institute for Children, Youth, and 

Families at the University of Arizona. 

43. Sharma, S. (2008). Teaching representations of cultural differences through film. 

In M. Pollock (Ed.), Everyday antiracism: 

Getting real about race in school (pp. 186-

190). New York: The New Press.

44. Schultz. K. (2008). Interrogating students’ 

silences. In M. Pollock (Ed.), Everyday antiracism: Getting real about race in school 

(pp. 217-221). New York: The New Press. 

45. Singleton & Linton. (2006). 

46. Kang, K., & Banaji, M. R. (2006). Fair 

measures: A behavioral realist revision of 

affirmative action. 94 Cal. L. Rev. 1063 

(2006). Available at: http://scholarship.law.

berkeley.edu/californialawreview/vol94/

iss4/4

47. Hershfeldt, P. A., Pell, K., Sechrest, R., Pas, 

E. T., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2012). Lessons 

learned coaching teachers in behavior management: The PBISplus coaching model. 

Journal of Psychological and Educational 

Consultation, 22, 280-299. 

48. Weinstein, C. S., Tomlinson-Clarke, S., & 

Curran, M. (2004). Toward a conception of 

culturally responsive classroom management. Journal of Teacher Education, 55, 

25-38.

49.Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2013). 
The blindspot. New York: Random House; 

Eberhardt, J. L., Goff, P. A., Purdie, V. J., & 

Davies, P. G. (2004). Seeing black: Race, 

crime, and visual processing. Journal of 

Personality and Social Psychology, 87(6), 

876-893; Graham, S., & Lowery, B. S. 

(2004). Priming unconscious racial stereotypes about adolescent offenders. Law and 

Human Behavior, 28(5), 483-504; Pollock, 

M. (2013). Fear and rewriting Trayvon: 

Educator thoughts. Teaching Tolerance: A 

Project of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved from http://www.tolerance.

org/blog/fear-and-rewriting-trayvon-educator-thoughts?elq=48f177ecce5c4ad2785aa3

428c0f693c7&elqCampaignId=100

50. Graham & Lowery. (2004). 

51. Pollock, M. (2013). 

52. Sue. (2010). 

53. Aronson, J. (2008). Getting to know students as individuals. In M. Pollock (Ed.), 

Everyday antiracism: Getting real about 

race in school (pp. 67-69). New York: The 

New Press.

54. Finn, J. D., & Servoss, T. J. (in press). 

Misbehavior, suspensions, and security 

measures in high school: Racial/ethnic and 

gender differences. In D. J. Losen (Ed.), 

Closing the school discipline gap: Research 

for policymakers. New York: Teachers College Press; Kupchik, A. (2010). Homeroom 

security: School discipline in the age of 

fear. New York: NYU Press; Kupchik, A., 

& Ellis, N. (2008). School discipline and 

security. Fair for all students? Youth and 

Society, 39, 549-574. 

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

Guiding principles: A resource guide for 

improving school climate and discipline.

Washington, DC: Author. Available at: 

www.ed.gov/school-discipline

56. Finn & Servoss. (in press). 

57. Gregory, Cornell, & Fan. (2011); Gregory, 

A., Cornell, D., Fan, X., Sheras, P. L, Shih, 

T., & Huang, F. (2010). Authoritative 

school discipline: High school practices 

associated with lower student bullying 

and victimization. Journal of Educational 

Psychology, 102, 483-496. 

58. Hershfeldt, P. A., Sechrest, R., Pell, K. L., 

Rosenberg, M. S., Bradshaw, C. P., & Leaf, 

P. J. (2010). Double-check: A framework 

of cultural responsiveness applied to 

classroom behavior. Teaching Exceptional 

Children Plus, 6(2), 1-18.

59. Greenwald, A. G., Poehlman, T. A., 

Uhlmann, E. L., & Banaji, M. R. (2009). 

Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive 

validity. Journal of Personality and Social 

Psychology, 97, 17-41.

60. Vincent, Sprague, & Gau. (in press). 

61. Morris, E. W. (2005). “Tuck in that shirt!” 

Race, class, gender, and discipline in an 

urban school. Sociological Perspectives, 

48(1), 25-48.

62. Watanabe, T. (2013, May 14). LA Unified 

bans suspension for willful defiance. Los 

Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://

articles.latimes.com/2013/may/14/local/

la-me-lausd-suspension-20130515. For a 

copy of the LAUSD School Climate Bill of 

Rights see http://www.publiccounsel.org/

tools/assets/files/2013-School-Climate-Billof-Rights-Policy-FINAL.pdf

63.Jones, M., & Yonezawa, S. (2002). Student 

voice, cultural change: Using inquiry in 

school reform. Equity and Excellence in 

Education, 35(3), 245-254.

64.Russell, S. T., Kosciw, J., Horn, S., & 

Saewyc, E. (2010). Safe schools policy 

for LGBTQ students: Social policy report. 

Society for Research in Child Development, 

24(4), 1-17. 

65. Payne, E. C., & Smith, M. (2011). The 

reduction of stigma in schools: A new professional development model for empowering educators to support LGBTQ youth. 

Journal of LGBT Youth, 8, 174-200.

66.Russell, Kosciw, Horn, & Saewyc. (2010). 

67. Krezmien, M. P., Leone, P. E., Zablocki, 

M. S., & Wells, C. S. (2010). Juvenile court 

referrals and the public schools: Nature and 

extent of the practice in five states. Journal 

of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 26(3), 

273-293; Nicholson-Crotty, S., Birchmeier, 

Z., & Valentine, D. (2009). Exploring 

the impact of school discipline on racial 

disproportion in the juvenile justice system. 

Social Science Quarterly, 90(4), 1003-

1018; Aull, E. H. (2012). Zero tolerance, 

frivolous juvenile court referrals, and the 

school-to-prison pipeline: Using arbitration 

as a screening-out method to help plug the 

pipeline. Ohio State Journal on Dispute 

Resolution, 27, 179-206.

68. Snapp, S., Munley, J., Fields, A., & Russell, 

S.T. (in preparation). Messy, butch, and 

queer: Narratives of the school-to-prison 

pipeline. Unpublished manuscript. University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.

69.Cornell, D., Sheras, P., Gregory, A., & Fan, 

X. (2009). A retrospective study of school 

safety conditions in high schools using the 

Virginia Threat Assessment Guidelines 

versus alternative approaches. School Psychology Quarterly, 24, 119-129.

70. Gregory, A., & Mosely, M. (2004). The 

discipline gap: Teachers’ views on the overrepresentation of African American students 

in the discipline system. Equity and Excellence in Education, 37, 18-30.

71. Hutch, T. F., & Pearson. T. G. (2005). Using 

environmental scans in educational needs 

assessment. Journal of continuing education in the health profession, 18, 179-184. 

72. Pollock, M. (2008). Because of race: How 

Americans debate harm and opportunity 

in our schools. New Jersey: Princeton 

University Press.

73. Dahlberg, R. L. (2012). Arrested futures: 

The criminalization of school discipline 

in Massachusetts’ three largest school 

districts. Boston, MA: Citizens for Juvenile 

Justice. Retrieved from http://www.cfjj.org/

arrestedfutures.php; Krezmien, Leone, Zablocki, & Wells. (2010); Nicholson-Crotty, 

Birchmeier, & Valentine. (2009). 

74.JustChildren & Cornell, D. (2013). Prevention v. punishment: Threat assessment,

school suspensions, and racial disparities.

Charlottesville, VA: Legal Aid Justice Center and University of Virginia Curry School 

of Education. Retrieved from https://www.

justice4all.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/

UVA-and-JustChildren-Report-Prevention-v.-Punishment.pdf; Cornell, Sheras, 

Gregory, & Fan. (2009).

75. González, T., & Cairns, B. (in press). Socializing schools: Addressing racial disparities in discipline through restorative justice. 

In D. J. Losen (Ed.), Closing the school 

discipline gap: Research for policymakers.

New York: Teachers College Press.

76. McAllister, C. A., Harold , R. D., Ahmedani, B. K., & Cramer, E. P. (2009). Targeted 

mentoring: An evaluation of a program. 

Journal of Social Work Education, 45, 

89-104

77. One such program in Oakland, California, 

engaged African American male ninth graders in a Manhood Development Program. 

Held during a class period, the program 

engaged students in learning more about 

themselves, their cultural and racial history, 

and their communities. Nashir, N. S., Ross, 

K. M., McKinney de Royston, M., Givens, 

J., & Bryant, J. N. (2013). Dirt on my 

record: Rethinking disciplinary practices 

in an all-Black, all-male alternative class. 

Harvard Educational Review, 83, 489-512.

78. See the Collaborative for Academic, Social, 

and Emotional Learning, http://casel.org/

why-it-matters/what-is-sel/

79. Delpit, L. D. (1988). The silenced dialogue: 

Power and pedagogy in educating other 

people’s children. Harvard Educational 

Review, 58, 280-298.

80. American Psychological Association, Task 

Force on Resilience and Strength in Black 

Children and Adolescents. (2008). Resilience in African American children and 

adolescents: A vision for optimal development. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved 

from http://www.apa.org/pi/cyf/resilience.

html 

81. Osher, Coggshall, Colombi, et al. (2012).

82. Osher, Coggshall, Colombi, et al. (2012).

 12 Interventions for Reducing Disparities Briefing Paper
83. Zehr, H., & Toews, B. (2004). Critical 

issues in restorative justice. Monsey, NY: 

Criminal Justice Press.

84.Cherniss, C. (2010). Emotional intelli-

gence: Toward clarification of a concept. 

Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3(2), 110-126; Ozcelik, H., Langton, N., & 

Aldrich, H. (2008). Doing well and doing 

good: The relationship between leadership 

practices that facilitate a positive emotional 

climate and organizational performance. 

Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(2), 

186-203; Kellett, J. B., Humphrey, R. H., & 

Sleeth, R. G. (2002). Empathy and complex 

task performance: Two routes to leadership. 

The Leadership Quarterly, 13(5), 523-544.

85. Hafen, C. A., Allen, J. P., Mikami, A. Y., 

Gregory, A., Hamre, B., & Pianta, R. C. 

(2012). The pivotal role of adolescent 

autonomy in secondary classrooms. Journal 

of Youth and Adolescence, 41, 245-255. 

86.Costello, Wachtel, & Wachtel. (2010). 

87. Payne, A. A., & Welch, K. (2013). Re-

storative justice in schools: The influence 

of race on restorative discipline. Youth & 

Society, 1-26.

88. González, T. (2011). Restoring justice: 

Community organizing to transform school 

discipline policies. UC Davis Journal of Ju-

venile Law & Policy, 15(1), 1-36. Retrieved 

from http://www.padresunidos.org/ and 

http://www.cadre-la.org 

89. Social Policy Research Associates. (2003). 

An annotated bibliography on youth orga-

nizing. Brooklyn, NY: Funders Collabora-

tive on Youth Organizing (FCYO); Rogers, 

J., & Terriquez, V. (2013). Learning to 

lead: The impact of youth organizing on the 

educational and civic trajectories of lowincome youth. Los Angeles, CA: Institute 

for Democracy, Education, and Access. 

90. Allen, G. (November 5, 2013). Fla. 

school district trying to curb schoolto-prison-pipeline. NPR. Retrieved 

from http://www.npr.org/blogs/

codeswitch/2013/11/05/243250817/

fla-school-district-trying-to-curb-schoolto-prison-pipeline; Serrano, J. (2013, 

August 29). School officers can no longer 

issue on-campus citations. Texas Tribune.

Retrieved from http://www.texastribune.

org/2013/08/29/class-disruption-caseshead-principals-office-not-/ 

91. Zehr, H., (2002). The little book of restorative justice. Intercourse, PA: Good Books.

92. Gregory, Skiba, & Noguera. (2010). 

93. Osher, D., Amos, L. B., & Gonsoulin, S. 

(2012). Successfully transitioning youth 

who are delinquent between institutions 

and alternative and community schools.

Washington, DC: American Institutes for 

Research. Retrieved from http://www.

neglected-delinquent.org/nd/docs/success-

fully_transitioning_youth.pdf

94.Re-entry mentoring programs are numer-

ous. For instance, see the Youth Empower-

ment Project, Community Reintegration 

Program (New Orleans, LA). Retrieved 

from http://www.youthempowermentpro-

ject.org/index.php?option=com_content&v

iew=article&id=26&Itemid=42; The Tribal 

Juvenile Detention and Reentry Resource 

and Technical Assistance Center, available 

at http://www.tribalreentry.org/

95. A California assembly member introduced 

Assembly Bill 420AB 420 in February 

2013. Retrieved from http://www.leginfo.

ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/asm/ab_0401-0450/

ab_420_bill_20130215_introduced.html

96. Green, E. (2013, September 2). Code of 

conduct allows principals to not suspend 

students for certain weapons. Balti-

more Sun. Retrieved from http://articles.

baltimoresun.com/2013-09-02/news/bsmd-ci-student-conduct-code-20130827_1_

school-principals-jimmy-gittings-schoolsupport-networks; Watanabe. (2013). 

97. Encarnacao, J. (2013, September 3). Sharp 

drop in suspensions as Boston schools try 

‘restorative’ approach. Boston Harold.com.

Retrieved from http://bostonherald.com/

news_opinion/local_coverage/2013/09/

sharp_drop_in_suspensions_as_bos-

ton_schools_try_restorative; Osher. D. 

M., Poirier, J. M., Jarjoura, G. R., Brown, 

R., & Kendziora, K., (in press). Avoid 

simple solutions and quick fixes: Lessons 

learned from a comprehensive districtwide 

approach to improving conditions for learn-

ing. In D. Losen (Ed.), Closing the school 

discipline gap: Research for policymakers.

New York: Teachers College Press.

98. Losen, D. J., & Martinez, T. E. (2013). Out 

of school and off track: The overuse of sus-

pensions in middle and high schools. Los 

Angeles, CA: University of California, The 

Center for Civil Rights Remedies. Available 

at: http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/

99. See http://www.dignityinschools.org/

Interventions for Reducing Disparities Briefing Paper 13
 14 Interventions for Reducing Disparities Briefing Paper

About the Authors

Anne Gregory, Ph.D. 

is an Associate Professor in the school psychology program at Rutgers University’s 

Graduate School of Applied and Professional 

Psychology. For over a decade, Dr. Gregory 

has investigated the persistent trend that African American students are issued school 

suspension and expulsion at higher rates 

than adolescents from other racial and ethnic groups. Her research has focused on best 

teacher practices in classrooms as well as optimal school-level practices that disrupt racial 

disparities in school discipline. Her recent 

evaluation of teacher professional development programs shows that coaching and support can help teachers increase engagement 

and achievement, while also reducing their 

use of exclusionary discipline referrals. Dr. 

Gregory also develops tools to support high 

quality implementation of restorative practices in classrooms and schools. In related 

work, she examines the potential for restorative practices to reduce the racial discipline 

gap. Dr. Gregory has published her research 

in journals such as the Journal of School 

Psychology, American Journal of Community Psychology, School Psychology Review, and Journal of Educational Psychology.

James Bell, J.D. 

is spearheading a national movement to address racial and ethnic disparities in the youth 

justice system. The BI, which is named after civil rights pioneer W. Haywood Burns, 

was recently awarded the prestigious MacArthur Award for Creative and Effective 

Institutions. The award is presented to select 

organizations worldwide that have made 

a “remarkable impact in their fields.” Mr. 

Bell and his colleagues at the BI work with 

juvenile justice systems across the country 

to reduce the disproportionality of youth 

of color. Mr. Bell guides the BI’s Community Justice Network for Youth (CJNY), a 

national network of programs as alternatives 

to confinement working successfully with 

young people of color. Mr. Bell also works 

closely with the Casey Foundation’s JDAI jurisdictions and the MacArthur Foundation’s 

Models for Change Initiative. Mr. Bell is being recognized this year for his “profound 

contribution to human rights,” by the American Education Research Association Human 

Rights Award Committee, which has selected him to receive the second annual Ella 

Baker/Septima Clark Human Rights Award.

Mica Pollock, Ph.D.

is an anthropologist of education and Professor of Education Studies at the University of California, San Diego. She currently leads UC San Diego’s Center for 

Research on Equity, Assessment, and Teaching Excellence (CREATE) as Director. 

Pollock’s own work explores how diverse 

communities can come together in student 

support efforts. To date, Pollock has studied communications that support student 

success in diverse schools and education 

communities. In multiple projects based 

in schools, districts, cities, community organizations, and the government, Pollock 

has asked how people might communicate 

so they can work together to support every young person’s talent development. 

Pollock’s first book, Colormute: Race Talk 

Dilemmas in an American School (winner of the 2005 AERA Outstanding Book 

Award), helped readers navigate six core 

U.S. struggles over talking (and not talking) 

in racial terms in schools. Because of Race: 

How Americans Debate Harm and Opportunity in Our Schools (2008) examined the 

U.S. Department of Education's Office for 

Civil Rights as the background for common 

debates over improving the everyday school 

experiences of students and families of color. 

In Everyday Antiracism: Getting Real about 

Race in School (2008), Pollock organized 

70 scholars to write short essays supporting teachers to consider everyday issues of 

race, opportunity and diversity in their work. 

Winner of a 2008 Outstanding Book Award 

from the Gustavus Myers Center, “EAR” 

is being used to spark educator inquiry in 

schools and districts across the country.

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

Interventions for Reducing Disparities Briefing Paper 15

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
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

 16 Interventions for Reducing Disparities Briefing Paper 0311140300