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: New Research

New and Developing Research on Disparities in Discipline

Russell J. Skiba, Mariella I. Arredondo, and M. Karega Rausch 

Introduction

Since first identified by the Children’s Defense Fund1

nearly 40 years ago, researchers have consistently 

documented African American disproportionality in 

a range of exclusionary discipline practices including 

office disciplinary referrals, suspensions, expulsions, 

and corporal punishment.2 Since that time, the field has 

learned that contextual factors, such as higher rates of 

student misbehavior and higher rates of poverty, do not 

fully explain racial disparities.3 Some factors that may 

contribute to disparities include the racial diversity of 

the student body and school faculty,4 classroom and 

administrative decision-making processes,5 and differential experiences and perceptions of school climate.6

Although our knowledge base has grown to a more 

sophisticated understanding of disciplinary disparities 

for African American students, the research base has 

been much more limited concerning the extent of, and 

reasons for, disparities for other student groups, such as 

Hispanic/Latino students, Native American students, 

students with disabilities, and LGBT students. An even 

more significant gap has been a lack of research attention to the identification of strategies, interventions or 

programs to reduce or eliminate disparities in discipline. 

Through its Collaborative Funded Research Grant 

Program and a national conference on disciplinary 

disparities, Closing the Discipline Gap (Washington, 

D.C., January, 2013), the Discipline Disparities Collaborative has begun to generate new research addressing 

these and other gaps.7

 This briefing paper on New & 

Developing Research on Disparities describes the results of that new research, and identifies remaining gaps 

in the literature that can guide researchers and funders 

of research. The brief is organized into two sections:

1) What Have we Learned? Key New Research Findings describes research from leading scholars across 

the nation commissioned by The Center for Civil 

Rights Remedies at UCLA’s Civil Rights Project with 

the support of the Collaborative, findings from projects 

supported by the Collaborative Funded Research Grant 

Program, and other new research on disproportionality 

in school discipline in the peer-reviewed literature.

 March 2014

In the Series:

Discipline Disparities Series: 

Overview

Interventions for Reducing 

Disparities

Policy Recommendations for 

Reducing Disparities

New and Developing 

Research
 2 New and Developing Research on Disparities in Discipline

2) Future Research Needs describes gaps that 

remain in the research base. Although there 

has been considerable new knowledge generated in recent years, significant gaps remain, 

especially in identifying and evaluating intervention strategies that reduce inequity in 

discipline for all students.

What Have We Learned: 

Key New Research Findings

Research continues to show that students 

of color and students with disabilities are 

at higher risk for suspension and expulsion. New findings show that race interacts 

with gender in determining who will be 

suspended or expelled, and that Hispanic/

Latino students are also disproportionately at risk for exclusionary discipline as 

they reach middle and high school. 

Students of color, African American, Hispanic/Latino, and Native American students specifically, are more likely than White students 

to be face exclusionary discipline. Drawing 

upon three national surveys, a recent study 

reported that the odds of Black students being suspended out of school was 1.78 times 

that of White students, while Hispanic/Latino students’ odds of suspension were 2.23 

times that of White students.8 A longitudinal 

study of students in the state of Florida found 

that 39% of African American students were 

suspended, compared to 22% of White students, and 26% of Hispanic/Latino students.9 

African American students were also suspended for longer periods of time than other 

students, even after controlling for poverty.10

Students with disabilities are also at high risk 

for disproportionate discipline. Students with 

disabilities are suspended almost twice as 

frequently as their non-disabled peers11 and 

for longer periods of time, even after controlling for poverty.12 Race and disability intersect, producing an even higher degree of risk. 

Nationally, twenty-five percent of African 

American students with disabilities were suspended out-of-school at least once in 2009-

2010, a rate higher than every other racial/

ethnic group and sixteen percentage points 

higher than white students with a disability.13

Gender intersects with race to increase the 

risk of school exclusion. New research continues to find that males are more likely to be 

suspended than females,14 and Black males 

are consistently the most at-risk for exclusionary discipline and arrest.15 Yet, in some 

schools, African American and to some extent Hispanic/Latino girls are at high risk 

of suspension and expulsion. Two separate 

studies of Black, White, and Hispanic/Latino 

secondary school students found that Black 

females were suspended out of school at 

rates significantly higher than other females, 

and higher than White and Hispanic/Latino 

males.16 Hispanic/Latino females reported 

rates higher than White females and rates 

equivalent to White males.

New research continues to 

find no evidence that 

disciplinary disparities are 

due to poverty...nor is there 

evidence that students of 

color engage in rates 

of disruptive behavior 

sufficiently different from 

others to justify higher 

rates of punishment.

Although findings of disproportionality have 

been somewhat inconsistent for Hispanic/Latino students, recent research is identifying 

patterns by school level. Two recent studies17

have found no disproportionality or even 

under-representation for Hispanic/Latino students at the elementary level; yet by middle 

and high school, Hispanic/Latino students are 

significantly more likely than White students 

to be suspended out of school or expelled.

Racial/ethnic differences in the use of 

suspension and expulsion are not due to 

poverty or different rates of misbehavior. 

New research continues to find no evidence 

that disciplinary disparities are due to poverty. Skiba and colleagues joined a host of 

previous investigations in finding that BlackWhite differences in out-of-school suspension persist regardless of level of poverty.18

Nor is there evidence that students of color 

engage in rates of disruptive behavior sufficiently different from others to justify higher 

rates of punishment. Survey data from 8th

and 10th grade Black, White, and Hispanic/

Latino students indicate that Black males 

reported similar or lower use of drugs, alcohol, and weapons at school compared to 

other students, yet they also reported receiving more suspensions than any other group.19

Black and Hispanic/Latino high school students were significantly more likely than 

White students to be suspended out of school 

even with the same level of misbehavior.20

The experiences of LGBT students 

illuminate discipline and criminal justice 

disparities that are often undocumented 

and unaddressed.

New research finds that LGBT students may 

also experience exclusionary discipline, hostile school climates, and contact with the juvenile justice system more often than their 

peers. Using a nationally representative sample of adolescents in grades seven through 

twelve, adolescents who reported same-sex 

attraction had significantly higher odds of being expelled from school, even after controlling for self-reported rates of misbehavior, 

age, gender, race, and socioeconomic status.21

Preliminary findings from a mixed-methods 

study documenting the experiences of discipline for LGBT youth indicated that LGBT 

students experience high rates of punitive or 

exclusionary discipline, disciplinary consequences for violating gender norm policies, 

and a school climate so hostile that it may 

motivate fighting to protect oneself against 

bullying.22 Non-heterosexual youth, especially girls, have reported experiencing significantly higher rates of being stopped by the 

police, arrested, and convicted as other girls 

who report engaging in similar behaviors.23

Suspension is often the first step in a chain 

of events leading to short- and long-term 

consequences, including academic disengagement, academic failure, dropout, and 

delinquency.

Opportunity to learn is one of the strongest 

predictors of academic achievement; so it is 

not surprising that removing students from 

school for disciplinary reasons is associated 

with negative academic outcomes, such as 

course failure, academic disengagement, and 

ultimately dropping out of school. In a longitudinal statewide study of 9th graders in the 

state of Florida, 73% of students suspended 

in 9th grade failed subsequent academic 

courses, compared to 36% of students who 

were not suspended;24 even after accounting for socio-demographics, attendance, 

and course performance, being suspended 

even once in 9th grade is associated with a 

20 percent increase in dropping out. Similar 

results on the negative relationship between 

suspension and dropout for all students were 

found in longitudinal analyses in the state of 

Texas, even after controlling for a number of 

explanatory factors.25 For African American 

males, and to some degree Hispanic/Latino 

males, academic disengagement has been 

reported to be a strong predictor of truancy, 

suggesting that these student groups may 
Consequences of Discipline 

Disparities and Incarceration for Youth

The disproportionate confinement of 

African American males in secure 

juvenile detention mirrors their school 

experiences with school discipline disparities, and LGBT students experience more 

contact with police than other students.

School-level inequity in discipline and juvenile justice appear to be related. In an 

examination of school discipline and juvenile justice for African American and White 

youth aged 10-17 in 53 counties in Missouri, 

researcher Nicholson-Crotty and colleagues 

reported racial disproportionality in out-ofschool suspensions to be a strong predictor 

of similar levels of racial disparity in juvenile 

court referrals, even when controlling for levels of delinquent behavior, poverty, and other 

demographic variables.37

Recent research has 

implicated school 

perspectives and practices 

as among the most 

powerful predictors 

of suspension and 

disproportionality 

in suspension.

In a longitudinal analysis drawing from a 

nationally representative sample of adolescents, Himmelstein and Bruckner reported 

that LGBT youth were approximately 50% 

more likely to be stopped and questioned by 

the police than other youth. Non-heterosexual girls, in particular, experienced about twice 

as many arrests and convictions as other girls 

who had engaged in similar transgressions.38

Detention is harmful to youth and its 

severe effects have been well documented.

Incarcerated youth run a high risk for sexual 

victimization and suicide. An estimated 12% 

of youth held in state juvenile facilities and 

 New and Developing Research on Disparities in Discipline 3

abandon school in response to feeling academically disengaged.26

Suspension itself appears to be a risk factor 

for future contact with the justice system. 

Drawing from national longitudinal data, 

Shollenberger27 reported that more than onethird (33%) of males suspended for 10 or 

more days had been confined in a correctional facility. Notably, a student’s report of engaging in delinquency or crime occurred only 

after the first time they were suspended from 

school. In the groundbreaking study, Breaking School’s Rules, Fabelo and colleagues 

reported that suspension and expulsion for a 

discretionary school violation nearly tripled 

a student’s likelihood of juvenile justice contact within the subsequent year. Only 2.4% 

of students with no disciplinary violations 

became involved with the juvenile justice 

system, increasing to 14.7% of those with 2-5 

disciplinary incidents, and fully 46% of those 

who were suspended 11 or more times.28

Commonly relied-upon interventions, 

such as security measures or alternative 

placements, are often less effective than 

assumed, and can exacerbate racial/ethnic 

disparities.

Although alternative placements are often 

viewed as a disciplinary solution, some research says they may exacerbate negative 

outcomes, especially for students of color. A 

longitudinal investigation in a large school 

district in Kentucky found that half of the 

students placed in alternative schools in elementary school experienced subsequent juvenile detention within less than four years, 

while 43% of students placed in alternative 

schools in middle school were detained as 

juveniles within less than two years.29 Racial 

gaps in alternative school placement were 

pronounced: 13% of all African-American 

students in the cohort experienced placement 

compared to 4% of White students.

Examination of merged data from three national surveys to address questions about 

security measures in high schools, suspension rates, and student misbehavior found 

that high-security30 schools had significantly 

greater African American disparities in total suspensions compared to low-security 

schools, even after controlling for differences 

in student behavior.31

There are hidden costs to society, both 

fiscal and civic, associated with out-ofschool suspensions.

A comprehensive, longitudinal study of 

Texas students reported that the link between 

school discipline and retention has significant economic impacts.32 In the analysis, 

school discipline was associated with approximately 4,700 grade retentions, costing the state nearly $41 million for each 

year of additional instruction. Moreover, 

delayed workforce entry related to grade 

retention cost the state over $68 million, 

including $5.6 million in lost tax revenue.

Disciplinary exclusion can also decrease the 

odds of future civic and political participation. Using the National Longitudinal Survey 

of Adolescent Health dataset, Kupchik and 

Catlaw examined the post-school voting and 

volunteering behaviors of young adults with 

a history of suspension in school, and found 

that suspended students are less likely than 

others to vote and volunteer in civic activities 

after high school.33

Schools Have the Power 

to Change Their Rates of 

Exclusions

Recent research has implicated school perspectives and practices as among the most 

powerful predictors of suspension and disproportionality in suspension. Multilevel 

analyses34 showed that while socioeconomic 

status or type of behavior did not fully explain Black-White disparities in school rates 

of out-of-school suspension, when schoollevel variables such as principal perspective 

on discipline were entered into the model, the 

influence of race on discipline was reduced 

to non-significance. Such results suggest that, 

rather than focusing on individual student 

deficits, disparity-reducing intervention efforts will be more productive by focusing on 

changing school factors.

While high suspension rates decrease feelings of safety and diminish school climate, 

strong student-teacher and parent-teacher 

relationships are related to decreased suspension rates and an increased sense of safety. A 

mixed-method study35 showed that frequent 

use of suspensions in Chicago schools was 

associated with less safe environments, even 

when comparing schools with similar demographics.36 Students and teachers felt safest in 

schools where teachers view parents as partners in children’s education, where teachers 

offer academic support to students, where 

students trust their teachers, and where teachers trust their principals. Those relationships 

are even more important than neighborhood 

crime and poverty in predicting school safety, 

and are at least as strong as the relationship 

between safety and school achievement level.
 4 New and Developing Research on Disparities in Discipline

large non-state facilities across the country 

reported experiencing one or more incidents 

of sexual victimization by another youth or 

facility staff in the past 12 months or since 

admission.39 Moreover, in a national survey 

of 110 juvenile suicides, 70% of youth who 

committed suicide were confined for nonviolent offenses.40

Placements in correctional facilities may 

actually increase criminal behavior among 

youth: Incarcerated youth were found to have 

a 70-80% recidivism rate within two to three 

years of release,41 and youth placed in a correctional facility reported higher rates of reoffending compared to youth who remained 

in the community under supervision.42

What Are Some Promising 

Solutions and Interventions?

There are alternative discipline systems that 

can reduce reliance on exclusionary and punitive approaches to discipline. These alternative approaches have been implemented in 

school districts across the country, and have 

demonstrated the capability to reduce suspension and expulsion and improve school 

safety, climate, and academic outcomes. 

While the impact of these approaches on 

disciplinary disproportionality is still emerging, such strategies address three important 

components of school climate and school discipline that may lead to disparity reduction:

Relationship-Building: Approaches such as 

restorative practices or teaching that emphasize relationship-building between students 

and teachers are emerging as models that 

may reduce disparities in discipline.

Structural Interventions: Approaches such 

as Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS), Threat Assessment, and changing disciplinary codes of conduct may create 

structural changes in the way schools attend 

to school discipline. 

Emotional Literacy: Approaches that include 

social-emotional learning improve the capacity of schools to address the emotional literacy of their students, and the ability to understand and regulate student social interactions 

and emotions.

Relationship-Building

Interventions that focus on sustained support for teacher development, strengthening teacher-student relationships, and 

strengthening student engagement can 

lead to a reduction in the use of exclusionary discipline, particularly for African 

American students. 

My Teaching Partner. In a randomized controlled trial that evaluated whether a sustained 

and rigorous professional development program, My Teaching Partner (MTP), focused 

on teachers’ interactions with students found 

that teachers using MTP relied less on exclusionary discipline with all of their students. 

The program also had a differential impact by 

race, in that teachers’ reduction of exclusionary discipline was the most pronounced for 

African American students.43

Students and teachers felt 

safest in schools where 

teachers view parents as 

partners in children’s 

education, where teachers 

offer academic support to 

students, where students 

trust their teachers, and 

where teachers trust their 

principals. Those 

relationships are even 

more important than 

neighborhood crime and 

poverty in predicting 

school safety...

Restorative Practices. Restorative practices 

(RP) are informal and formal processes implemented throughout the school building 

that aim to proactively build relationships 

and a sense of community (preventing conflict) and to repair harm after wrongdoing 

has occurred (resolving conflict). A recent 

literature review of the effectiveness of RP 

in schools reports that the evidence base on 

RP is not yet expansive, particularly in the 

United States, but there are some state and 

district examples suggesting that RP may 

be linked to reduced suspension and expulsion, decreased disciplinary referrals, and 

improved academic achievement.44

Two recent studies showed RP’s promise for 

reducing the racial discipline gap. Examination of teacher and student reports of RP 

implemented in two high schools found that 

individual teachers with better RP implementation tended to have narrower racial discipline gaps.45 Compared to teachers rated as 

low in RP implementation, high RP teachers 

had better relationships with their students, 

were perceived as more respectful by their 

students from different racial and ethnic 

groups, and issued fewer exclusionary discipline referrals to African American and 

Hispanic/Latino students. For the schools as 

a whole, during the first year of implementation of RP, the number of students receiving at least one referral declined in 7 of 10 

discipline categories. A 6-year mixed method 

study on the implementation of RP in the 

Denver Public Schools reported that suspension rates were reduced by nearly 47% across 

the district.46 Reductions were reported for 

all racial/ethnic groups, with the largest percentage point drop for African Americans: 

African American suspension rates dropped 

from 17.6% to 10.4%, Hispanic/Latino rates 

dropped from 10.18% to 4.74%, and suspension rates for White students dropped from 

5.88% to 2.28%.

Structural Interventions

Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) has been found to create positive reductions in use of exclusionary discipline, although the evidence suggests that 

specific attention to issues of race, culture, 

and difference may be necessary if PBIS is 

to reduce disciplinary disparities. 

A 5-year randomized controlled study on 

PBIS implementation in 35 middle schools 

showed that treatment schools changed practices from reactive punishment to proactive 

support, while schools in the control group 

continued emphasizing punitive consequences. The capability of PBIS to address racial 

disparities in discipline was mixed, however: 

There were some reductions in disciplinary exclusion rates for Hispanic/Latino and 

American Indian/Alaska Native students, 

but not for African-American students.47

Evidence demonstrating that PBIS as typically implemented does not address racial 

disparities well has caused some researchers 

to call for revised PBIS models that include 

cultural considerations48 and pilot PBIS models that are more responsive to culture. For 

example, a study of five elementary and middle schools implementing PBIS with cultural 

adaptations across two school districts in 

British Columbia and Alberta, reported that 

students with Aboriginal status were no more 
 New and Developing Research on Disparities in Discipline 5

likely to receive Office Discipline Referrals 

(ODRs), or subjective ODRs (behaviors that 

require significant value judgment on the part 

of the referring agent) than students without 

Aboriginal status.49

A systematic protocol used in schools that 

respond to students’ threats of violence 

without resorting to zero tolerance suspension has shown to effectively reduce 

suspensions and racial disparities between 

Black and White males.

Use of the Virginia Threat Assessment 

Guidelines across schools in Virginia was associated with a 19% reduction in the number 

of long-term suspensions and an 8% reduction in the number of short-term suspensions, 

reductions greater than schools not using the 

Guidelines. Formal training and length of 

implementation was associated with greater reductions in suspensions.50 Use of the 

Guidelines was associated with reductions 

in suspensions for all racial groups included 

in the study, as well as a reduction in disproportionality between Black males and White 

males even after controlling for school size 

and poverty. Among schools not using the 

Guidelines, Black males had a long-term suspension rate 6 percentage points higher than 

White males (11.2% compared to 5.1%), 

compared to only a 3 percentage point difference (7.6% compared to 4.3%) among 

schools using the Guidelines.51

School and district codes of conduct often stress punitive and exclusionary approaches to discipline, and may be misaligned with preventative approaches to 

discipline.

Codes of conduct—the rules governing 

school discipline—often stress punishment 

and exclusion as the primary disciplinary option. As part of a larger multi-year and multistate study on the implementation of PBIS in 

high schools, Fenning and colleagues found 

that all of the school codes of conduct they 

reviewed were rated as punitive/reactive, 

even for minor behavioral infractions. The 

authors argue that re-aligning such policies 

to emphasize prevention-oriented practices 

such as PBIS and school/district discipline 

policies are required for effective systemic 

change.52

Emotional Literacy

Investing in social and emotional learning, support teams, and planning centers 

focusing on a learner-centered approach 

can reduce misbehavior and decrease outof-school suspensions, yet more explicit attention to race, culture, and difference may 

be necessary to reduce racial disparities.

The Cleveland Metropolitan School District 

(CMSD)—a large urban district where 81% 

of students are African American or Latino—

engaged in comprehensive reform efforts 

designed to improve safety, order, and the 

conditions for learning. Intervention efforts 

included the implementation of data-driven 

improvement efforts, the district-wide implementation of empirically validated social and 

emotional learning programs, student support 

teams that addressed early warning signals 

such as discipline referrals and attendance 

issues, and planning centers that replaced 

the district’s punitive in-school suspension 

program and were designed to help students 

learn self-discipline. An evaluation of that effort53 reported improved student attendance 

district-wide, a decline in negative behavioral incidents per school by almost 50%, 

and a nearly 60% district-wide reduction in 

use of out-of-school suspension. Disciplinary 

disparities, however, remained.

Future Research Needs

Recent research has complemented and significantly extended what we know about 

disparities in school discipline. Even with 

these advances, however, significant gaps remain that researchers and funders of research 

could prioritize in order to advance knowledge and practice in the field. Specifically, 

gaps remain in our knowledge of the extent 

of, and reasons for, disparities among many 

student groups, and how schools and school 

systems should address disparities.

Building Knowledge on the Extent of and 

Reasons for Disparities

While much is known about disciplinary disparities and African American students, the 

knowledge base for other student groups and 

the impact of school security technology on 

disparities is not nearly as robust. Some key 

questions that future research should examine include:

What is the extent of, and reasons for, exclusionary discipline for student groups that 

have been under-researched to date—such 

as Native American, LGBT, gender nonconforming, and English language learning 

students—and where race/ethnicity, gender, 

disability, and sexual orientation intersect? 

Unlike the nearly 40 years of research on the 

extent of and factors that do and do not contribute to African American disciplinary disproportionality, there is a paucity of research 

for other student groups. Examining the extent of disproportionality for these groups, 

the degree to which factors associated with 

disciplinary disproportionality for African 

American students hold for other groups, and 

which other factors contribute to disparities 

among these groups will fill a significant gap 

in our knowledge base. Moreover, emerging research suggests that some group identity intersections—such as African American 

males or females with a disability—have an 

increased risk of exclusion. Identifying the 

historical, structural, cultural, policy, and 

practice conditions that contribute to intersectional differential risk is a significantly 

underexplored area of research.

What accounts for inconsistent findings of 

exclusionary discipline with Hispanic/Latino students? The current research base is 

mixed on the extent of disparities for Hispanic/Latino students with some studies 

finding Hispanic/Latino overrepresentation 

and others finding under-representation.54

Reasons for these differences have not been 

fully explored to date. Are there historical, 

geographic, community, school, and/or acculturation effects that might account for observed differences in the literature? Identifying differential reasons for disparities among 

Hispanic/Latino students may be important 

in designing intervention efforts.

What is the impact of increased law enforcement and security technology in schools on 

disciplinary disparities? There are very few 

rigorous studies of the effectiveness of increased law enforcement and security technology on school discipline overall and the 

effects of its disparate use. As many states 

and schools consider increasing the use of 

such methods,55 an understanding of the conditions under which the use of security technology and increased police presence relates 

to disciplinary disparities can inform how 

such methods are used and implemented.

Building Knowledge of Effective 

Interventions and Systems Change

The development of evidence-based interventions, and especially under what conditions such interventions are most effective, is 

arguably the most important area for future 

research and evaluation. Key questions to be 

examined include:

What malleable school factors and interventions show the most promise for reducing 

disparities? Rigorously evaluated interventions that specifically examine impacts on 

disciplinary disparities are very few in number.56 Research on effective interventions for 

reducing exclusionary discipline is growing, 

but research on approaches that reduce disparities is lacking. Schools and school districts seeking to improve practice and reduce 

inequity need empirically based guidance 

on how policies, procedures, and practices 

might be altered for greater equity. Identifying evidence-based solutions is a critical 

need as pressure increases for schools to address high rates of disciplinary removal.57
 6 New and Developing Research on Disparities in Discipline

What are the classroom dynamics and structures that lead to disciplinary disparity reduction? Disparities appear to begin with 

differential rates of office referrals from 

classrooms.58 Yet, the micro-level classroom 

processes by which differential referrals occur are not well understood. Well-designed 

classroom observational studies that identify 

and describe classroom systems and processes that contribute to disciplinary disparities 

will provide greater guidance for classroombased intervention efforts. In particular, research on implicit bias suggests that bias and 

subtle stereotyping is virtually universal in 

our society.59 Further research is needed on 

the extent to which implicit bias may contribute to disparities in office referrals, suspension, or expulsion.

A growing number of 

states and school districts—

such as the state of 

Maryland, Los Angeles 

Unified School District, 

Denver Public Schools, and 

Chicago Public Schools 

among others—

have recently instituted 

policy changes designed to 

reduce the use of 

exclusionary discipline for 

minor misbehaviors. 

Research is needed on the 

extent to which these and 

other policy changes impact 

disproportionality in 

discipline. 

Is disciplinary equity best achieved through 

interventions that focus on disciplinary systems or through whole-school change efforts? The current evidence base is unclear 

whether targeted interventions—such as 

improved training in classroom management—are sufficient in and of themselves 

to change disciplinary disparities. Some 

researchers and practitioners60 have suggested that, given the pervasiveness of racial/ethnic inequity in school systems (e.g., 

academic achievement, special education), 

intervention efforts require more comprehensive and explicit culturally responsive 

change efforts in order to reduce disparities.

Under which contexts might an equity-implicit vs. equity-explicit approach be more 

or less effective? Interventions designed to 

reduce use of exclusionary discipline overall 

don’t necessarily also reduce disparities.61

What is less clear, however, is the degree to 

which disparity-reducing interventions must 

include having direct conversations about 

race/ethnicity and difference (equity-explicit 

approach) compared to interventions that focus on areas that produce disparities, such 

as improving relationships between students 

and teachers, but don’t include those direct 

conversations (equity-implicit approach). 

That line of research can aid in understanding under what conditions an equity-implicit 

vs. equity-explicit approach may be the most 

effective in particular contexts, and uncover 

how educators can effectively talk about 

race/ethnicity, difference, and power in such 

a way that produces positive change rather 

than reinforcing stereotypes.62

How do school-based practitioners respond 

to state, district, and school disciplinary policy changes? A growing number of states and 

school districts—such as the state of Maryland, Los Angeles Unified School District, 

Denver Public Schools, and Chicago Public 

Schools among others—have recently instituted policy changes designed to reduce the 

use of exclusionary discipline for minor misbehaviors.63 Research is needed on the extent to which these and other policy changes 

impact disproportionality in discipline at the 

local level, and, in particular, to better understand how those policies influence the decisions, behaviors, and perspectives of local 

decision-makers.

What resources are needed to create greater 

disciplinary equity? More research is needed 

describing any connections between underresourced schools and disproportionality, and 

how new and/or existing resources—such as 

funding allocations, human capital development and distribution systems, and federal, 

state, and local accountability and support 

systems—might be best utilized to create 

greater equity.

Continuing Methodologically Rigorous 

Studies

What is known about disciplinary disparities 

is built from rigorous and methodologically 

sound research. The most effective research 

strategies in the field use multivariate techniques, mixed-method approaches, and participatory research. New studies designed to 

address key questions on disciplinary disparities should continue to use such methods in 

order to continue to build an evidence base 

that researchers and practitioners can have 

confidence in.

Multivariate Studies

Simple numerical differences showing that 

some groups receive higher rates of exclusionary discipline in and of themselves do 

not rule out threats to internal validity of the 

findings; that is, simple mean differences 

between racial groups in rates of discipline 

could be due to any of a number of factors. 

Comprehensive efforts to further understand 

and alter disciplinary disparities should identify the degree to which a variable may mediate the relationship between race/ethnicity 

or other sources of difference (such as LGBT 

identification), and use of exclusionary 

school discipline. Multivariate techniques 

are well suited for this task as they allow for 

an examination of the relative and unique 

contribution of each variable while controlling for a range of other variables.64 Such 

techniques are critical in statistical analyses 

of disciplinary disparities in order to increase 

confidence placed in the findings: Absent appropriate controls for factors such as poverty 

or student behavior, those alternative explanatory factors cannot be conclusively ruled 

out. Particularly given the multi-determined 

and nested nature of students in classrooms 

in schools that comprise school discipline 

and other educational examinations, hierarchical linear modeling65 may be a more statistically appropriate technique compared to 

other multivariate models.66

Mixed Methods

The complexity of disciplinary disparities 

requires attending not only to quantitative relationships, but also an understanding of contextual relationships and settings that may be 

best captured through qualitative techniques. 

Methods that use both statistical analyses that 

describe which variables do and do not contribute to disparities and descriptive analyses 

of how those and other variables interact in 

actual classroom settings will provide a more 

robust understanding of the complexities of 

disciplinary disparities.67

Participatory Research

Since an important goal of future research 

includes developing and testing interventions that can reduce disciplinary disparities, 

involving educational practitioners in such 

work beyond their involvement as research 

participants appears to be an important consideration. Working with educators as part-
ners, perhaps through an action research 

paradigm,68 is particularly important for addressing adaptive and complex organizational issues such as disproportionality in school 

discipline.69 To the degree that participatory research is feasible, engaging educators 

throughout the design, implementation, and 

evaluation process has a greater likelihood of 

yielding greater generalizability and usability 

of findings in actual school settings.70

Conclusion

Our understanding of the extent of disparities in school discipline has significantly 

advanced over nearly 40 years of research, 

and, in particular, the recent studies described in this brief have made important 

new contributions to our understanding of 

disciplinary disparities. Yet significant gaps 

remain, including a robust description of 

the nature of disparities for a number of student groups (e.g., Hispanic/Latino students, 

students who identify as LGBT, and girls).

Developing research-validated strategies and 

interventions that can reduce or eliminate 

disciplinary gaps is an urgent priority and 

perhaps the most important and challenging need in the field. As the consequences 

of ineffective exclusionary practices, and the 

impact of those practices on marginalized 

groups, become increasingly evident, pressure will increase to replace ineffective practices and reduce disciplinary disparities. Given an increasing understanding of the severe 

consequences on students’ lives of disproportionate rates of discipline, it is critical that 

future research seeks to identify effective research-based strategies that can guide practitioners as they seek to implement more effective and equitable school discipline practices.

End Notes

1. Children’s Defense Fund. (1975). School 

suspensions: Are they helping children? 

Cambridge, MA: Washington Research 

Project.

2. American Psychological Association Zero 

Tolerance Task Force. (2008). Are zero 

tolerance policies effective in the schools? 

An evidentiary review and recommendations. 

American Psychologist, 63, 852-862.

3. 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. Urban Review, 

34(4), 317-342.

4. Rocha, R., & Hawes, D. (2009). Racial 

diversity, representative bureaucracy, and 

equity in multicultural districts. Social Science Quarterly, 90(2), 326-344.; Welch, K., 

& Payne, A. A. (2010). Racial threat and 

punitive school discipline. Social Problems, 

57(1), 25-48. 

5. Skiba, R. J., Horner, R. H., Chung, C. G., 

Rausch, M. K., May, S. L., & Tobin, T. 

(2011). Race is not neutral: A national investigation of African American and Latino disproportionality in school discipline. School 

Psychology Review, 40(1), 85–107.

6. Mattison, E., & Aber, M. S. (2007). Closing 

the achievement gap: The association of racial climate with achievement and behavioral 

outcomes. American Journal of Community 

Psychology, 40(1), 1-12.

7. Through its Collaborative Funded Research 

Grant Program and a national conference on 

disciplinary disparities, Closing the Discipline Gap (Washington, DC, January, 2013), 

the Discipline Disparities Collaborative.

8. 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. 

9. 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. 

10. Brown, C., & Di Tillio, C. (2013). Discipline disproportionality among Hispanic 

and American Indian students: Expanding 

the discourse in U.S. Research. Journal of 

Education and Learning, 2(4); Hoffman, 

K., & Llagas, C. (2003). Status and trends 

in the education of Blacks (NCES 2003-

034). Washington, DC: US Department of 

Education, National Center for Education 

Statistics; KewalRamani, A., Gilbertson, L., 

Fox, M., & Provasnik, S. (2007). Status and 

trends in the education of racial and ethnic 

minorities (NCES 2007-039). Washington, 

DC: National Center for Education Statistics, 

Institute for Educational Sciences, US 

Department of Education; Sprague, J. R., 

Vincent, C. G., Tobin, T. J. & CHiXapkaid. 

(2013). Preventing disciplinary exclusions 

of students from American Indian/Alaska 

Native backgrounds. Family Court Review, 

51: 452-459; 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.

11. Losen, D. J., & Gillespie, J. (2012). Opportunities suspended: The disparate impact 

of disciplinary exclusion from school. Los 

Angeles, CA: The Civil Right Project, The 

Center for Civil Rights Remedies.

12. Balfanz, Byrnes, & Fox. (2013, January).

13. Losen, & Gillespie, (2012).;Balfanz, Byrnes, 

& Fox. (2013, January).; Finn & Servoss. 

(2013, January).

14. 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.

15. Darensbourg, A, Perez, E., & Blake, J. 

J. (2010). Overrepresentation of African 

American males in exclusionary discipline: 

The role of school-based mental health professionals in dismantling the school to prison 

pipeline. Journal of African American Males 

in Education, 1(3), 196-211. 

16. Finn & Servoss. (2013, January).; Toldson, 

McGee, & Lemmons. (2013, January). 

17. Losen, & Gillespie, (2012).; Skiba, Horner, 

Chung, Rausch, May, & Tobin. (2011). 

18. Skiba, Horner, Chung, Rausch, May, & 

Tobin. (2011). 

19. Toldson, McGee, & Lemmons. (2013, January). 

20. Finn & Servoss. (2013, January).

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

(2011). Criminal-justice and school sanctions 

against non-heterosexual youth: A national 

longitudinal study. Pediatrics, 127(1), 49-57.

22. Russell, S. T., Snapp, S., Munley, J., Licona, 

A., Burdge,H., & Hemingway, Z. (2013, 

September). LGBTQ Discipline Disparities: 

Narratives, Challenges, & Solutions. Presentation at Discipline Disparities Collaborative 

meeting, Washington, D.C.

23. Himmelstein & Bruckner. (2011). 

24. Balfanz, Byrnes, & Fox. (2013, January). 

25. Marchbanks, M. P., III, Blake, J., Booth, E. 

A., Carmichael, D., Seibert, A. L., & Fabelo, 

T. (in press). The economic effects of exclusionary discipline on grade retention and 

high school dropout. In D. J. Losen (Ed.), 

 New and Developing Research on Disparities in Discipline 7 
Closing the school discipline gap: Research 

for policymakers. New York: Teachers College Press.

26. Toldson, McGee, & Lemmons. (2013, January). 

27. Shollenberger, T. L. (in press). Racial disparities in school suspension and subsequent 

outcomes: Evidence from the National 

Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997. In D. J. 

Losen (Ed.), Closing the school discipline 

gap: Research for policymakers. New York: 

Teachers College Press.

28. 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 student’s success and juvenile 

justice involvement. New York, NY: Council 

of State Governments Justice Center, and 

College Station, TX: Texas A&M University. 

Public Policy Research Institute.

29. Vanderhaar, J. E., Petrosko, J. M., & Munoz, 

M. (in press). Reconsidering the alternatives: 

The relationship between suspension, disciplinary alternative school placement, subsequent juvenile detention, and the salience of 

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

discipline gap: Research for policymakers. 

New York: Teachers College Press. 

30. The security measure used in this study statistically combined seven features including 

(1) metal detectors at the school entrance, (2) 

random metal detector checks on students, 

(3) drug testing, (4) random sweeps for 

contraband, (5) security cameras, (6) police 

or security guards during school hours, and 

(7) random dog sniffs for drugs.

31. Finn & Servoss. (2013, January).

32. Marchbanks, Blake, Booth, Carmichael, 

Seibert, & Fabelo. (2013, January). 

33. Kupchik, A., & Catlaw, T. J. (2013, January). 

Discipline and participation: The long-term 

effects of suspension and school security on 

the political and civic engagement of youth. 

Paper presented at the Closing the School 

Discipline Gap: Research to Practice conference, Washington, DC.

34. Skiba, R., Trachok, M., Chung, C. G., Baker, 

T., Sheya, A., & Hughes, R. (in press). 

Where should we intervene? Contributions of 

behavior, student, and school characteristics 

to suspension and expulsion. In D. J. Losen 

(Ed.), Closing the school discipline gap: Research for policymakers. New York: Teachers 

College Press.

35. Data includes survey measures from University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago 

School Research (CCSR), Chicago Public 

School (CPS) data, coupled with in-depth, 

semi-structured student and teacher interviews and ethnographic observations. CPS 

data incorporates neighborhood information 

and school- and student-level data.

36. Steinberg, M. P., Allensworth, E., & Johnson, 

D. W. (in press). What conditions jeopardize 

and support safety in urban schools? The influence of community characteristics, school 

composition and school organizational practices on student and teacher reports of safety 

in Chicago. In D. J. Losen (Ed.), Closing the 

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

37. 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. 

38. Himmelstein & Bruckner. (2011). 

39. Beck, A. J., Harrison, P. M., & Guerino, P. 

(2010). Sexual victimization in juvenile facilities reported by youth, 2008-09 (NCJ Report 

No. 228416). Retrieved from the Bureau of 

Justice Statistics website: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.

gov/content/pub/pdf/svjfry09.pdf

40. Hayes, L. M. (2009). Juvenile suicide in 

confinement—findings from the first national 

survey. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 39(4), 353-363.

41. Mendel, R. A. (2011). No place for kids: 

The case for reducing juvenile incarceration. Baltimore, MD: The Annie E. Casey 

Foundation.

42. Loughran, T. A., Mulvey, E. P., Schubert, C. 

A., Fagan, J., Piquero, A. R., & Losoya, S. 

H. (2009). Estimating a dose-response relationship between length of stay and future 

recidivism in serious juvenile offenders. 

Criminology, 47(3), 699-740.

43. 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.

44. Schiff, M. (2013, January). Dignity, disparity 

and desistance: Effective restorative justice 

strategies to plug the “school-to-prison 

pipeline.” Paper presented at the Closing the 

School Discipline Gap: Research to Practice 

conference, Washington, DC.

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

Gerewitz, J. (in press). The promise of restorative practices to transform teacher-student 

relationships and achieve equity in school 

discipline. For a special issue on Restorative 

Justice in the Journal of Educational and 

Psychological Consultation.

46. Gonzalez, T. (in press). Socializing schools: 

Addressing racial disparities in discipline 

through restorative justice. In D. J. Losen 

(Ed.), Closing the discipline gap. Columbia, 

NY: Teachers College Press.

47. Vincent, C. G., Sprague, J., & Gau, J. M. 

(2013, January). The effectiveness of Schoolwide Positive Behavior Interventions and 

Supports for reducing racially inequitable 

disciplinary exclusions in middle schools.

Paper presented at the Closing the School 

Discipline Gap: Research to Practice conference, Washington, DC.

48. Sprague, J. R., Vincent, C. G., Tobin, T. J. & 

CHiXapkaid. (2013). Preventing disciplinary 

exclusions of students from American Indian/

Alaska Native backgrounds. Family Court 

Review, 51: 452-459.

49. Greflund, S., McIntosh, K., Mercer, S., & 

May, S. (2013, January). Examining disproportionality in school discipline practices 

for Native American students in Canadian 

schools implementing PBIS. Paper presented 

at the Closing the School Discipline Gap: 

Research to Practice conference, Washington, DC.

50. Cornell, D., & Lovegrove, P. (2013, January). Student threat assessment as a method 

of reducing student suspensions. Paper 

presented at the Closing the School Discipline Gap: Research to Practice conference, 

Washington, DC.

51. Cornell, D., Shin, C., Ciolfi, A., & Sancken, 

K. (2013). Prevention v. punishment: Threat 

assessment, school suspensions, and racial 

disparities. Charlottesville, VA: Legal Aid 

Justice Center and University of Virginia. 

Retrieved from https://www.justice4all.org/

wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Prevention-vPunishment-Report-FINAL.pdf 

52. Fenning, P., Piggot, T., Engler, E., Bradshaw, K., Gamboney, E., Grunewald, S., & 

McGrath-Kato, M. (2013). A mixed methods 

approach examining disproportionality in 

school discipline. Paper pre¬sented at the 

Closing the School Discipline Gap: Research 

to Practice conference, Washington, DC.

53. Osher, D., Poirier, J. M., Jarjoura, G. R., 

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

simple solutions and quick fixes: Lessons 

learned from a comprehensive district-wide 

approach to improving conditions for learning. In D. J. Losen (Ed.), Closing the school 

discipline gap: Research for policymakers. 

New York: Teachers College Press.

54. American Psychological Association Zero 

Tolerance Task Force. (2008). 

55. Kupchik, A., & Ellis, N. (2008). School 

discipline and security: Fair for all students? 

Youth & Society, 39, 549-574.; Theriot, M. 

(2009). School resource officers and the 

criminalization of student behavior. Journal 

of Criminal Justice, 37, 7.

56. For example, see Gregory, Clawson, Davis, 

& Gerewitz. (in press).; Gregory, Allen, Mikami, Hafen, & Pianta. (2013, January).

57. Desimone, L. M. (2013). Reform before 

NCLB. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(8), 59-61.; 

Figlio, D., & Loeb, S. (2011). School accountability. Handbook of the Economics 

of Education, 3, 383-421.; Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Improvement Act. 

(2004). Public Law 108-446 (20 U.S.C. 1400 

et seq.).

 8 New and Developing Research on Disparities in Discipline
 New and Developing Research on Disparities in Discipline 9

58. Skiba, Horner, Chung, Rausch, May, & 

Tobin. (2011). 

59. Pollock, M. (2009). Colormute: Race talk 

dilemmas in an American school. Princeton, 

NJ: Princeton University Press.

60. Fenning, Piggot, Engler, Bradshaw, Gamboney, Grunewald, & McGrath-Kato. (2013).; 

Vincent, Sprague, & Gau. (2013, January). 

61. Skiba, Horner, Chung, Rausch, May, & 

Tobin. (2011). 

62. For studies about the need to address race 

and difference by talking about it explicitly 

in educational settings see Buehler, J. (2012). 

‘There’s a problem, and we’ve got to face 

it’: How staff members wrestled with race 

in an urban high school. Race Ethnicity and 

Education, 1-24; Howard, T. C. (2010). Why 

race and culture matter in schools: Closing 

the achievement gap in America’s classrooms. Multicultural Education Series. New 

York: Teachers College Press; Pollock, M. 

(2009).; McDonough, K. (2009). Pathways to 

critical consciousness: A first-year teacher’s 

engagement with issues of race and equity. 

Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), 528-

537; Quaye, S. J. (2012). Think before you 

teach: Preparing for dialogues about racial 

realities. Journal of College Student Development, 53(4), 542-562.

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

of school & off track: The overuse of suspensions in American middle and high schools. 

Los Angeles, CA: The UCLA Center for 

Civil Rights Remedies at The Civil Rights 

Project.

64. Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., & Osterlind, 

S. J. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. 

Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

65. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. W. (2002). 

Hierarchical linear models (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

66. Lee, V. E. (2000). Using hierarchical linear 

modeling to study social contexts: The case 

of school effects. Educational Psychologist, 

35(2), 125-141.

67. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). 

Designing and conducting mixed methods 

research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

68. James, E. A., Milenkiewicz, M. T., & 

Buckham, A. (2008). Participatory action research for educational leadership. 

Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.; Reason, P., & 

Bradbury, H. (2001). The SAGE handbook 

of action research: Participative inquiry 

and practice (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: 

SAGE.; Sherman, F. T. & Torbert, W. R. 

(eds.) (2000). Transforming social inquiry, 

transforming social action. Boston, MA: 

Kluwer Academic Publishers.

69. Heifetz, R., & Laurie, D. (2001). The work 

of leadership. Harvard Business Review, 

79(11), 131-141.; McCall, Z., & Skrtic, T. M. 

(2009). Intersectional needs politics: A policy 

frame for the wicked problem of disproportionality. Multiple Voices for Ethnically 

Diverse Exceptional Learners, 11(2), 3-23.

70. Jensen, P. S., Hoagwood, K., & Trickett, E. 

J. (1999). Ivory towers or earthen trenches? 

Community collaborations to foster realworld research. Applied Developmental 

Science, 3, 206-212.

\

Authors

Russell J. Skiba, Ph.D.

Director

Russell Skiba is a Professor in the School 

Psychology program at Indiana University 

and Director of the Equity Project, a consortium of research projects offering evidence-based information to educators and 

policymakers on equity in special education 

and school discipline. He has worked with 

schools across the country in the areas of disproportionality, school discipline, and school 

violence; has been project director or principal coordinator on numerous federal and 

state grants; and has published extensively in 

the areas of school violence, zero tolerance, 

and equity in education. He was a member of 

the writing team that produced the U.S. Department of Education’s document on school 

safety, Early Warning, Timely Response, and 

a member and lead author of the American 

Psychological Association’s Task Force on 

Zero Tolerance. He was awarded the Push 

for Excellence Award by the Rainbow Coalition/Operation PUSH for his work on African American disproportionality in school 

suspension. Skiba has testified before the 

United States Civil Rights Commission, spoken before both Houses of Congress on issues of school discipline and school violence, 

and has acted as a special consultant to OSEP 

on issues of disproportionality and equity in 

special education.

Mariella I. Arredondo, Ph.D.

Research Associate

Mariella I. Arredondo currently works as the 

Research Associate on the Discipline Disparities Research-to-Practice Collaborative 

project funded by The Atlantic Philanthropies and Open Society Foundations at The 

Equity Project at Indiana University. Mariella earned her Ph.D. degree in Educational 

Leadership Policy Studies with a concentration in International Comparative Education from Indiana University-Bloomington. 

Before joining The Equity Project, Mariella 

focused her research on educational policies 

targeted at reducing stratification and inequality and working towards the attainment 

of a more egalitarian and socially just education, both in the United States and globally. 

She is currently pursuing a research agenda 

concentrating on the intersectionality of race, 

ethnicity, gender, gender identity, and sexual 

orientation in disparities in school discipline.
M. Karega Rausch 

Project Coordinator

M. Karega Rausch is a Research Associate 

and member of the senior leadership team 

with the Equity Project at Indiana University’s Center for Evaluation and Education 

Policy. In this role, Rausch is responsible for 

ensuring the project’s research, practice, and 

service goals are achieved. Rausch brings 

with him a wealth of educational policy, 

community engagement, charter school authorizing, and strategic advocacy experience. 

Prior to joining the Equity Project, Rausch 

founded and served as Director of the Indianapolis affiliate of Stand for Children, a 

national educational advocacy non-profit. 

He also served as the education and charter 

schools director and on the senior staff of 

two Indianapolis Mayors, Greg Ballard and 

Bart Peterson, from both political parties. 

Mr. Rausch has earned a master’s degree in 

educational psychology, has been a teacher of 

high school social studies, and should complete his doctorate in fall of 2014. 

Rausch has authored or co-authored more 

than 20 professional publications on educational system reform with an emphasis 

on school discipline, special education, and 

charter school quality. He has served on more 

than 10 national and state education boards, 

and has presented on educational equity and 

accountability for the national conferences 

of professional organizations such as the 

American Educational Research Association, 

the American Psychological Association, the 

National Association of Charter School Authorizers, the National Alliance for Public 

Charter Schools, the University Council for 

Educational Administrators, and the Harvard 

Civil Rights Project. Rausch has frequently 

been invited to provide expert testimony 

and information to members of the Indiana 

General Assembly on many education issues 

and has been invited to provide keynote addresses and expert testimony for legislators 

in Iowa and Texas.

Additional writing, editing, 

research, design, and formatting 

on the series was contributed by 

the staff of The Equity Project at 

Indiana University:

Natasha Williams

Graduate Assistant

D. Leigh Kupersmith

Copyeditor

 10 New and Developing Research on Disparities in Discipline
 New and Developing Research on Disparities in Discipline 11

Members of the Discipline Disparities Collaborative

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
 12 New and Developing Research on Disparities in Discipline 0312140300

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