Introduction1

I. Removal from School is Too 

Often a Response to Minor Rulebreaking

All schools must be safe places for all members of the 

learning community. Schools have the right and indeed 

the responsibility to develop safe school climates to 

protect the safety of students and teachers, as well as 

the integrity of learning. 

Yet the data indicate that it is relatively rare for students to pose a serious danger to themselves or others. 

In states like Texas, serious safety concerns trigger a 

“non-discretionary” mandatory removal, but these represent less than 5% of all disciplinary removals from 

school. While exclusion on grounds of safety is infrequent, students are routinely removed from school 

for minor offenses like tardiness, truancy, using foul 

language, disruption, and violation of the dress code. 

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: Policy

Eliminating Excessive and Unfair Exclusionary Discipline in Schools

Policy Recommendations for Reducing Disparities 

Daniel Losen, Damon Hewitt, and Ivory Toldson 

Of course, public school educators are also responsible 

for ensuring the integrity of the learning environment 

and attend to misbehavior that does not raise safety concerns. There is no question that there are circumstances 

where removing a student from a classroom is helpful 

to de-escalate a conflict, or to pursue an intervention 

outside the classroom with the support of an administrator, a counselor, parent(s) or community members. 

However, too many of our nation’s public schools have 

moved away from reserving school exclusion only for 

the most serious offenses, and as a measure of last resort. 

In many districts, removal from school can happen for 

a first offense. In many others, misbehavior that typically calls for a verbal warning for the first-offense, if 

repeated, can trigger automatic suspension, possible 

expulsion, arrest, or other harsh forms of discipline 

such as referrals to the juvenile court to pay fines or 

face jail time.2

 Time spent in learning is one of the 

surest and most consistent predictors of academic 

achievement. Excessive suspensions and expulsions 

threaten educational opportunity, thereby undermining 

our national goals for closing academic achievement 

gaps for all children. 

 March 2014

In the Series:

Discipline Disparities Series: 

Overview

Interventions for Reducing 

Disparities

Policy Recommendation for 

Reducing Disparities

New and Developing 

Research
 2 Policy Recommendations for Reducing Disparities 

Schools that reduce their suspension rates 

can simultaneously improve academic outcomes: One oft-repeated justification for 

frequent suspensions is that schools must 

be able to remove the “bad” students so that 

“good” students can learn. There is no research to support this popular theory. To the 

contrary, when schools serving similar populations were compared across the state of Indiana, and poverty was controlled for, those 

schools with relatively low suspension rates 

had higher, not lower test scores.3

 An even 

larger study that tracked every middle school 

student in Texas and controlled for over 80 

variables found that the higher-suspending 

schools tended to have higher grade retention 

and lower graduation rates, while producing 

no benefits in terms of test scores.4 Moreover, 

several large school districts that have lowered suspension rates have made academic 

gains. Two recent examples are Baltimore 

City, where decreases in suspensions preceded improvements in graduation rates in 

subsequent years,5

 and in Denver, Colorado, 

where steady and consistent achievement 

gains coincided with large reductions in suspensions attributed to restorative practices.6 

Most parents, school board 

members, and policymakers 

do not realize just how often 

our public schools suspend 

students, because most 

states do not publish this information on an annual basis 

as they do test scores and 

graduation rates.

Frequent use of suspensions can damage 

school climate and the conditions for learning: In addition to reducing the loss of instructional time, low-suspending schools tend to 

have better academic performance by establishing positive school climates and cultures 

that increase student productivity. Schools 

with high suspension rates have lower levels of student engagement and trust.7

 Strong 

teacher-student and teacher-parent relationships are important to academic achievement 

as well as safety.8

 It is critically important, 

therefore, that policymakers understand the 

negative social and academic implications of 

relying on suspensions to manage behavior.

Frequent suspensions increase dropout 

risks and juvenile justice involvement, and 

severely impair our economy: The potential impact from being suspended, even once, 

can be devastating. For example, a Johns 

Hopkins study tracking all ninth graders 

throughout high school and post graduation 

in Florida found that being suspended just 

one time in grade 9 was associated with an 

increased risk for dropping out from 16% to 

32%.9

 In Texas, a study that tracked middle 

school students for six years found that being removed on disciplinary grounds for a 

discretionary violation was associated with 

a nearly threefold increase in the likelihood 

of being in contact with the juvenile justice 

system the following year.10 Excessive discipline is also associated with higher economic 

costs to schools and communities in the 

short- and long-term: research has found suspension to be associated with increased risk 

for grade retention, dropping out, and juvenile justice involvement, as well as increases 

in crime and welfare costs associated with 

school dropout. Only recently have these 

associated economic costs, which translate 

into literally billions of dollars, come to the 

attention of policymakers and taxpayers.11

Historically disadvantaged youth are most 

harmed: This brief is about the policies 

and practices that lead to frequent removal 

from school for predominantly minor rule 

breaking and how these counter-productive 

approaches disparately harm historically disadvantaged students. Specifically, the harm 

from excessive removal from school flows 

along the lines of race, class, gender, sexual 

orientation, and disability status, and exacerbates inequity in educational opportunity.

The majority of public school students 

will be suspended during their middle 

and high school years: Many communities don’t know just how often students are 

removed from school: Most parents, school 

board members, and policymakers do not 

realize just how often our public schools 

suspend students, because most states do 

not publish this information on an annual 

basis as they do test scores and graduation 

rates.12 While approximately 5% of students 

are suspended during a given year, longitudinal research indicates that between onethird and one-half of students experience at 

least one suspension at some point between 

kindergarten and twelfth grade, with some 

studies reporting 60% removal rates during middle and high school.13 Black males 

are particularly at risk, with nearly 70% 

receiving at least one suspension or expulsion during their K-12 schooling years.14

Millions of children in grades K-12 are 

suspended every year: According to data 

from the U.S. Department of Education’s 

Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), 

well over three million students in grades 

K-12 (including over two million secondary school students) were suspended outof-school during the 2009-10 academic 

year.15 That number would more than fill 

every National Football League and Major League Baseball stadium in America.16

Disparities have widened dramatically: 

Across the nation, in just one year—2009-

10—nearly one out of every four Black 

students in middle and high school was suspended at least one time. Current rates reflect 

a steady rise since the early 1970s when the 

number of students suspended was about half 

of what it is today.17 The percentage of students who received at least one suspension 

(also called the “risk” for suspension) has 

increased most dramatically for historically 

disadvantaged subgroups, resulting in a widening of the discipline gap.18

Many districts’ suspension rates reveal 

profound disparities that dwarf the national averages: Research shows wide variation in the risk19 of exclusionary discipline, 

both between and within school districts and 

schools. Therefore, national averages do not 

fully capture the intensity and variety of the 

problem as it impacts school children attending the highest-suspending districts, where 

suspension rates are well over 50% of the 

enrolled population in a single year.20 Racial 

disparities also vary widely.21 For example, 

at the state level, the difference between rates 

of exclusionary discipline for Blacks and 

Whites in grades K-12 is over 21 percentage 

points in Illinois, but less than 2 percentage 

points in New Mexico, Idaho, and Montana.22

More effective practices can be found in 

thousands of schools across the country: 

The wide variation in the use of suspensions 

is even more pronounced at the school and 

district level. In fact, the data demonstrate 

that many individual schools and districts 

can and do create orderly, safe, and productive learning environments without excessive disciplinary exclusion. An analysis of 

high- and low-suspending secondary schools 

suggests that 60% of schools employ more 

effective alternatives.23 In sheer numbers, approximately 8,000 secondary schools from 

nearly 4,000 districts suspended fewer than 

10% of every major subgroup enrolled.24
 Policy Recommendations for Reducing Disparities 3

School policies and practices drive the 

differences: Among the most important research-based conclusions is that these stark 

differences in suspension use are caused by 

differences in school policy, school leadership, 

and other factors that educators can control.25

While poverty and other factors do appear to 

contribute, studies that controlled for differences in student behavior, race, and poverty 

found that school-controlled factors are the 

strongest predictors of both frequency26 and 

disproportionality in the use of suspension.27 

Greater awareness on the part of educators is already helping reduce excessive removals: A preliminary analysis of publicly 

reported data indicate a decline in suspension 

rates may already be underway. For example, 

several states, including California, Maryland, Wisconsin, and Connecticut, reports 

based on state collected data from the 2011-

12, and in some cases 2012-13 school year 

show declining suspension rates for all students although most acknowledge rates and 

disparities are still too high.28

Researchers have documented more effective alternatives: Some of the contributing 

factors that school policy can influence include: investment decisions between spending limited resources on security measures 

and “hardware,” or addressing the social 

and emotional needs of children;29 the level 

and quality of teacher training in student and 

parent engagement;30 the extent to which the 

implementation of interventions includes attention to disparities31 and/or the influence of 

bias.32 Most important, the wide variety of 

promising and effective alternative approaches and interventions described in this brief 

are not mutually exclusive. Alternatives with 

evidence of reducing discipline disparities 

and improving academic outcomes include: 

teacher-training programs focused on improving student engagement, restorative practices, and social emotional learning strategies.

Increasingly, federal and state policymakers are endorsing approaches to discipline 

that de-emphasize removing students from 

school, yet help reduce disruptive behavior. As Secretary of Education Arne Duncan 

recently stated in the release of the federal 

government’s guidance package on school 

discipline: “Schools should remove students 

from the classroom as a last resort, and only 

for appropriately serious infractions, like endangering the safety of other students, teachers, or themselves.”33 State policymakers are 

calling for alternatives as well. For example, 

Connecticut legislators passed a law meant 

to ensure that out-of-school suspension is always a measure of last resort. In Colorado, 

state policymakers directed state education 

dollars to Denver that enabled the district 

to move from a pilot program to systemwide implementation of restorative practices 

(RP).34 Most recently, the state of Virginia 

mandated the formation of threat assessment 

teams to implement a protocol designed to 

prioritize prevention over punishment.35

New federal guidance on “disparate impact” seeks to spur better practices:36 The 

new federal guidance from the Department 

of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (DOE 

OCR) and Department of Justice calls attention to the disparate harm that results and the 

possibility that failure to change harsh policies and practices in the face of more effective alternative approaches could constitute 

a violation of civil rights. The goal of civil 

rights law under the “disparate impact” approach is to ensure that schools shift to 

more effective and educationally justifiable 

practices. Schools and districts that are out 

of compliance are not liable for monetary 

damages, but they are obligated to use more 

effective methods that do not harm some 

groups of children more than others. 

II. Excessive Disciplinary 

Exclusion Harms Some 

Groups of Children More 

Than Others

The Discipline Disparities Research to Practice Collaborative is dedicated to not only 

raising awareness of these problems as they 

impact historically disadvantaged subgroups 

of children, but also to developing and advancing policy solutions that will address the 

disparate impact described herein. Policymakers seeking solutions must attend to the 

severe inequity with which some schools and 

districts remove students from school on disciplinary grounds.

Research shows deep disparities by race, 

English Language Learner (ELL) status, 

ethnicity, disability status, gender, and 

sexual orientation.

Figure 1: Risk for Out-of-School Suspension by Selected Subgroup at the Elementary and Secondary Levels
Nationwide data show that Black students 

are at the greatest risk for suspension. 

Black students face the highest risk of suspension, followed by Native Americans and 

then Latinos.37 Whites and Asian/Pacific Islanders are typically suspended at the lowest 

rates. Disproportionality exists despite a lack 

of evidence that Black students misbehave to 

a greater degree than other students. These 

gross disparities are often masked when considering aggregated data for grades K-12.38

The most profound disparities are found 

at the secondary school level: As depicted 

in Figure 1, Black elementary school students 

are suspended out of school at a rate that is 5.5 

percentage points higher than White elementary school students. As the frequency of suspension rises dramatically at the secondary 

level, this five-percentage-point difference 

between Blacks and Whites in elementary 

school expands more than three-fold, becoming a 17 percentage point difference at the secondary level (middle school and high school).

Latinos and English Language Learners also experience significant disparities. 

The disparate rates for English Language 

Learners (ELLs) and Latinos are perhaps 

most obscured when the elementary school 

data are joined with the secondary school 

data. As Figure 1 reveals, at the elementary 

level, ELLs were suspended at lower rates 

than most other subgroups, but the secondary 

school data reveal an extraordinary increase 

in their risk for suspension.39 There is a similar shift upward in Latinos’ risk for suspensions in secondary school. The Latino/White 

gap grows 8-fold, from a difference of 0.6 

points to 4.9 points.40

Students with disabilities and males are 

suspended at consistently higher rates. 

Students with disabilities tend to be suspended at over twice the rate of their non-disabled 

peers.41 Similar to other groups, the discipline 

gap between students with disabilities and 

those without rises from a difference of 2.3 

points at the elementary level, to 12.7 points 

at the secondary level. Similarly, schools suspend male students at rates that are typically 

two or three times the rate for females,42 and 

the male/female gap at the secondary level is 

much larger than at the elementary level.43

LGBT students are also disproportionately 

disciplined. Data from a nationally representative population-based sample of adolescents 

indicate that LGBT youth are at greater risk 

for expulsion than their heterosexual peers. 

Cross-sectional analysis shows that the 

highest risk of suspension is experienced 

by students who belong to two or more 

disadvantaged subgroups.

A cross-sectional analysis of gender and 

disability data yields the most extreme disparities. For example, a nationwide analysis for the 2009-10 school year, illustrated 

in Figure 2, shows that 36% of all enrolled 

Black and Native American males with disabilities at the secondary level were suspended at least once.44 In Chicago, the disparities 

are even greater, with three out of every four 

Black middle school male students with disabilities (75%) suspended out of school.45

The importance of these data cannot be overstated, and further disaggregation reveals 

other profound disparities. Black females, 

for example, are at equal or greater risk of 

suspension compared with males of most 

of the other racial/ethnic groups except Native American males. CRDC data presented 

in Figure 2 show that Native American students with a disability are among the groups 

most at risk for suspensions and expulsions. 

The analysis of the CRDC data presented 

in Figure 2 comports with the state- and 

district-level studies that show how the risk 

of school exclusion for certain gender/race 

combinations is much higher than others.46

Profound disparities are also found in 

rates of expulsion and school-based arrests 

where the life consequences are severe.

Compared to out-of-school suspensions, far 

fewer students are expelled, referred to law 

enforcement, or arrested, and the overall risks 

for these categories are typically no larger 

than one percent of any groups’ enrollment.47

The risk that a student will be suspended is 

typically 30 times (or more) higher than the 

risk for expulsion or arrest. However, expulsion and arrest punishments have much greater immediate impact, and the profound racial 

disparities in relative terms show that Black 

students disproportionately suffer the harshest disciplinary consequences.48 Specifically, 

while African-American students represent 

18% of students in the Civil Rights Data 

Collection, they represent 39% of students 

expelled and 42% of referrals to law enforcement while in school. Together, Black and 

Latino students represent 42% of the student 

Figure 2: National cross-sectional analysis of disparities in risk for out-of-school suspension: Students with disabilities further 

disaggregated by race and gender

Data Source: CRDC, 2009-2010; numbers from national sample rounded to whole numbers. 

Analysis and graph: Losen & Martinez, 2013, p. 11; Native American rates modified to reflect OCR estimates.

 4 Policy Recommendations for Reducing Disparities 
 Policy Recommendations for Reducing Disparities 5 

body, but account for 72% of the students 

who are arrested for school-related offenses.49

The disproportionality in school expulsions and arrests is very similar for the 

youth justice system: Black and brown 

youth are over-represented at all decisionmaking points—from arrest to disposition. 

While comprising one third of the country’s 

adolescent population, African American 

and Latino youth represent two thirds of 

all youths confined to detention and correctional placements.50 Research has shown 

that Black and White youth are processed 

through the juvenile justice system differently for similar offences: for example, Black 

youth are referred to juvenile court for delinquency at a rate 140% greater than White 

youth.51 This is especially evident for drug 

offenses. In 2003, Black youth represented 

only 25% of the total youth nationwide adjudicated delinquent for drug offenses. Yet 

they represented 40% of the youth taken out 

of their homes and communities. In contrast, White youth represented 73% of total 

youth adjudicated delinquent for drug offenses, but only 58% of their drug cases resulted in out-of-home placement, with 75% 

of the cases resulting in formal probation.52

LGBT youth also experience rates of 

school consequences and criminal-justice 

punishments disproportionate to their 

rates of behavior. Data from a nationally 

representative population-based sample of 

adolescents indicate that LGBT youth are at 

greater risk for expulsion than their heterosexual peers.53 Those same data show that 

LGBT-identified youth are approximately 

50% more likely to be stopped 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.

III. Research Shows that 

the Harm is Far More 

Extensive and Expensive 

than Most Realize

Excessive suspension jeopardizes the 

rights of students with disabilities to equal 

educational opportunities. Federal law dictates that students with disabilities are entitled to a free and appropriate public education 

(FAPE) and may not be excluded from school 

for behavior that was either caused by, or had 

a direct and substantial relationship to, the 

child’s disability, or where the conduct was a 

direct result of the schools’ failure to provide 

the special education supports and services 

described in the student’s individualized education plan (IEP). Where schools fail to conduct hearings to make these determinations, 

or the hearings fail to adequately consider the 

exculpatory evidence of inadequate school 

support, students with disabilities may wind 

up unjustly excluded from school. These and 

related protections are at the heart of special 

education law, reflecting Congress’ understanding that without protections, schools 

would deny students with disabilities their 

equal right to educational opportunity. Yet 

the stark disparities in exclusionary discipline 

experienced by students with disabilities raises serious doubts about the extent to which 

some schools are meeting their legal and 

moral obligation to educate these students.

Time spent on learning is 

vital to academic 

achievement; therefore,

it is not surprising that 

removing students from 

school for disciplinary 

reasons is associated with 

course failure, lower 

attendance, and 

dropping out.

Suspension predicts severe and negative 

student outcomes. Time spent on learning 

is vital to academic achievement; therefore, 

it is not surprising that removing students 

from school for disciplinary reasons is associated with course failure, lower attendance, 

and dropping out. Specifically, several recent 

rigorous longitudinal studies have firmly 

established academic harm associated with 

disciplinary exclusion. In addition to the 

aforementioned Florida study, a national 

longitudinal study revealed that getting suspended from school tended to precede evidence of serious delinquency, especially for 

Black and Latino children,54 and another 

study found that aggressive misbehaviors 

are preceded by academic disengagement, 

especially for Black and Hispanic males.55

Even one suspension is associated with an 

increased drop-out risk. Loss of instructional time is only the most immediate cost 

of exclusionary discipline. It is worth repeating that Balfanz and his colleagues found that 

being suspended out-of-school even once in 

Florida was associated with a two-fold increase in the risk of dropout. Moreover, each 

additional suspension increased the risk for 

dropping out by 20%.56 While most of these 

students had several risk factors in play besides having been suspended, for twenty 

percent of those who dropped out, being suspended in grade nine was the only risk factor.

Some states may be losing billions of dollars 

due to increases in justice system involvement and/or dropping out. Considering the 

heightened risks for dropping out associated 

with suspensions, it is reasonable to infer 

that hidden economic costs associated with 

dropouts are increased by the frequent use of 

suspensions. Higher-suspending schools also 

increase the percentages of students that are 

retained in grade and become embroiled in 

the juvenile justice system.57 In these ways, 

out-of-school suspensions produce hidden 

economic and social costs that are rarely considered by policymakers. To quantify these 

costs, economists in Texas reported that 60% 

of all Texas middle school students had been 

suspended from the classroom, which caused 

an estimated 13% increase in dropouts. Researchers estimated that additional dropouts 

would cost the state of Texas of between 

700 million and 1 billion dollars annually.58

The societal costs are a threat to the fabric 

of our democracy. One study, exploring the 

impact of school discipline on future civic 

participation, found that young adults with a 

history of suspension in school are less likely 

than others to vote and volunteer in civic activities after high school.59

IV. School Factors, Including Bias, Contribute to 

Disparities in Discipline

Behavioral differences do not explain the 

disparities:60 Research indicates that Black 

students are often disciplined more harshly 

than their White peers, even when engaging 

in the same conduct.61 Several studies indicate that racial disparities are far more likely 

to be found in the minor subjective offense 

categories,62 and that the racial disparities in 

suspensions are not sufficiently explained 

by disparities in misbehavior63 or poverty.64

Data disparities raise questions about the 

influence of stereotypes and unconscious 

bias: The hard-to-measure nature of implicit 
 6 Policy Recommendations for Reducing Disparities 

or unconscious bias makes it very difficult 

to prove a causal connection, but logic and 

research findings strongly suggest that bias 

may be one of several contributing factors to 

disparities in discipline.65 Exactly how much 

influence bias has on teachers’ and administrators’ discipline decisions is just beginning 

to be explored. It seems likely, however, that 

subtle forms of bias can affect whether the 

observed behaviors of different groups are 

perceived as differentially problematic, and 

can also influence the subjective decision regarding the appropriate response. The examination of bias must start with analysis of data 

on disproportionality: If discipline disparities 

are not reported or attended to, it is unlikely 

that schools will ever explore how they might 

mitigate the influence of such biases.

Differences may be reinforced by structural disparities: Bias may also influence 

our criteria for selecting school leaders66 and 

our perceptions of the need for high security 

compared to factors like classroom management.67 More broadly, the way policymakers 

distribute education resources and opportunities may be influenced by current bias or 

reflect the extended impact of prior policies 

that reflected intentional discrimination. 

Many Black students attend schools that 

resemble correctional facilities more than 

educational institutions. Specifically, nationwide, 26% of Black students report passing 

through metal detectors when entering school 

compared with 5.4% of White students.68 At 

the same time, Black students are significantly more likely to feel unsafe at their school.

Inequity in school resources contributes 

to the problem and poses an obstacle to 

change: A related theory is that the wellestablished discriminatory legacy of inadequate funding for schools serving racially 

isolated communities of color translates into 

lower capacity for these schools to engage 

students, a higher rate of teacher-turnover, 

and fewer well-managed classrooms. These 

inadequacies in turn contribute to higher frequency of challenging behavior.69

The inequitable distribution of highly 

qualified and effective teachers likely contributes to disparities in discipline: Poor 

and minority students are more likely to be 

taught by teachers who are inexperienced, 

out of field, or lacking full credentials.70 Such 

teachers are often less able to provide engaging instruction and manage classrooms in 

ways that minimize disruptions. Despite federal requirements that states ensure equitable 

distribution, implementation of this law has 

been incomplete.71

Cultural misunderstandings and lack of 

cultural competency may also contribute: 

Relative to the composition of P-12 students 

in the United States, the current teaching 

force lacks racial and gender diversity. Today, of the more than 6 million teachers in 

the United States, nearly 80 percent are 

White, 9.3 percent are Black, 7.4 percent 

are Hispanic, 2.3 percent are Asian, and 1.2 

percent are of another race. Eighty-four percent of all teachers are female.72 Educators’ 

feelings toward their students and knowledge 

of their students’ culture are important to the 

learning process.73 Teachers who take a “colorblind” approach to teaching Black and Latino students, and ignore cultural differences 

and social inequalities may inadvertently 

promote the entrenchment of inequality.74

V. There are Effective and 

Promising Alternatives to 

Exclusionary Discipline and 

Interventions that can Reduce 

Racial Disparity

Safe and effective schools have strong 

teacher-student and teacher-parent relationships and low suspension rates: Educators and researchers know there are more 

effective and just ways to keep schools safe 

without resorting to use of exclusionary discipline. A recent district-wide study of Chicago 

schools found that the quality of teacher-student and teacher-parent relationships was the 

strongest predictor of a strong sense of safety 

in the school building.75 This rigorous study 

controlled for student demographics and the 

safety of the neighborhood of the attending 

students.76 Of course, poverty and the crime 

levels in the community mattered. But the 

study also demonstrated that low suspension 

rates correlated with higher safety ratings after accounting for the demographic differences in the neighborhoods served.77 Researchers 

have also found that Black principals in urban 

schools who promoted parental involvement 

have also reduced the use of suspensions.78

The U.S. Assistant Secretary Deborah Delisle from the Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education, during a webinar on 

school climate and equitable discipline, 

made the connection between the importance of strengthening relationships to reduce suspensions and the vital importance 

of strengthening relationships to closing 

the achievement gap. She stated, “We are 

finding that ...those schools that have been 

rapidly improving through our school improvement grant program are those that focused on building relationships first...”79

School leaders’ approaches to discipline 

can influence both suspension rates and 

disparities: Policymakers, teachers, parents, and students all know that school principals influence the conditions of education. 

It should not be surprising that one study 

showed that the principal’s perspective on 

discipline was a stronger predictor of the frequency of racial disparity in suspensions than 

student characteristics and other variables beyond the control of educators. This evidence 

strongly suggests that the perspective of 

school leaders have an influence on both rates 

of suspension and disparities in suspensions, 

regardless of neighborhood demographics.80

Promising alternatives have improved relationships and strengthened community 

involvement: A common theme of recent 

research on promising school restructuring 

approaches is the critical importance of improving the quality of relationships in the 

school community. While these alternative 

responses vary in the degree to which they 

address the social and emotional learning 

needs of the members of the school community, they generally seek to increase the 

capacity of members of the school community to respond to a range of misbehaviors 

without turning to exclusion from school as a 

first response. Some actively and directly address school discipline and the issue of exclusion, whereas others set forth broader goals 

of improving the conditions for learning, or 

teacher efficacy and student achievement.81

Restorative Practices 

Have Effectively Reduced 

Suspensions and 

Disparities.

Interventions that show promise for reducing exclusionary discipline can improve 

the conditions for learning for all students: 

The effective approaches highlighted in this 

brief, such as restorative practices and collaborative approaches to teaching, emphasize 

student engagement and relationship-building between students, teachers and parents, 

and seek to strengthen relationships among 

all members of the school community. These 

practices include problem-solving approaches to address challenging behavior, but also 

seek to prevent misbehavior and strengthen 
 Policy Recommendations for Reducing Disparities 7

the school community.82 Second, interventions such as social-emotional learning improve the capacity of schools to address the 

emotional literacy of their students—the 

ability to understand and regulate their own 

social interactions and emotions.83 Finally, 

some promising approaches, such as PBIS 

and Virginia’s threat assessment protocol, 

create explicit structural changes in the way 

that schools approach school discipline. 

These alternative frameworks and intervention strategies are not mutually exclusive, 

and experts suggest that they be coupled 

with conscious efforts to reduce disparities.84

(1) Restorative Practices Have Effectively 

Reduced Suspensions and Disparities: A 

central goal of this approach is to change the 

mindset of students who present challenging 

behavior, helping them gain greater respect 

for individuals in their community, including themselves, and more accountability to 

the community at large. Restorative Practices 

seek to replace a punitive approach to discipline with a more constructive, collaborative, 

and humane approach that embraces all members of the community, including those who 

break the rules. Restorative Practices thus entail systemic changes in how educators think 

about the role of school discipline and how 

disciplinary responses are meted out. Central 

to the concept of accountability is repairing 

any harm caused to victims and making the 

community whole, and doing so in a manner that also addresses the needs of the offenders so they are less likely to misbehave 

in the future. Restorative practices “provide 

high levels of both control and support to 

encourage appropriate behavior, and places 

responsibility on students themselves, using 

a collaborative response to wrongdoing.”85

A recent national review found evidence nationally and internationally that restorative 

approaches can result in reduced suspension 

and expulsion rates, decreased disciplinary 

referrals, and improved academic achievement.86 This review points to individual 

school successes, discipline policy shifts 

at the district level, and federal support as 

evidence that restorative justice is a viable 

school policy strategy for keeping students 

in school and out of the juvenile justice system. One high school in the Oakland Unified 

School District, for example, cuts its suspension rate in half after implementing restorative practices.87

Most promising, however, is the potential of 

restorative practices for significantly reducing racial disparities in discipline. A forthcoming longitudinal study of restorative justice implementation in Denver Public Schools 

finds that “the adoption of a restorative justice approach to discipline oriented within 

individual school communities coupled with 

strong school leadership can reduce racial 

disproportionality in school discipline.”89 In 

a study conducted between 2006 and 2013, 

Gonzalez reports that the risk for suspensions 

dropped for all racial groups but the largest 

decline was for African Americans. Not only 

were suspensions reduced and racial disparities in discipline narrowed, achievement levels consistently rose.89

While the racial disparities remain substantial, these findings demonstrate that efforts to 

reduce suspension rates are consistent efforts 

to improve achievement. The study contains 

a great deal of valuable qualitative analysis 

to support the added conclusion that highly 

effective restorative justice implementation 

should create “space for input from a range 

of stakeholders, including educators, parents, 

students, and community leaders...to manage behavior, promote school engagement, 

and build social capital.”90 

(2) Teacher Training Programs Focused on 

Student Engagement can Boost Achievement and Reduce Discipline Disparities: 

For example, a randomly controlled study 

showed that a program called “My Teacher 

Partner Secondary”—a program designed 

to improve teacher-student relationships 

and student engagement—increased student 

achievement and significantly reduced both 

the frequency of suspensions and racial disparities in discipline.91 Improving teacher 

efficacy and teacher-student dialogue and 

aligning their mutual understanding of school 

rules have also demonstrated to be effective.92

(3) Investments in Social and Emotional 

Learning Strategies are More Effective 

than Investments in Security Hardware: 

Other alternative disciplinary methods include ecological approaches to classroom 

management and social-emotional learning. The ecological classroom-management 

approach “deals with school discipline 

by increasing the strength and quality of 

classroom activities.”93 Its defining characteristics are well-planned lessons; varied 

methods of instruction; clear and developmentally appropriate behavioral expectations; and careful monitoring of student 

engagement that includes effective, empathetic responses designed to re-engage students and avoid escalating conflicts. Social 

and emotional strategies also teach specific 

methods for developing student assets that 

foster the development of self-discipline.94

Large district-wide investments in social 

and emotional learning strategies paid 

greater dividends than added security 

measures, and produced noteworthy improvements even where resources were 

limited. Following a school shooting, the 

Cleveland Metropolitan School District initially invested in stringent security measures 

such as metal detectors and school police. 

But these efforts did not yield any benefits 

in perceptions of safety or achievement. 

However, when the city’s majority minority schools replaced the suspension system 

with a learner-centered approach, investing 

in social and emotional learning, student 

support teams, and planning centers, those 

schools experienced drastic reductions in reported behavioral incidents. Between 2008 

and 2011, reported incidents decreased from 

233 to 132 per school, along with a decrease 

in out-of-school suspensions district wide.95

Not only were 

suspensions reduced and 

racial disparities in discipline 

narrowed, achievement 

levels consistently rose.

(4) Tiered Interventions, Strategies, and

Non-PunitiveProtocols Show Great 

Promise:

Non-punitive Response Protocols

Using non-punitive systematic protocols in 

schools in response to students’ threats of 

violence without resorting to zero-tolerance 

suspensions has been shown to effectively 

reduce suspensions across the state of Virginia for both Black and White students.96

When students made threats, the Virginia 

Student Threat Assessments Guidelines 

helped teachers and administrators select appropriate responses that reduced the reliance 

on long- and short-term suspensions by 19% 

and 8%, respectively. A follow-up analysis 

demonstrated that the Guidelines significantly benefitted Black males and helped narrow 

the race/gender discipline gap in schools that 

adopted the guidelines.97

School-wide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports

School-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS), a well-established systemic and data-driven approach to 

improving school discipline environments, 
 8 Policy Recommendations for Reducing Disparities 

emphasizes changing the underlying attitudes and policies of school staff concerning how student behavior is addressed.98

The most recent research findings suggest 

that schools and districts will be more effective in reducing both suspensions and 

racial disparities if they revise their school 

codes to align with the positive and constructive framework of PBIS99 and adapt 

the PBIS framework to pay specific attention to the data on race and ethnicity.100

VI. There are Promising Policy 

Approaches. Yet Some Current 

Federal and State Policies Need 

Mending101

We know a great deal about approaches to 

schooling and behavior that are non-punitive 

and produce lower levels of disciplinary exclusion. But we have much to learn. Those 

seeking to replicate what works sometimes 

lack leverage, in part because, until recently, awareness of the excessive suspension 

rates and high disparities was low and the 

implications for academic harm obscured. 

Proving what works is also difficult if the 

necessary data are not readily available. In 

other words, the information gap is a standing obstacle to closing the discipline gap.

We need annual disaggregated discipline 

data to be reported publicly down to the 

school and district levels to better identify 

both problems and solutions: Federal law 

requires schools and districts to report test 

score results, graduation rates, and enrollment numbers every year. Although Attorney 

General Eric Holder and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan have declared that reducing 

school discipline disparities is a federal priority, they have yet to call for annual and public data reporting. Ironically, they shouldn’t 

have to. Federal law currently requires states 

to report racially disaggregated discipline 

data for students with disabilities pursuant to 

IDEA (20 U.S.C. Section 1418(a)). The law 

also calls for states to compare the discipline 

of students with disabilities to those without. 

But evidence indicates that only 16 states are 

approaching compliance with these federal 

annual reporting requirements.102 Arguably, 

to ensure states have the capacity to fulfill 

their obligation to make comparisons, the federal government could require annual reporting of students without disabilities as well. 

Biennial federal civil rights data collection, recently required of every public 

school in the nation, is an incomplete step 

in the right direction: The U.S. Department 

of Education does require many schools and 

districts to report these data to the Secretary 

through the biennial survey known as the 

Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC). In 

2011-12, for the first time in over 10 years, 

every school and district in the nation was 

required to report its discipline data. A universal collection will be required for 2013-

14. However, the data are only reported every 

other year, and without stronger policy, could 

revert to less useful data samples in the future. 

OCR has called the data an “opportunity gap 

data tool that is allowing citizens and schools 

nationwide to identify educational equityrelated problems and their solutions.”103

Annual collection and public reporting of 

discipline data is essential to improvement 

efforts: Public reporting of the CRDC often 

does reveal civil rights problems, and annual 

reporting would encourage greater compliance with civil rights law well before OCR 

initiates an investigation. Further, parents 

and children who may be experiencing injustice and are potential complainants have a 

right to know whether or not it is a systemic 

issue they are confronted with. Similarly, the 

CRDC data are critical for identifying those 

schools and districts that have been successful in addressing civil rights concerns and, for 

all policymakers, critical to the evaluation of 

what works. Given the federal mandates for 

annual report cards at the school, district, and 

state level, if annual collection and public reporting for all students remains optional the 

strong federal recommendations in the new 

guidance for schools and districts to monitor 

discipline data throughout each school year 

are unlikely to be realized. Ultimately, annual collection and public reporting is more 

efficient because it increases the likelihood 

the data will be used, and ensures that public 

awareness of disparities remains high.

The new provisions for collecting data on 

bullying on the basis of sexual orientation 

represent an important first step: For all 

the same reasons—protecting the civil rights 

of children, parents’ right to know, identifying equity-related problems and their solutions, and establishing disparity reduction 

as a true priority—it is imperative that the 

federal government collect data on youth 

willing to self-identify their sexual orientation and gender identity and how they are 

disciplined. Although it does not yet satisfy these important collection and reporting needs, the new requirement to report 

data on bullying and sexual orientation is a 

tremendous first step in the right direction.

Changes in school districts’ codes of conduct can restrict the use of suspensions to 

a measure of last resort: Harsh discipline 

can affect school culture in a way that alters 

teachers’ perceptions of their responsibilities 

toward their students. Some administrators 

have testified that their efforts to eliminate 

suspensions as a way to deal with minor misbehavior in school can improve attendance 

and the overall school environment.104 For example, in Baltimore City, Executive Director 

of Student Safety and Support, Karen-Webber Ndour recently stated that ending suspensions for attendance and other minor code 

violations helped prioritize improvements in 

school climate.105 Across the country, discipline codes have been successfully revised to 

introduce the concept of graduated interventions in which exclusion is not permitted in 

some instances and only a last resort in other 

instances. For example, the discipline code 

in Meridian, Mississippi, public schools was 

recently revised to prohibit exclusionary discipline for low-level infractions. In Connecticut, state law strongly discourages the use of 

out-of-school suspension, and Maryland’s 

State Board of Education recently passed 

similar measures via regulations. Meanwhile 

in Los Angeles, California—the nation’s second largest school district—the school board 

ruled-out the use of suspension in response to 

the catch-all and highly subjective category 

of “disruption or willful defiance.” Given research showing that disparities are largest in 

the minor misconduct categories, efforts to 

restrict suspension to only the most serious 

misconduct are expected to help reduce suspensions generally and likely disparities, too. 

Better implementation could help realize 

the potential of policy solutions to reduce 

discipline disparities: The most glaring example of inadequate policy implementation 

concerns federal oversight and enforcement 

of the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA) pertaining to required responses to discipline disparities. Specifically, 

section 618(d) of IDEA and the implementing regulations in 34 CFR §300.646 require 

states to collect and examine data to determine if significant disproportionality based 

on race or ethnicity is occurring in states and 

LEAs with respect to the incidence, duration, 

and type of disciplinary actions, including 

suspensions and expulsions. This means that 

districts are required by federal law to shift 

15% of their Part B IDEA funds if states find 

significant racial disproportionality in school 

discipline. The funds must then be spent on 

“coordinated early intervening services” that 

can include a wide variety of preventive activities including teacher training in behavior 

management, and tiered intervention strategies such as PBIS. Recently, however, in a report to the Senate HELP (Health, Education, 

Labor, and Pensions) Committee, the Government Accounting Office (GAO) criticized 

the U.S. Department of Education for allowing states to use such a high bar to define “significant disproportionality” that has resulted, 
 Policy Recommendations for Reducing Disparities 9

in many states, in no districts being required 

to take action to address racial disparities.106

Federal legislation could codify the priority of addressing excessive use of exclusionary discipline and the corollary disparities: Some advocates have argued that an 

overemphasis on accountability to improve 

test scores creates incentives to “push-out” 

lower-achieving students107 including possibly suspend lower-performing students before testing dates.108 NCLB has no safeguards 

against such abuses, and does not even require disaggregated reporting on suspensions 

or expulsions, let alone accountability for excesses. And the accountability waivers granted to dozens of states (and some California 

school districts) have generally ignored discipline reform as a priority. Although important 

conditions have been added to the requirements for the 16 school districts that received 

Race to the Top-District grants, schools and 

districts are not held to any uniform annual 

requirements under NCLB for reporting discipline data to the public or for responding to 

excessive disciplinary exclusion.

... the information gap 

is a standing obstacle 

to closing the 

discipline gap.

Disciplinary alternative schools may help, 

but may also contribute to disparities: 

Alternative disciplinary schools, in theory, 

might help persistently misbehaving students stay in school if they receive academic 

instruction and interventions that teach successful behaviors. This is one reason that advocates for children in states like Massachusetts have successfully pressed for required 

alternative instruction for students. However, 

disciplinary alternatives that cluster misbehaving students and lack necessary supports 

and engaging curricula could also contribute 

to long-term negative outcomes. One longitudinal analysis on alternative schools in a 

large urban district109 documented their failure and suggests that such placements contribute to racial disparities in disciplinary 

consequences.110 

Comprehensive agreements at the schooldistrict level: Select school districts across 

the country are adopting more effective discipline policies that improve the learning 

environment without depriving children of 

valuable instructional time. In May 2012, 

the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) initiated a 

Compliance Review, investigating several issues, including whether Black students were 

disciplined more harshly or more frequently 

than White students in Los Angeles Unified 

School District. Just a few months later, in 

September 2012, the Oakland Unified School 

District voluntarily entered a Resolution 

Agreement with OCR, seeking to minimize 

the time students are suspended from school 

due to misbehavior, and providing supports 

to students who are struggling, among other 

provisions.111 Most recently OCR and Christian County Public Schools, Kentucky entered into a voluntary agreement aimed at reducing excessive and disparate discipline.112

Similarly, in a long-standing school desegregation case, the Meridian Public School District in Mississippi entered a voluntary agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice 

and private plaintiffs to reduce both the high 

frequency and racial disparities in suspension 

and other forms of school removal. This consent decree amends Meridian’s federal school 

desegregation order that prohibits racial 

discrimination against students. The comprehensive agreement includes limiting suspensions, implementing positive and age-appropriate discipline systems, and monitoring 

discipline data to address racial disparities.113

VII. Specific Federal and 

State Policy Recommendations

Recommendations of Federal, State, and 

Local Policymakers

1) Annually Collect, Publicly Report, and 

Use Discipline Data

• Require states and districts to publicly report disaggregated data annually, including the number of students 

suspended, the number of incidents, 

reasons for out-of-school suspensions, 

and days of lost instruction, at each 

school level (elementary, middle, and 

high). Ensure that the reported data are 

disaggregated by race/ethnicity, gender, 

English Learner status, and disability 

status, and that cross-sectional analysis 

(e.g., Black students with disabilities) 

is possible.

• Longitudinal and disaggregated data 

should be tracked and publicly reported 

for all students who become involved 

with the juvenile justice system, including reasons for offense if school based, 

and transitions back to school or the 

workforce.

• Annually reports should include more 

accurate data on school policing 

including data on school based arrests, 

referrals to law enforcement as well as 

data on the number of police employed 

by schools and a comparison to the 

number of counselors and other support 

staff.

• Information regarding school policing 

policies and practices, School Resource 

Officer (SRO) disciplinary reviews, 

and training of SROs should also be 

publicly reported on an annual basis.

• Expand on bullying data to collect data 

on disciplinary exclusion as it impacts 

LGBT youth.

• Ensure better monitoring and public 

reporting of the disciplinary provisions 

of the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act (IDEA). These current 

requirements include that racial disparities in discipline trigger support for 

coordinated early intervention services 

and publicly reporting disciplinary 

incidents and duration for students 

with disabilities, disaggregated by race/

ethnicity, gender, and English Learner 

status. Federal policymakers should extend these statutory requirements to the 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act so that they apply to all students.

2) Encourage Alignment of Discipline 

Policies with Educational Mission and 

Goals

• Revise accountability structures to 

balance test scores with graduation 

rates and other outcomes that would 

help remove incentives to “push out” 

low achievers on disciplinary grounds. 

Beyond the accountability that comes 

with data reporting, to the extent that 

multiple indicators of progress are 

developed, discipline levels and disparities should be included, and “turn 

around” schools should be required to 

include safeguards against excessive 

and disparate exclusionary discipline. 

• Require that schools and districts identified for improvement or turn-around 

measures under federal accountability 

provisions include measures to improve 

teacher-student engagement and school 

climate, and reduce the use of out-ofschool suspensions.
 10 Policy Recommendations for Reducing Disparities 

• Include suspension rates among the 

factors schools and districts use to 

measure the performance of secondary schools and as “early warning” 

systems to target supportive interventions for schools as well as students. 

Continued and expanded incentives in 

grant programs, such as “Race to the 

Top” are needed to encourage districts 

to develop early warning indicators that 

include discipline indicators.

• Leverage competitive grants to incentivize revisions of school discipline 

codes to align with effective and 

promising disciplinary practices, such 

as positive behavior interventions and 

supports (PBIS), social-emotional 

learning, and restorative practices. 

• Federal and state support for positive 

behavioral approaches should likewise 

include incentives to, ensure attention 

to disparities and improvement in multicultural competence to guard against 

excessive punishment and the risk for 

bias in the most subjective and minor 

offense categories.114

3) Provide Support and Funding for 

Effective Alternatives

• Invest in remedies by providing greater 

support for research on promising, evidence-based interventions and targeting 

more funds for systemic improvements 

in approaches to school discipline, 

including research on best practices for 

classroom management

• Provide support for teacher training and 

preparation programs and professional 

development aimed at promoting higher levels of student engagement and 

improved relationships between teachers and students. In particular, structure 

grant awards that give preference to 

research-supported programs. Attention to effective classroom management can also be included in standards 

for teacher preparation programs, and 

required for state certification.

• Provide support or incentives for 

districts to invest in “real time” data 

use of school discipline data such as 

recommended in the joint OCR/DOJ 

guidance.

• Take note of the recent GAO findings and require that the provisions of 

IDEA regarding the review of racial 

disparities in discipline for students 

with disabilities are implemented with 

integrity, so that states do not create 

unreasonable thresholds for required 

interventions, and instead shift some of 

their funds to address these disparities.

• Require that schools and districts 

seeking funds for policing and security 

have adequate resources in place for 

counseling, mental health support, 

teacher training in classroom and behavior management, as well as general 

improvement in school climate. 

• Add funds for federal and state civil 

rights enforcement agents to improve 

the quality of data reporting, and to 

provide more intensive technical assistance to districts that have problematic 

disparities.

Recommendations for School Leaders 

and Local Policymakers Regarding the 

Juvenile Justice System: 

The U.S. Departments of Education and 

Justice’s joint collaboration, the Supportive 

School Discipline Initiative (SSDI), released 

a “guidance package” in January 2014 that 

provides detailed guidance for local school 

leaders and policymakers along with several appendices of resources.115 We endorse 

those detailed recommendations. Further the 

Council of State Governments has facilitated a project called the School Discipline 

Consensus Project that includes extensive 

recommendations for changes in policy 

and practice for the juvenile justice system. 

Many members of the Discipline Disparities 

Collaborative participated in the consensusbuilding project and the Collaborative endorses the detailed recommendations scheduled for release in 2014.

Endnotes

1. This brief contains findings and recommendations based on four sources: a) studies 

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 Discipline 

Disparities Research to Practice Collaborative; b) findings from projects supported by 

Discipline Disparities Collaborative Funded 

Projects Competition; c) analysis of empirical data such as the CRDC, as well as state 

reports; and d) other new research findings 

on disproportionality in school discipline in 

the peer-reviewed literature. A more detailed 

research brief is also available.

2. Theriot, M. (2009). School resource officers 

and the criminalization of student behavior. 

Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(3), 280-287.

3. 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. 

4. 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: Council of 

State Governments Justice Center, and College Station, TX: Texas A&M University. 

Public Policy Research Institute.

5. Alonso, A. (2013). School discipline and 

student achievement. Baltimore, MD: 

Baltimore City Public Schools. Retrieved 

from http://www.nycourts.gov/ip/justiceforchildren/PDF/NYS%20Summit-PPTs%20

for%20Web/P3-Alonso.pdf 

6. Gonzalez, T. (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. 

7. 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. 

8. 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. 
 Policy Recommendations for Reducing Disparities 11 

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. Fabelo et al. (2011).

11. 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.), 

Closing the school discipline gap: Research 

for policymakers. New York: Teachers 

College Press. ; Levin, H., Belfield, C., 

Muennig, Pl, & Rouse, C. (2006). The costs 

and benefits of an excellent education for all 

of America’s children. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University; Fowler, 

D., Lightsey, R., Monger, J., & Aseltine, 

E. (2010). Texas’ school to prison pipeline: 

Ticketing, arrest, and use of force at schools: 

How the myth of the “blackboard jungle” 

reshaped school disciplinary policy. Austin: 

Texas Appleseed. Retrieved from http://

www.texasappleseed.net/images/stories/

reports/Ticketing_Booklet_web.pdf

12. Center for Civil Rights Remedies and Council of State Governments. (2013) Nationwide 

Survey of State Education Agencies’ Online 

School Disciplinary Data. Retrieved from 

http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/resources/

projects/center-for-civil-rights-remedies/

school-to-prison-folder/online-data-resources/nation-wide-survey-of-state-educationagencies2019-online-school-disciplinarydata; http://csgjusticecenter.org/youth/

school-discipline-consensus-project/onlineschool-disciplinary-data/

13. Fabelo et al. (2011).

14. 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. 

15. 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.

16. Losen & Gillespie. (2012).

17. 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.

18. Losen & Martinez. (2013).

19. The data analysis and figures described in 

this document are primarily based on percentage calculations, also known as calculations of “risk.” For example, to calculate the 

“risk” of out-of-school suspension for Black 

students, one divides the number of Black 

students who were suspended at least once, 

by the total Black enrollment. The answer 

is then multiplied by 100. The “risk” is the 

same as the percentage of the enrolled student body that was suspended. The “risk” is 

based on the unduplicated count of students 

suspended one or more times, and should 

not be confused with the “incident” rate 

which is typically higher because it is based 

on the total count of suspensions.

20. Losen & Martinez. (2013).

21. In some of these high-suspending districts, 

Whites are also suspended at incredibly high 

rates. This means that the racial disparities 

in purely relative terms may not seem as 

high, but often the risk differences in absolute terms remain large. Thus, it is important 

for policymakers to look at both the suspension data on disparities alongside the data 

indicating the absolute risks for suspensions.

22. Losen & Gillespie. (2012).

23. Losen & Gillespie. (2012).

24. Losen & Gillespie. (2012).

25. Fabelo et al. (2011).

26. Fabelo et al. (2011).

27. Skiba et al. (in press).

28. For example, Wisconsin’s 2011-12 reported 

data showed that compared to their 10-year 

peak in 2005-06, suspension rates are lower 

by 1.73 percentage points for students 

without disabilities, and 4.3 points lower 

for students with disabilities. Similarly, 

while Black/White disparities are disturbing in their size, they have been reduced 

slightly in Wisconsin since 2005-06. The 

state of Wisconsin posts trend data on their 

website each year. See http://wisedash.dpi.

wi.gov/Dashboard/portalHome.jsp. The 

disparity calculations conducted by the 

author, Daniel Losen. Analysis of the data 

reported by the state departments of education in California (2012-13), and Maryland 

(2012-13) indicate marginal declines as 

well. Both states post data on their websites 

on an annual basis. Maryland data can be 

found here: http://marylandpublicschools.

org/MSDE/divisions/planningresultstest/

doc/20122013Student/susp13.pdf. The 

press have also reported lower suspension rates: http://articles.baltimoresun.

com/2014-01-27/news/bs-md-state-discipline-regs-20140127_1_discipline-policydale-rauenzahn-suspensions. The California 

data can be found here: http://dq.cde.ca.gov/

dataquest/Expulsion/ExpSearchName.

asp?TheYear=2012-13&cTopic=Expulsio

n&cLevel=State&cName=&cCounty=&c

TimeFrame=S. The state of California also 

described lower suspension rates in a recent 

press release from January 29, 2014: http://

www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr14/yr14rel11.asp. 

In Connecticut, the state reports continued declines. See Linda Carter Lamback, 

Suspensions down but imbalance persists, 

December, 8, 2013, available at http://www.

ctpost.com/local/article/Suspensions-downbut-imbalance-persists-5046595.php

29. 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 districtwide approach to improving conditions for 

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

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

30. Gregory, Allen et al. (in press).

31. Skiba, R. J., Horner, R. H., Chung, C., 

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.

32. 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; 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. 

33. United States Department of Education 

(January 8, 2014). Rethinking school 

discipline. Remarks of U.S. Secretary of 

Education Arne Duncan at the Release of the 

Joint DOJ-ED School Discipline Guidance 

Package [para. 4] Retrieved from http://

www.ed.gov/news/speeches/rethinkingschool-discipline

34. Gonzalez. (in press).

35. 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. 

Available at https://www.justice4all.org/

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

36. The federal government’s embrace of 

disparate impact theory to protect the civil 

rights of school children is a critically important step toward protecting against these 

pervasive harms. Although it is arguably a 

legal enforcement obligation, the reality is 

that pursuing the disparate impact approach 

is a matter of federal civil rights enforcement policy. Yet, while efforts to address 

discrimination in discipline can have a 

tremendous impact on a particular school 

or district, enforcement efforts can only 

protect a limited number of children from 

subtler forms of discrimination. Therefore, 

policymakers should take proactive steps to 

acknowledge and respond to the influence 
 12 Policy Recommendations for Reducing Disparities 

63. Finn & Servoss. (in press); Skiba, R. J., 

Shure, L., & Williams, N. (2012). Racial 

and ethnic disproportionality in suspension 

and expulsion. In A. L. Noltemeyer & C. 

S. Mcloughlin (Eds.), Disproportionality 

in education and special education (pp. 

89-118). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas 

Publisher, Ltd. 

64. Fabelo et al. (2011).

65. First, research on implicit bias, and specifically a test developed by neuroscientists, 

shows that most people have implicit negative bias against Blacks (Akalis, Banaji, & 

Kosslyn, 2008). There is no reason to think 

teachers and administrators would be an 

exception. Second, research has shown that 

bias is an important indicator with regard to 

racial disparities in the field of juvenile justice (Goff, Eberhardt, Williams, & Jackson, 

2008). Finally, studies seeking to unpack the 

contributing factors to racial disparities have 

found insufficient support for theories that 

the observed disparities can be explained by 

poverty or differential behavior. 

Several studies have demonstrated evidence 

of differential treatment by race, where 

administrators gave different consequences 

for the same offense. The most direct links 

we have for teachers are: a) Patricia Devine 

has been able to show that pre-service 

teachers hold implicit bias; b) that with 

intervention, it is possible to reduce that; and 

c) that some students see bias in micro-aggressions (Devine, Forscher, Austin, & Cox, 

2012). When these sources are considered 

altogether, they do support the assertion that 

teacher/administrator bias may be contributing to the racial disparities in discipline. 

Akalis, S. A., Banaji, M. R., & Kosslyn, 

S. M. (2008). Crime alert!: How thinking 

about a single suspect automatically shifts 

stereotypes toward an entire group. Du Bois 

Review: Social Science Research on Race, 5, 

217-233; Devine, P. G., Forscher, P. S., Austin, A. J., & Cox, W. T. L. (2012). Long-term 

reduction in implicit race bias: A prejudice 

habit-breaking intervention. Journal of 

Experimental Social Psychology, 1-12; 

Goff, P. A., Eberhardt, J. L., Williams, M., & 

Jackson, M. C. (2008). Not yet human: Implicit knowledge, historical dehumanization, 

and contemporary consequences. Journal 

of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 

292-306.

66. Another theory is that in selecting leadership 

for schools serving students from poor or 

high-crime neighborhoods, school boards 

are more likely to seek authoritarian leaders 

who embrace punitive approaches. Such 

leaders may then hire teachers with a similar 

disciplinary philosophy.

67. The American Psychological Association 

has explained: “When applied correctly, 

effective classroom management principles 

can work across all subject areas and all developmental levels.... They can be expected 

to promote students’ self-regulation, reduce 

the incidence of misbehavior, and increase 

student productivity” (Kratochwill, 2012, 

of bias on discipline disparities and then 

find ways to ensure that efforts to diminish 

excessive discipline are also successful in 

eliminating the disparities.

37. United States Department of Education. 

(2013). The transformed civil rights data 

collection. Available at http://www2.ed.gov/

about/offices/list/ocr/docs/crdc-2012-datasummary.pdf

38. 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, 317-342.

39. Losen & Martinez. (2013).

40. Losen & Martinez. (2013).

41. Losen & Martinez. (2013).

42. Losen & Martinez. (2013).

43. Losen & Martinez. (2013).

44. Losen & Martinez. (2013).

45. Losen & Martinez. (2013).

46. Losen, D. J., & Skiba, R. J. (2010). Suspended education: Urban middle schools in 

crisis. Montgomery, AL: Southern Poverty 

Law Center. Retrieved from http://www.

splcenter.org/get- informed/publications/

suspended-education; Toldson, McGee, & 

Lemmons. (in press).

47. There are national estimates of the numbers 

of arrests and referrals to law enforcement 

for 2009-10 available from the U.S. Department of Education. See at http://ocrdata.

ed.gov/Projections_2009_10.aspx?v=1. The 

author (Dan Losen) added the raw numbers 

of students with and without disabilities 

referred to law enforcement and divided 

by their enrollment data to estimate the 

risk rates for these categories. No group 

exceeded 1%. We have strong reason to 

believe these low numbers represent underreporting, but they are the only source of 

data for national estimates. The numbers of 

school-based arrests were consistently lower 

than the referrals to law enforcement.

48. While the reported risk for these responses 

on the CRDC is fairly low for all groups, 

the impact of these extreme disciplinary 

responses is often life-long. To describe the 

disparities in discipline categories that have 

relatively low frequency for all subgroups, 

each group’s percentage of total enrollment 

is compared with their percentage in the 

following categories: expelled, subjected 

to school-based arrest, and referrals to law 

enforcement.

49. United States Department of Education. 

(2013).

50. National Council on Crime and Delinquency. (2007). And justice for some: Differential 

treatment of youth of color in the justice 

system. Oakland, CA: Author; Wald, J., & 

Losen, D. J. (2003). Defining and redirecting 

a school to prison pipeline. New Directions 

for Youth Development, 99, 6.

51. Knoll, C. & Sickmund, M. (2010). Delinquency cases in juvenile court, 2007. 

Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice 

and Delinquency Prevention. 

52. Krisberg, B. (1997). The impact of the 

juvenile justice system on serious, violent 

and chronic juvenile offenders. San Francisco, CA: National Council on Crime and 

Delinquency.

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

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

national longitudinal study. Pediatrics. 

Originally published online December 6, 

2010. doi: 10.1542/peds.2009-2306.

54. Shollenberger. (in press). 

55. Toldson, McGee, & Lemmons. (in press).

56. Balfanz, Byrnes, & Fox. (in press).

57. In the state of Texas, school discipline is 

linked to approximately 4,700 grade retentions. Delayed workforce entry related to 

grade retention costs the state over $68 

million, including $5.6 million in lost tax 

revenue. Each additional year of instruction 

for students who are retained at grade level 

costs the state nearly $41 million dollars. 

For each year an individual student is held 

back, the effect on the net social surplus 

exceeds $23,000 (Marchbanks, III, et al., in 

press).

58. Marchbanks, III, et al. (in press).

59. Kupchik, A., & Catlaw, T. J. (2013). 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.

60. One study from a large sample of high 

school students that controlled for teacher 

ratings of behavior as well as student selfreports suggested that Black students were 

suspended more harshly than others (Finn 

& Servoss, in press). This finding comports 

with several other studies suggesting that 

racial disparities are most pronounced in the 

less serious subjective offense categories 

(Marchbanks, III, et al., in press; Shollenberger, in press; Skiba et al., 2011) and 

that Blacks may tend to receive harsher 

treatment for minor misbehavior (Skiba et 

al., 2011). Disciplinary disparities are, in 

most cases, not due to different levels of 

misbehavior (Skiba et al., in press).

61. 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; Skiba et al., 

(2011).

62. Fabelo et al. (2011).
p. 5). Kratochwill, T. (2012). Classroom 

management: Teachers modules. American 

Psychological Association at http://www.

apa.org/education/k12/classroom-mgmt.

aspx (p. 5).

68. Toldson, I.A. (2011). Breaking barriers 

2: Plotting the path away from juvenile 

detention and toward academic success for 

school-age African American males. Washington, DC: Congressional Black Caucus 

Foundation, Inc., Center for Policy Analysis 

and Research. Retrieved from http://www.

cbcfinc.org/oUploadedFiles/BreakingBarriers2.pdf

69. Toldson, McGee, & Lemmons. (in press).

70. See, e.g., Darling Hammond, L, & Post, L. 

(2000). Inequality in teaching and schooling. Available at http://www.stanford.

edu/~ldh/publications/LDH-Post-Inequality.

pdf

71. See, e.g., Strauss, V. (2013, December 17). 

Coalition to Duncan: Stop backtracking on 

teacher equity. Washington Post. Available 

at http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/

answer-sheet/wp/2013/12/17/coalition-toduncan-stop-backtracking-on-teacher-equity/. Title I of the ESEA seeks to correct any 

unequal access to highly qualified teachers. 

If properly implemented, the requirement 

below should improve access to experienced 

and in-field teachers. If such teachers are 

more successful at engaging and redirecting potentially disruptive students, then this 

provision could also, indirectly, decrease 

the frequency with which poor and minority 

students are suspended and expelled from 

school.

Specifically, in order to be eligible for Title 

I funds, each state plan requires at 20 U.S.C. 

§6311 (b)(8)(C) that the plan shall describe:

(C) the specific steps the State educational 

agency will take to ensure that...schools 

provide instruction by highly qualified 

instructional staff...including steps that the 

State educational agency will take to ensure 

that poor and minority children are not 

taught at higher rates than other children by 

inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field 

teachers, and the measures that the State 

educational agency will use to evaluate a 

publicly report the progress of the State.

72. Feistritzer, E. E. (2011). Profiles of teachers 

in the U.S. 2001. Washington, DC: National 

Center for Education Information.

73. Toldson, McGee, & Lemmons. (in press).

74. Kohli, R. (2012). Racial pedagogy of the 

oppressed: Critical interracial dialogue for 

teachers of color. Equity & Excellence in 

Education, 45(1), 181-196.

75. Steinberg, Allensworth, & Johnson. (in 

press).

76. The authors concluded that even when 

controlling for differences in community and 

school context, “[h]igh rates of suspension 

do not show any benefit for either students’ 

or teachers’ feelings of safety at school, and 

. . . may even have adverse effects on school 

climate by aggravating distrust between students and adults” (Steinberg, Allensworth, 

& Johnson, in press). The study also noted, 

“In particular, schools serving the least 

advantaged students—students who live in 

neighborhoods with high levels of crime and 

poverty, few human and social resources and 

who attend lower achieving schools—but 

with high-quality relationships are as safe, 

on average, as the most advantaged schools 

with weak relationships.”

77. Steinberg, Allensworth, & Johnson. (in 

press).

78. Toldson, McGee, & Lemmons. (in press).

79. Alliance for Excellent Education. (December 5, 2013). Creating a positive school 

climate: Implementing equitable and effective school discipline practices [webinar]. 

Available at http://all4ed.org/webinar/dec5-2013/ 

80. Skiba et al. (in press).

81. Center for Civil Rights Remedies. (2013). 

Summary of new research closing the 

school discipline gap: Research to policy. 

Available: http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/

events/2013/summary-of-new-researchclosing-the-school-discipline-gap-researchto-policy

82. See the Interventions Brief in this series.

83. Osher et al. (in press). 

84. Vincent, C. G., Pavel, M., Sprague, J. R., & 

Tobin, T. J. (2013, January). Toward identifying school-level factors reducing disciplinary exclusions of American Indian/Alaska 

Native students. Paper presented at the Closing the School Discipline Gap: Research to 

Practice conference, Washington, D.C.

85. Porter, A. (2007). Restorative practices in 

schools: Research reveals power of restorative approach, Part II. Restorative Practices 

Eforum. Retrieved from http://www.iirp.

edu/iirpWebsites/web/uploads/article_pdfs/

schoolresearch2.pdf

86. 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.

87. Teicher Khadaroo, S. (2013). Restorative 

justice: One high school’s path to reducing suspensions by half. Retrieved from 

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2013/0331/

Restorative-justice-One-high-schools-path-to-reducing-suspensions-byhalf?nav=645745-csm_article-leftColRelated; A new documentary, entitled Growing 

Fairness, chronicles the challenges and 

successes of teachers who have adopted 

Restorative Practices in New York City 

 Policy Recommendations for Reducing Disparities 13

and Oakland, California. The teacher-led 

organization, Teachers Unite, produced the 

film. A description and short film clip are 

available at http://www.teachersunite.net/

growingfairness

88. Gonzalez. (in press).

89. Gonzalez. (in press).

90. Gregory, Allen et al. (in press).

91. Gregory, Allen et al. (in press).

92. Pas, E. T., Bradshaw, C. P., Hershfeldt, P. A., 

& Leaf, P. J. (2010). A multilevel exploration of the influence of teacher efficacy and 

burnout on response to student problem 

behavior and school-based service use. 

School Psychology Quarterly, 25(1), 13-27. 

doi: 10.1037/a0018576; Thompson, A. M., 

& Webber, K. C. (2010). Realigning student 

and teacher perceptions of school rules: A 

behavior management strategy for students 

with challenging behaviors. Children & 

Schools, 32(2), 71-79.

Examination of teacher and student reports 

of a restorative practices (RP) intervention 

implemented in two high schools found that 

individual teachers with better RP implementation tended to have narrower racial 

discipline gaps. The quality of teacherstudent relationships was measured using 

two different sources: a) surveys of student 

experience of their teachers as to whether 

they thought they were respectful, and b) 

school discipline records to examine the use 

of teacher-issued referrals for misconduct/

defiance across racial and ethnic groups. 

Compared to teachers who were low in 

implementation of Restorative Practices, 

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. During the 

first year of implementation of RP, the number of students receiving at least one referral 

declined in 7 of 10 discipline categories. 

(See Gregory A., Clawson, K., Davis, A., 

& Gerewitz, J. (in press). 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.)

93. Osher, D., Bear, G. G., Sprague, J. R., & 

Doyle, W. (2010). How can we improve 

school discipline? Educational Researcher, 

39(1), 48-58. 

94. Osher et al. (2010).

95. Osher et al. (in press). 

96. School-wide annual suspension rates were 

compared in 971 schools that chose to adopt 

the Virginia Threat Assessment Guidelines 

versus 824 schools not using the Guidelines. 

Use of the Virginia Guidelines was associated with a 19% reduction in the number of 

long-term suspensions and an 8% reduction 

in the number of short-term suspensions 

school-wide during the 2010-11 school year. 
 14 Policy Recommendations for Reducing Disparities 

Length of implementation was associated 

with greater reductions in suspensions. 

Schools with formal training in the Virginia 

Guidelines had greater reductions than 

schools that adopted them without formal 

training (Cornell et al., 2013).

97. Cornell et al. (2013).

98. Sugai, G., & Horner, R.H. (2002). The evolution of discipline practices: School-wide 

positive behavior supports. Child & Family 

Behavior Therapy, 24(1/2) p. 23-50.

99. Fenning, P., Pigott, T., Engler, E., Bradshaw, K., Gamboney, E., Grunewald, S., . . . 

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

methods approach examining disproportionality in school discipline. Paper presented 

at the Closing the School Discipline Gap: 

Research to Practice conference, Washington, DC. 

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

M. (2013). 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.

101. In a recent survey of 116 policy professionals, who worked as administrators in the 

educational and nonprofit sector, participants 

ranked the top three issues affecting middle 

school boys of color as: (1) have the highest 

rates of suspension and expulsion from 

school; (2) face more punitive punishments 

for school infractions, often resulting in 

placement in the juvenile justice system; 

and (3) exhibit many early warning signs of 

high school dropout, yet fail to receive the 

services needed to keep them connected to 

school. A little more than half of the participants were not aware of policy discussions 

addressing the issues, but around 42% were 

aware of efforts to change policy on the 

issues. They reported that some of the obstacles hindering policy change include lack 

of parental involvement, lack of political 

will, and racial politics. They suggested that 

support should come in the form of funding, 

teacher training, and community mobilization efforts.

102. A review of discipline data reporting by all 

50 states as of September, 2013 conducted 

by the Council of State Governments and 

The Center for Civil Rights Remedies is 

available here: http://civilrightsproject.

ucla.edu/resources/projects/center-for-civilrights-remedies/school-to-prison-folder/

online-data-resources/nation-wide-surveyof-state-education-agencies2019-onlineschool-disciplinary-data.

103. In its statement of support Part A, OCR 

states: “The transformed 2009-10 CRDC 

has been heralded as a first-of-its-kind 

opportunity gap data tool that is allowing 

citizens and schools nationwide to identify 

educational equity-related problems and 

their solutions.”

104. MacLean, H. (2012, October). Supporting schools to improve students’ engagement and juvenile justice outcomes. Paper 

presented at Justice Center, The Council of 

State Governments School Discipline Consensus Project meeting, Washington, DC. 

105. Creating a positive school climate: Implementing equitable and effective school 

discipline practices. Alliance Webinar. (December 5, 2013). Webinar sponsored by the 

Alliance for Excellent Education, available 

at: http://all4ed.org/webinar/dec-5-2013/ 

106. The February GAO report, entitled Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 

standards needed to improve identification 

of racial and ethnic overrepresentation in 

special education, addressed more generally 

the poor oversight of the enforcement of 

the provisions of 618 (d) regarding racial 

disproportionality in several areas, of which 

discipline disparities is just one. The other 

areas are identification and placement in 

restrictive educational settings.

107. Hewitt, D. T. (2011). Reauthorize, revise, 

and remember: Refocusing the No Child 

Left Behind Act to fulfill Brown’s promise. 

Yale Law & Policy Review, 30, 69-194. 

108. Figlio, D. N. (2006). Testing, crime and 

punishment. Journal of Public Economics, 

90(4), 837-851.

109. This longitudinal investigation within a large 

school district serving 100,000 students 

found a strong relationship between out-ofschool suspensions, disciplinary alternative school placement, and subsequent 

juvenile detention. Nearly 1 in 10 children 

entering grade 3 experienced placement 

in a disciplinary alternative school by 

grade 12. 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. Half of the students placed 

in alternative school while in elementary 

school experienced subsequent juvenile 

detention within less than four years, while 

43% of students placed while in middle 

school were detained as juveniles within less 

than two years (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.) 

110. Vanderhaar, Petrosko, & Munoz. (in press).

111. Agreement to Resolve. OCR Case Number 

09125001, Oakland Unified School District 

and OCR. (September 17, 2012). https://

www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/

investigations/09125001-b.pdf./; Press 

Release, OCR. U.S. Department of Education (September 28, 2012) Announces 

Voluntary Resolution of Oakland Unified 

School District Civil Rights Investigation 

(available online at http://www.ed.gov/news/

press-releases/us-department-educationannounces-voluntary-resolution-oaklandunified-school-di).

112. See U.S. Department of Education Announces Voluntary Resolution of Kentucky’s Christian County Public Schools 

Discipline Investigation. Available at 

http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releas See, 

U.S. Department of Education Announces 

Voluntary Resolution of Kentucky’s 

Christian County Public Schools Discipline Investigation. Available at http://

www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/usdepartment-education-announces-voluntaryresolution-kentucky’s-christian-coun es/

us-department-education-announces-voluntary-resolution-kentucky’s-christian-coun

113. Press Release, Department of Justice, Justice 

Department Files Consent Decree to Prevent 

and Address Racial Discrimination in 

Student Discipline in Meridian, Mississippi 

(March 22, 2013), http://www.justice.gov/

opa/pr/2013/March/13-crt-338.html

114. Vincent, C. G., & Tobin, T. J. (2010). The 

relationship between implementation of 

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

from various ethnic backgrounds with and 

without disabilities. Journal of Emotional 

and Behavioral Disorders, 19(4), 217-232.

115. The SSDI’s School Climate and Discipline 

package of recommendations is available at: 

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/schooldiscipline/index.html?exp=1
 Policy Recommendations for Reducing Disparities 15

About the Authors

Dan Losen, J.D., M.Ed.

is the Director of the Center for Civil Rights 

Remedies (CCRR) at The Civil Rights 

Project/Projecto Derechos Civiles (CRP) 

at UCLA. CCRR is committed to produc-

ing useful education data analysis along 

with research on effective alternatives to 

disciplinary exclusion from school. For ex-

ample, data on most large school districts 

can be found on CCRR’s web-tool, located 

at www.schooldisciplinedata.org. Losen has 

worked on the School to Prison Pipeline and 

other issues at the CRP since 1999, when it 

was affiliated with Harvard Law School. In 

general, his work concerns the impact of law 

and policy on the rights of children of color, 

children with disabilities, and language mi-

nority students to equal educational opportu-

nity. On these and related topics he conducts 

law and policy research; publishes books, 

reports, and articles; has testified before the 

U.S. Congress and the United Nations; helps 

draft model legislation; and provides guid-

ance to policymakers, educators, and civil 

rights advocates. As part of his work with 

the Discipline Disparities Research Collab-

orative, in 2014 Losen will be editing a book 

of new research (including many of new the 

studies referenced here), slated for publica-

tion by Teachers’ College in 2014. 

Damon T. Hewitt, J.D.

is currently Senior Advisor in the U.S. Pro-

grams division of Open Society Foundations. 

Previously, he was Director of the Education 

Practice Group at the NAACP Legal De-

fense and Educational Fund (LDF). Damon 

initially joined LDF’s New York office as a 

Skadden Fellow in October 2001. He was 

formerly Director of the Katrina (Gulf Coast) 

Project. In that capacity Mr. Hewitt worked 

on assignment in New Orleans to facilitate 

LDF’s post-Hurricane Katrina litigation and 

advocacy, including Wallace v. Blanco (the 

first post-Katrina federal voting rights law-

suit) and Boisseau v. Picard (a suit challeng-

ing the denial of education to displaced chil-

dren in New Orleans). From 2009-2010, he 

took leave of absence from LDF to serve as 

Executive Director of the New York Policeon-Police Shootings Task Force—an entity 

created to address the implications arising 

from the deaths of two off-duty AfricanAmerican police officers who were shot 

by fellow officers after being mistaken for 

criminal suspects. Damon is co-author (with 

Catherine Y. Kim and Daniel J. Losen) of The 

School to Prison Pipeline: Structuring Legal 

Reform (NYU Press, 2010).

Ivory Toldson, Ph.D.

is the newly appointed Deputy Director for 

the White House Initiative on Historically 

Black Colleges and Universities. Prior to this 

role, Dr. Toldson served as an associate pro-

fessor at Howard University, senior research 

analyst for the Congressional Black Caucus 

Foundation, and editor-in-chief of The Journal of Negro Education. He was also contributing education editor for The Root, where he 

debunked some of the most pervasive myths 

about African-Americans in his “Show Me 

the Numbers” column. Dr. Toldson has more 

than 60 publications and research presenta-

tions in 36 states, Puerto Rico, Dominican 

Republic, Scotland, South Africa, Paris, 

and Barcelona. He has been featured on CSPAN2 Books, NPR News, POTUS on XM 

Satellite Radio, and numerous local radio sta-

tions. His research has been featured on The 

Root, The National Journal, Essence.com, 

BET.com, The Grio, and Ebony Magazine. 

Dr. Toldson was named in the 2013 The Root 

100, an annual ranking of the most influential 

African-American leaders.

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
 

 16 Policy Recommendations for Reducing Disparities 0311140300

The Equity Project at Indiana University

Center for Evaluation and Education Policy

1900 East Tenth Street

Bloomington, Indiana 47406

812-855-4438

equity@indiana.edu

rtpcollaborative.indiana.edu

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