RESPONDING TO
DISCIPLINARY
DISPROPORTIONALITY
Cayce McCamish, Ph.D.
OVERVIEW



Grounding this presentation
Disciplinary Disproportionality
Color-blind Racism
 Disciplinary
disproportionality and
the Organization of Power
Findings
 Implications of the model

 Framework
for investigating and
problem-solving disciplinary
disproportionality

Resources
GROUNDING THIS PRESENTATION

Social Construction“patterns of mutual expectations”
 “The social world is constructed- meanings are made,
definitions produced and interpretations propounded” (Clarke
& Saraga, 2001)


Race“signifies and symbolizes social conflicts and interests by
referring to different types of human bodies” (Omi and
Winant, 1994)
 The way power is organized on the basis of skin color.


Power“action on the action of others” (Foucault as cited in Flynn,
2005)
 Individuals do not “precede” it; “they are produced by it”
(Ransom, 1997).


Black or African American? White or Caucasian?
WHAT ARE WE REALLY TALKING ABOUT?
Disciplinary
Disproportionality
-Behavior
-Policies &
Procedures
-Rules &
Expectations
-Inequitable
outcomes
-Race
Can we discuss
disciplinary
disproportionality
without discussing
race?
WHAT IS DISCIPLINARY
DISPROPORTIONALITY?
It is a term used to describe the inequitable
distribution of disciplinary actions in schools
(Wallace, Goodkind, Wallace, & Bachman, 2008).
 Exclusionary disciplinary practices- suspensions,
expulsions, or other actions that result in the
removal of the student from the educational
environment.
 The inequity occurs on the basis of race.

HOW IS IT CALCULATED?




Risk Index is “the percentage of a given racial/ethnic group
that is in a specific category.”
Risk Ratio is a comparison of the “Risk Index for the target
racial/ethnic group and the risk index of all other groups.”
Risk Ratio presents a quantifiable number indicating the
level of over or under-representation of members of a
certain racial/ethnic group to be included in a particular
category.
In the case of disciplinary disproportionality the category
would calculate the risk for certain racial/ethnic groups for
receiving suspensions, expulsions, or other exclusionary
disciplinary outcomes.
Risk Index = Number of Suspensions- received by Black Students
Total Number Enrolled- Students who are Black
Risk Ratio= Risk of Suspensions- for Black Students
Total Risk of Suspensions- for all other racial groups
(The Equity Project at Indiana University, 201
BEGINNING WITH…
Desegregation
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
“with all deliberate speed…”
THE SPEED OF CHANGE…
Nearly a decade after Brown
(1954), The U.S. Commission on
Civil Rights compiled data about
desegregation for advisement to
the President and Congress (U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights,
1963). The report asserted, “Negro
schoolchildren still attend
segregated schools in all parts
of the Nation” (p. 53).
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964)
-Enforced voting rights, access to public facilities, public education, and
prevented discrimination in programs that receive federal assistance.
-Authorized grants, training institutes, and technical assistance to
overcome problems of desegregation.
-Gave authority to the Attorney General to “institute suits” and
authority to the Federal Departments and Agencies to withhold
appropriations of funds to programs that fail to comply with the
law.
EMERGING TREND



The beginning of Civil Rights Compliance efforts.
Discipline for Black students would significantly increase
following desegregation (Thornton & Trent, 1988; Southern
Regional Council & Robert F. Kennedy Memorial, 1973)
Peter Holmes, Director of the Office for Civil Rights under the
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare testified at the
Hearings before the Committee on Equal Opportunities of the
Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives
on May 12, 1974 (Committee on Education and Labor, 1974).

“the Office for Civil Rights has long recognized that the physical
desegregation of a school system does not necessarily mean the end of
discrimination. It often means that the discrimination is removed
from public view, as in the case of the dual system, and relegated to
the classroom or, as we shall see shortly, to the administrator’s office”
(1974, p. 475).
FIRST DOCUMENTATION OF EVIDENCE

HEW/OCR, 1971: First collection of data regarding
expulsions by race


HEW/OCR, 1973: First national survey to collect data
regarding suspensions by race



Black students 3X more likely to be expelled
Black students 3X more likely to be suspended
Children’s Defense Fund, 1974: Children Out of
School in America
Children’s Defense Fund, 1975: School Suspensions:
Are they helping children?
DISCIPLINARY
DISPROPORTIONALITY: A THING
OF THE PAST?
DISPROPORTIONALITY RATE
Year(s)
Rate of greater
likelihoodSuspensions
Source
1973
3
(CDF, 1975)
1991-2005
3.3
(Wallace et al., 2008)
2010
3.5
(CRDC, 2012)
U. S. Secretary of Education
“In America, education is the great equalizer. It doesn’t matter what your
race, wealth, special needs, or zip code is- every child is entitled to a
quality education. That’s why the fight for equal educational opportunity
is about so much more than education. It’s a fight for social justice”
(Duncan, 2010).
CIVIL RIGHTS DATA COLLECTION 2012
Disparate Discipline Rates SY 2009-2010 (CDRC, 2012)
100%
90%
39%
80%
36%
29%
33%
51%
70%
60%
22%
50%
40%
23%
24%
25%
White
Hispanic
Black
24%
30%
46%
20%
39%
35%
35%
2%
3%
1%
2%
ISS
OSS-single
OSS- multiple
Expulsions
18%
10%
6%
0%
Overall Enrollment
RESEARCH- INFLUENTIAL FACTORS

SES


Gender


(Skiba, Michael, Nardo, & Peterson, 2002)
(Skiba, Michael, & Nardo, 2000; Skiba, Michael,
Nardo, & Peterson, 2002; Hinojosa, 2008)
Differences in Behavior

(Bahr & Fuchs, 1991 in Noltemeir and McGlothlin)
GENDER AS A FACTOR
Race and Gender
Percentage of OSS received (CRDC, 2012)
20%
15%
10%
Males
5%
Females
0%
American Indian
Asian/Pacific
Islander
Black
Hispanic
White
For students who are Black, both males and females have higher
rates of suspensions.
1 in 5 males and 1 in 10 females receive an out-of-school
suspension.
BEHAVIORAL DIFFERENCES

Black students appear to be referred to the office
for infractions that are both less serious and
more subjective in their interpretation than
white students.
White students were significantly more likely than
black students to be referred to the office for
smoking, leaving without permission,
vandalism, and obscene language.
 Black students were more likely to be referred for
disrespect, excessive noise, threats, and
loitering.


(Skiba, Peterson, & Williams, 1997; Wu, Pink, Crain, &
Moles, 1982)
MISPERCEPTIONS
Highest rates of disproportionality occur in the
categories of “disruptive” and “Other” (Rausch &
Skiba, 2004).
 Misinterpretation of African American student
behaviors as inappropriate
overlapping speech as disrespect
 play fighting as aggression
 ritualized humor as insults


(Hanna, 1988 as cited in Monroe, 2005; Weinstein, Curran,
and Tomlinson-Clark, 2004 in Monroe, 2005).
WHERE DOES IT HAPPEN?

Racial disparities in school suspension appear to
be greatly impacted by disproportionate rate of
office referral for African-American students.

(Skiba, Michael, Nardo, & Peterson, 2002)
TYPE OF SCHOOL
Out-of-school Suspension Incident Rates by Race
and Locale
60
52.39
Incident Rate Per 100 Students
50
40
39.21
38.89
African American
30
28.15
Hispanic
White
20
19.19
16.9
19.03
13.9
10
10.01
10.38
9.97
6.6
0
Urban
Suburban
Town
Rural
(Rausch & Skiba, 2004)
ZERO TOLERANCE
“In districts that
reported expulsions
under zero-tolerance
policies, Hispanic and
African-American
students represent 45%
of the student body, but
56% of the students
expelled under such
policies” (CRDC, 2012).
DISCIPLINARY DISPROPORTIONALITY:
IS RACISM STILL A FACTOR?
State sponsored racism: 355 years
 Since the end of state sponsored racism: 59 since
Brown or 49 since CRA.




Russ Skiba: Race is not neutral
“Why would we assume there would not be
culturally influenced practices in our educational
systems?” Russ Skiba
Does the end of state sponsored racism mean an
end to racism?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebxvzz6w8BI&feature=related
COLOR-BLIND RACISM





Racism Without Racists (2006), Eduardo Bonilla-Silva
presented qualitative research on the new face of
racism, color-blind racism.
“practices that are subtle, institutional, and
apparently nonracial” (Bonilla-Silva, 2006, p. 3).
“racial norms disallow the open expression of racial
views, [and as a result] whites have developed a
concealed way of voicing them” (Bonilla-Silva, 2006,
p. 57).
While avoiding overt verbal expressions of racism,
white participants none-the-less conveyed racialized
ideology in a “very careful, indirect, hesitant” and
“coded language” (Bonilla-Silva, 2006, p. 55).
Recognition of this change in the language and
expression of racism is critical for our efforts to
continue to name it as racism.
I don’t see
skin color.
I am
completel
y color
blind.
For
instance,
I don’t
see that
the man
next to
me is
Black.
No,
sir. I
don’t
see it.
COLOR-BLIND RACISM AND POWER
Patricia Hill-Collins asserts “racism is a
system of power with four domains” which
are: structural, disciplinary, cultural, and
interpersonal (Hill-Collins, 2009, p. 53).
 Racism is “produced and resisted within each
domain of power as well as across all four
domains” (Hill-Collins, 2009, p. 55).

4 DOMAINS OF POWER (HILL-COLLINS, 2009)
“how racism as a
system of power is
set up,” and
“organized”
through “social
institutions”
“manufactures the
ideas that justify
racial hierarchy” by
“constructing
representations,
ideas, and stories
about race and
racism”
Structural
Cultural
Disciplinary
Interpersonal
“use the rules and
regulations of
everyday life to
uphold the racial
hierarchy or to
challenge it” and is
organized through
“bureaucracies” and
rely on “surveillance”
“shapes race relations
among individuals in
everyday life”
whereby during
“ordinary social
interactions”
individuals “accept
and/or resist racial
inequality” in their
lives
PROPOSED MODEL FOR EXAMINING DD
What policies and
procedures impact
DD? How so?
What are the
unspoken beliefs
held by staff
about our
students based
upon race and
culture?
Structural
Disciplinary
Cultural
Interpersonal
What does our
disciplinary data
tell us about
DD? What
behaviors are
most involved?
How are our
disciplinary
expectations
impacted by race
and culture?
What do we
know about
relationships
between
individuals of
different races?
DISCIPLINARY
DISPROPORTIONALITY AND THE
ORGANIZATION OF POWER
DISCIPLINARY DISPROPORTIONALITY AND THE
ORGANIZATION OF POWER
One
middle school
Students: 63% White, 21% Black/African Am., 10% Hispanic, 5%
Multi-racial, and 2% Other
 Staff: 89% White and 11% Black/African Am. (72% female)
 Teachers only: 93% White, 7% Black/African Am. (70% female)

Methods:
Comprehensive disciplinary data analysis
 Disciplinary policy crosswalk
 Whole-school staff survey*
 7 staff member interviews

*staff members were asked to offer responses about the whole school
EXAMINING DISCIPLINARY
DISPROPORTIONALITY
Disciplinary
policies and
procedures
Structural
Disciplinary
Disciplinary
practices,
expectations,
behaviors, and
events/outcomes
-School-wide
discipline
data (ODR,
ISS, OSS,
Expulsion)
-Discipline Handbook
-Code of Conduct
Cultural
Interpersonal
Cultural beliefs
and perceptions
-Staff survey
-Staff interviews
Perceptions of
the relationships
between staff
members and
students
DISCIPLINARY DOMAIN
21% (N=127) of the population is Black/African
American
 Account for 37% of referrals
 56% referred one or more times (N=71)
 Risk ratio=1.83
100

100
90
90
80
80
70
70
60
60
African American
50
Caucasian
40
30
20
20
10
10
0
0
Non-Violent
Other
Caucasian
40
30
Violent
African American
50
ISS
OSS
Expulsion
Specific behaviors: Disruptive, disrespectful language, bus misbehavior, other
school defined offense
DISCIPLINARY DOMAIN
-STAFF WAS PRESENTED 2 YEARS OF TREND DATA
DEMONSTRATING OVERREPRESENTATION.
100%
80%
60%
Response to survey questions about
disproportionality
16
36
16
48
Agree
40%
20%
48
Somewhat
36
Disagree
0%
Discipline AA students
DD is a significant
more frequent than
concerrn
students of other races
Factors:
Questions about quality and accuracy of the data.
What is disciplinary disproportionality?
DISCIPLINARY DOMAIN
-STAFF PERCEPTIONS OF AFRICAN
AMERICAN STUDENT BEHAVIORS
% of staff that agree
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
40%
56%
44%
36%
% of staff that agree
Further Analysis: Black/African American staff offered significantly
different responses indicating they do not view the behavior of
Black/African American students as more “disruptive” (t(23) = -2.89, p <
.05), “disrespectful” (t(23) = -2.20, p < .05), “aggressive” (t(23) = -2.12, p <
.05), or more “violent” (t(22) = -3.44, p < .05).
STRUCTURAL DOMAIN
Mean Score on Policy Crosswalk
12
11
10
8
8
6
3
4
2
0



0
Bus Misbehavior
Inappropriate
language/disrespect
Other School
Defined Offense
Disruption
Ratings:
0 = not
listed
6 = listed,
defined,
outlines
consequen
ces, and
offers
examples.
20 possible
points
Disruption is not listed in the District Code of Conduct
Lack of clarity and consistency
Most clearly defined behavior was Dress Code=19.
CULTURAL DOMAIN
-IT’S THE STUDENT.
% that Agree
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
60%
40%
Academic struggles
Personal motivation
% that Agree
CULTURAL DOMAIN
-IT’S THEIR FAMILY.
% that Agree
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
72%
76%
60%
% that Agree
family issues
lack of family
support
lack of
parent/family
involvement
“Family values are a significant predictor of behavioral challenges at this school” (72%)
CULTURAL DOMAIN

Culture and race are confusing, but it’s not race (72%)

24% poverty is a factor- interviewees tended to
interject class and gender to avoid race

Volume-Culture (not race)-Disruptive-Punished for
culture

Factors thought to be most significant contributing
factors associated with disproportionality were within
the cultural domain
INTERPERSONAL DOMAIN



40% somewhat agreed and disagreed that most teachers
develop meaningful relationships with Black/African
American students
Not viewed as a part of their job/not valued
Students with significant behavioral challenges have no
relationships

Black/African American administrator (mixed feelings)

Projects, black-cent, and rap music
FINDINGS FROM THE FOUR
DOMAINS OF POWER ANALYSIS
-Inconsistency
and lack of clarity
-Omissions
-Believed to be
most significant
factors
-Cultural beliefs
appear to have
replaced racial
beliefs
-Lack of awareness
-Avoidance of race
Structural
Disciplinary
Cultural
Interpersonal
-Inconsistency and
lack of awareness
-Disciplinary
practices that do not
account for
cultural/racial
differences
-Defensiveness/denial
-Lack of value for
establishing
relationships
IMPLICATIONS
 Findings
are contextually relevant
 Offers
a framework for expanding efforts
beyond disciplinary data analysis
 Creates
opportunity for dialogue about racerelated issues within a color-blind context
 Provides
a basis for strategically responding or
implementing interventions to address
disproportionality
RESPONDING TO
DISCIPLINARY
DISPROPORTIONALITY
PHASE II: PROBLEM SOLVING
 Working
with PBIS problem-solving team(s)
 Utilizing
the TIPs Problem-solving process
 Support
teams with engaging in the problemsolving process with a focus on the data related
to each domain
 Indentify
and implement strategies that
respond to needs revealed within each domain
Structural Domain
Data:
Structural
Domain Data:
Did we achieve
our goal?
If not, why not?
Continue the
process for this or
other Domains.
Are our disciplinary
policies consistent and
include clear
definitions?
Do we have a problem?
Structural
Disciplinary
Structural
Domain
Cultural
Structural
Domain Data:
“Disruptive” and
“Other” behavioral
offenses are not
clearly defined or
even listed in the
policies.
Interpersonal
Structural
Domain Data:
Who is doing what
by when?
What is the goal?
How will we
measure fidelity?
Newton, J.S., Todd, A.W., Algozzine, K, Horner, R.H. & Algozzine, B. (2009).
Structural Domain
Data:
Clearly define
“disruptive” behavior and
train staff, avoid “other,”
and propose policy
revisions to include
“disruptive.”
ACTIVITY
Work in small groups of 2-3
 Review the data provided

What questions do you have?
 What additional data might you need?
 What possible solutions can you propose?

ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR RESPONDING TO
DISCIPLINARY DISPROPORTIONALITY
-Revise
disciplinary
policy
-Revise Code of
Conduct
-Revise district
policies
-Cultural
Responsivity
Training
-Conversations and
Training related to:
Race, Whiteness,
Privilege, Power,
Racism, Culture, etc.
-Examination of
specific beliefs
Structural
Cultural
Disciplinary
Interpersonal
-Clearly define
behaviors related to
DD
-Implement
alternatives to OSS
-Ensure quality of
data
-Train staff about DD
-Identify and
implement
strategies to
enhance
student/teacher
relationships
-Emphasize the
importance
CONCLUSION




Context matters- data is relevant to each school
Changes in our understanding of racism should inform
our efforts to address race-related topics
Disciplinary disproportionality is complex and efforts to
respond must consider a variety of factors
Transitioning from mere data collection to actual
responses requires a problem-solving process
IF THERE IS NO STRUGGLE THERE IS NO PROGRESS.
THOSE WHO PROFESS TO FAVOR FREEDOM, AND YET
DEPRECATE AGITATION, ARE MEN WHO WANT CROPS
WITHOUT PLOWING UP THE GROUND.
THEY WANT RAIN WITHOUT THUNDER AND LIGHTNING.
THEY WANT THE OCEAN WITHOUT THE AWFUL ROAR OF
ITS MANY WATERS.
THIS STRUGGLE MAY BE A MORAL ONE; OR IT MAY BE A
PHYSICAL ONE; OR IT MAY BE BOTH MORAL AND
PHYSICAL; BUT IT MUST BE A STRUGGLE.
POWER CONCEDES NOTHING WITHOUT A DEMAND.
IT NEVER DID AND IT NEVER WILL.
FREDERICK DOUGLASS, LETTER TO ABOLITIONIST
ASSOCIATE, 1853
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
Nccrest: http://www.nccrest.org/
 Restorative Practices:
http://gwired.gwu.edu/hamfish/merlincgi/p/downloadFile/d/16820/n/off/other/1/name/04Rieste
nbergpdf/
 Courageous Conversations About Race:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDuVvN0qjpA

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES CONTINUED
Alternatives to Zero Tolerance
 http://www.dignityinschools.org/content/introduct
ion-alternatives-zero-tolerance
 The School Climate Challenge
 http://issuu.com/csee/docs/school-climatechallenge?mode=window&pageNumber=4

REFERENCES










Bonilla-Silva, E. (2006). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the persistence of
racial inequality in the United States (2nd ed.) Lanham, MD: The Rowman & Littlefield
Publishing Group, Inc.
Children’s Defense Fund, (1975). School Suspensions: Are they helping children? A Report.
p. 1-270. Washington Research Project, Inc.
Children’s Defense Fund (1974). Children Out of School in America. Cambridge, MA:
The Washington Research Project, Inc. Retrieved November 1, 2011 from:
http://diglib.lib.utk.edu/cdf/main.php?bid=124&pg=1.
Civil Rights Act, (1957). PL 88-352. Retrieved November 8, 2011 from:
http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/research/online_documents/civil_rights_act.html.
Civil Rights Act, (1964). Retrieved November 8, 2011 from:
http://www.dotcr.ost.dot.gov/Documents/YCR/CIVILR64.HTM.
Children’s Defense Fund, (2011). Portrait of Inequality 2011: Black Children in America.
Retrieved August 3, 2011 from: http://www.childrensdefense.org/child-research-datapublications/data/portrait-of-inequality-2011.html.
Civil Rights Data Collection Report (2006). Projected Values for the Nation. Retrieved April
2, 2011 from: http://ocrdata.ed.gov/.
Civil Rights Data Collection Report (2012). The Transformed Data Collection (CRDC).
Retrieved March 8, 2012 from: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/crdc-2012data-summary.pdf.
Clarke, J. Saraga, E. (2001). Embodying the Social: Constructions of Difference. E. Saraga
(Ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
REFERENCES








Committee on Education and Labor, (1974). Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention and Runaway Youth. Testimony of Peter Holmes, p. 474-515.
Retrieved November 16, 2011 from:
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?u=1&num=474&seq=4&view=image&size=10
0&id=mdp.39015010298803
Duncan, A. (2010). Crossing the Next Bridge: Secretary Arne Duncan’s
Remarks on the 45th Anniversary of “Bloody Sunday” at the Edmund Pettus
Bridge, Selma, Alabama on March 8, 2010. Retrieved March 8, 2012 from:
http://www2.ed.gov/news/speeches/2010/03/03082010.html.
Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and Punish: The birth of the prison. (2nd
Vintage ed.), New York, NY: Random House, Inc.
Foucault, M. (2006) [2003]. Psychiatric Power. Lectures at the Collège de
France, 1973- 1974. Tr. Graham Burchell. New York: Picador.
Hill-Collins, P. (2009). Another Kind of Public Education: Race, Schools, the
Media, and Democratic Possibilities. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Hinojosa, M. (2008). Black-White differences in school suspension: Effect of
student beliefs about teachers. Sociological Spectrum, 28, p. 175-193.
Losen, D. (2011). Discipline Policies, Successful Schools and Racial Justice.
Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved March 8, 2012 from:
http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED524711.pdf.
REFERENCES








Mendez, L. (2003). Predictors of suspension and negative school outcomes: A
longitudinal investigation. New Directions for Youth Development, 99, p. 1733.
Monroe, C. (2005). Why are “Bad Boys” always Black? Causes of Disproportionality in
School Discipline and Recommendations for Change. The Clearing House, 79, 1.
Noltemeyer, A. & Mcloughlin, C. (2010). Changes in Exclusionary Discipline Rates and
Disciplinary Disproportionality Over Time. International Journal of Special Education,
(25) 1, p. 59-70.
Omi, M. & Winant, H. (1994). Racial Formation in the United States: From the 1960’s to the
1990’s (2nd Ed.) New York, NY: Routledge.
Rausch, M. & Skiba, R. (2004). Disproportionality in school discipline among minority
students in Indiana: Description and Analysis. Children Left Behind Policy Briefs
Supplementary Analysis 2-A, Center for Evaluation and Education Policy, July 2004.
Retrieved March 13, 2012 from: http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED488897.pdf.
Ransom, J. (1997). Foucault’s Discipline: The politics of subjectivity. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press.
Skiba, R., Peterson, R. & Williams, T. (1997). Office referrals and suspension: Disciplinary
intervention in middle schools. Education and Treatment of Children, 20, 3, p. 295-315.
Skiba, R., Michael, R., Nardo, A., & Peterson, R., (2002). The color of discipline: Sources of
racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment. The Urban Review, 34,4, 317342.
REFERENCES








Skiba, R., Horner, R. Chung, C., Rausch, M., May, S. & Tobin, T. (2011). Race is not
neutral: A national investigation of African American and Latino
Disproportionality in school discipline. School Psychology Review, 40, p. 85-107.
Skiba, R. J., Peterson, R. L., & Williams, T. (1997). Office referrals and suspension:
Disciplinary intervention in middle schools. Education and Treatment of Children, 20(3),
295-315.
Skiba, R., Poloni-Staudinger, L., Simmons, A, Feggins-Azziz, R., & Choong-Geun, C. (2005).
Unproven Links: Can poverty explain ethnic disproportionality in special education? The
Journal of Special Education, (39)3, p. 130-144.
Skiba, R. & Rausch, M. (2006). Zero Tolerance, Suspension, and Expulsion: Questions of
equity and effectiveness. In Everston, C. & Weinstein, C (Eds.) Handbook of Classroom
Management: Research, preactice, and contemporary issues. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Skiba, R., Simmons, A., Ritter, S., Kohler, K., & Wu, T. (2003) The Psychology of
Disproportionality: Minority placement in context. Minority Voices, 6, p. 27-40.
Southern Regional Council & the Robert F. Kennedy Memorial, (1973). The Student
Pushout: Victim of continued resistance to desegregation. Southern Regional Council and
the Robert F. Kennedy Memorial.
The Equity Project (2012). Glossary of equity terms. Retrieved March 8, 2012 from:
http://www.indiana.edu/~equity/glossary.php.
Thornton, C. & Trent, W. (1988). School desegregation and suspension in East Baton Rouge
Parish: A preliminary report. Journal of Negro Education, 57, p. 482-501.
REFERENCES





U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, (1962). Civil Rights U.S.A.: Public
Schools Southern States. Retrieved November 18, 2011 from:
http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/usccr/documents/cr12sch62.pdf.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (1966). Southern School Desegregation. A
Press Release. Retrieved November 15, 2011 from:
http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/usccr/documents/pressrel67.pdf
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, (1976). Fulfilling the Letter and Spirit of
the Law:
Desegregation of the Nation’s public schools. Retrieved
November 1, 2011 from:
http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/usccr/documents/cr12l412.
pdf.
Wallace, J., Goodkind, S., Wallace, C., & Bachman, J. (2008). Racial,
Ethnic, and
Gender Differences in School Discipline among U.S. High
School Students:
1991-2005. The Negro Educational Review, 59,
p. 47-62.
Wu, S., Pink, W., Crain, R., Moles, O., (1982). Student suspension: A
critical reappraisal. The Urban Review, 14, p. 245-303.
RESOURCES

Elementary and Middle Schools Technical Assistance Center
(EMSTAC)


Indiana Center for Evaluation and Education Policy: Indiana
Disproportionality Project


http://centerforcsri.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=625&Itemid=11
9
NCCRESt Policy Brief


http://www.nccrest.org/about.html
The Center for Comprehensive School Improvement


http://ceep.indiana.edu/equity/idp/reports.shtml
NCCRESt


http://www.emstac.org/resources/disproportionality.htm
http://www.nccrest.org/Briefs/School_Discipline_Brief.pdf
Race is Not Neutral

http://vimeo.com/14102730