Jill D. Sharkey a & Pamela A. Fenning b a Department of Counseling, Clinical, and School Psychology,

(1)

On: 18 April 2013, At: 12:25 Publisher: Routledge

Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of School Violence

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjsv20

Rationale for Designing School Contexts

in Support of Proactive Discipline

Jill D. Sharkey a & Pamela A. Fenning b a

Department of Counseling, Clinical, and School Psychology, University of California, Santa Barbara, California, USA b

School of Education, Loyola University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA

Version of record first published: 03 Apr 2012.

To cite this article: Jill D. Sharkey & Pamela A. Fenning (2012): Rationale for Designing School Contexts in Support of Proactive Discipline, Journal of School Violence, 11:2, 95-104

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2012.646641

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any

instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

(2)

INTRODUCTION

Rationale for Designing School Contexts

in Support of Proactive Discipline

JILL D. SHARKEY

Department of Counseling, Clinical, and School Psychology, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California, USA

PAMELA A. FENNING

School of Education, Loyola University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA

This introduction to a special issue of the Journal of School Violence briefly describes current challenges in school discipline and its relation to school violence as a rationale for designing preven-tion-oriented school contexts. School discipline is a critical issue, as disruptive behaviors significantly impact school climate and classroom instruction. Suspension is the most common school discipline response for problem behaviors ranging from mild to severe. However, suspension is ineffective in teaching alternative proactive behaviors, and may have the opposite effect of exacerbat-ing undesirable behaviors. The special issue is intended to advance erudition about the application of suspension versus other dis-cipline strategies in schools. Scholarship about the use of school suspension and viable alternatives (e.g., restorative justice and social cognitive approaches) is presented and critically discussed.

KEYWORDS school discipline, alternatives to suspension, disproportionality, problem behavior, school violence, school climate, proactive behaviors, zero tolerance, discipline policy, discipline referrals

Received October 4, 2011; accepted November 20, 2011.

Address correspondence to Jill D. Sharkey, Department of Counseling, Clinical, and School Psychology, Gevirtz Graduate School of Education, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-9490, USA. E-mail: jsharkey@education.ucsb.edu

95

(3)

School discipline is a significant issue among educators and the larger pub-lic, as disruptive behaviors significantly impact school climate and classroom instruction. Suspension, which involves the removal of students from school for a specific period of time for discipline issues, is a commonly applied zero-tolerance policy—the most broadly implemented discipline policy in the United States (Boccanfuso & Kuhfeld, 2011; Karp, 2011). Zero toler-ance assigns specific, predetermined, and punitive discipline strategies in response to violations of school rules ranging from mild to severe regardless of individual circumstances (Skiba & Knesting, 2001). Yet, there is no evi-dence that suspension is effective in teaching alternative proactive behaviors, and may have the opposite effect of exacerbating undesirable behaviors. Exclusionary discipline responses, such as suspension, restrict opportuni-ties for positive socialization and reduce feelings of school connectedness (American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force, 2008). Thus, school discipline is in desperate need of evidence-based alternatives to suspension easily adaptable for use in K–12 settings.

In this introduction to this special issue of the Journal of School Violence, we describe current challenges in school discipline and its relation to school violence as a rationale for designing school contexts in support of proactive discipline. After summarizing possibilities for proactive disci-pline response, we highlight the current zeitgeist acknowledging the crisis to overhaul school discipline in the United States. We then provide future directions in research, policy, and practice, concluding with a call to policy-makers, researchers, and educational professionals to integrate the findings documented in this special issue to transform school discipline practice.

IMPACT OF EXCLUSIONARY DISCIPLINE

Long-standing research consistently documents the negative impact of sus-pension as a disciplinary tactic. Sussus-pension is not effective in extinguishing challenging behavior or teaching proactive alternatives. Rather, evidence suggests that suspension increases undesirable behaviors and results in reduced school safety (Skiba & Rausch, 2006). Despite findings regarding the negative consequences of suspension, debate continues regarding the merits of exclusionary discipline responses. In this special issue, Flannery, Frank, and Kato (2012) provided an examination of the most common types of school disciplinary responses to first-time truancy and the odds of reoc-currence among ninth graders. Their results demonstrated that exclusionary discipline is by far the most common discipline strategy used and provided preliminary insights into the differential impact of various exclusionary prac-tices on truancy. After controlling for student variables, only two high school responses to truancy impacted the probability of reoffense: Saturday school increased and out-of-school suspension decreased the probability of truancy

(4)

Proactive Discipline 97

reoccurrence. However, upon further investigation, the authors found that repeated application of out-of-school suspension actually had a significant impact on the increase of truancy over time. These results provided corrob-orating evidence that exclusionary discipline practices failed to improve the behavior of the most at-risk students.

There are numerous negative outcomes associated with suspension including school dropout (Skiba & Rausch, 2006), entry to the juvenile justice system (Wald & Losen, 2003), and exacerbated academic problems (Algozzine, Wang, & Violette, 2011). Students with academic problems have heightened risk for behavioral challenges and the common strategy of classroom exclu-sion, applied through office discipline referrals and suspenexclu-sion, naturally exacerbates a student’s academic and behavioral difficulties (Algozzine et al., 2011). Once students experience these difficulties, they begin to feel stigma-tized and disenfranchised (Sander, Sharkey, Olivarri, Tanigawa, & Mauseth, 2010). Without proactive intervention, they are likely to feel increasingly more disconnected to school and are likely to engage with peers involved in delinquency who promote behaviors that lead to truancy, dropout, and entry into the juvenile justice system (Patterson, Reid, & Dishion, 1992).

Not only is suspension ineffective, but it is also applied unfairly. Suspension is applied more frequently to students of certain ethnic groups, particularly Black males. Skiba, Michael, Nardo, and Peterson (2000) exam-ined eight studies from 1979 to 2000 focused on discipline and analyzed 1994–1995 data from a large middle school in the Midwestern United States. They found that Black males were overrepresented in receiving suspen-sion as a discipline consequence relative to their White peers. They also documented that Black males were punished for more subjective offenses, such as disrespect, which suggested that they were disciplined more harshly for less serious behavior than their White peers. Reviewing exclusionary discipline and ethnicity research from 2000 to 2005, Fenning and Rose (2007) found that Black males were consistently overrepresented in every study and that discipline exchanges and classroom management issues were associated with the application of exclusionary discipline. Overall, research focused on disproportionality in student discipline has rejected hypotheses that socioeconomic status or engagement in more serious offenses explains why students of certain ethnic groups are punished more frequently than other students (Skiba et al., 2000). Rather, findings indicated a complex interaction between school systems, educators, and students that resulted in discriminatory discipline practices (Losen & Skiba, 2010).

POSSIBILITIES FOR PROACTIVE DISCIPLINE

Positive characteristics of school discipline systems, such as school-wide behavior management, have been shown to offset risks for youth

(5)

delinquency (Christle, Jolivette, & Nelson, 2005; Gagnon & Leone, 2002). Effective discipline strategies include comprehensive educational, social, and emotional supports and services (Flannery et al., 2012). One of the most potentially powerful tools to support positive discipline as an alternative to exclusionary discipline tactics, noted in each article in this special issue, is school-wide positive behavior support (SWPBS).

SWPBS is an empirically validated framework in general education settings with emergent research in alternative settings as well (Simonsen, Jeffrey-Pearsall, Sugai, & McCurdy, 2011). SWPBS involves teaching and reinforcing appropriate behaviors while redirecting and replacing nega-tive behaviors. SWPBS involves staff training, school-wide expectations for behavior, frequent positive reinforcement, and behavior interventions for students who need extra support. Research consistently demonstrated that schools implementing SWPBS had reductions in disciplinary referrals and suspension rates compared to schools that did not implement SWPBS (Chin, Dowdy, Jimerson, & Rime, 2012). A feature of SWPBS that promotes equity and fairness is using data-based decision making to proactively identify needs and address them before problems escalate instead of focusing on suspension (Bradshaw, Mitchell, & Leaf, 2010). However, SWPBS does not eliminate disproportionality and further work on how to implement SWPBS with a culturally responsive framework is recommended to increase fairness in discipline practices (Vincent, Randall, Cartledge, Tobin, & Swain-Bradway, 2011).

Within the SWPBS framework, behavioral support is provided on a school-wide basis, in which expectations are defined and then directly taught to all in the school community. Following the universal application (Tier 1) intended to prevent as many problematic behaviors as possi-ble, additional strategies are provided on a secondary/group (Tier 2) and tertiary/individual (Tier 3) basis along a continuum (Fenning & Sharkey, 2012). In this special issue, Chin et al. (2012) and Flannery et al. (2012) both discussed alternatives to suspension within a SWPBS framework. Chin et al. (2012) recommended (a) implementing strategies that investigate the offense; (b) requiring the student to reflect on the incident; (c) involving educators to determine the function of the behavior; and (d) designing indi-vidualized interventions for each student based on whether the behavior is the result of making bad choices, a skill or ability deficit, or stemming from a social/emotional need. Chin et al. presented the findings from a case study in which SWPBS behavioral principles were implemented in lieu of school suspension. Flannery et al. (2012) summarized promising positive discipline strategies including early screening procedures for risk factors, early preven-tion, multitiered interventions, formal adult mentoring, and comprehensive after-school programs. They also highlighted the importance of understand-ing why a student engages in repeated negative behavior so that effective discipline can be implemented. As they note, functional behavior analysis

(6)

(FBA) helps determine if and what a student needs to learn in order to engage in desirable behavior and what types of consequences or reinforcers may help motivate the student to respond positively.

The other articles in this special issue described several additional positive strategies as alternatives to suspension including social cognitive training, conflict resolution, peer mediation, and restorative justice (Chin et al., 2012; Fenning et al., 2012; Morrison & Vaandering, 2012). For exam-ple, Morrison and Vaandering (2012) illustrated how restorative justice can shift school discipline from methods of control to social engagement through practices such as victim/offender mediation and reconciliation, community restorative conferencing, and peace making. The strategies recommended by the contributors in this special issue are consistent with or complement the theoretical underpinnings and practices of prevention-oriented approaches that focus on teaching skills and behaviors aligned with SWPBS. Yet, in his commentary regarding this special issue, Bear (2012) made the critical point that successful discipline strategies must include a balance of conse-quences and incentives within a warm, safe school climate. In general, Bear (2010) advocated for an integrated prevention-oriented approach to disci-pline that combines the tenets of social-emotional learning and SWPBS as an alternative to traditional discipline.

Taking an integrated prevention-oriented perspective to discipline requires understanding the entire context of a problem. At the third tier of intervention—for youth who engage in ongoing discipline needs and require the most intensive individualized interventions—Sharkey, Bates, and Furlong (2004) recommended that the principles of manifestation determi-nation be applied to consider school responsibility for student misbehavior. A manifestation determination process is required of educators for stu-dents with disabilities involved in discipline decisions to determine if a student’s disability is preventing the student from behaving appropriately and if the student’s educational plan meets the student’s needs (Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 2004). In the regular education system, a parallel process could be paired with FBA to examine if the stu-dent’s discipline infraction was exacerbated by school factors. Although FBA takes into consideration school setting factors, a manifestation determination focuses specifically on school responsibility for student behavior and holds educators accountable for school supports and services.

CURRENT POLITICAL CLIMATE REGARDING SCHOOL DISCIPLINE Pervasive findings regarding the negative consequences of suspension have contributed to a school discipline conundrum. Despite evidence that punishment leads to negative outcomes for the most at-risk students, zero-tolerance discipline policies continue to be the most popular response to

(7)

students who act out in school. Educators and policymakers have pushed to reform exclusionary discipline practices since the 1970s (National Institute of Education, 1978; National School Resource Network, 1980). Yet, as Fenning et al. (2012) documented in this special issue, written discipline policies have not shifted towards engagement of proactive measures but rather have promoted and expanded exclusionary discipline responses to behavioral infractions ranging from minor to major. A study by the Council of State Government Justice Center and the Public Policy Research Institute of Texas A&M University (2011) tracked about one million Texas students over 6 years and noted that only 3% of discipline responses were for infractions mandated by law—the rest were discretionary. For the nearly 60% of students who were formally disciplined, the actions ranged from in-school suspension for as little as one class period to being expelled. About 15% were suspended or expelled at least 11 times and nearly half of those youth ended up in the juvenile justice system. Most students who experienced multiple sus-pensions or expulsions did not graduate. The study also found that ethnic minority students were more likely than White students to face the more severe punishments. This study highlighted the widespread, negative impact that written punitive discipline policies had on a majority of students.

Nationally and internationally noted scholars and policy makers have described exclusionary discipline practices as a civil rights issue (Skiba et al., 2011). With dramatic increases in the number of suspensions and expul-sions applied to students, vast numbers of students are being excluded from school due to school discipline responses. A free education is not a privilege but a legal right of all youth (Education Rights Center, n.d.). All children have the right to receive an education in a safe, positive, and equi-table setting (Skiba et al., 2011). The application of exclusionary discipline strategies violates children’s educational rights, especially when those strate-gies are applied disproportionately to particular groups of children. This has catalyzed various civil rights groups, such as the U.S. Office of Civil Rights, to investigate discipline policies and their application. By investigat-ing and documentinvestigat-ing the impact of discipline policies, civil rights advocates can highlight the vast deleterious impact zero tolerance policies have on individual students, schools, and society.

Fortunately, there are proactive discipline strategies proven to improve student engagement and reduce problem behavior and there appears to be consistent advocacy at U.S. federal, state, and local levels to promote reform in school discipline. On July 21, 2011 U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and Attorney General Eric Holder announced the launch of the Supportive School Discipline Initiative, a federal project that involves collaboration between the United States Departments of Education and Justice to address the “school-to-prison pipeline” and disciplinary policies and practices that push students out of school and into the justice sys-tem (U.S. Department of Justice, 2011). The initiative promotes effective

(8)

discipline practices for safe and productive learning environments in every classroom. The goals of the initiative are to ensure that discipline strate-gies support students, engage them in school, improve the learning climate, and are administered fairly. This recent federal support for changing school discipline practices is a significant step towards positive change.

Recently, regional efforts to reform discipline systems have been reported in the media. In The Denver Post, Robles (2011) reported reac-tion to a Denver Public School discipline policy transformareac-tion that was implemented in 2009 after parent and community groups criticized zero-tolerance policies for pushing kids, particularly ethnic minority youth, out of school and into jail. The new policy lists behavioral problems and pairs them with interventions and possible consequences. School professionals listen and work with students on problems instead of immediately outsourcing to administrators. They must use and document at least one positive interven-tion with the goal of teaching offenders so they can learn more appropriate behavior. Although data demonstrated that behavioral problems and refer-rals to law enforcement have decreased, Robles reported that there has been some frustration among parents and the general public that such strategies are not tough enough. Such a disconnection between results and public opinion highlights the need to raise awareness about the consequences of punitive discipline and the benefits of positive discipline responses. That public opinion may favor punishing youths with behavior problems is a barrier to system change that must be acknowledged and addressed.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Clearly, policy reform must include transforming discipline policies from exclusionary and punitive tactics such as suspension and expulsion to more engaging, supportive, and proactive approaches. Fenning and Sharkey (2012) recommended revising written discipline policies to include com-prehensive, multilevel, proactive responses to behavioral problems and to remove punitive responses for minor infractions. Once such policies are in place, there are a number of additional factors that must be considered. For example, qualitative interviews have identified the need for training teachers in behavior management skills because ineffective strategies to encourage compliance tended to be used by staff in schools that had low achievement and the highest rates of suspension and drop out (Christle et al., 2005). Fenning and Sharkey also noted that structured professional development is needed not only to implement proactive systems of behavior support but also to implement culturally competent practices to address disproportionate application of discipline consequences. In addition to staff training, regular and systematic review of discipline data disaggregated by ethnic minority status would allow educators to identify disproportionality and investigate

(9)

the cause. Towards this end, a problem-solving team could assist faculty and staff to improve the delivery and evaluation of interventions designed to improve student behavior. Finally, structure, consistency, and transparency in data that documents student behavior and resulting interventions would allow educators, stakeholders, and policymakers to monitor and adjust prac-tices to continually improve practice. These results should be shared with the public to reduce fears associated with school violence and to educate stake-holders regarding the relative impact of proactive versus punishing discipline strategies.

CONCLUSION

Almost since its inception, the use of suspension and the concomitant lack of proactive alternatives to suspension have long been described as a highly problematic educational quandary. In the United States, federal, state, and local agencies are not only continuing to identify the use of sus-pension as a problem, but also are beginning to examine alternatives to traditional suspension in schools. This special issue seeks to link with this national dialogue by highlighting the work of researchers, policymakers, and practitioners who are beginning to address the dearth of evidence-based alternatives to suspension in the literature. Through this special issue, we sought to build upon the national momentum of leading scholars in the field through a focus on evidence-based alternatives that are available, and to expand the dialogue about what is available to schools that address behaviors and academics of students on a daily basis.

COMPETING INTERESTS We have no competing interests to disclose.

REFERENCES

Algozzine, B., Wang, C., & Violette, A. S. (2011). Reexamining the relation-ship between academic achievement and social behavior. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions,13, 3–16. doi:10.1177/1098300709359084

American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force. (2008). Are zero tolerance policies effective in the schools? An evidentiary review and rec-ommendations.American Psychologist,63, 852–862. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ 0003-066X.63.9.852

Bear, G. (2010).School discipline and self discipline: A practical guide to promoting student Behavior. New York, NY: Guilford.

(10)

Bear, G. (2012). Both suspension and alternatives work, depending on one’s aim.

Journal of School Violence, 11, 174–186.

Boccanfuso, C., & Kuhfeld, M. (2011). Multiple responses, promising results: Evidence-based, nonpunitive alternatives to zero tolerance. Retrieved from http://www. childtrends.org/Files/Child_Trends-2011_03_01_RB_AltToZeroTolerance.pdf Bradshaw, C. P., Mitchell, M. M., & Leaf, P. L. (2010). Examining the effects

of schoolwide positive behavioral interventions and supports on stu-dent outcomes. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12, 133–148. doi:10.1177/1098300709334798

Chin, J. K., Dowdy, E., Jimerson, S. R., & Rime, J. (2012). Alternatives to suspension: Rationale and recommendations.Journal of School Violence,11, 156–173. Christle, C. A., Jolivette, K., & Nelson, M. (2005). Breaking the school to prison

pipeline: Identifying school risk and protective factors for youth delinquency.

Exceptionality,13(2), 69–88. doi:10.1177/07419325070280060201

Council of State Government Justice Center & Public Policy Research Institute of Texas A&M University. (2011). Breaking schools’ rules: A statewide study of how school discipline relates to students’ success and juvenile justice involvement. Retrieved from http://justicecenter.csg.org/resources/juveniles Education Rights Center. (n.d.). Discipline. Retrieved from http://www.

educationrightscenter.org/Discipline.html

Fenning, P., Pulaski, S., Gomez, M., Morello, M., Maroney, E., Maciel, L., et al. (2012). Call to action: A critical need for designing alternatives to suspension and expulsion.Journal of School Violence,11, 105–117.

Fenning, P., & Rose, J. (2007). Overrepresentation of African American students in exclusionary discipline: The role of policy.Urban Education, 42, 536–559. doi:10.1177/0042085907305039

Fenning, P. A., & Sharkey, J. D. (2012). Addressing discipline disproportionality with systemic schoolwide approaches. In A. L. Noltemeyer & C. S. McLoughlin (Eds.), Disproportionality in education and special education (pp. 199–213). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Flannery, K. B., Frank, J. L, & Kato, M. M. (2012). School disciplinary responses to truancy: Current practice and future directions.Journal of School Violence,11, 118–137.

Gagnon, J. C., & Leone, P. E. (2002). Alternative strategies for school violence pre-vention. In R. J. Skiba & G. G. Noam (Eds.), Zero tolerance: Can suspension and expulsion keep schools safe?(pp. 45–71). San Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass. Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400

et seq. (2004).

Karp, S. (2011, July 14). Students demand CPS curtail suspensions [Web log post]. Retrieved from Catalyst Chicago Web site, http://www.catalyst-chicago. org/notebook/2011/07/14/students-demand-cps-curtail-suspensions

Losen, D. J., & Skiba, R. (2010). Suspended education: Urban middle schools in crisis.Retrieved from http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/ school-discipline/suspended-education-urban-middle-schools-in-crisis

Morrison, B. E., & Vaandering, D. (2012). Restorative justice: Pedagogy, praxis, and discipline.Journal of School Violence,11, 138–155.

National Institute of Education. (1978).Violent schools-safe schools: The safe school study report to the congress. Washington, DC: Superintendent of Documents.

(11)

National School Resource Network. (1980). Resource handbook on discipline codes.Cambridge, MA: Oelgeschlager, Gun, & Hahn.

Patterson, G. R., Reid, J. B., & Dishion, T. J. (1992).Antisocial boys. Eugene, OR: Castalia.

Robles, Y. (2011, May 17). New Denver Public Schools discipline system isn’t embraced by all. Retrieved from http://www.denverpost.com

Sander, J. B., Sharkey, J. D., Olivarri, R., Tanigawa, D., & Mauseth, T. (2010). A qualitative study of juvenile offenders, student engagement and interpersonal relationships: Implications for research directions and preventionist approaches.

Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation,20, 1–28. http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/10474412.2010.522878

Sharkey, J. D., Bates, M. P., & Furlong, M. J. (2004). Ethical considerations regarding the prediction of violent behavior in schools. In M. J. Furlong, M. P. Bates, D. C. Smith, & P. E. Kingery (Eds.),Appraisal and prediction of school violence: Methods, issues, and contexts(pp. 1–10). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science. Simonsen, B., Jeffrey-Pearsall, J., Sugai, G., & McCurdy, B. (2011). Alternative

setting-wide positive behavior support.Behavioral Disorders,36, 213–224.

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, 85–107. Skiba, R. J., & Knesting, K. (2001). Zero tolerance, zero evidence: An analysis of

school disciplinary practice. In R. J. Skiba & G. G. Noam (Eds.),Zero tolerance: Can suspension and expulsion keep school safe? (pp. 17–43). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Skiba, R. J., Michael, R. S., Nardo, A. C., & Peterson, R. (2000, June).The color of dis-cipline: Sources of racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment.

Retrieved from http://www.iub.edu/~safeschl/cod.pdf

Skiba, R. J., & Rausch, M. K. (2006). Zero tolerance, suspension, and expul-sion: Questions of equity and effectiveness. In C. M. Evertson & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.),Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 1063–1092). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

U.S. Department of Justice. (2011, July 21). Attorney General Holder, Secretary Duncan announce effort to respond to school-to-prison pipeline by supporting good discipline practices[Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.justice.gov/ opa/pr/2011/July/11-ag-951.html

Vincent, C. G., Randall, C., Cartledge, G., Tobin, T. J., & Swain-Bradway, J. (2011). Toward a conceptual integration of cultural responsiveness and school-wide positive behavior support.Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions,13, 219–229. doi:10.1177/1098300711399765

Wald, J., & Losen, D. J. (2003). Editors’ notes. In J. Wald & D. J. Losen (Eds.),New directions for youth development: Deconstructing the school-to-prison pipeline

(pp. 1–2). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.