This article was downloaded by: [Princeton University]On: 09 July 2013, At: 10:12Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of School ViolencePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjsv20
Alternatives to Suspensions: Rationaleand RecommendationsJenna K. Chin a , Erin Dowdy a , Shane R. Jimerson a & W. JeremyRime aa Department of Counseling, Clinical, and School Psychology,University of California, Santa Barbara, California, USAAccepted author version posted online: 20 Jan 2012.Publishedonline: 03 Apr 2012.
To cite this article: Jenna K. Chin , Erin Dowdy , Shane R. Jimerson & W. Jeremy Rime (2012)Alternatives to Suspensions: Rationale and Recommendations, Journal of School Violence, 11:2,156-173, DOI: 10.1080/15388220.2012.652912
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2012.652912
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Journal of School Violence, 11:156–173, 2012Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1538-8220 print/1538-8239 onlineDOI: 10.1080/15388220.2012.652912
Alternatives to Suspensions: Rationaleand Recommendations
JENNA K. CHIN, ERIN DOWDY, SHANE R. JIMERSON,and W. JEREMY RIME
Department of Counseling, Clinical, and School Psychology, University of California,Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California, USA
Suspensions are often used as an individual disciplinary conse-quence in attempts to reduce problem behaviors in the future.However, suspensions have shown to be less effective for studentswith specific behavioral challenges and problems. When examin-ing suspensions in the context of behaviorist and social-ecologicallearning theories, suspending may be inappropriate and ineffec-tive to promote learning or behavioral compliance, specifically forstudents with behavioral skill deficits. A literature review of effec-tive prevention methods (e.g., positive behavior supports) informs apotential paradigm shift in how student misbehavior may be effec-tively addressed. A proposed model for alternatives to suspensionsis presented, with special attention to implications and guidelinesfor practitioners. Additionally, a pilot initiative implementing alter-natives to suspensions is discussed, and a case study serves asan example for recommendations in replacing punitive disciplinepractices with proactive, learning opportunities.
KEYWORDS alternatives to suspension, school discipline, positivebehavioral supports, student behavior problems
Many schools in the United States use suspension (requiring the student toleave school for a designated amount of time) as a reaction to or punishmentfor student disciplinary infractions. In 2006, approximately 1 out of every14 students (7%) was suspended from school at least once during the school
Received September 15, 2011; accepted December 18, 2011.Address correspondence to Jenna K. Chin, University of California, Santa Barbara, Gevirtz
Graduate School of Education, Department of Counseling, Clinical, and School Psychology,Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
156
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Prin
ceto
n U
nive
rsity
] at
10:
12 0
9 Ju
ly 2
013
Alternatives to Suspensions 157
year (U.S. Department of Education, 2008c). Over the past few decades, sus-pension rates have been increasing due, in part, to zero-tolerance policiesin which students are suspended for disciplinary violations ranging in sever-ity (Brown, 2007; Mental Health America, 2009). The percentage of UnitedStates public schools using out-of-school suspensions or removal with nocurriculum or additional services provided increased from 34% in 1999/2000(U.S. Department of Education, 2008b) to 41% in 2007/08 (U.S. Departmentof Education, 2008a). However, there is no empirical evidence to support thealleged deterrent effect of suspensions (American Psychological AssociationZero Tolerance Task Force, 2008; Losen & Skiba, 2010). Moreover, suspen-sions appear to be counterproductive, as research has demonstrated thatstudents who get suspended have a variety of negative outcomes includ-ing associated increases in problem behaviors (Mayer, 1995; Sprott, Jenkins,& Doob, 2005), missed academic instruction time (Brown, 2007), and aremore likely to be suspended again (Theriot, Craun, & Dupper, 2010) andincarcerated (Christle, Jolivette, & Nelson, 2005). Such a pattern has beentermed the “school-to-prison pipeline” (Christle et al., 2005; Nicholson-Crotty, Birchmeier, & Valentine, 2009). Escalating punitive consequenceshave proven ineffective for incarcerated youth; moreover, the high ratesof recidivism following incarceration further belie the logic that penalizingconsequences will modify individual behaviors (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006).
Schools do not use a one-size-fits-all approach to academic instruction.Students are taught according to grade and ability level based on considera-tions regarding intellectual development and different learning abilities andneeds. A similar rationale should support teaching behavior and disciplinesince children also have different backgrounds and capacities in these areasas well. While suspensions may work for some students who fail to reof-fend after being suspended once (Atkins et al., 2002), theory and relatedresearch shows that suspensions may be less effective for students with par-ticular needs and histories. For example, students who have behavioral andemotional disabilities (Krezmien, Leone, & Achilles, 2006), problems withaggression, hyperactivity, and social skills (Atkins et al., 2002), and negativeexperiences with school and academics (Scott, Nelson, & Liapusin, 2001)are less likely to positively change their behavior as a result of being sus-pended. Therefore, similar to modified approaches to academic instruction,schools should not use a one-size-fits-all approach to discipline. An alterna-tives to suspensions (ATS) model that promotes learning and reduces futureincidents of behavior problems is needed.
THEORETICAL RATIONALE FOR AN ATS MODEL
Dupper, Theriot, and Craun (2009) described the goals that out-of-schoolsuspension as an educational practice is designed to accomplish, as follows:
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Prin
ceto
n U
nive
rsity
] at
10:
12 0
9 Ju
ly 2
013
158 J. K. Chin et al.
(a) remove the offending student, (b) provide temporary relief to teach-ers and administrators, and (c) get the attention of parents. Similarly, theAmerican Academy of Pediatrics (2003) stated “suspension and expulsionfrom school are used to punish students, alert parents, and protect otherstudents and school staff” (p. 1206). Thus, rather than conceptualizing sus-pensions within a learning framework (i.e., what the students gain or learn asa result of being suspended), it appears that the goals of suspension ignorethe problem in favor of a temporary solution. With the exception of whena student presents an immediate threat (e.g., possession of a weapon), thelogic of sending a student home as a disciplinary infraction does not seemclear, especially when what students are learning and gaining (or not gain-ing) from suspensions is examined (Mizell, 1978). By examining the functionof suspensions within various learning frameworks, including a behavioristperspective and a social-ecological perspective, an explanation is providedas to why suspensions may lead to undesirable and counterproductiveoutcomes.
Suspensions Through the Lens of Behaviorist and Social-EcologicalTheories of Learning
Wheeler and Richey (2005) described the behaviorist model as recognizing“that all behavior serves a function and has evolved as a direct result of theindividual’s learning history coupled with interactions within their environ-ment” (Sulzer-Azaroff & Mayer, 1991, pp. 14–15). Behaviorist theory refersto how stimuli and reinforcements can change and affect behavior in a clas-sical conditioning framework (Sharf, 2008). By pairing stimuli with certainreinforcements, the stimuli may invoke a new type of response dependingon the paired reinforcement. Similarly, the Law of Effect states, “if a behaviorproduces a favorable outcome on the environment, it is more likely to berepeated in the future” (Wheeler & Richey, p. 14).
Many discipline models reflect the principles of behaviorist theory, inwhich an undesirable consequence is given (e.g., spanking, a fee/ticket)in response to an undesired behavior (e.g., breaking the rules, speeding).Considering suspensions through the behaviorist perspective of learning,unacceptable behavior is conceptualized as, for example, initiating a physicalfight, disrespecting a teacher, or destroying school property. The associatedconsequence, suspension, should serve as a punishment and reduce thebehavior from reoccurring. However, for some students, the consequenceof being suspended is a reinforcer (increases the likelihood of the behavior)rather than a punishment (decreases the likelihood of the behavior), as thesuspended students perceive suspensions as an “officially sanctioned schoolholiday” (Rossow & Parkinson, 1999, as cited by Dupper et al., 2009).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Prin
ceto
n U
nive
rsity
] at
10:
12 0
9 Ju
ly 2
013
Alternatives to Suspensions 159
Students who are suspended and expelled often have poor past aca-demic experiences; therefore, it is likely that being required to leave schoolfor a determined amount of time is not a punishment (Brown, 2007).Scott et al. (2001) described how academic tasks could become an aver-sive experience for students who demonstrate challenging behaviors inthe classroom. Scott and colleagues cite research showing that childrenwith behavior and academic deficits are more likely to receive negativeand/or punitive interactions with their teachers and less engaged instructiontime. Consequently, when a student views suspension as a school sanc-tioned holiday, the suspension becomes a reinforcer of problem behaviors.Some students may experience suspension as a punishment; however, alack of established research on positive outcomes of suspensions (AmericanPsychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force, 2008; Losen & Skiba,2010), combined with research on high rates of recidivism of problem behav-iors proceeding suspensions (Mayer, 1995; Sprott et al., 2005; Theriot et al.,2010), suggests that for many students suspension is not having the desiredimpact and could be actually reinforcing for some.
The social-ecological perspective values the importance of how indi-vidual behavior is influenced by their various environments, includinghome, school, and the community (Wheeler & Richey, 2005). From thisperspective, it is critical to examine relevant social contexts, such as a stu-dent’s home environment, and their potential impact on child learning.According to the 2000 U.S. Census, students who are suspended are lesslikely to have supervision at home, and they are more likely to come fromhomes in or near the poverty level, to come from a single parent fam-ily, and to have a variety of home-life stressors (Advocates for Childrenand Youth, 2006; American Academy of Pediatrics, 2003; Bruns, Moore,Stephan, Pruitt, & Weist, 2005). Additionally, in a study examining studentsin special education, students who were more frequently suspended weremore likely to have parents who themselves expressed low school satisfac-tion (Achilles, Mclaughlin, & Croninger, 2007). Despite the good intentionsof most parents, it is possible that students who are suspended will notlearn from their actions or receive attention and consequences in the waythat many administrators anticipate. Parents may be less likely to be athome to discipline the child during the suspension, or they may pay lessattention to the suspension due to various other pressing sociological stres-sors (e.g., poverty, single parenthood; Advocates for Children and Youth,2006; American Academy of Pediatrics, 2003; Bruns et al., 2005) or theirown lack of satisfaction with the school system. In considering learningand social-ecological theories and avoiding a one-size-fits-all disciplinaryapproach, alternative methods of reacting to behavioral problems may provebeneficial.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Prin
ceto
n U
nive
rsity
] at
10:
12 0
9 Ju
ly 2
013
160 J. K. Chin et al.
INTERVENTIONS TO REDUCE SUSPENSIONS
The literature on positive behavior support interventions (PBIS) repre-sents a recent trend in education that has shown a variety of effectson student behavior and provides insight on potentially effective waysto reduce suspensions. PBIS emphasizes a proactive, learning, preventionapproach (rather than a punitive approach) to respond to behavior prob-lems (Bradshaw, Mitchell, & Leaf, 2010). Similar to how students are taughtother skills (e.g., reading, swimming), PBIS frameworks emphasize teach-ing appropriate behaviors and setting forth clear behavior guidelines andexpectations. PBIS is based on behaviorist theory and social learning mod-els (Bradshaw et al., 2010). PBIS includes components such as having(a) universally adopted, consistently applied, well-defined expectations ofbehavior, (b) staff and students who are informed/trained on these expec-tations, (c) a reward system for students’ appropriate behaviors, and (d)additional intensive supports to address student needs in addition to sys-tematic universal, school-wide procedures (Bradshaw et al., 2010; Luiselli,Putnam, Handler, & Feinberg, 2005). Schools implementing PBIS have expe-rienced reductions in office disciplinary referrals and suspension rates,compared to schools not implementing PBIS (Bradshaw et al., 2010; Curtis,Van Horne, Robertson, & Karvonen, 2010; Luiselli et al., 2005; Muscott,Mann, & LeBrun, 2008).
Though not as widespread in the literature as distinct PBIS efforts, thereare emerging research examples that address problem behaviors in school-wide, universal approaches emphasizing proactive learning opportunities,with methods similar to PBIS models. Cantrell, Parks-Savage, and Rehfuss(2007) examined the effects of implementing a school-wide peer media-tion program in a diverse, suburban elementary school of 825 students. Themediation program was based on social learning theory, capitalizing on theidea that students will imitate and learn from peer responses in social situa-tions. During the 3-year longitudinal study, a decrease in infractions relatedto both physical and verbal conflict was evident, which coincided with asignificant decrease in out-of-school suspensions. Suspensions were signif-icantly lower during the 3 years of the study (2.1%–2.9% of the studentpopulation) compared to the 1 year preceding implementation (9.6% of thestudent population). Student mediators showed improvements in knowl-edge related to conflict resolution and problem solving, as demonstratedby a pretest and posttest assessment. A similar study conducted in a lowsocioeconomic, rural elementary with students in Grades 6–8 (Bell, Coleman,Anderson, Whelan, & Wilder, 2000) found that following the implementationof a peer mediation program, school-wide suspensions decreased com-pared to three previous years of baseline data, and the student mediatorsdemonstrated reduced office referrals compared to a control group.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Prin
ceto
n U
nive
rsity
] at
10:
12 0
9 Ju
ly 2
013
Alternatives to Suspensions 161
THE CURRENT STUDY
Although there is research and theory that points to the potential suc-cess of a discipline system that focuses on prevention and skill buildinginstead of punitive consequences, there is limited research on actual ATSinterventions and their effectiveness. This study first created an ATS pro-gram, based on the rationale of learning theories and research illustratingthe need to teach appropriate behaviors to students. Then, the programwas piloted at an elementary school with students from families experienc-ing low socioeconomic circumstances. When students engaged in an act ofmisbehavior that would previously warrant a suspension per the schools’discipline policies, specific strategies and interventions were implementedto replace the suspension. It was hypothesized that providing offendingstudents with interventions that fulfilled skill deficits or responded to emo-tional needs of the student would result in less future problem behaviorscompared to if the student had been suspended. The ATS program processand design was derived from the review of the literature and is presentednext.
METHOD
Participants
The ATS program was piloted in an elementary school during the2010/11 school year. There were a total of 553 students in preschool throughGrade 6. The student population included 94% Latino/a, 3% Anglo, and1% African American youths. Most of the students were eligible for free orreduced-price lunch (92%) and over three quarters were identified as EnglishLanguage Learners (79%). Standardized test data from the 2009/10 year forthe California Standards Tests (Educational Testing Services, 2010) showedthat 31% of students had scores in the proficient or advanced levels onthe English-Language Arts portion (compared to 52% in the district and52% in the state), and 43% of students had scores in the proficient oradvanced levels on Mathematics portion (compared to 58% in the dis-trict and 48% in the state). The school was in its fifth year in programimprovement under the Federal Intervention Program at the time of thestudy.
A total of nine students were administered ATS interventions. Of thesestudents, 22% were in fourth grade (n = 2), 22% were in fifth grade (n= 2), and 56% were in sixth grade (n = 5). All students (n = 9) wereLatino/a, in general education, and were identified as English LanguageLearners.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Prin
ceto
n U
nive
rsity
] at
10:
12 0
9 Ju
ly 2
013
162 J. K. Chin et al.
Procedure
PBIS PROGRAM
An ATS approach was implemented as part of a school-wide PBIS initiativeby a team including the school psychologist, school psychology gradu-ate students, and university faculty. The administration at the elementaryschool expressed interest in reducing suspensions at the beginning of theschool year. The 2010/11 school year was the first year of PBIS imple-mentation. The PBIS program consisted of assessment and intervention atschool-wide, class-wide, small-group, and individualized levels. School-widebehavioral expectations were taught to all students and staff at the begin-ning of the school year. All students received class-wide weekly lessonsfrom a social-emotional curriculum taught by school psychology graduatestudents, which covered topics such as anger management, emotional regu-lation, problem solving, and strategies to deal with and prevent bullying. Allstudents were screened for risk of behavioral and emotional problems usingthe Behavioral and Emotional Screening System (Kamphaus & Reynolds,2007), using the teacher-report form for all grades and the student self-report form for Grades 3–6. The assessment results and teacher referralsinformed small group and individual interventions, implemented by thePBIS team, as needed. The ATS program consisted solely of individual-ized interventions for students referred following a significant behavioralinfraction. Parental consent was obtained prior to participation in theprogram.
STRATEGIES AND INTERVENTIONS TO REPLACE SUSPENSIONS
The PBIS team designed the ATS program based on reviewed literature andresearch on suspension practices. Table 1 lists ATS strategies and inter-ventions the PBIS team selected, which are based on skill-building andproactive learning, designed to address the behavioral needs of the student.These skill-building interventions also responded to the research, whichfound that students with behavioral problems often have (a) poor expe-riences with school, (b) families with little supervision and various stressorsat home (Advocates for Children and Youth, 2006; American Academy ofPediatrics, 2003; Bruns et al., 2005), and/or (c) parents who also had poorexperiences with school (Achilles et al., 2007). Table 1 is compiled withinterventions that addressed the ability or skill deficit, in addition to otherempirically based methods that have been effective in changing behav-ior (e.g., cognitive-behavioral support, solution-focused counseling, directinstruction, and progress monitoring).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Prin
ceto
n U
nive
rsity
] at
10:
12 0
9 Ju
ly 2
013
TAB
LE1
Alte
rnat
ives
toSu
spen
sions:
Stra
tegi
esan
dIn
terv
entio
ns
Alte
rnat
ive
tosu
spen
sion
Des
crip
tion
Self-m
anag
emen
tpla
ns
•Indiv
idual
ized
self-m
anag
emen
tpla
ns
can
hel
pre
duce
undes
ired
beh
avio
r(P
eter
son,20
05;
K.W
alke
r,20
09).
•Beh
avio
rm
onito
ring
stra
tegi
essu
chas
dai
lyre
port
card
s,se
lf-c
har
ting
ofbeh
avio
rs,an
doth
erst
rate
gies
that
pro
vide
feed
bac
kto
the
studen
tca
nbe
util
ized
(Advo
cate
sfo
rChild
ren
and
Youth
,20
06;Fr
ankl
in,Pet
erso
n,Sk
iba,
&Sk
iba,
2007
).D
ebriefi
ng
and
reflec
tion
assi
gnm
ents
(for
imm
edia
teuse
)•D
isru
ptiv
est
uden
tsca
nbe
sentto
aquie
tpla
cein
the
clas
sroom
or
outs
ide
ofth
ecl
assr
oom
tofill
outa
“CoolD
ow
nW
ork
shee
t”or
deb
riefi
ng
work
shee
t,w
her
eth
est
uden
tdes
crib
esth
ein
frac
tion,w
hy
they
did
it,an
dw
hat
they
nee
dto
do
diffe
rently
.The
teac
her
then
revi
ews
this
with
the
studen
tduring
the
nex
tunst
ruct
ure
dper
iod
(e.g
.,re
cess
;Posi
tive
Envi
ronm
ent,
Net
work
ofTra
iner
s;PEN
T,20
09).
Rel
evan
tre
sourc
esca
nbe
found
atth
ePEN
TW
ebsi
teat
http:/
/ww
w.p
ent.c
a.go
v/dsk
/bsp
man
ual
.htm
lD
ebriefi
ng
and
reflec
tion
assi
gnm
ents
(for
less
imm
edia
teuse
)•S
tuden
tsca
nbe
assi
gned
hom
ework
that
invo
lves
rese
arch
ing
ato
pic
rele
vantto
thei
rbeh
avio
ralin
frac
tion
(e.g
.,if
the
studen
tw
asphys
ical
lyag
gres
sive
,th
eyca
nre
sear
ch“s
oci
alan
dle
galco
nse
quen
ces
for
aggr
essi
on”)
Studen
tsca
nth
enpre
senta
post
er,Pow
erPoin
tpre
senta
tion,or
video
pre
senta
tion
toth
eir
clas
sin
whic
hth
eyte
ach
oth
ers
the
skill
they
lear
ned
(PEN
T,20
09).
Beh
avio
rco
ntrac
ts•H
ave
studen
tsbe
activ
ely
invo
lved
incr
eatin
ga
contrac
tdel
inea
ting
goal
san
dposi
tive
and
neg
ativ
eco
nse
quen
ces.
When
studen
tsar
een
gage
din
the
pro
ble
m-s
olv
ing
pro
cess
,th
eyar
ebei
ng
taugh
tpro
activ
ebeh
avio
rs(F
rankl
inet
al.,
2007
;Pet
erso
n,20
05).
•Ifco
ntrac
tsar
ebro
ken,a
par
entco
nfe
rence
can
be
calle
dto
revi
ewth
eco
ntrac
t.The
hom
ean
dsc
hoolca
nco
llabora
tein
dev
elopin
gco
nse
quen
ces
(Dep
artm
entofJu
venile
Just
ice
and
Del
inquen
cyPre
ventio
n,20
03).
Nat
ura
lco
nse
quen
ces
•Dis
ciplin
ary
conse
quen
ces
should
be
rela
ted
toth
est
uden
t’sin
appro
priat
ebeh
avio
r.They
should
be
des
igned
tote
ach
the
studen
tto
hav
ein
crea
sed
awar
enes
sor
know
ledge
aboutw
hy
thei
rbeh
avio
rw
asunac
cepta
ble
,th
eref
ore
faci
litat
ing
beh
avio
rch
ange
(Pet
erso
n,20
05;
K.W
alke
r,20
09;e.
g.,des
truct
ion
ofpro
per
tyor
afo
od
figh
tm
ayre
sult
ina
conse
quen
ceth
atin
volv
esth
est
uden
tcl
eanin
gth
eca
fete
ria,
wal
ls,sw
eepin
gup
room
s;ac
cess
ing
inap
pro
priat
eW
ebsi
tes
on
schoolco
mpute
rsm
ayre
sult
inlo
stco
mpute
rprivi
lege
s).
•Nat
ura
lco
nse
quen
ces
invo
lvin
gth
est
uden
tre
pla
cing
or
repai
ring
what
they
hav
edam
aged
allo
wth
est
uden
tto
feel
empow
ered
tore
store
or
modify
the
schoolen
viro
nm
ent(F
rankl
inet
al.,
2007
).
(Con
tin
ued
)
163
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Prin
ceto
n U
nive
rsity
] at
10:
12 0
9 Ju
ly 2
013
TAB
LE1
(Contin
ued
)
Alte
rnat
ive
tosu
spen
sion
Des
crip
tion
Indiv
idual
ized
soci
al-e
motio
nal
trai
nin
g/le
arnin
g•S
kill
build
ing
rela
ted
tost
uden
tpro
ble
mca
nbe
done
thro
ugh
indiv
idual
or
group
counse
ling,
or
clas
s-w
ide
less
ons
(Pet
erso
n,20
05;K
.W
alke
r,20
09).
•Pee
rm
edia
tion
pro
gram
sdev
eloped
tohel
poffen
din
gst
uden
tsle
arn
how
tobe
effe
ctiv
epro
ble
m-s
olv
ers
and
are
then
assi
gned
tohel
poth
erst
uden
tsso
lve
pro
ble
ms
during
unst
ruct
ure
dtim
e(A
dvo
cate
sfo
rChild
ren
and
Youth
,20
06;K
.W
alke
r,20
09).
Counse
ling
•Gen
eral
counse
ling
can
be
use
dto
under
stan
dth
epro
ble
mbeh
avio
ran
dco
llabora
tivel
ypro
ble
mso
lve
tore
duce
futu
repro
ble
mbeh
avio
rs(S
kiba
&Rau
sch,20
06;K
.W
alke
r,20
09)
•Counse
ling
can
iden
tify
per
sonal
issu
esin
terf
erin
gw
ithst
uden
tpro
gres
s(P
eter
son,20
05).
•Counse
ling
can
hel
pth
est
uden
tse
ehow
thei
rbeh
avio
rin
terf
ered
with
oth
ers’
lear
nin
g(e
.g.,
empat
hy
trai
nin
g)(G
arib
aldi,
1979
).Par
entin
volv
emen
t•P
aren
tsca
nbe
required
toco
me
tosc
hoolw
ithth
est
uden
tto
hel
pm
onito
rth
eir
beh
avio
ran
dhold
the
studen
tac
counta
ble
(Pet
erso
n,20
05;K
.W
alke
r,20
09).
•Par
enttrai
nin
gor
par
entco
unse
ling
refe
rral
sca
npro
vide
par
ents
with
nee
ded
skill
sto
impro
veth
eir
child
’sbeh
avio
ras
anad
ded
com
ponen
tto
the
direc
tst
uden
tin
terv
entio
n(e
.g.,
H.M
.W
alke
ret
al.,
2009
).•P
aren
t–te
acher
confe
rence
sca
nbe
required
when
studen
tsm
isbeh
ave.
The
teac
her
/ad
min
istrat
or,
par
ents
,an
dst
uden
tca
nco
llabora
teon
apla
nfo
rth
est
uden
tto
impro
vebeh
avio
r(D
epar
tmen
tofJu
venile
Just
ice
and
Del
inquen
cyPre
ventio
n,20
03).
Inte
rven
tion
room
s/in
-sch
ool
susp
ensi
on
•Inte
rven
tion
room
sar
em
ore
pro
activ
eal
tern
ativ
esto
time-
outs
,tim
e-aw
ay,or
susp
ensi
ons,
bec
ause
they
invo
lve
psy
choed
uca
tion
and
addre
ssin
gth
epro
ble
mbeh
avio
r(G
arib
aldi,
1979
;Sk
iba
&Rau
sch,20
06).
•Bef
ore
mak
ing
anoffi
cere
ferr
alor
sendin
gth
est
uden
taw
ayfr
om
the
room
,te
acher
sse
nd
studen
tsto
anin
terv
entio
nro
om
.The
inte
rven
tion
room
teac
her
shel
pth
est
uden
tpro
cess
the
inci
den
t,at
tem
ptto
hel
pth
est
uden
tta
kere
sponsi
bili
tyfo
rhis
or
her
beh
avio
r,an
das
sist
the
studen
tin
retu
rnin
gto
the
clas
sroom
with
dev
elopin
ga
pla
nto
avoid
futu
repro
ble
ms.
Res
earc
hat
the
hig
hsc
hoolle
velsh
ow
edth
ism
ethod
tobe
effe
ctiv
e(S
kiba
&Rau
sch,20
06).
•Inte
rven
tion
room
sar
est
affe
dw
ithte
acher
san
ddai
lyas
sign
men
tsar
epro
vided
.A
ssig
nm
ents
can
focu
son
dec
isio
nm
akin
g,dev
elopin
gva
lues
,an
dpro
cess
ing
beh
avio
rm
isdem
eanors
(Gar
ibal
di,
1979
).
164
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Prin
ceto
n U
nive
rsity
] at
10:
12 0
9 Ju
ly 2
013
Alternatives to Suspensions 165
DECISION-MAKING GUIDE: CHOOSING APPROPRIATE ALTERNATIVES
TO SUSPENSIONS
To move away from a one-size-fits-all approach to discipline, it was impor-tant to delineate, within the ATS program, which interventions should bechosen for different functions of behavior. Figure 1 summarizes the mainfindings presented in this literature review in the format of a practical guideto decision-making for interventions to be used within an ATS programmodel. When a student committed an offense, a debriefing and reflectionassignment was implemented in order for both the student and the schoolstaff to be aware of the student’s behavioral function. Additionally, furtherassessment, including interviews and observations, was conducted to eval-uate the function of the student offense. This assessment process, designedto align with behaviorist theory, aimed to evaluate what was reinforcing thestudent behavior so as to inform subsequent interventions. The interven-tion needed to account for the function of the students’ problem behavior(McIntosh, Campbell, Carter, & Dickey, 2009), as well as components ofa student’s background and systems, as described by the social-ecologicaltheory (e.g., home, parents, and friends).
Figure 1 refers to types of interventions described in Table 1, whichare divided into three categories based on various functions of the problembehavior: interventions appropriate for defiance/bad choices, skill/abilitydeficit, or social/emotional need. While it is likely that certain studentoffenses are committed in situations where students know what is right,but choose to do what is wrong (defiance/bad choices), there are also situ-ations where students may not know how to appropriately act (skill/abilitydeficit) or where student behavior is being influenced by home and lifestressors (social/emotional need; Advocates for Children and Youth, 2006;American Academy of Pediatrics, 2003; Bruns et al., 2005). Interventionswere selected to match various functions of behavior, with considerationsfrom learning theories and relevant research. For instance, recommend-ing social-emotional training for students with skill/ability deficits can helpstudents learn how to achieve desired reinforcements through appropriatebehaviors. Additionally, parent involvement is suggested as an importantcomponent for each function of behavior as social-ecological theory wouldsupport parent behavior as significantly impacting child behavior (Wheeler& Richey, 2005). Furthermore, suggesting parent involvement through parenttrainings or sharing the students’ social-emotional curriculums with parentsmay achieve the goal of getting parent attention in a proactive, constructiveway (Dupper et al., 2009).
This decision-making guide informed the third-tier, individualized stu-dent intervention, within a school that had various school-wide, class-wide,and small-group supports in place. As the PBIS literature supports, it isimportant and more efficient to primarily utilize and implement broader
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Prin
ceto
n U
nive
rsity
] at
10:
12 0
9 Ju
ly 2
013
FIG
UR
E1
Dec
isio
n-m
akin
ggu
ide:
choosi
ng
appro
priat
eal
tern
ativ
esto
susp
ensi
ons.
166
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Prin
ceto
n U
nive
rsity
] at
10:
12 0
9 Ju
ly 2
013
Alternatives to Suspensions 167
interventions, and then progress to individualized interventions if thebroader interventions are ineffective (Sugai & Horner, 2009). For instance,if a particular grade level of students is committing a similar offense (e.g.,bullying), a grade-wide intervention would first be appropriate. Similarly,if five or six students engage in an act of stealing, a small-group inter-vention would first be appropriate. The decision-making guide in Figure 1can also be utilized to assess for commonalities among offenses to informwhether interventions can be conducted broadly or individually, in an effortto maximize efficiency.
RESULTS
When comparing suspension data from the 5 years previous to the ATSprogram implementation, 2005/06 (N = 57), 2006/07 (N = 49), 2007/08 (N= 45), 2008/09 (N = 42), and 2009/10 (N = 66) to the suspension data fromthe 2010/11 school year (N = 23), there were fewer suspensions duringthe year the ATS model was implemented. Of the nine students receivingspecific activities from the ATS program, two of these students (22%) eachhad one reoffense of suspension, and seven (78%) did not. Among the36 students suspended the previous year (2009/10), 18 students (46%) hadat least one subsequent reoffense resulting in additional suspensions. Whilethere is an insufficient amount of data to statistically compare the number ofsuspensions and number of reoffenses in years preceding the ATS programwith numbers from the year of the ATS program, these numbers do providesome support for the success of the ATS program in reducing suspensionsand reoffenses.
The following case study provides an example of how the ATS modelwas applied, following the approach delineated in Table 1 and Figure 1.Although data are qualitative in nature, and with no control groups to exam-ine the effectiveness of the intervention, this case study illustrates how toimplement and make decisions within an ATS model. However, the quantita-tive data on number of suspensions and reoffenses of suspensions followingthe intervention, compared to the number of suspensions and reoffense ofsuspensions from the previous year when the ATS program was not in place,provide a preliminary indication of program success.
CASE STUDY: TEACHING SKILLS TO ADDRESS PHYSICAL AND VERBAL BULLYING
Amy was a 9-year-old student in fourth grade. She was as an EnglishLanguage Learner and part of the school district’s free/reduced-price lunchprogram. Throughout her fourth-grade year, she consistently scored in thebelow average and average range in language arts and mathematics, receiv-ing more below average grades at the beginning of the school year and
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Prin
ceto
n U
nive
rsity
] at
10:
12 0
9 Ju
ly 2
013
168 J. K. Chin et al.
more average grades towards the end of the school year. She had frequentabsences (n = 17) and tardies (n = 47) throughout the 172-day school year.Her grades for development of personal and citizenship skills were belowaverage in the first trimester and average in the second and third trimester.Amy did not have any previously documented suspensions in her schoolrecords. However, Amy admitted that she had a history of “getting in trou-ble” for behavioral problems in school for as long as she could remember.There were no documented social-emotional or behavioral interventions inher school cumulative file.
In the first trimester of fourth grade, Amy was brought to the adminis-tration’s attention due to her verbal and physical bullying of other students.She had verbally threatened two students during school hours and physicallyhit another student while participating in the school’s after-school program.Amy’s behaviors warranted school disciplinary action, as reported by theprincipal, and Amy was also in danger of being expelled from the after-school program. Following the steps in Figure 1, Amy and the PBIS teammembers completed various worksheets that facilitated an assessment ofthe function of Amy’s behavior; this took place during a 45-minute ses-sion on the school day following the principal’s report of Amy’s disciplinaryinfraction. The worksheets were titled, “Thinking about My Behavior,”“Understanding Feelings Can Affect My Behavior,” and “Problem SolvingSteps,” and are available through the Positive Environment, Network ofTrainers (2009) Web site (URL provided in Table 1). The worksheets providequestions that prompt students to think about their choices, reasons fortheir behavior, and better options for choosing future behaviors. From thedebriefing/reflection assignment process, Amy and the PBIS team memberconcluded that Amy often got angry when she felt out of control, and inresponse to being angry, she became aggressive with peers. Additionally, thePBIS team member consulted with teachers and after-school program staffto understand the presenting problem and goals that her parents and schoolstaff had for Amy. School staff members wanted Amy to reduce her physicaland verbal aggression and increase her prosocial behaviors. Amy’s parentssigned and returned a consent form that allowed Amy to be involved withservices from the PBIS team. Unfortunately, after several attempts to contactAmy’s parents, the parents could not be reached for additional information.
Based on information derived from the debriefing and reflection assign-ment and student and teacher interviews, it was determined that Amydemonstrated a skill/ability deficit in controlling her anger, for which Amyhad received no previous interventions. The goal of the alternative to sus-pension activity was to increase Amy’s knowledge and ability to calm downwhen angry, with the selected intervention of social-emotional training. Aftergetting input from Amy’s teachers and Amy, the PBIS team decided that Amywould work on strategies to calm down in four weekly pull-out counselingsessions, culminating with a final project demonstrating what Amy learned.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Prin
ceto
n U
nive
rsity
] at
10:
12 0
9 Ju
ly 2
013
Alternatives to Suspensions 169
In the counseling sessions, the PBIS team member taught and practicedself-calming strategies with Amy, directed by the Second Step curriculum(Committee for Children, 2002). The complete Second Step curriculum wassimultaneously being taught class-wide, so the PBIS member selected twoSecond Step lessons relevant to Amy’s goals that had not yet been pre-sented in Amy’s class, which Amy would subsequently help teach. The firsttwo counseling sessions focused on Amy learning these two Second Steplessons, “Managing Strong Feelings” and “Calming Down Anger.” In the thirdand fourth counseling sessions, they reviewed the curriculum and rehearsedteaching the two lessons. Since Amy had an interest in art, the third andfourth counseling sessions were also used to make a “Ways to Calm Down”poster for Amy to present during one of the class lessons. Following thefour weeks of intervention, Amy assisted the PBIS member in teaching twoweekly lessons to Amy’s class.
Amy’s progress was monitored weekly during counseling sessions andshe consistently verbally reported improvement in how she felt about schooland the after-school program. Additionally, the PBIS team member met withAmy’s teacher biweekly following the start of the alternative to suspensionactivity until the activity was completed and then monthly thereafter. Amy’steacher reported seeing progress in Amy’s behavior and noted satisfactionwith the alternative to suspension activity, saying that it resulted in behav-ioral change. For the remainder of the school year (6 months), Amy didnot have a reoffense. There was one report of Amy engaging in physicalaggression in her after-school program, compared to weekly complaintsabout Amy’s behavior from the after-school program prior to the interven-tion. When this event occurred, the PBIS team member met with Amy fortwo booster/review counseling sessions. In these sessions, Amy was ableto verbally recall the strategies she learned to calm down, demonstrate thestrategies in role-play scenarios, and discuss how she will better apply thestrategies in the future. The PBIS team member continued to check in withAmy and her teachers on a regular basis, and Amy demonstrated (basedon student report and teacher observation) that she remembered and usedstrategies to calm down when she became angry. Additionally, Amy verballyreported to the PBIS team member that she herself felt more in control ofher emotions, more confident in her calming-down skills, and more satis-fied in her participation in the after school program, which she previouslyexpressed dislike towards. The support processes implemented for Amyyielded the desired behaviors throughout the remainder of the school year.
DISCUSSION
Findings from this pilot study provide preliminary evidence that schoolscan find success in implementing an ATS program that promotes prosocial
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Prin
ceto
n U
nive
rsity
] at
10:
12 0
9 Ju
ly 2
013
170 J. K. Chin et al.
behaviors by engaging students to facilitate their understanding and enhancetheir knowledge. This pilot study demonstrated a reduction in suspensionscompared with previous years, within a small city elementary school, withpredominantly Latino/a students and students with families experiencinglow socioeconomic circumstances. Additionally, the case study demonstratedhow a proactive, learning approach to behavioral problems could poten-tially effectively replace punitive school discipline practices that frequentthe country.
Future studies should be conducted to further examine how an ATSmodel affects suspension reoffenses, improvements in behavioral and social-emotional functioning (e.g., based on diagnostic scales, student report, andteacher report), and other disciplinary actions. Additionally, studies shouldexplore how an ATS model may function differently in schools with or with-out other PBIS programs in place. Individualized approaches, such as theATS model, are likely to be more effective when they are included as onepart of a comprehensive school-wide positive behavior approach (Sugai &Horner, 2009). Consideration of student access to both universal and grouplevel supports is needed. Future research is needed to determine the optimalamount and timing of activities within an ATS program, as well as how tobest integrate them within a comprehensive PBIS program.
Based on our experiences, we propose that the ATS model as pre-sented can serve as a beginning base for future proactive practices inresponding to student behavioral misdemeanors. Although such a proposedsystem change takes effort, time, and staff and administration buy-in, theseguidelines encourage education professionals to use a discipline model thatresponds to the needs of the students and aims to implement evidence-based strategies to promote learning and reduce recidivism. Consistent withPBIS frameworks and learning theories, students should not be solely pun-ished for misbehavior; they need to be taught behavior when there is a clearindication that there is a deficit in their skills.
STATEMENT ON FUNDING
This research was supported in part by funding from the ThriveWestside/Harding Early Years Program.
COMPETING INTERESTS
We do not have any conflicts of interest to disclose.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We wish to thank the students and staff for their participation and support.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Prin
ceto
n U
nive
rsity
] at
10:
12 0
9 Ju
ly 2
013
Alternatives to Suspensions 171
REFERENCES
Achilles, G. M., Mclaughlin, M. J., & Croninger, R. G. (2007). Sociocultural corre-lates of disciplinary exclusion among students with emotional, behavioral, andlearning disabilities in the SEELS national dataset. Journal of Emotional andBehavioral Disorders, 15, 33–45. doi:10.1177/10634266070150010401
Advocates for Children and Youth. (2006). School suspension: effects and alterna-tives. Voices for Maryland’s Children, 3(6), 1–14. Retrieved from http://www.acy.org/upimages/news_document1149532362-1.pdf
American Academy of Pediatrics. (2003). Out-of-school suspension and expulsion.Pediatrics, 112, 1206–1209. doi:10.1542/peds.112.5.1206
American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force. (2008). Are zero tol-erance policies effective in the schools? An evidentiary review and recommen-dations. American Psychologist, 63, 852–862. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.63.9.852
Atkins, M. S., McKay, M. M., Frazier, S. L., Jakobsons, L. J., Arvanitis, P., Cunningham,T., et al. (2002). Suspensions and detentions in an urban, low-income school:punishment or reward? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30, 361–371.doi:10.1023/A:1015765924135
Bell, S. K., Coleman, J. K., Anderson, A., Whelan, J. P., & Wilder, C. (2000). The effec-tiveness of peer mediation in a low-SES rural elementary school. Psychologyin the Schools, 37 , 505–516. doi:10.1002/1520-6807(200011)37:6<505::AID-PITS3>3.0.CO;2-5
Bradshaw, C. P., Mitchell, M. M., & Leaf, P. J. (2010). Examining the effectsof school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports on studentoutcomes: Results from a randomized controlled effectiveness trial in ele-mentary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12, 133–148.doi:10.1177/1098300709334798
Brown, T. M. (2007). Lost and turned out: Academic, social, and emotional expe-riences of students excluded from school. Urban Education, 42, 432–455.doi:10.1177/0042085907304947
Bruns, E. J., Moore, E., Stephan, S. H., Pruitt, D., & Weist, M. D. (2005). The impactof school mental health services on out-of-school suspension rates. Journal ofYouth and Adolescence, 34, 23–30. doi:10.1007/s10964-0005-1333-z
Cantrell, R., Parks-Savage, A., & Rehfuss, M. (2007). Reducing levels ofelementary school violence with peer mediation. Professional SchoolCounseling, 10, 475–481. Retrieved from http://www.schoolcounselor.org/content.asp?contentid=235
Christle, C. A., Jolivette, K., & Nelson, C. M. (2005). Breaking the school to prisonpipeline: Identifying school risk and protective factors for youth delinquency.Exceptionality, 13(2), 69–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327035ex1302_2
Committee for Children. (2002). Second Step: A violence prevention curriculumgrades 4–5 teacher’s guide (3rd ed.). Seattle, WA: Author.
Curtis, R., Van Horne, J. W., Robertson, P., & Karvonen, M. (2010). Outcomesof a school-wide positive behavioral support program. Professional SchoolCounseling, 13, 159–164. doi:10.5330/PSC.n.2010-13.159
Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2003). Project EASE(Educational Alternatives to Suspension and Expulsion): Promising strate-gies document. Retrieved from http://www.ncdjjdp.org/cpsv/toolkit/acrobat/project_ease.pdf
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Prin
ceto
n U
nive
rsity
] at
10:
12 0
9 Ju
ly 2
013
172 J. K. Chin et al.
Dupper, D. R., Theriot, M. T., & Craun, S. W. (2009). Reducing out-of-school sus-pensions: Practice guidelines for school social workers. Children & Schools,31(1), 6–14. Retrieved from http://titania.naswpressonline.org/vl=6317369/cl=15/nw=1/rpsv/cw/nasw/01627961/v31n1/s2/p6
Educational Testing Services. (2010). The guide to your STAR student reportCalifornia Standards Test. Retrieved from http://www.startest.org/pdfs/STAR.CST_interpretation_guide.2011.pdf
Franklin, N., Peterson, R., Skiba, L., & Skiba, R. (2007). Top ten alterna-tives to suspension. Retrieved from http://www.stonesoupgroup.org/Assets/Alternatives%20to%20Suspension.PDF
Garibaldi, A. M. (1979). In school-alternatives to suspension: Trendy educationalinnovations. The Urban Review, 11, 97–103. doi:0042-0972/79/020097-07$01.50
Kamphaus, R. W., & Reynolds, C. R. (2007). Behavior Assessment Systemfor Children–Second Edition (BASC-2): Behavioral and Emotional ScreeningSystem (BESS). Bloomington, MN: Pearson.
Krezmien, M. P., Leone, P. E., & Achilles, G. M. (2006). Suspension, race, and dis-ability: Analysis of statewide practices and reporting. Journal of Emotional andBehavioral Disorders, 14, 217–226. doi:10.1177/10634266060140040501
Losen, D. J., & Skiba, R. (2010). Suspended education: Urban middle schools in cri-sis. Retrieved from http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/school-discipline/suspended-education-urban-middle-schools-in-crisis
Luiselli, J. K., Putnam, R. F., Handler, M. W., & Feinberg, A. B. (2005).Whole school positive behavior support: Effects on student discipline prob-lems and academic performance. Educational Psychology, 25, 183–198.doi:10.1080/0144341042000301265
Mayer, G. R. (1995). Preventing antisocial behavior in the schools. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis, 28, 467–478. doi:10.1901/jaba.1995.28-467
McIntosh, K., Campbell, A. L., Carter, D. R., & Dickey, C. R. (2009).Differential effects of a tier two behavior intervention based on functionof problem behavior. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11, 82–93.doi:10.1177/1098300708319127
Mental Health America. (2009). Position statement 46: Zero tolerance policies inschools. Retrieved from www.mentalhealthamerica.net/
Mizell, M. H. (1978, April). Designing and implementing effective in-school alter-natives to suspension. Paper presented at the National Institution of EducationConference on In-School Alternatives to Suspension, Washington, DC.
Muscott, H. S., Mann, E. L., & LeBrun, M. R. (2008). Positive behavior interven-tions and supports in New Hampshire: Effects of large-scale implementationof school-wide positive behavior support on student discipline and aca-demic achievement. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 10, 190–195.doi:10.1177/1098300708316258
Nicholson-Crotty, S., Birchmeier, Z., & Valentine, D. (2009). Exploring the impact ofschool discipline on racial disproportion in the juvenile justice system. SocialScience Quarterly, 90, 1003–1018. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2009.00674.x
Peterson, R. L. (2005). Ten alternatives to suspension. Impact: Feature Issue onFostering Success in School and Beyond for Students with Emotional/BehavioralDisorders, 18(2), 10–11. Retrieved from http://ici.umn.edu/products/impact/182/182.pdf
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Prin
ceto
n U
nive
rsity
] at
10:
12 0
9 Ju
ly 2
013
Alternatives to Suspensions 173
Positive Environment, Network of Trainers. (2009). The BSP desk reference.Retrieved from www.pent.ca.gov
Scott, T. M., Nelson, C. M., & Liaupsin, C. J. (2001). Effective instruc-tion: The forgotten component in preventing school violence.Education and Treatment of Children, 24, 309–322. Retrieved fromhttp://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/external?sid=ea13983e-538a-4c91-8cc3-064ea32580ee%40sessionmgr10&vid=3&hid=9
Sharf, R. S. (2008). Theories of psychotherapy and counseling: Concepts and cases(4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks Cole.
Skiba, R., & Rausch, M. K. (2006). School disciplinary systems: Alternatives to sus-pension and expulsion. In G. G. Bear & K. M. Minke (Eds.) Children’s needsIII: Development, prevention, and intervention (pp. 87–102). Washington, DC:National Association of School Psychologists.
Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (2006). Juvenile offenders and victims: 2006 nationalreport. Retrieved from www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp
Sprott, J. B., Jenkins, J. M., & Doob, A. N. (2005). Protecting at-risk youthfrom early offending. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 3, 59–77.doi:10.1177/1541204004270943
Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2009). Responsiveness-to-intervention and school-wide positive behavior supports: Integration of multi-tiered system approaches.Exceptionality, 17 , 223–237. doi:10.1080/09362830903235375
Sulzer-Azaroff, B., & Mayer, R. G. (1991). Behavioral analysis for lasting change.Orlando, FL: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Theriot, M. T., Craun, S. W., & Dupper, D. R. (2010). Multilevel evaluation of factorspredicting school exclusion among middle and high school students. Childrenand Youth Services Review, 32, 13–19. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.06.009
U.S. Department of Education. (2008a). Percentage of public schools reporting thatspecified disciplinary actions were allowed, and used during the school year,by selected disciplinary actions: School year 2007–08. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ssocs/tables/all_2008_tab_11.asp
U.S. Department of Education. (2008b). Percentage of public schools reportingthat specified disciplinary actions were available but not feasible, availablebut not used, available and used, or not available, by selected disciplinaryactions: 1999–2000. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ssocs/tables/all_2000_tab_12.asp?referrer=css
U.S. Department of Education. (2008c). Percentage of students suspended andexpelled from public elementary and secondary schools, by sex, race/ethnicity,and state: 2006. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_170.asp
Walker, K. (2009). Research brief: Alternatives to suspension. Retrieved http://www.educationpartnerships.org/
Walker, H. M., Seeley, J. R., Small, J., Severson, H. H., Graham, B. A., Feil, E. G.,et al. (2009). A randomized controlled trial of the First Step to Success EarlyIntervention: Demonstration of program efficacy outcomes in a diverse, urbanschool district. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 17 , 197–212.doi:10.1177/1063426609341645
Wheeler, J. L., & Richey, D. D. (2005). Behavioral management: Principles andpractices of positive behavior supports. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Prin
ceto
n U
nive
rsity
] at
10:
12 0
9 Ju
ly 2
013