My first literature review was the most challenging assignment because I had to research everything that I wanted to say in this review. Therefore, I needed it to be said before I ever thought it, which requires a great deal of research. My conclusion was deemed weak by my professor because I simply asked "What comes next after a person is restored?" If, I had more time I would have said restorative justice is based on a student doing something wrong or a student victimizing someone before they begin to get the attention of school administration. What is school administration providing for these students to integrate them into the school community before they get into trouble? Do they invest in leadership activities such as talent shows, peer-to-peer tutoring, etc... These were my thoughts as I concluded this review, but I found myself not having enough research articles and exhausted so I concluded by simply asking what's next? Despite the ending of this literature review, this paper still provides a wealth of information. I am excited about creating something to provide students with educational opportunities that will keep them integrated in their school community while fostering a school culture where students feel like the leaders of tomorrow.
School-To-Prison Pipeline: The Necessity For A Paradigm Shift
The school-to-prison pipeline is an example of how short-term satisfaction can have long-term consequences because when school districts use exclusionary practices such as zero tolerance policies, suspensions, expulsions, and court referrals as a short-term solution for school-based misbehavior it results in long-term consequence for students, especially minority students who are being disproportionately pushed out of school systems into the criminal justice system. If you were to witness a police officer leading a student off campus in handcuffs the student would probably be black. According to the Education Department’s Office of Civil Rights in 1 out of 3 school related arrests the student is black and this phenomenon has been coined the school-to-prison pipeline by educational reform activists and organizations because it illustrates how school disciplinary policies can force students out of the educational system into the criminal justice system. School districts with inclusion practices designed to keep students in school have received less attention, therefore the primary focus of this literature review will be to discuss alternatives to exclusionary practices such as peace circles and restorative justice.
School-to-Prison Pipeline
Schools are beginning to resemble prisons where teachers serve as guards in charge of monitoring students, administrators are equivalent to wardens responsible for maintaining social order, and students are a mirror image of prisoners contemplating a school break while serving a 12 to 13 year sentence (Gabbard, 2013). The use of surveillance cameras, metal detectors, and police officers on campus are examples of criminal justice technology and practices being utilized to “push-out” or exclude students from school (Heitzeg, 2009). Police officers and metal detectors transform schools from safe learning environments into virtual prisons where students are being removed from schools for nonviolent behaviors, which nearly two decades ago would have been handled without the use of law enforcement and considered typical childhood behavior (Gonsoulin.S et.al 2012, Archer 2009). “Indeed, as students of color disparately transfer from schools to prisons, one can rightly say that America’s education and criminal justice systems now bear a symbiotic relationship (Smith, 2009).”
The number of students suspended from school in 1974 was 1.7 million doubled to 3.1 million by 2000, and in 2006 research indicates one out of every fourteen students was suspended during the school year. Qualitative research indicates the consequences of these exclusionary practices, which remove or “push-out” students from the school community and academic instruction contribute to delinquency, dropout rates, and ultimately what researchers refer to as the “school to prison pipeline”(Gonzalez, 2012, Fowler, 2011).
There are two potential entry points into the school-to-prison pipeline and both originate from exclusionary practices by school leaders (Wilson, 2013). The first entry point is when school leaders decide to criminalize youth behavior by adopting zero-tolerance policies with predetermined sanctions in response to specific type of school misbehavior (Skiba, 2002). In the early 1990s with a national focus to combat the war on drugs, police officers moved from the streets onto school campuses for the purpose of ensuring school safety, but the crossing of education and criminal justice policies resulted in minority students being disparately pushed out of school and into the prisons (Gonzalez, 2012, Smith, 2009). In 1994 the federal Gun-Free School Act (GFSA) required all schools receiving funds from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) to expel students who brought a weapon to school for no less than a year, however many states and districts chose to expand the mandate to include fighting, truancy, and drug possession (Evans, M. et al 2012). Zero-tolerance policies are the first entry point into the pipeline because they have led to disproportionate punishment, exclusion, and incarceration of minority students, as well as students receiving special education services (Fowler, 2011, Wilson, 2013).
The second entry point into the pipeline stems from an accumulation of multiple events beginning with the overuse of exclusionary practices such as suspension and expulsion which leave students susceptible to negative experiences in and out of school, increasing the likelihood of social misconduct with negative peers while simultaneously decreasing academic support for students removed from the school community (Gonzalez, 2012, Wilson, 2013). Furthermore the use of educational tracking which separates students into homogeneous groups such as “gifted” and “not gifted” allows for differentiated instruction for students categorized as low, medium, or high which is particularly harmful to minority students placed in low groups subjected to instructional methods that entice disruptive behaviors (Smith, 2009).
The long term consequences of exclusionary practices reveal that sixty-nine percent of incarcerated adults are dropouts, seventy-five percent of youth in adult prison fail to complete tenth grade, and thirty-three percent of all incarcerated youth cannot even read at a fourth grade reading level. After being suspended or expelled minority students are far more likely to be incarcerated, consequently blacks and Latinos account for over sixty percent of America’s 2.3 million prisoners (Smith, 2009). The school-to-prison pipeline has received national attention in relationship to the use of exclusionary practices, but less attention has been given to schools designed to disrupt the school-to-prison pipeline, therefore inclusion practices will be the primary focus of this literature review.
The Paradigm Shift
Dismantling the school-to-prison pipeline will require a paradigm shift where school leadership focuses on student inclusion into the school community rather than exclusion. Schools and school leadership will have to reexamine responses to issues related to school performance, dropout rates, and the school-to-prison pipeline without a disproportionate reliance on suspensions and expulsion (Gonzalez, 2012). Therefore teachers, school administrators, and other school based personnel that play a vital role in regards to the students trajectory into and through the pipeline to prisons will require effective professional development which enhances their capacity to create safer schools and more effective learning communities. (Gonsoulin, S. et al. 2012, Coggshall, J et al 2013).
“When educators have the competencies and capacity- the knowledge, skill, beliefs, values, attitudes, experiences, and supports- to effectively address the diverse academic, social and emotional learning needs of all students and to build positive conditions for learning, they not only can begin to redress the overrepresentation of students of color in the pipeline to prison but also put more students on paths to successful futures (Coggshall, Osher, Colombi 2013).”
In the article, Enhancing Educators’ Capacity to Stop the School-to-Prison Pipeline their was four ways educators could influence the closing of the pipeline, by developing a positive teacher-student relationship, maintaining high expectations of students while seeking to understand social emotional competencies within the classroom, providing a safe and supportive learning environment, and the educators approach to discipline. (Coggshall et al., 2013).
Research indicates the teacher-student relationship is essential for keeping students engaged in school because teachers with high expectations for positive behavior, that demonstrate a genuine interest in their students, and who fairly and tolerantly handle discipline in the classroom have students that feel safer and more connected to school (Gonzalez, 2012). Unfortunately, at-risk youth or students with a history of involvement within the juvenile justice system attend schools with low expectations, therefore its imperative teacher are aware of their own social and emotional competencies and ability to provide a curriculum that engages students (Coggshall et al, 2013). The educators role is the most important tool needed to stop the school-to-prison pipeline because in a recent poll given to teachers in relationship to effective classroom management, 95% of the teachers polled indicated the removal of students that were deemed severe discipline problems was a “very effective” (68%) or “somewhat effective” (27%) strategy for improving teacher effectiveness (Coggshall & Ott, 2010). This lack of capacity brings clarity in relationship to the overrepresentation of minority students in the school-to-prison pipeline (Skiba, Eckes, & Brown.), and suggests restorative justice practices may be a necessity for school culture to change.
Restorative Justice.
One early intellectual framework of restorative justice stems from the 1977 article “Conflict as property” by Nils Christie, who viewed offenses as conflicts, which rightfully belong to victims and offenders that should have an active role in its solution. The exclusion of victims and offenders from resolving their conflict robs them of the opportunity and right to learn and grow through their conflicts (Wenzel, M., et al).
“Christie mentioned five elements that should be present while looking for conflict’s solution (1) the parties involved are present, (2) they talk often and are eagerly listen by the audience; (3) close relatives and friends are present; (4) local communities is also there, (5) judges and official experts even if present are much less involved, they rather observe, follow the procedures and let the parties decide (Platek, 2007).”
Restorative justice is an inclusion process designed to reintegrate students into the school community, which is the polar opposite of zero tolerance polices based on the beliefs that rule-breaking must be punished without consideration of the circumstances or the potential opportunity for a student to learn about their behavior (Gonzalez, 2012, Wilson, 2013). The restorative process allows victims, offenders, families, supporters, and anyone in the community impacted by the negative incident or offense to be included in the response to a rule violation that requires disciplinary action, however the group focuses on rehabilitation and accountability for the offender and healing for the victim (Wilson, 2013, Stinchcomb et. al, 2006). Restorative justice demonstrates how school leadership can transforms a rule violation into an opportunity for a teaching moment by emphasizing understanding and accountability for behaviors, which is significantly meaningful for students with disabilities, who may require a deeper understanding of how their behavior impacts others (Wilson, 2013).
Peace Circles Impacting School Culture
The circle process is a form of restorative justice as ancient as human history (Pranis 2005) and “represents the interconnectedness of all things”(Wolf & Rikard, 2003) and is a means for restorative justice between victims and offenders while simultaneously including members of the community to discuss the impact of an offense and reach an agreement about corrective action (Wilson 2013). Native Americans traditionally use talking circle as a ‘way of bringing people of all ages together for the purposes of teaching, listening, and learning’ (Wolf & Rikard, 2003). A common practice amongst these circles is the use of a ‘talking piece’ that travels from person to person with the understanding that whoever possesses the talking piece will speak and listen from the heart, but maintaining respect (Steiner & Johnson, 2003). A research study conducted by Stinchcomb and colleagues in 2006 found out-of-school suspensions decreased between 50 and 85% over three years for schools that implemented peace circles and one schools behavioral referrals decreased by 65% (Stinchcomb et al., 2006).
Schools differ from court systems because they have the unique opportunity to set the stage for all parties involved in an offense by allowing community involvement to assist in clearly defining the problem and formulating a plan for restitution. Schools who participate in restorative justice initiatives have the capacity and knowledge to put in place strategies that are long-term and sustainable (Gonzalez, 2012).
The Downfall to Restorative Justice
Restorative justice has emerged as an alternative to court-based criminal justice, but the downfall to restorative justice is no matter what nature of the offense victims are considered deprived of something that is due to them (their life, property, respect, etc.) Regardless if students are able to restore justice by returning victim what they lost or by undoing a harm that was done the fact still remains a violation of a rule occurred, therefore some form of punishment will occur. Relevant research suggests only one notion of justice restoration: retributive justice where an offender who violated a rule or law deserves to be punished in order for justice to be reestablished and the offender has to be punished to the severity of the wrongdoing (Wenzel., et al). Restorative justice
References
Archer, D. (2009/10). Introduction: Challenging the School-to-Prison Pipeline. New York School Law Review, 2009/10, Vol: 54 Issue 4, p867-872. 6p
Coggshall, J.G., Osher, D., Colombi, G. (2013). Enhancing Educators’ Capacity to Stop the School-to-Prison Pipeline. Family Court Review, Jul2013, Vol. 51 Issue 3, p435-444. 10p.
Evans, M., Didlick-Davis, C., (2012). Organizing to End the School-to-Prison Pipeline: An Analysis of Grassroots Organizing Campaigns and Policy Solutions. eJournal of Education Policy. Fall2012, p1-7. 7p. 1 Chart
Fowler, D. (2011) School discipline feeds the “pipeline to prison”. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(2), 14-19
Gabbard, D. (2012). Rethinking the “School to Prison Pipeline”. Value Inquiry Book Series. 2013, Vol. 261, p31-40. 10p.
Gonsoulin,S., Zablocki, M., Leone, P. (2012). Safe Schools, Staff Development, and the School-to-Prison Pipeline. Teacher Educaion and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children 2012 35: 309 originally published online 23 July 2012.
Gonzalez, T. (2012). Keeping Kids in Schools: Restorative Justice, Punitive Discipline, and the School to Prison Pipeline. Journal of Law & Education Vol.41 No. 2, pp
Platek, M. (2007). Restorative Justice as a mean to effective crime control and alternative to imprisonment. Conflict as property revisited. Sociologija: Mintris ir Veikmas. 2007 Issue 2, p135-150. 16p.
Skiba, R., Eckes, S., Brown, K. (2010). African American Disproportionality in School Discipline: The Divide Between Best Evidence and Legal Remedy. New York Law School Review, Vol. 54, Issue 3, p1071-1112. 42p
Smith, C. (2009). Deconstructing the Pipeline: Evaluating school to prison pipeline equal protection cases through a structural racism framework. Fordham Urban Journal, Nov 2009, Vol. 36 Issue 5, p1009, 41 p.
Steiner, M., Johnson, M.(2003). Using Restorative Practices in Group Treatment, Reclaiming Children & Youth. Spring2003, Vol.12 Issue 1, p53-57. 5p.
Stinchcomb, J.B., G., & Reistenberg, N. (2006). Beyond zero-tolerance: Restoring justice in secondary schools. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4, 123-147
Wenzel, M., Okimoto, T.G., Feather, N.T., Platow, M.J., (2008) Law & Human Behavior (Springer Science and Business Media B.V) Oct 2008. Vol. 32 Issue 5, p375-389.15p.
Wilson, M.G. (2013). Disrupting the Pipeline: The Role of School Leadership in Mitigating Exclusion and Criminalization of Students. Journal of Special Education Leadership 26 (2), 61-70.
The school-to-prison pipeline is an example of how short-term satisfaction can have long-term consequences because when school districts use exclusionary practices such as zero tolerance policies, suspensions, expulsions, and court referrals as a short-term solution for school-based misbehavior it results in long-term consequence for students, especially minority students who are being disproportionately pushed out of school systems into the criminal justice system. If you were to witness a police officer leading a student off campus in handcuffs the student would probably be black. According to the Education Department’s Office of Civil Rights in 1 out of 3 school related arrests the student is black and this phenomenon has been coined the school-to-prison pipeline by educational reform activists and organizations because it illustrates how school disciplinary policies can force students out of the educational system into the criminal justice system. School districts with inclusion practices designed to keep students in school have received less attention, therefore the primary focus of this literature review will be to discuss alternatives to exclusionary practices such as peace circles and restorative justice.
School-to-Prison Pipeline
Schools are beginning to resemble prisons where teachers serve as guards in charge of monitoring students, administrators are equivalent to wardens responsible for maintaining social order, and students are a mirror image of prisoners contemplating a school break while serving a 12 to 13 year sentence (Gabbard, 2013). The use of surveillance cameras, metal detectors, and police officers on campus are examples of criminal justice technology and practices being utilized to “push-out” or exclude students from school (Heitzeg, 2009). Police officers and metal detectors transform schools from safe learning environments into virtual prisons where students are being removed from schools for nonviolent behaviors, which nearly two decades ago would have been handled without the use of law enforcement and considered typical childhood behavior (Gonsoulin.S et.al 2012, Archer 2009). “Indeed, as students of color disparately transfer from schools to prisons, one can rightly say that America’s education and criminal justice systems now bear a symbiotic relationship (Smith, 2009).”
The number of students suspended from school in 1974 was 1.7 million doubled to 3.1 million by 2000, and in 2006 research indicates one out of every fourteen students was suspended during the school year. Qualitative research indicates the consequences of these exclusionary practices, which remove or “push-out” students from the school community and academic instruction contribute to delinquency, dropout rates, and ultimately what researchers refer to as the “school to prison pipeline”(Gonzalez, 2012, Fowler, 2011).
There are two potential entry points into the school-to-prison pipeline and both originate from exclusionary practices by school leaders (Wilson, 2013). The first entry point is when school leaders decide to criminalize youth behavior by adopting zero-tolerance policies with predetermined sanctions in response to specific type of school misbehavior (Skiba, 2002). In the early 1990s with a national focus to combat the war on drugs, police officers moved from the streets onto school campuses for the purpose of ensuring school safety, but the crossing of education and criminal justice policies resulted in minority students being disparately pushed out of school and into the prisons (Gonzalez, 2012, Smith, 2009). In 1994 the federal Gun-Free School Act (GFSA) required all schools receiving funds from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) to expel students who brought a weapon to school for no less than a year, however many states and districts chose to expand the mandate to include fighting, truancy, and drug possession (Evans, M. et al 2012). Zero-tolerance policies are the first entry point into the pipeline because they have led to disproportionate punishment, exclusion, and incarceration of minority students, as well as students receiving special education services (Fowler, 2011, Wilson, 2013).
The second entry point into the pipeline stems from an accumulation of multiple events beginning with the overuse of exclusionary practices such as suspension and expulsion which leave students susceptible to negative experiences in and out of school, increasing the likelihood of social misconduct with negative peers while simultaneously decreasing academic support for students removed from the school community (Gonzalez, 2012, Wilson, 2013). Furthermore the use of educational tracking which separates students into homogeneous groups such as “gifted” and “not gifted” allows for differentiated instruction for students categorized as low, medium, or high which is particularly harmful to minority students placed in low groups subjected to instructional methods that entice disruptive behaviors (Smith, 2009).
The long term consequences of exclusionary practices reveal that sixty-nine percent of incarcerated adults are dropouts, seventy-five percent of youth in adult prison fail to complete tenth grade, and thirty-three percent of all incarcerated youth cannot even read at a fourth grade reading level. After being suspended or expelled minority students are far more likely to be incarcerated, consequently blacks and Latinos account for over sixty percent of America’s 2.3 million prisoners (Smith, 2009). The school-to-prison pipeline has received national attention in relationship to the use of exclusionary practices, but less attention has been given to schools designed to disrupt the school-to-prison pipeline, therefore inclusion practices will be the primary focus of this literature review.
The Paradigm Shift
Dismantling the school-to-prison pipeline will require a paradigm shift where school leadership focuses on student inclusion into the school community rather than exclusion. Schools and school leadership will have to reexamine responses to issues related to school performance, dropout rates, and the school-to-prison pipeline without a disproportionate reliance on suspensions and expulsion (Gonzalez, 2012). Therefore teachers, school administrators, and other school based personnel that play a vital role in regards to the students trajectory into and through the pipeline to prisons will require effective professional development which enhances their capacity to create safer schools and more effective learning communities. (Gonsoulin, S. et al. 2012, Coggshall, J et al 2013).
“When educators have the competencies and capacity- the knowledge, skill, beliefs, values, attitudes, experiences, and supports- to effectively address the diverse academic, social and emotional learning needs of all students and to build positive conditions for learning, they not only can begin to redress the overrepresentation of students of color in the pipeline to prison but also put more students on paths to successful futures (Coggshall, Osher, Colombi 2013).”
In the article, Enhancing Educators’ Capacity to Stop the School-to-Prison Pipeline their was four ways educators could influence the closing of the pipeline, by developing a positive teacher-student relationship, maintaining high expectations of students while seeking to understand social emotional competencies within the classroom, providing a safe and supportive learning environment, and the educators approach to discipline. (Coggshall et al., 2013).
Research indicates the teacher-student relationship is essential for keeping students engaged in school because teachers with high expectations for positive behavior, that demonstrate a genuine interest in their students, and who fairly and tolerantly handle discipline in the classroom have students that feel safer and more connected to school (Gonzalez, 2012). Unfortunately, at-risk youth or students with a history of involvement within the juvenile justice system attend schools with low expectations, therefore its imperative teacher are aware of their own social and emotional competencies and ability to provide a curriculum that engages students (Coggshall et al, 2013). The educators role is the most important tool needed to stop the school-to-prison pipeline because in a recent poll given to teachers in relationship to effective classroom management, 95% of the teachers polled indicated the removal of students that were deemed severe discipline problems was a “very effective” (68%) or “somewhat effective” (27%) strategy for improving teacher effectiveness (Coggshall & Ott, 2010). This lack of capacity brings clarity in relationship to the overrepresentation of minority students in the school-to-prison pipeline (Skiba, Eckes, & Brown.), and suggests restorative justice practices may be a necessity for school culture to change.
Restorative Justice.
One early intellectual framework of restorative justice stems from the 1977 article “Conflict as property” by Nils Christie, who viewed offenses as conflicts, which rightfully belong to victims and offenders that should have an active role in its solution. The exclusion of victims and offenders from resolving their conflict robs them of the opportunity and right to learn and grow through their conflicts (Wenzel, M., et al).
“Christie mentioned five elements that should be present while looking for conflict’s solution (1) the parties involved are present, (2) they talk often and are eagerly listen by the audience; (3) close relatives and friends are present; (4) local communities is also there, (5) judges and official experts even if present are much less involved, they rather observe, follow the procedures and let the parties decide (Platek, 2007).”
Restorative justice is an inclusion process designed to reintegrate students into the school community, which is the polar opposite of zero tolerance polices based on the beliefs that rule-breaking must be punished without consideration of the circumstances or the potential opportunity for a student to learn about their behavior (Gonzalez, 2012, Wilson, 2013). The restorative process allows victims, offenders, families, supporters, and anyone in the community impacted by the negative incident or offense to be included in the response to a rule violation that requires disciplinary action, however the group focuses on rehabilitation and accountability for the offender and healing for the victim (Wilson, 2013, Stinchcomb et. al, 2006). Restorative justice demonstrates how school leadership can transforms a rule violation into an opportunity for a teaching moment by emphasizing understanding and accountability for behaviors, which is significantly meaningful for students with disabilities, who may require a deeper understanding of how their behavior impacts others (Wilson, 2013).
Peace Circles Impacting School Culture
The circle process is a form of restorative justice as ancient as human history (Pranis 2005) and “represents the interconnectedness of all things”(Wolf & Rikard, 2003) and is a means for restorative justice between victims and offenders while simultaneously including members of the community to discuss the impact of an offense and reach an agreement about corrective action (Wilson 2013). Native Americans traditionally use talking circle as a ‘way of bringing people of all ages together for the purposes of teaching, listening, and learning’ (Wolf & Rikard, 2003). A common practice amongst these circles is the use of a ‘talking piece’ that travels from person to person with the understanding that whoever possesses the talking piece will speak and listen from the heart, but maintaining respect (Steiner & Johnson, 2003). A research study conducted by Stinchcomb and colleagues in 2006 found out-of-school suspensions decreased between 50 and 85% over three years for schools that implemented peace circles and one schools behavioral referrals decreased by 65% (Stinchcomb et al., 2006).
Schools differ from court systems because they have the unique opportunity to set the stage for all parties involved in an offense by allowing community involvement to assist in clearly defining the problem and formulating a plan for restitution. Schools who participate in restorative justice initiatives have the capacity and knowledge to put in place strategies that are long-term and sustainable (Gonzalez, 2012).
The Downfall to Restorative Justice
Restorative justice has emerged as an alternative to court-based criminal justice, but the downfall to restorative justice is no matter what nature of the offense victims are considered deprived of something that is due to them (their life, property, respect, etc.) Regardless if students are able to restore justice by returning victim what they lost or by undoing a harm that was done the fact still remains a violation of a rule occurred, therefore some form of punishment will occur. Relevant research suggests only one notion of justice restoration: retributive justice where an offender who violated a rule or law deserves to be punished in order for justice to be reestablished and the offender has to be punished to the severity of the wrongdoing (Wenzel., et al). Restorative justice
References
Archer, D. (2009/10). Introduction: Challenging the School-to-Prison Pipeline. New York School Law Review, 2009/10, Vol: 54 Issue 4, p867-872. 6p
Coggshall, J.G., Osher, D., Colombi, G. (2013). Enhancing Educators’ Capacity to Stop the School-to-Prison Pipeline. Family Court Review, Jul2013, Vol. 51 Issue 3, p435-444. 10p.
Evans, M., Didlick-Davis, C., (2012). Organizing to End the School-to-Prison Pipeline: An Analysis of Grassroots Organizing Campaigns and Policy Solutions. eJournal of Education Policy. Fall2012, p1-7. 7p. 1 Chart
Fowler, D. (2011) School discipline feeds the “pipeline to prison”. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(2), 14-19
Gabbard, D. (2012). Rethinking the “School to Prison Pipeline”. Value Inquiry Book Series. 2013, Vol. 261, p31-40. 10p.
Gonsoulin,S., Zablocki, M., Leone, P. (2012). Safe Schools, Staff Development, and the School-to-Prison Pipeline. Teacher Educaion and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children 2012 35: 309 originally published online 23 July 2012.
Gonzalez, T. (2012). Keeping Kids in Schools: Restorative Justice, Punitive Discipline, and the School to Prison Pipeline. Journal of Law & Education Vol.41 No. 2, pp
Platek, M. (2007). Restorative Justice as a mean to effective crime control and alternative to imprisonment. Conflict as property revisited. Sociologija: Mintris ir Veikmas. 2007 Issue 2, p135-150. 16p.
Skiba, R., Eckes, S., Brown, K. (2010). African American Disproportionality in School Discipline: The Divide Between Best Evidence and Legal Remedy. New York Law School Review, Vol. 54, Issue 3, p1071-1112. 42p
Smith, C. (2009). Deconstructing the Pipeline: Evaluating school to prison pipeline equal protection cases through a structural racism framework. Fordham Urban Journal, Nov 2009, Vol. 36 Issue 5, p1009, 41 p.
Steiner, M., Johnson, M.(2003). Using Restorative Practices in Group Treatment, Reclaiming Children & Youth. Spring2003, Vol.12 Issue 1, p53-57. 5p.
Stinchcomb, J.B., G., & Reistenberg, N. (2006). Beyond zero-tolerance: Restoring justice in secondary schools. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4, 123-147
Wenzel, M., Okimoto, T.G., Feather, N.T., Platow, M.J., (2008) Law & Human Behavior (Springer Science and Business Media B.V) Oct 2008. Vol. 32 Issue 5, p375-389.15p.
Wilson, M.G. (2013). Disrupting the Pipeline: The Role of School Leadership in Mitigating Exclusion and Criminalization of Students. Journal of Special Education Leadership 26 (2), 61-70.