University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Analyzing middle school teachers’ implementation and sustainability of professional development regarding non-exclusionary discipline practices

(USC Thesis Other)

Analyzing middle school teachers’ implementation and sustainability of professional development regarding non-exclusionary discipline practices

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Analyzing Middle School Teachers’ Implementation and Sustainability of Professional
Development Regarding Non-Exclusionary Discipline Practices
Colleen E. Evens
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
May 2024

1
© Copyright by Colleen Evens 2024
All Rights Reserved

2
The Committee for Colleen Evens certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Dr. David Cash, Committee Member
Dr. Paul Gothold, Committee Member
Dr. Maria Ott, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2024

Abstract
This study investigated middle school classroom teachers’ implementation and sustainability of
non-exclusionary discipline practices in a Title 1 suburban Middle School setting in Illinois.
Student transition to middle school and effective implementation of non-exclusionary discipline
practices, specifically social-emotional learning, restorative justice practices, and school-wide
positive behavioral intervention supports were explored through qualitative interviews. The site
studied received Title 1 funding with over 67 percent of students identifying as low-income.
Additionally, 78 percent of students at the school site identify as Hispanic while the teaching
staff has few faculty of color. Participants were chosen based on demographic survey data to
represent an array of teachers from various experiences and backgrounds. Participants were then
hand-selected, based on their demographic survey responses and fifteen teachers participated in
one-on-one interviews. Study findings suggest that a majority of teachers believe in the
importance of having students connected to their school through non-exclusionary discipline
practices, specifically restorative justice practices (RJ), social-emotional learning (SEL), and
school-wide positive behavioral intervention supports (SWPBIS). Findings further suggest that
school and district leadership plays a vital role in the successful implementation and
sustainability of non-exclusionary discipline practices. While leadership turnover has had a
strong impact on the implementation of non-exclusionary discipline practices, evidence from this
study shows that consistent, clear, and purposeful professional development which is supported
by school leadership is essential when implementing a new initiative.

4
Dedication
To my courageous nieces, Olivia and Lucy, this dissertation is dedicated to you. Your light to
guide the future generations of education has been my inspiration throughout this research
journey. May my heart leave an imprint that will exist deep within you to not just fly, but soar.

5
Acknowledgments
I wish to express gratitude to Dr. Maria Ott, Professor of Clinical Education, for her
guidance and sincere encouragement during the dissertation journey. I also wish to thank my two
committee members, Dr. David Cash and Dr. Paul Gothold, for their endless support and
contribution. I am honored to have your inspiration.
I would also like to thank the professors and my cohort at the University of Southern
California, Rossier School of Education. There is no one I would have rather shared this journey
with than you. Your humor, support, and camaraderie have been a gift. I am truly thankful to
each of you for pushing me out of my comfort zone and opening my mind to a whole new way of
thinking.
And finally, I cannot begin to express the depth of my appreciation to my family for
supporting me in this endeavor every step of the way. I would like to thank my mother and sister
for their everlasting support and confidence in my aspirations. Thank you for always valuing
education, modeling perseverance, and striving for excellence.

6
Table of Contents
Abstract 3
Dedication 4
Acknowledgments 5
List of Tables 8
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 9
Background of the Problem 9
Statement of the Problem 11
Purpose of the Study 12
Significance of the Study 13
Limitations and Delimitations 15
Definition of Terms 16
Organization of the Study 18
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 19
Non-Exclusionary Discipline Practices 19
The Learning Environment 28
Systemic and Policy Barriers 38
Theoretical Framework 44
Conceptual Framework 44
Chapter Three: Methodology 48
Purpose of the Study 48
Methodology 50
Selection of the Population 51
Data Collection 52
Instrumentation 53

7
Data Analysis 53
Credibility and Trustworthiness 54
Recognition of Positionality 55
Summary 56
Chapter Four: Results or Findings 58
Selected Site 58
Participants 60
Results for Research Question 1 63
Discussion for Research Question 1 71
Results for Research Question 2 72
Discussion for Research Question 2 78
Results for Research Question 3 79
Discussion for Research Question 3 85
Summary 85
Chapter Five: Discussion 88
Findings 90
Implications for Practice 97
Future Research 99
Conclusions 101
References 104
Appendix A: Survey Introduction 128
Appendix B: Participant Study Sheet 132
Appendix C: Interview Protocol 134
Appendix D: Informed Consent Form 140

8
List of Tables and Figures
Table 1: Research Question and Data Collection Method 50
Table 2: Data from Illinois State Board of Education 2022 59
Table 3: Data from Illinois State Board of Education 60
Discipline Report 2022
Table 4: Survey and Interview Demographics 61
Table 5: Interview Participants 62
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework 48
Figure 2: Characteristics of Classroom Management Styles 69
Figure 3: Potential and Perceived Barriers 80
Appendix A: Survey Introduction 128
Appendix B: Participant Study Sheet 132
Appendix C: Interview Protocol 134
Appendix D: Informed Consent Form 140

9
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
The purpose of this study is to collect, analyze, and interpret the complexities that
underlie classroom teachers’ implementation and sustainability of non-exclusionary practices in
a Title 1 suburban Middle School setting in Illinois. Through an examination of interviews, this
study will delve into the training that middle school teachers either received or are lacking
regarding non-exclusionary discipline practices. Additionally, teachers’ personal and
professional beliefs regarding non-exclusionary discipline practices will be explored by
expanding upon the barriers, if any, that they identify that might inhibit the sustainability of nonexclusionary discipline practices. Classroom teachers are often the driving force of new
initiatives as educators begin to empower, transform, and validate students, creating culturally
responsive learning environments (Scheurich & Young, 1997). Teachers' positionalities, while
influential, can also shift the type of classroom culture they provide their students. This study
specifically looked at a Title 1 campus to take a critical stance at exploring the entrenched
inequity of discipline in society among students with racial and social class disparities.
Background of the Problem
Racial disparities in public schools have been historically well documented, including a
resounding, persistent educational achievement gap (Fryer & Levitt, 2004; Ladson-Billings,
2006), along with disproportionate discipline rates (Downer et al., 2016) for racially minoritized
students. While many school districts have begun to implement reformative programs, students
continue to be subject to developmentally inappropriate discipline and striking racial gaps in
disciplinary outcomes (APA Zero Tolerance Task Force, 2008). Bradshaw et al. (2010)
questioned the validity of office disciplinary referrals (ODRs) due to administrative changes,
programs, initiatives, biases, and contextual factors, lending to the belief that the referral process

10
is based solely on teachers’ subjective appraisal of each situation when recommending students
for ODRs. This study collected data from 6,988 students in 381 classrooms at 21 elementary
schools to further delve into three specific areas that may cause a discrepancy in ODRs,
specifically by race. The first potential contributing factor centered around a mismatch in values
between what minoritized students perceive as being “appropriate” behavior and what teachers
and administrators deem as acceptable. More recently, Rodriguez and Welsh (2022) presented
and applied a comprehensive analytic framework to examine patterns in the school discipline
process. The study first conceptualized school discipline by providing the underpinnings of the
school discipline process, including perceived student misbehavior to disciplinary consequences
within the New York school system. A “vicious cycle” was used to describe how negative
behavior influences teacher perceptions, leading to harsher treatment of racially stigmatized
students, thus reinforcing negative mindsets and behaviors among minoritized students
(Okonofua et al., 2016).
The empirical literature on school discipline has expanded rapidly in recent decades,
however, the implementation and sustainability of school discipline interventions still need
continual development (Girvan et al., 2019). While there is no dispute that schools must ensure
the safety of the learning environment, controversy over zero-tolerance policies and punitive
approaches, such as time-outs, suspensions, and expulsions, have perpetuated unintended
consequences for students, families, and communities (APA Zero Tolerance Task Force, 2008).
Disruptive behavior problems are a concern in school settings as they are often associated with
truancy, lower levels of academic success, greater risk for placement in special education
programs, and school dropout (Gottfredson, 2005); however, the subjective execution of
discipline procedures is problematic. As educators can perpetuate inequities in school discipline

11
(Scheurich & Young, 1997), this research study is critical so leaders can begin to break down the
barriers and illuminate the issues of disproportionality in student discipline.
Statement of the Problem
Student transition to middle school is especially problematic (Midgley et al., 1989) in
utilizing non-exclusionary discipline practices, as most classes are more formal, impersonal,
evaluative, and competitive (Meece & Campbell, 2002). Additionally, the curriculum in these
settings does not embed social-emotional practices (SEL), ultimately leading to a problem of
practice for many educators, as social-emotional competencies are critical to authentic, culturally
relevant, and responsive teaching and learning. According to the Collaborative for Academic,
Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) (2007), SEL is the process through which children
acquire and effectively apply the knowledge, attitudes, and skills necessary to understand and
manage emotions, set and achieve positive goals, feel and show empathy for others, establish and
maintain positive relationships, and make responsible decisions. Students who demonstrate
deficits in their SEL skills have been shown to experience conduct problems and emotional
distress (Durlak et al., 2011; Payton et al., 2008). To best serve all students, and to effectively
collaborate within schools, it is crucial for teachers to develop an understanding of how strengthbased approaches (rather than deficit views and approaches) to race, ethnicity, and social class
are linked to the cultivation of social-emotional well-being.
Teachers have been shown to form inconsistent behavioral expectations for students of
different races or genders, which often stems from underlying implicit social cognitions and
beliefs that they hold (Peterson, 2016). Implicit attitudes, according to social psychologists,
define attitude as an evaluative disposition, or in the case of social interactions, to act favorably
or unfavorably toward someone or something. Similarly, a social stereotype is a mental

12
association between a social group or category and a trait that may or may not be based on reality
(Greenwald & Banaji, 1995). As seen in Bradshaw's (2010) and Rodriguez and Welsh's (2022)
research, a mismatch between teachers’ expectations and students' behaviors can cause
unintended but harmful consequences. Skiba (2000) describes exclusionary consequences such
as suspension as aversive, rather, it does not produce positive behavior or prevent students from
repeating the same behavior.
School discipline is a perplexing issue, leading most educators to be critically engaged in
finding quick-fix solutions, rather than transformative practices. In schools across the country,
educators are in constant debate over effective ways of managing student behavior. Data from
the Illinois State Board of Education showed that during the 2016 school year, 20 out of 6,501
total students received out-of-school suspensions across the district, however in 2022, the
enrollment of students dropped to 5,794 yet suspension rates nearly quadrupled with 122
students receiving suspensions (ISBE Discipline Report, 2016 and 2022). Out of those 122
suspensions within the district, 93 were out-of-school suspensions, and 16 were in-school
suspensions from the Title 1 campus being featured in this study. Additionally, 91 of those
students who either received an in-school or out-of-school suspension were noted as Latino or
Hispanic (ISBE Discipline Report, 2022).
Purpose of the Study
This study used a constructivist paradigm, which takes into account that multiple realities
can be studied. Through the use of semi-structured interviews, a subset of 15 teachers were hand
selected based on specific variables, including: race, class, gender, years of teaching experience,
grade level, and subject taught. Teachers were selected from the same Title 1 campus, but with
various interactions with the students, including classroom core and exploratory teachers, so the

13
subset included a diversified sample. The purpose of this study is not fixed solely on problemfixing, which can be viewed as a Western linear positivism view relating to a world that can be
examined and understood by the social world of human beings and human societies (Walker &
Smith, 2002). As de Oliveira (2012) imposes the idea of analyzing the wrong to make it right,
this study encompasses an Indigenous circular approach, which calls for active participation
from the researcher who observes and participates with the participants, forming a relational
experience of curiosity (Wilson, 2008). Using a transformational theory approach, this study
intertwines emotions, values, ethics, standards, and long-term goals to reflect upon the
participant's beliefs and motives while humanizing the experience (Northouse, 2021). Unlike the
self-consumed pseudo-transformational approach that focuses on the researcher’s interests rather
than the participants, this study binds the researchers and participants together to influence and
create the possibility for meaningful implementation of non-exclusionary discipline practices
within a campus. The following research questions were used to guide this study:
1. What are Title 1 middle school teachers' beliefs regarding non-exclusionary discipline
practices and the sustainability of these practices?
2. How do Title 1 suburban middle school teachers describe their implementation of
professional development regarding non-exclusionary discipline practices for grades
6–8?
3. What (if any) organizational barriers do teachers identify that might inhibit
sustainability?
Significance of the Study
In the early 1990s, zero-tolerance policies were originally developed as an approach to
drug enforcement (Skiba & Rausch, 2006), and became a widely adopted philosophy. The

14
concept of predetermined consequences, most often severe and punitive in nature, was intended
to be applied regardless of the gravity of behavior, mitigating circumstances, or situational
context. The key premise of the zero-tolerance policies was that such practices would deter
severe discipline infractions and protect non-offenders (Alnaim, 2018; Kodelja, 2019; Lacoe &
Steinberg, 2018). However, rather than deterring discipline problems in schools or helping
schools and students improve educational outcomes, zero-tolerance reforms had quite opposite
results (Ispa-Landa, 2018; Moreno & Scaletta, 2018; Ritter, 2018). Instead, the policies tended to
perpetuate misbehaviors by disproportionately penalizing minoritized students, often for minor
disciplinary infractions. The realization that exclusionary discipline practices were ineffective,
along with perpetuating implicit racial bias by excluding students, led state legislatures across the
United States to pass extensive statewide discipline reforms. The intended focus of these reforms
was to implement alternative discipline practices, such as restorative justice, social-emotional
learning, and schoolwide positive behavioral supports (Ispa-Landa, 2018; Steineberg & Lacoe,
2017).
In response to student discipline, Senate Bill 100 (SB100) was successfully passed in
Illinois in January 2015, as a way for schools to minimize exclusionary discipline practices such
as suspension and expulsion, while increasing the use of alternatives to suspension (SB0110,
2015). While many school districts have begun to implement reformative programs, there is little
information about the extent to which all stakeholders; including principals, teachers, counselors,
and paraprofessionals, come to understand what non-exclusionary discipline practices are and
how to effectively implement them. Restorative practices are specifically designed and proven
techniques to help students develop empathy, take accountability, and repair broken relationships
(IIRP, 2020); however, the implementation must be systematic and consistent throughout the

15
school, specifically within each classroom (Morrison & Vaandering, 2012). Teachers' beliefs
about school reform efforts ultimately affect their actions or inactions regarding the transfer of
professional learning to the classroom (Imants & Van de Wal, 2020) but, additionally, how
teachers conceptualize non-exclusionary practices may also depend on the nature of formal
training they have received, if any. This study will further explore how teachers in a Title 1
middle school setting have come to understand non-exclusionary discipline practices, or not.
Additionally, the ways in which their training, or lack of training, has affected the
implementation and sustainability of these practices will be presented to showcase the
participant's beliefs and opinions.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations to the study are significant and should be considered when reading the
results. When studying implicit beliefs and biases, it is important to consider the effects of
priming, which refers to the phenomenon in which exposure to a stimulus influences the
response of another stimulus. It is possible, through the interview questions regarding how
teachers have come to understand non-exclusionary discipline practices, participants might have
a heightened awareness of how they should respond based on the researcher’s role.
Qualitative studies, according to Rudestam and Newton (2007), should include detailed
descriptions of participants and the setting to allow for transferability to other settings. However,
the rich stories that are elicited from those who experienced the phenomenon studied represent
the hallmark of qualitative studies more so than transferability (Creswell, 2009). It is not feasible
to generalize the results of this study to the population of all Illinois Middle School classroom
teachers, thus only a small representative sample will be taken to better capture the participants’
narratives holistically. Understanding any influences that teachers may have on non-exclusionary

16
discipline practices will support the professional objectives and contribute to existing knowledge
from quantitative studies in order to show a relationship between teachers’ professional
development, leadership, andragogy, and the learning conditions sampled regarding the
implementation and sustainability of non-exclusionary discipline practices.
Delimitations include the study focused solely on classroom teachers within a suburban
middle school setting in Illinois. The results of this study may apply in other states that have
teachers who might have similar experiences; however, generalizing in qualitative studies poses
threats to external validity (Creswell, 2009, p. 192). Thus, interviews in this study focused on
themes elicited from the data analysis to provide a deeper understanding of the phenomenon that
could contribute to the validity of the results (Creswell, 2009, p. 192).
Secondly, a delimitation of the study includes a lack of comparing teachers’ perceptions
of non-exclusionary discipline practices with students’ beliefs. Since students were not invited to
participate in the study, the correlation between teachers' and students' perceptions is lacking in
this study.
Definition of Terms
Exclusionary: any behavioral consequence that serves as a punishment, where the
student is required to miss school due to the consequence being administered. For this study, the
term encompassed suspensions, expulsions, and/or alternative educational placements (“CCSD
Code of Conduct,” 2019; “Behavior Guidelines,” 2017).
Equity: providing resources according to the need to help diverse populations achieve
their highest state of health and unique needs. Equity is not a destination but a journey to creating
conditions for optimal outcomes by members of all social identity groups (APA, 2021b).

17
Implementation: has been guided by Cohen and Moffitt’s definition which states
implementation is a practitioner’s enactment of a policy or program that has been adopted by
those at a higher level of authority (Cohen & Moffitt, 2009).
The Learning Environment: surroundings that make it possible for the learner to find
solutions to their problems and to have access to the materials to help them achieve their goals
(Ozerem & Akkoyunlu, 2015).
Minoritized: a minority group is a population subgroup (e.g., ethnic, racial, social,
religious, or other groups) with differential power than those deemed to hold the majority power
in the population. The relevance of this term is thus outdated and has changed as the
demographics of the population change, so the term minoritized will be used to further specify
those who have been depowered in society over time (APA, 2020b).
Non-exclusionary discipline: will be used throughout this survey and is based on the
following definition: alternative disciplinary supports that reconnect youth to better create a
responsive school environment (Ispa-Landa, 2018). Supports include restorative justice, socialemotional learning, and school-wide positive behavioral support interventions (Lacoe &
Steineberg, 2017).
Social-Emotional Learning: the process through which adults and children acquire and
effectively apply the knowledge, attitudes, and skills necessary to understand and manage
emotions, set and achieve positive goals, feel and show empathy for others, establish and
maintain positive relationships, and make responsible decisions (CASEL, 2013).
Sustainability: will be derived from Indigenous communities, in which the term was
coined to describe healthy living, taking into consideration skills, reflexivity, competencies, and

18
emotional, economic, and social well-being to create, foster, and maintain communal existence
(Virtanen et al., 2020).
Systemic and Policy Barriers: refer to policies and practices in the United States school
system that, by design, push students out of public schools through suspension or expulsion and
into a juvenile detention facility or prison (Burris, 2012).
Organization of the Study
A qualitative paradigm was selected for this study to gain an understanding of how
teachers come to understand non-exclusionary discipline practices and how they might
implement these practices in the classroom with their students. Chapter One provides an
overview of the study, introduces data to present the root causes of inequities in discipline
practices, and includes definitions of terms used in this study. Chapter Two includes a review of
pertinent literature which is divided into three main categories. The first focuses on the various
types of non-exclusionary discipline practices many schools have adopted, such as restorative
practices, social-emotional learning, and positive behavior intervention strategies. The next
section describes the various discipline barriers that exist stemming from past and current school
disciplinary policies and practices, such as zero-tolerance policies. Lastly, the literature will
intertwine how adults learn through professional development, leadership, and andragogy while
taking into account the learning conditions provided for teachers. Chapter Three describes the
methodology selected for this research study and includes sample and population selection,
interview questions, data collection, and data analysis. Chapter Four includes a detailed
description of the findings, and Chapter Five includes interpretations of the findings, limitations,
and delimitations of the study, recommendations, and implications for social change.

19
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
This literature review will examine how non-exclusionary discipline practices serve as
the link between three core areas of this study, creating a bridge between context, theory, and the
structure of the study (Ravitch & Carl, 2016). The review begins with general research regarding
three domains of non-exclusionary discipline practices, including restorative practices, schoolwide positive behavioral intervention supports, and social-emotional learning. These practices
and supports stem from a direct response from Senate Bill 100 (SB100) which was successfully
passed in January 2015, as a way for schools to minimize exclusionary discipline practices. Next,
the review will examine the various ways in which teachers come to learn about nonexclusionary discipline practices through leadership, professional development, andragogy, and
the learning conditions within a school environment. Lastly, the implementation and
sustainability barriers of non-exclusionary discipline practices will delve into taking a critical
stance at exploring the entrenched inequity in society among students with racial and social class
disparities, perhaps lending to higher suspension rates across various school communities.
Barriers explored in this study will stem from systemic initiatives driven by zero-tolerance
policies, which might directly affect racial discipline gaps and the school-to-prison pipeline.
Non-Exclusionary Discipline Practice
Restorative practices
Many schools have turned to restorative practices as a means of reducing reliance on
exclusionary discipline and improving a range of student outcomes. Restorative Practices (RP)
are defined as the inclusion of “informal and formal processes and practices that proactively
build relationships and a sense of community to prevent conflict and wrongdoing” (Wachtel,
2016, p. 1). In 2000, Skiba and Peterson posited “a new perspective on school discipline” (p.

20
340) and described the emergence of a comprehensive model of prevention to address “the
complexity of emotional and behavioral problems in schools” (p. 341). Models of restorative
practices can be grouped into three categories: circles, conferences, and victim-offender
mediations (Latimer et al., 2005), encompassing both prevention and addressing harm.
Restorative justice, however, is “a process whereby all the parties with a stake in a particular
offense come together to resolve collectively how to deal with the aftermath of the offense and
its implications for the future” (Braithwaite, 1999, p. 5). Restorative justice has a long history
rooted in indigenous cultures, yet it is still a relatively new approach in schools in the USA
(Gregory et al., 2016).
A 2009 report by the National Center for Mental Health Promotion and Youth Violence
Prevention described restorative practices as “a brand new way of looking at resolving conflict,
restoring relationships, and problem-solving, especially in the school setting” (p. 7). Key factors
to embracing a restorative community included a strong “buy-in” from participants, a critical
change in culture and behavior, and most importantly, training and evaluation. While training has
been found to be the most significant component of implementing restorative practices in
schools, the cost associated with training has led to a lack of implementation and sustainability
(Hulvershorn & Mulholland, 2018).
Restorative practices have been looked to as an alternative to zero-tolerance policies in
school settings by providing alternative strategies that address school climate and school
discipline, fostering a productive and healthy instructional climate without depriving large
numbers of students of the opportunity to learn (Skiba & Losen, 2016). Bickmore (2011)
however, found a mismatch between restorative practices in public schooling and equitable
social relations when antiviolence and conflict management initiatives were implemented. The

21
research uncovered that various schools and districts seemed to disproportionately punish and
restrict less-privileged and visibly minoritized populations of students, whereas opportunities for
peacemaking and peacebuilding agency and dialogue were often available to the highest-status
students (Bickmore, 2011). The study also supports the arguments of Pedro Noguera (1995), who
in different ways showed how competitive, dehumanizing, and inequitable school environments
initiate exclusionary punishments far more than schools that embraced equitable and cooperative
environments. While conflicts are inevitable in any community, including schools: the diverse
ways educators handle these conflicts, directly and indirectly, shape students’ implicit and
explicit learning experiences. The safety of vulnerable members of school communities,
minoritized students, is extremely important, especially when based on an insufficient
understanding of particular students’ cultures and contexts, reinforcing social hierarchies and
ultimately fracturing social relationships (Bickmore, 2011).
School-Wide Positive Behavioral Intervention Supports
Similar to restorative practices, research indicates that when School-Wide Positive
Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS) are implemented with fidelity, improvements
are noted in school climate, including reduced office disciplinary referrals, perceived school
safety, and reduced rates of exclusionary disciplinary practices (Sprague & Nelson, 2012). The
focus of SWPBIS is on establishing a positive social climate, in which behavioral expectations
for students are highly predictable, directly taught, consistently acknowledged, and actively
monitored. Unlike restorative practices, which often focus on repairing relationships after harm
occurs, SWPBIS provides a model for reframing school discipline based on prevention, not
simply reaction. SWPBIS is based on the assumption that actively teaching and acknowledging
expected behavior can change the extent to which students demonstrate expected behavior.

22
Additionally, when consistent expectations are established by all adults within a school campus,
the proportion of students with serious behavior problems is reduced and the school’s overall
social climate improves (Bradshaw, 2008b).
The recent passage of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (H.R. 1319), specifically
the Education Stabilization Fund, has presented educators with an unprecedented opportunity to
promote the social, emotional, and behavioral (SEB) well-being of students in response to the
COVID-19 pandemic (Lewis et al., 2021) along with the long-standing inequities in exclusionary
discipline practices. The recent infusion of funds into the American public school system is an
opportunity to address the impact of the pandemic on students and staff. At the recent 2023
SWPBIS Leadership Forum (Yanek & Goodman, 2023), high-leverage social-emotionalbehavioral practices were shared. Participants in the facilitated discussion highlighted the current
challenges schools face, including pandemic recovery efforts, divisions within communities
regarding social and philosophical orientations, social unrest, and heightened concerns for the
well-being of students, families, and educators (Yanek & Goodman, 2023). More importantly, if
relief funding is invested wisely, there is an opportunity to support educators in selecting and
implementing with fidelity, evidence-based practices for achieving equitable outcomes for all
student groups (Morris & Feinberg, 2022). SWPBIS includes prevention, multi-tiered systems of
support, and data-based decision-making (Sprague & Nelson, 2012), creating an excellent
opportunity for organizing a continuum of proactive, evidence-based practices for supporting
students’ social-emotional behavioral health (Morris & Feinberg, 2022).
In 2007, national leaders in SWPBIS and the National Center for School Mental Health
(NCSMH) recognized a need to come together to develop a comprehensive and aligned
framework to best support students’ unmet social, emotional, and mental health needs. At that

23
time, the U.S. Surgeon General reported that 20% of children and youth were in need of mental
health interventions. Of those that received support, 70% accessed support through the school
setting, leading many national leaders to declare that schools serve as the primary setting for
mental health support (Kutash et al., 2011; Jacob & Coustasse, 2008). While research has shown
the importance of SWPBIS and NCSMH, a lack of interventions in schools is still prevalent
(Barrett, 2013; Kutash et al., 2006; Weisz et al., 2006). In an effort to push mental health
interventions, a report from the National Research Council and Institute of Medicine (2009) put
forth a national call to action to place a high priority on the behavioral, emotional, and mental
health needs of young people in our country. Since the original call to action in 2007, agencies
have reported a substantially larger prevalence of adolescents experiencing some type of mental
disorder. The National Institute of Mental Health (2019) reported that 50% of students are
experiencing a mental health disorder and are receiving no treatment or educational interventions
in the school setting. While SWPBIS has been associated with reductions in discipline referrals
and out-of-school suspensions (Anderson & Kincaid, 2005; Bradshaw et al., 2009),
improvements in social-emotional functioning, school climate, and academic performance have
also been linked to SWPBIS (Bradshaw et al., 2009; McIntosh et al., 2016). SWPBIS differs
from other interventions as it uses a continuous improvement process to meet the changing needs
of a population including building the needed skills of school personnel, implementing
interventions as intended, and providing ongoing coaching to support school and district
personnel as they implement evidence-based practices, assuring the fit of evidence-based
practices to the needs of individuals and groups being served, promoting collaboration among
systems leaders, and assuring appropriate implementation supports for evidence-based practices
(Horner & Sugai, 2015).

24
Social-Emotional Learning
Social-emotional learning (SEL) is a process that teaches the development of
fundamental skills for life effectiveness by recognizing and managing our emotions
(Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning, 2007). The premise of SEL is to
teach skills to regulate ourselves, our relationships, and our work, effectively and ethically by
developing care and concern for others, establishing positive relationships, making responsible
decisions, and handling challenging situations constructively (CASEL, 2007). Many programs
that teach SEL skills have now been rigorously evaluated and found to have positive impacts
(CASEL, 2007).
SEL is based on research in multiple fields, clearly indicating that our emotions and
relationships affect how and what we learn. Joseph A. Durlak of Loyola University Chicago and
Roger P. Weissberg of the University of Illinois at Chicago analyzed 207 studies of SEL
programs. Their findings confirmed that K-12 students who participated in SEL programs
demonstrated improved social and emotional skills, fewer disruptive classroom behaviors, such
as aggression and bullying, and reduced emotional distress such as depression, stress, or social
withdrawal (Durlak et al., 2011). Students also performed better academically, including
achievement test scores that averaged 11 percentile points higher than students who did not
receive SEL programming (Durlak et al., 2011).
Other investigators have reported similar findings regarding SEL’s effect on student
behavior and academic performance (Greenberg et al., 2003). Researchers at the Consortium of
Chicago School Research at the University of Chicago documented that “noncognitive”
academic behaviors, academic perseverance, academic mindsets, learning strategies, and social
skills positively affect student success in school (Farrington et al., 2012). According to

25
Immordino-Yang (2016) motivating students for academic learning by producing deep
understanding, and ensuring the transfer of educational experiences into real-world skills and
careers, must be leveraged into the emotional aspects of learning.
There are numerous studies investigating SEL and the relationship with positive
outcomes for students. Evidence comes from research studies in a variety of disciplines,
including neuroscience, teacher education, academic achievement, primary prevention,
classroom management, and cognitive behavioral research. A more recent meta-analysis
investigated school-based SEL interventions and their follow-up effects (Taylor et al., 2017).
This meta-analysis reviewed eighty-two school-based, universal SEL interventions implemented
with kindergarten through high school students. Follow-up outcomes were collected six months
to 18 years post intervention. Results indicated that SEL program participants benefited
significantly more than their peers in the control groups. Additionally, benefits were similar
across race, socioeconomic status, and school location. The strongest effect size was found in
academic performance, followed by SEL skills.
Research on SEL programs and practices primarily focuses on behavioral, socialemotional, and academic outcomes. There have been some studies, however, that have
investigated the economic benefits of SEL programs. Belfield et al. (2015) examined the
projected financial return from six widely implemented, scientifically validated SEL programs
(4Rs, Positive Action, Life Skills Training, Second Step, Responsive Classroom, and Social and
Emotional Training). The implemented interventions focused primarily on personality traits,
defined as patterns of thought, feelings, and behaviors, as opposed to those solely directed
toward boosting academic achievement. The researchers calculated the benefit cost ratios by
analyzing the costs of implementation for each program, including personnel, cost of materials,

26
and facilities, and then examined the long term benefits of each program based on previous
research findings. Researchers found that each one provided a return on the initial investment,
and for some the return far exceeded the costs. For every one dollar spent on each SEL program,
the interventions returned an average of $11 worth of benefits.
A 3-year study evaluated the effectiveness of the Second Step–Student Success Through
Prevention (SS-SSTP) social-emotional learning program on increasing prosocial behaviors. The
ability to connect emotionally to others often requires strong social and communication skills,
which can be challenging for students, specifically students with disabilities. Students with
learning disabilities, which represent the largest subpopulation of students with disabilities (Aud
et al., 2012), often have lower social skills than their peers without disabilities (Kavale &
Forness, 1996; Kavale & Mostert, 2004; Nowicki, 2003). Students with emotional or behavioral
disorders often have behaviors that manifest as an inability to develop and maintain peer
relationships (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA], 2004), and are often identified
as having low levels of empathy (Deschamps et al., 2015). According to the SS-SSTP study,
after 2 years of SEL instruction, students with disabilities in the schools that provided SS-SSTP
reported greater willingness to intervene in bullying situations and show empathy compared to
students with disabilities in the control schools. Additionally, these gains were sustained and
clinically increased after the third year of exposure to the SEL curriculum.
More recently, Hulvershorn and Mulholland (2018) found that when restorative practices
(RP) are implemented with SEL programming, it is an opportunity for educational practitioners
to address issues around race, gender, disability, and other aspects of diversity. By integrating
these approaches together, RP becomes a process to develop students’ SEL skills, which include
the Core SEL Competencies: self-awareness; self-management; social awareness; relationship

27
skills; and responsible decision-making. Additionally, SWPBIS and other structural interventions
have been used as a method for schools to help change student behavior by preventing problem
behavior that leads to punitive disciplinary procedures as behavioral expectations are applied
consistently school-wide (Thompson, 2016). When the school community implements an
interwoven mixture of SEL, SWPBIS, and RP, the impact can be strengthened. The concept of
community within a school setting is best understood through the teacher-student relationship,
which is critically important given that positive teacher-student relationships among all racial
groups are essential to creating an equitable and supportive school climate that does not rely on
punitive approaches to behavior. Within that relationship, the ways in which teachers and
students define “responsible decision-making” or “self-management” can entice students to feel
a part of the community, rather than push them out. Bickmore (2001) explains that how
educators handle conflicts can, directly and indirectly, shape the learning experiences of
students. She further notes a difference between “negative peace” and “positive peace.” Negative
peace focuses on controlling problems through exclusion and force, whereas positive peace
creates options and supports relationships to address conflicts constructively.
Public schools must offer “logical places to facilitate learning and practice of thoughtful,
inclusive conflict dialogue, as a key element of creating positive, sustainable peace” (Bickmore,
2011, p. 1) however, implementing peacebuilding strategies is especially difficult in schools
where “poor and racialized students are clustered in under-resourced schools, and constrained by
standardized curriculum and testing” (Bickmore, 2011, p. 1). Sharing circles with topics that
come from within the community are often more likely to be heard and acknowledged by the
students; as they are often more relevant and relatable to students (Hulvershorn & Mulholland,
2018). Further, in a restorative conference, often discussing misdeeds allows the classroom

28
community to understand the missing skillset and reflect further on specific skill development,
such as emotional regulation, conflict resolution, and communication skills. The community, in
all its diversity, is affirmed, by being the lens through which these social and emotional skills are
learned and refined, demonstrating multiple ways of being together and building relationships,
versus a top-down teacher-student approach (Bickmore, 2011; Hulvershorn & Mulholland,
2018.
The Learning Environment
Andragogy
Learning is a concept that begins with birth and continues throughout life, becoming an
integral part of daily life (Tezcan, 2021). Adult learning occurs mostly in informal ways, as
experiences, observations, and dialogue in daily life serve as the source of most informal
learning. More formal learning can be defined as learning activities that hold a specific purpose
and whose content and duration are structured in advance. Moreover, while formal learning
involves intentionality, informal learning does not usually involve intent on the learner’s part
(Statistics Canada, 2008; Rogers, 2014). Many factors such as age and experiences are integrated
into adult learning. The idea that learning continues in adulthood, has paved the way for
numerous studies.
In Merriam’s (2001) words, the question that framed much early research on adult
learning was whether or not adults could learn. Studies on adult learning for the last fifty years
gained a new dimension with andragogy, which includes a series of principles on adult learning.
Andragogy is derived from the Greek word “man” and has been described by Knowles as the
science and art of helping adults learn (Jarvis, 1990). While establishing a learning model for
adults, Knowles adopted the idea that the andragogical model is the antithesis of the pedagogical

29
model (Glassner & Back, 2020; Knowles, 1996). In the pedagogical model, learners act as
objects rather than subjects in the learning environment, and the responsibility of what is learned,
how it is learned, when it is learned, and whether it is learned, falls upon the teacher. In the
teacher-centered pedagogical model, the only role of the learner is to comply with the teacher’s
instructions (Knowles, 1996; Knowles et al., 2005). Andragogy implies that adults concentrate
more on the reflective process and less on performative assessment. Knowles defined
andragogical principles as “systems of concepts” regarding adult learning, which includes
(Knowles, 1996; Knowles et al., 2005): the need to know, learners’ self-perception, the role of
learners’ experiences, readiness to learn, orientation towards learning, and motivation to learn.
McGrath (2009) purported there are similarities between adults and children in how they
learn in the context of language, interaction, and communication. Conversely, adult learners
exhibit different learning behavior from that of children. The difference between adults and
children falls on andragogy's premise that the instructor does not possess all knowledge;
therefore, adult learners are encouraged to take part in the classroom by incorporating their own
experiences, which results in the instructional environment being more engaging, supportive, and
dynamic (Lawson, 2009). Knowles (1984) suggested that adult learning programs consider the
specific needs of adults to accommodate an emphasis on adults who thrive in self-directed
learning environments. Adults often take responsibility for their learning and decisions
throughout the learning process, demonstrating self-directedness resulting in deeper knowledge.
The focus of the material becomes less on theoretical knowledge and more on problem-centered
dependency (Davenport & Davenport, 1985; Knowles, 1984).
Leadership

30
According to Fullan, leadership means taking actions needed to be effective and
encompass purposeful collaboration, deep knowledge, and coherence-making (2020). Effective
leadership begins with engaging the emotions, values, ethics, and standards while moving
followers towards a common goal. As Milner states, self-reflection and awareness of one’s
interpersonal insights are essential to teacher education programs and culturally responsive
pedagogy. In order to understand others, individuals must first understand themselves (2007).
Villaverde’s (2008) definition of intersectionality explains the importance of “how one is
situated through the intersection of power and the politics of gender, race, class, sexuality,
ethnicity, culture, language, and other social factors” (Douglas & Nganga, 2013, p. 60-61) which
must be questioned continuously to truly understand the political and societal components of
power in leadership. Leadership is never about compliance but rather about others, implying
movement. Taking an organization in a new direction, solving problems, being creative,
initiating programs, building structures, and improving quality must start by encompassing
purposeful and actionable collaboration (Fullan, 2020). However, in a world that thrives on
competition and individual achievement, pursuing potential in isolation limits our ability to
achieve our full potential (Achor, 2018).
Leadership can be applied to a variety of settings and roles in education. In recent years,
teacher leadership (TL) has been increasingly recognized as a powerful tool for improving
teacher retention and job satisfaction, school climate, and student achievement (Teacher
Leadership Exploratory Consortium, 2011). According to Diffey and Aragon (2018), teacher
leadership is the process by which teachers extend their impact - influencing colleagues,
principals, members of school communities, and beyond to improve teaching practices and
support student learning. The emergence of TL over the past several decades has been described

31
as a series of waves (Berry et al., 2013; Pounder, 2006; Silva et al., 2000). Based on the research
of Silva et al. (2000), the first three waves of TL revolve around teacher leadership roles
pertaining to official positions allowing for responsible decision-making. The fourth wave,
however, recognizes the classroom as the “nucleus of leadership in schools” (Collay, 2011, p.
75), out of which a teacher leader’s ability to effect positive change is born (Pounder, 2006;
Sanocki, 2013; Saputra, 2020). This wave inspires transformational classroom leaders who
model strong pedagogical skills, nurture a positive classroom environment, and motivate, inspire,
challenge, and foster creativity in their students and colleagues (Pounder, 2014). Ultimately,
transformational leadership requires a commitment to developing the social-emotional skills of
staff members first to improve the relationships among and between adults and students in the
school (Bryk & Schneider, 2002). First, the foundation must begin by understanding SEL theory,
research, practice, and pedagogy. Some teacher leaders lead themselves and other staff members
through an exploration of their individual and collective social-emotional assets and areas in
need of improvement. This is followed by an ongoing process of continuous improvement
(Devaney et al., 2006; Patti & Tobin, 2003). What is equally important is the collaborative,
community-building process by which the need for a social-emotional skill-based curriculum is
determined and a specific approach is selected and implemented (CASEL, 2007). Pasi (2001)
and Zins et al. (2004) point out that numerous opportunities exist for integrating RP, SWPBIS,
and SEL into academics, including using SEL problem-solving and critical-thinking activities in
regular academic curricula; using collaborative strategies from RP’s to involve students in
improving school and classroom climates; and reflecting with RP and SWPBIS expectations
through positive behavior interventions and their contributions to the school community.

32
Often, those in an organization look to leaders for answers and to solve, or at least
manage, a multitude of interconnected problems (Homer-Dixson, 2002) which leads to many
theoretical leadership styles. As Wardell’s (2020) research indicates, leaders must focus on the
inclusivity of everyone while actively being present and contributing to new ideas. The many
tasks of transformative leadership are beyond any single individual. Leadership must be
distributed, and ideally, each staff member can begin to see that leadership touches everyone
who is entrusted with the care of the students (Devaney et al., 2006). Although policies, such as
SB100 support transformational leadership regarding non-exclusionary discipline practices,
perhaps the greatest transformation will come when visionary and courageous education leaders
are supported by systems that interweave these practices into daily schedules and curriculum,
developing the caring, character, and academic success of all children (Devaney et al., 2006).
Learning Conditions
Suburban school districts in the United States (U.S.) have experienced major
demographic shifts in recent decades and vary substantially in their student populations. More
than half of Asian, Black, and Latinx students in large metropolitan areas attend suburban
schools, and the suburbs are commonly the first destination for new U.S. immigrants (U.S.
Department of Education, 2019). According to Lacy, suburbs are “the physical space beyond a
city’s boundaries, yet still within the metropolitan area” (2016, p. 370). While suburbs have often
been described as affluent white spaces (Leonardo & Hunter, 2007; Lewis-McCoy, 2018), these
communities and their schools have experienced major demographic shifts in recent decades,
varying in racial, ethnic, and social class compositions (Frankenberg, 2013; Lacy, 2016).
National findings from the 2020 census show that, for the first time, more than half of America’s
youth (persons younger than age 18) identify as people of color. Youth, specifically in the

33
suburbs were represented in the 2020 census as 7.8% Asian American, 12.1% Black, and 26.7%
Latinx (Frey analysis of 2020 U.S. Decennial census). This has important implications for
education and community services that affect children and teens.
Schools that serve a population of over 40% on free and reduced lunch can be identified
as Title 1 schools by the federal government (U.S. Department of Education, 2018). According
to the Department of Education (2020), Title 1 can be defined as a federal program providing
funds to low-income families to help all children meet challenging state academic standards.
Schools that receive Title 1 funds may operate a targeted assistance program or a schoolwide
program, although schools must have a child poverty rate of at least 40% to choose to operate a
schoolwide program (Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, 2004). Title 1 suburban
schools have been noted as experiencing the same consequences associated with lowsocioeconomic conditions (Simon & Johnson, 2015).
The Department of Education states that Title 1 SEC. 1401. (20 U.S.C. 6421) is aimed to
prevent at-risk youth from dropping out of school, and to provide a support system to ensure
continued education alongside the involvement of families and communities. Title 1 labels
schools as implementing either a school wide program or a targeted assistance program. Both
schoolwide and targeted assistance programs must use instructional strategies based on
scientifically based research and implement parental involvement activities (ISBE, 2023). Some
examples of schoolwide programs include professional development for teachers to improve
instruction and use data from academic assessments to recruit and retain effective teachers,
particularly in high-need subjects. While funding for Title 1 can include learning for adults, often
programs are focused more heavily on academic curricula, such as evidence-based strategies to

34
accelerate the acquisition of content knowledge for English learners (Puma, 1993) instead of
preventative discipline measures which incorporate SEL, SWPBIS, and RP’s.
The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 has become the most debated educational
policy initiative in the United States. The hallmark features of this legislation forced states to
conduct annual student assessments linked to state standards. Through this increased federal
involvement, schools were required to demonstrate Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) based on
the percentage of students who were proficient in the tested subject areas of Math and English
Language Arts, and then schools were assigned performance ratings based on the proficiency
rates of various student subgroups (race/ethnicity, students eligible for free and reduced lunch,
English learners, and students with disabilities) (Egalite et al., 2017). Critics charge that NCLB
led educators to shift resources away from important but non tested subjects, such as art, music,
and social-emotional learning, to focus instruction on core tested subjects, such as math and
reading (Diem & Welton, 2020). Many schools with higher percentages of low-income and/or
minoritized students of color were deeply affected by the NCLB accountability pressures, which
further compounded the sociopolitical stressors and injustices these schools already faced
(Darling-Hammond, 2007). NCLB essentially blamed schools, teachers, and students for the
failure of public education which allowed the Bush Administration to divert attention away from
inequities in access to housing, public transportation, and the lack of jobs that offer a livable
wage (Hursh, 2007). The political spectacle that ensued around the agenda setting for and
subsequent implementation of NCLB made it seem like the Bush Administration was “doing
something” about the failure of public education (Hursh, 2007, p. 306). To illustrate this point,
annual federal Title 1 funding was supposed to increase to $25 billion by 2007, but the federal
government never delivered on this promise. By 2015, the federal government only contributed

35
$14.5 billion to Title 1, over $10 billion less than its initial promise (Klein, 2015). Additionally,
under NCLB, schools could be financially penalized for their low performance as they were
restricted in how they could use their Title 1 funding for interventions (Diem & Welton, 2020).
In 2007, a survey was conducted with six hundred and sixty-one New York teachers to
assess their attitudes toward the NCLB Act (James, 2007). The results indicated that ninetyseven percent of the teachers surveyed felt that the NCLB with its Adequate Yearly Progress
goals encouraged teachers to “teach to the test” and eliminate curriculum material that was not
tested. Teachers also reported feeling pressured mostly from principals, administrators, school
boards, and the news media to raise student test scores. The results from this survey indicated
that teachers felt that the NCLB Act, with its Adequate Yearly Progress goals, contributed to
“teacher burnout.” According to Smith et al., (2013), burnout is a state of emotional, mental, and
physical exhaustion caused by excessive and prolonged stress. They continue by adding that
burnout occurs when one feels overwhelmed and is unable to meet the constant demands,
causing a loss of interest or motivation (Smith et al., 2013).
Professional Development
Teacher-professional learning is of increasing interest as one way to support the
increasingly complex skills students need to succeed in the 21st century. However, many teacher
professional development (PD) initiatives appear ineffective in supporting changes in teacher
practices and student learning (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017). Fullan (2007) agrees that
external approaches to instructional improvement are rarely specific, powerful, or sustained
enough to alter the culture of the classroom and school. Research has also found that most
teachers receive PD in short durations, or less than eight hours per topic, usually in after-school
workshops (Fullan, 2007). Additionally, during and after the No Child Left Behind Era, there

36
was an increase in this short-term approach and a decline in access to more sustained
professional learning approaches (Wei et al., 2010). Although research on the effectiveness of
PD has been disputed, positive findings have stimulated a general consensus about components
of high-quality professional learning for teachers (Hill et al., 2013). Desimone (2009) states that
effective PD possesses a robust content focus, features active learning, is collaborative and
aligned with relevant curricula and policies, and provides sufficient learning time for
participants.
Sadruddin (2012) conducted an action research study that focused on whether there is a
direct correlation between learners’ behavior and discipline practices, such as punishment and
de-motivation tools. Through a collaborative process, teachers identified the areas of
improvement they wished to maintain regarding discipline in their classrooms. Then using the
Skinnerian model of discipline (1930-1955) a professional development plan was created for the
teachers to utilize focusing on positive reinforcement instead of punishment. The Skinnerian
model emphasizes supplying a stimulus that reinforces behavior (Charles, 1999), similar to
SWPBIS. The teachers were led through PD regarding addressing students with verbal
appreciation, such as praising them for raising their hands, engaging in large group settings, and
following structures put into place in the classroom. The study concluded that there was a
definite correlation between punishment and de-motivation with learners’ behavior. The students
were more relaxed when the positive reinforcement was adopted and when the routine plan was
made keeping in mind the interest of the students. They were also more engaged in class when
the punishment and de-motivation were reduced, and when their opinions were given maximum
attention to make them feel important (Sadruddin, 2012). According to Desimone’s (2009)

37
research, PD is effective when active learning is directly correlated to the content, similar to
Sadruddin’s action research (2012).
Another important aspect of PD is observing and training teachers to observe others in
the principles and practices of culturally responsive relationships and interactions in classrooms
(Department of Restorative Justice Education, 2023). The importance of relationship building
between students and teachers is a critical component of building transformational classrooms
(Flannery, 2019). The Community-based Correctional Education report (U.S. Department of
Education 2010), backs up this statement, stating caring and nonjudgmental interactions between
youth who have been incarcerated and the correctional officer who works alongside the student
to re-enter the student into public education, is the basis for creating a positive relationship.
Training approaches for correctional officers focus on ensuring having the appropriate attitudes
including motivational interviewing, which is a counseling approach that is client-centered,
focused on changing offender behaviors, and requires staff to adopt a helpful attitude and create
a supportive climate (Clark 2006). Motivational interviewing, similar to restorative questioning,
has been suggested by researchers as it “strongly suggests that ‘motivational interviewing’
techniques, rather than persuasion tactics, effectively enhance motivation for initiating and
maintaining behavior changes” (Crime and Justice Institute 2009, p. 13). Research also shows
that motivational interviewing can improve offender retention rates in treatment, enhance their
motivation to change, and reduce offense rates (McMurran, 2009). After extensive research,
professional development regarding training on motivational interviewing techniques for
teachers is limited. While research states that building relationships are essential to proactively
prevent and address conflict (Restorative Practices: A Guide for Educators, 2014), professional
development that is specific and sustained over time to increase the fidelity of implementation

38
and increase the likelihood of sustainability is still missing (McIntosh et al., 2012). As Zepeda
(2019) suggests, professional development for staff members must be a collective commitment
to serving the needs of the building, and the learning must be shared by all stakeholders,
becoming a part of the everyday school culture.
Systemic and Policy Barriers
Zero tolerance policies
Student discipline is a controversial topic in education as equity and security align with a
wide range of philosophies. While there is no dispute that schools must ensure the safety of the
learning environment, controversy over zero-tolerance policies and punitive approaches, such as
time-outs, suspensions, and expulsions, have perpetuated unintended consequences for students,
families, and communities (APA Zero Tolerance Task Force, 2008). Zero tolerance policies were
originally developed as an approach to drug enforcement (Skiba & Rausch, 2006), and the term
became widely adopted in schools in the early 1990s as a philosophy or policy that mandated the
application of predetermined consequences, most often severe and punitive in nature. Regardless
of the gravity of the behavior, mitigating circumstances, or situational context, a key assumption
of the zero-tolerance policy is that the removal of disruptive students would result in a safer
climate for others (Ewing, 2000). Although the assumption is strongly intuitive, data on a
number of indicators of school climate have shown the opposite effect. Schools with higher rates
of school suspension and expulsion appear to have less satisfactory ratings of school climate and
governance structures, (Bickel & Qualls, 1980), along with spending a disproportionate amount
of time on disciplinary matters (Scott & Barrett, 2004).
Many school districts have begun to implement reformative programs; however, students
continue to be subject to developmentally inappropriate discipline and striking racial gaps in

39
disciplinary outcomes. Zero tolerance policies may also have increased the use of profiling, a
method of prospectively identifying students who may be at risk of committing violence or
disruption by comparing their profiles to those of others who have engaged in such behavior in
the past. As a result, profiling in Illinois demonstrated that African American students were far
more likely to be suspended or expelled than white students, and at rates much higher than in
other states. Data from the Illinois State Board of Education showed that during the 2014-2015
school year, 148,086 students received out-of-school suspensions, but the frequency of these
suspensions varied greatly by race (ISBE, 2015 Discipline Report). One in every five Black
students was suspended while just one in every twenty-five white students was suspended.
Studies by the U.S. Secret Service (Vossekuil et al., 2002), the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (O’Toole & the Critical Incident Response Group, 2000), and researchers in the
area of threat assessment (Cornell et al., 2004; Sewell & Mendelsohn, 2000) have consistently
found that profiles constructed to promote school safety are unreliable. Profiles tend to overidentify students from minority populations as potentially dangerous (Dunbar & Villaruel, 2004).
In response, a student advocacy organization titled, Voices of Youth in Chicago Education
(VOYCE), ultimately led the effort to reform school discipline policies in Illinois. They garnered
support from State Senator Kimberly Lightford, who sponsored discipline reform legislation
known as Senate Bill 100 (SB100). SB100 was successfully passed in January 2015, as a way for
schools to minimize exclusionary discipline practices such as suspension and expulsion while
increasing the use of alternatives to suspension. One key element of SB100 is the elimination of
zero-tolerance policies, in which schools will no longer be allowed to use procedures that require
suspension or expulsion in response to particular student behaviors unless required by federal
law or state code. Tighter restrictions on exclusionary discipline consequences include out-of-

40
school suspensions of longer than three days, expulsions, and disciplinary referrals to alternative
schools which can only be used when all other appropriate and available disciplinary
interventions have been exhausted. After the first year of implementation, the Illinois State
Board of Education (ISBE) released discipline data for the 2016-2017 school year, stating there
were 98,043 out-of-school suspensions in Illinois. The previous year had a total of 124,359 outof-school suspensions. In one year, after the implementation of SB100, there were 26,000 fewer
suspensions.
Discipline Gaps
The Office of Civil Rights for the U.S. Department of Education has continued to
document a pattern of inordinately high suspension rates among Black students, generating the
“racial discipline gap” (Gregory et al., 2010). Although numerous studies have been conducted
regarding discrepancies between race and school discipline, many specific ethnic subgroups have
been ignored. Nguyen et al. (2019) conducted a data study that investigated Washington K-12
enrollment and state assessment data taking into consideration patterns of variance among Asian
Americans and Pacific Islanders (AAPIs) within the racial discipline gap. The overall study
uncovered that while there is a vast array of empirical research supporting disproportionately in
school discipline, not all racial groups are accurately represented, thus leading to a need for more
research that critically examines all racialized groups.
In addition to discrepancies between race and school discipline, it is important to also
consider the vicious cycle, which is used to describe how negative behavior influences teacher
perceptions, leading to harsher treatment of racially stigmatized students, thus reinforcing
negative mindsets and behaviors among students (Okonofua et al., 2016). Students who are
identified as defiant, maladjusted, and difficult to deal with (Brookover & Erickson, 1969), are

41
more likely to internalize these labels and act out in ways that match the expectations that have
been set for them (Johnson, 1995). Rodriguez and Welsh (2022) recently presented and applied a
comprehensive analytic framework to examine patterns in school discipline. The purpose of this
study was to capture the complexity of the disciplinary process and illustrate various crevices in
which inequities arrive. The study first conceptualized school discipline by providing the
underpinnings of the school discipline process, including perceived student misbehavior to
disciplinary consequences. Next, the study presented a categorization of commonly used school
discipline metrics and analytic approaches across various ways that school discipline patterns are
measured and examined. The study then specifically examined the prevalence of disciplinary
actions by frequency and the total number of actions taken, such as suspensions. Then, the
researchers measured the disparities across two mutually exclusive student groups, risk, and
ratio. In conclusion, Black students were found to have higher experiences in disciplinary
actions, specifically within the processing of suspensions. Additionally, an income and gender
imbalance resulted from the study, indicating that Black students who are on free and reduced
lunch programs, in temporary housing, or are male students, were more likely to receive office
disciplinary referrals and suspensions.
School-to-prison pipeline
The school-to-prison pipeline (STPP) is a construct used to describe policies and
practices, regarding school discipline, in the public schools and juvenile justice system. The term
‘school-to-prison pipeline’ implies a direction of causality based on exclusionary discipline,
rather than solely looking at the individualistic characteristics of students themselves
(Advancement Project et al., 2011; ACLU 2011). STPP has often been used by advocates for
change, researchers, and policymakers (Advancement Project et al., 2011; American Civil

42
Liberties Union [ACLU], 2008) as a direct correlation between exclusionary discipline practices
instilled by schools and the probability of long-term negative outcomes, in particular, juvenile
justice involvement (Darensbourg et al., 2010). Although exclusionary discipline practices are
intended to improve behavior and achievement by removing disruptive students and deterring
others from engaging in similar behavior, data suggest that school exclusion for disciplinary
purposes is likely to be associated with negative academic and behavioral outcomes (APA Zero
Tolerance Task Force, 2008).
Research indicates that many schools use the juvenile justice system to a greater extent
and, in a relatively large percentage of cases, for infractions that would not previously have been
considered dangerous or threatening (Casella, 2003). Recent data indicate that the majority of
schools now have regular contact with law enforcement officers, transforming the educational
experience for students nationwide (Heise & Nance, 2021). When schools have regular contact
with law enforcement officers, they are more likely to report students to law enforcement
agencies for disciplinary events, including lower-level offenses that arguably should be
addressed using more pedagogically sound methods (Heise & Nance, 2021), including socialemotional learning, restorative practices, and SWPBIS. While the role of proper law enforcement
officers in schools has been debated for years, discussions were elevated after the tragic deaths of
George Floyd, Breanna Taylor, and other victims by police officers during the summer of 2020.
National calls to “defund the police” drew attention to school resource officers (SROs), causing
several school districts nationwide to rethink their SRO programs (Goldstein, 2020).
SRO programs tend to vary considerably, based on different funding sources and
responsibilities (McKenna & Petrosino, 2022). The Office of Community-Oriented Policing
Services (COPS), became a primary funder and supporter of school police after the passing of

43
the Safe Schools Act of 1994 (20 U.S.C. 2891). This act allowed school officials to use a portion
of federal funds for school safety and security, including police services, as part of a broader
legislative effort aimed at curbing violence and drug use in American schools. In SRO models,
there is usually a contract between the school district and the local agency (city police, county
sheriff, etc.) to provide law enforcement services beyond responding to calls for service. These
are often referred to as memorandums of understanding (MOUs) or intergovernmental
agreements. According to Rosiak (2020), the MOU should be used as a tool to provide clarity
about the SRO’s roles and responsibilities in the school setting. Curran (2020) conducted a study
that discovered many officers had various interpretations of their involvement in discipline
procedures according to the school district and what was outlined in the MOU. This is
concerning, especially if those implementing the program are unaware of the contents of the
agreement or do not share an understanding of what is and is not allowed under the agreement.
Another important consideration regarding SRO programs is training, more specifically training
officers specifically for working in a school setting (Buckley et al., 2013; James & McCallion,
2013). Clark (2011) concluded that officers receive standard police academy training, however,
that is not enough to prepare them to work in a school with youth. Researchers and practitioners
have identified several other training areas useful for school police, including juvenile law,
alternatives to arrest, classroom teaching techniques, cultural diversity, mental health/child
psychology, adolescent development, substance abuse, and counseling (Finn et al., 2005;
International Association of Chiefs of Police, 2011). A recent study by Espelage (2020)
conducted a gap analysis of officer training and developed online training to fill these gaps.
Topics included trauma-informed care, social-emotional learning, restorative problem-solving,
and cultural competence. Despite the growth and attention on school policing programs during

44
the past several decades, there continues to be a lack of available training as well as consistency
in the training received (Martinez-Prather et al., 2016). If officers are not trained specifically for
their work in school settings, this lack of training can have negative impacts on the students,
schools, and districts they serve (Martinez-Prather et al., 2016). This lack of training ultimately
leads schools to rely on intense surveillance practices and punitive discipline policies because
they do not have adequate resources to create positive school climates that lead to safe,
productive learning environments (Noguera, 2003).
Theoretical framework
A theoretical framework introduces and describes a theory used to explain, predict, and
understand a phenomenon (Abend, 2008). In this chapter, the theoretical framework has been
formulated as the basis for understanding, analyzing, and designing various ways to investigate
non-exclusionary discipline practices in relation to social and structural systems. Often, a
paradigm or a basic set of beliefs that guides the research (Crotty, 1998; Guba & Lincoln, 1994;
Lincoln & Guba, 2000), are often characterized by the way their proponents respond to
ontological, epistemological, and methodological questions (Guba, 1990; Guba & Lincoln,
1994). According to Wilson (2008) ontology, the nature of reality, epistemology, the nature of
thinking or knowing, and methodology, how knowledge is gained, are all intertwined together in
a “ceremony” guided by the researcher. Ravitch & Carl (2016) further this explanation by stating
that a theoretical framework creates a bridge between context, theory, and the way the study is
structured to help the researcher integrate and mobilize one’s understanding of various influences
to create an intentional and systematic process.
In this study, a constructivist paradigm was used to raise questions regarding multiple
realities. These realities can then be studied by deriving their understanding by working with and

45
through the participants’ perspectives of a given phenomenon or problem of practice. A
constructivist paradigm is never conducted in isolation, but rather, always in a social context
(Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). As de Oliveira (2012) imposes the idea of analyzing the wrong to
make it right, this study is not fixed solely on problem-fixing, which can be viewed as a Western
linear positivism view relating to a world that can be examined and understood by the social
world of human beings and human societies (Smith, 2002). In contrast, the study encompassed
an Indigenous circular approach, which calls for active participation from the researcher who
observes and participates with the participants, forming a relational experience of curiosity
(Wilson, 2008). Lastly, a critical feminist paradigm was used to raise further questions about the
inherent inequities that exist across race, gender, and social class regarding non-exclusionary
discipline practices (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). When the constructivist and critical feminist
paradigms are interconnected, questions regarding power and inherent inequities that exist in
discipline practices, are further questioned and explored.
Conceptual Framework
Maxwell (2013) explains that the conceptual framework is “the system of concepts,
assumptions, expectations, beliefs, and theories that supports and informs your research” and
“explains, either graphically or in narrative form, the main things to be studied—the key factors,
concepts, or variables—and the presumed relationships among them” (Maxwell, 2013, p. 39).
Using a transformational theory approach, this study intertwines emotions, values, ethics,
standards, and long-term goals to reflect upon the participant's beliefs and motives while
humanizing the experience (Northouse, 2019). Unlike the self-consumed pseudotransformational approach that focuses on the researcher’s own interests rather than the
participants, this study binds the researchers and participants together to influence and create the

46
possibility for non-exclusionary discipline practices within a campus. While non-exclusionary
discipline practices serve as the link between the three core areas of this study, the conceptual
framework sets the stage, creating a bridge between the theoretical and conceptual framework of
the study (Ravitch & Carl, 2016). First, the teachers, whose personal and professional beliefs
regarding non-exclusionary discipline practices are explored through teachers' views and
perspectives relating to their classroom experiences. It is important to consider that the teachers
are the heart of this research, and thus located at the top of the conceptual framework, visualizing
that their beliefs, assumptions, and perspectives guide the remainder of the study. Additionally,
the yellow color represents hope for transformation in how we approach discipline in a Title 1
middle school setting. Secondly, how teachers come to learn about non-exclusionary discipline
practices through teaching and learning, including leadership, professional development,
andragogy, and the learning conditions within a Title 1 school environment will serve as a guide
for the interview questions. These elements must take place within the school community
through engaging and brave dialogue, to deconstruct the systems of inequity that oppress and
marginalize the voices and perspectives of non-dominant groups (Arao et al., 2013). The school
community is represented as orange to further symbolize youth, optimism, and freedom through
engagement in school-wide dialogue. Two layered circles represent that one cannot exist without
the other, the color purple is used to promote creativity and devotion to the process of dialogue.
Lastly, the implementation and sustainability barriers, if any, of non-exclusionary discipline
practices will be further explored within the context of a Title 1 campus to take a critical stance
at exploring the entrenched inequity in society among students with racial and social class
disparities, perhaps lending to higher suspension rates across the district. While the barriers,
whether systemic or perceived, may change, the looping line shows how implementation and

47
sustainability can fluctuate, yet are still connected to one another. As de Oliveira (2012) imposes
the idea of analyzing the wrong to make it right, this study encompasses an Indigenous circular
approach, which calls for active participation from the researcher who observes and participates
with the participants, forming a relational experience of curiosity (Wilson, 2008).
Figure 1
Conceptual Framework

48
Chapter Three: Methodology
Decades of research have shown that exclusionary discipline practices are not only
ineffective for changing student behavior, but they also lead to worse social, behavioral, and
academic outcomes for students. Often, exclusionary discipline amplifies the risk of negative
outcomes for individual students (American Academy of Pediatrics Council on School Health,
2013; Noltemeyer et al., 2015). Researchers have found that students who experience exclusion
for behavioral infractions are more likely to experience lower academic achievement (Arcia,
2006), further discipline involvement, and future juvenile justice involvement (Fabelo et al.,
2011). While many school districts have begun to implement reformative programs in an effort
to combat exclusionary repercussions, students continue to be subjected to developmentally
inappropriate discipline and striking racial gaps in disciplinary outcomes. In response to student
discipline, Senate Bill 100 (SB100) was successfully passed in January 2015, as a way for
schools to minimize exclusionary discipline practices such as suspension and expulsion while
increasing the use of alternatives to suspension. Although SB100 has been in the circuit since
2015, non-exclusionary discipline practices are still not implemented and sustained with
credibility. According to Gahungu (2021), several core provisions, such as creating re-entry
plans for students with long suspensions, eliminating zero tolerance policies, and limiting
disciplinary transfers to alternative schools, stemming directly from SB100 have still not been
fully implemented or addressed through professional development.
Purpose of the Study
There still is little information about the extent to which all key gatekeepers,
superintendents, principals, teachers, and counselors, understand the provisions of SB100 and
what is expected to be provided by the school district to better implement non-exclusionary

49
discipline practices. Additionally, there is limited research regarding the issues inherent to the
implementation of restorative justice, including strategies for ensuring that students are held
accountable for their infractions and that teachers who struggle with student behaviors are
provided with support by their administration (Gregory & Evans, 2020).
The purpose of this study is to collect, analyze, and interpret the complexities that
underly classroom teachers’ implementation and sustainability of non-exclusionary practices in a
Title 1 suburban Middle School setting in Illinois. Through an examination of interviews, the
study delves into the training that middle school teachers either received or are lacking regarding
non-exclusionary discipline practices. Additionally, teachers’ personal and professional beliefs
regarding non-exclusionary discipline practices were explored by expanding upon the barriers, if
any, that they could identify which might inhibit the sustainability of non-exclusionary discipline
practices.
Research questions
1. What are Title 1 middle school teachers' beliefs regarding non-exclusionary discipline
practices and the sustainability of these practices?
2. How do Title 1 suburban middle school teachers describe their implementation of
professional development regarding non-exclusionary discipline practices for grades
6–8?
3. What (if any) organizational barriers do teachers identify that might inhibit
sustainability?

50
Methodology
The methodology of this study included a semi-structured interview protocol, which
allows flexibility during the interview process to engage all participants in deeper and more
reflective answers. As Hostetler states, (2005) good research requires careful, ongoing attention
to the questions we ask so the humanity of the participant is at the center of the research. Due to
the complexities of discipline, both exclusionary and non-exclusionary practices, it is important
to gain the perspectives of a variety of classroom teachers to better understand the challenges,
opportunities, and resources needed at both the district and site level to fully embrace socialemotional learning, SWPBIS, and restorative practices. The interview protocol is based on the
three research questions presented in this study and was addressed during each interview session.
Table 1 outlines the method of data collection used to explore each research question.
Table 1
Research Question and Data Collection Method
Research Question Data Collection Method
RQ #1 What are Title 1 middle school
teachers' beliefs regarding non-exclusionary
discipline practices and the sustainability of
these practices?
Interview: Background perspectives (Part
II)
RQ #2 How do Title 1 suburban middle
school teachers describe their
implementation of professional
development regarding non-exclusionary
discipline practices for grades 6–8?
Interview: How teachers have come to
learn, if at all, about non-exclusionary
discipline practices (Part III)
RQ #3: What (if any) organizational
barriers do teachers identify that might
inhibit sustainability?
Interview: Potential barriers (Part IV)

51
Selection of the Population
This study was conducted with participants employed in a suburban school district in
Illinois. Both the participants and setting were chosen through purposeful sampling and
interviews. According to Lochmiller and Lester (2017), purposeful sampling “is when a
researcher selects individuals or sites on the basis of specific criteria” (p, 141). First, a census
survey was conducted among classroom teachers who work in the same Title 1 middle school
setting in Illinois (See Appendix A). I sent the survey to fifty-one classroom teachers who work
in the same Title 1 middle school campus. The survey focuses on the following variables; race,
class, gender, years of teaching experience, grade level, and subject taught. By utilizing a fixed
design, data from the survey were collected first to inform the remainder of the study. Teachers
who participated in the survey were then chosen, so a variety of participants would exist
representing various races, class demographics, genders, years of teaching experiences, grade
levels and subjects taught. Representing various participants’ experiences is critical to generating
accurate findings and informing a broader understanding of the collective group regarding the
barriers that exist around non-exclusionary discipline practices (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017).
Next, chosen participants were asked to complete a one-on-one interview session to share their
perceptions regarding non-exclusionary discipline practices (See Appendix D). All one-on-one
interviews were done in person and a confidential setting was chosen as it is less intimidating for
participants to share their thoughts regarding non-exclusionary discipline practices when teachers
can be provided with a discrete space to share their thoughts. I facilitated the one-on-one
interview sessions to ensure the use of a common language, but an emergent design also allowed
for adaptation through dialogue and clarifying questions. I conducted 15 interviews in total with
Title 1 middle school classroom teachers, all from within the same campus and district.

52
Data Collection
Semi-structured interviews were used to collect research data. A combination of
structured and open-ended interview questions was used to help facilitate inequity questions
(Patton, 2002) regarding non-exclusionary discipline practices. Approval was obtained first
through The University of Southern California Human Research Protection Program (IRB). Once
IRB approved the study, participants were chosen through purposeful sampling so a variety of
middle school teachers would be represented. Interview participants were contacted several
weeks in advance to determine a day and time that worked best for each participant. Each
participant was provided with an Information Study Sheet (See Appendix B) prior to their
interview which included a brief description regarding the purpose of the study, information
about participation expectations, confidentiality clause, and definitions. All ethical protocols,
including informed consent, were obtained before each interview, as a way to inform each
participant about their rights, including the purpose of the study, the types of activities they will
be asked to complete, any potential risks, how these risks will be handled, the use of a
pseudonym to protect the participants' confidentiality, and the right to withdraw at any time
(Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). The interviews were all conducted in person and a recording device
was used to transcribe each interview. At the beginning of each interview, the nature of the study
and the confidentiality of the information were disclosed. With permission from the participants,
I recorded the interview to ensure their perspectives were captured appropriately. Additionally, I
took copious field notes to record additional observations and key phrases during the interviews,
to better guide the conversation in real time. The interviews took approximately one hour to
complete and participants were asked if I may contact them subsequently for clarification
regarding direct quotes to ensure their perspective was accurately represented.

53
Instrumentation
Semi-structured interviews were used to collect qualitative data. The interview questions
stem from the three research questions, which guide the study. The premise of using a semistructured interview protocol focuses on classroom teachers and how they have come to learn
about non-exclusionary discipline practices within a Title 1 school environment. The interview
protocol is divided into four main sections including, background participant questions, thoughts
regarding non-exclusionary discipline practices, PD opportunities specific to non-exclusionary
discipline, and potential barriers to school discipline implementation and sustainability. The
interview protocol includes a balance of six types of interview questions according to Patton
(2002): behaviors/experiences, opinions/values, feelings/emotions, knowledge, sensory, and
background to support the development of questions (See Appendix D). When clarification was
needed, follow-up questions were included as sub-questions in the interview protocol (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016). The interview protocol was practicum tested before the study through
simulated interviews with eight classroom teachers from a different middle school campus.
Data Analysis
This study utilizes a qualitative approach and collected data from semi-structured
interviews. The interview questions are related to the three research questions, which guide the
data analysis for the study. Qualitative research is most often interested in understanding how
people make sense of and experience the world around them (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). When
conducting the interviews, I took copious, low-inference notes, rather my opinions were left out,
and what I saw and heard was transcribed. In addition, I used verbatim data to help increase the
credibility of the study and lower my own biases. Lastly, I asked participants after the interview
was complete if I could go back and check their words with my interpretation, known as member

54
checking, to avoid inadvertently changing their words (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). As the
researcher, I have ensured that the confidentiality of each participant would be preserved
throughout the entire process.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
My own biases regarding the importance of non-exclusionary discipline practices, which
serve to keep students in schools and provide a rich curriculum of social-emotional learning,
positive behavioral intervention supports, and restorative opportunities, could influence my data
findings and thus are critical to consider. Merriam & Tisdell (2016) divulge that credibility and
trustworthiness in a qualitative study are the ways in which the data are collected, analyzed, and
interpreted, ultimately resulting in the presentation of the findings. Multiple views, or rather the
constructions of reality, and how participants and the researcher understand the world are critical
to investigate further, so the perspectives of those involved in the phenomenon are accurately
portrayed. While there are ways to minimize threats to credibility and trustworthiness, “reality is
what we choose not to question at the moment” (Becker, 1993, p. 220).
Considering credibility and trustworthiness, the design choice lends itself to promoting
the use of more than one data collection method to encapsulate accurate perspectives from all the
participants. Patton (2015) explains that “triangulation, in whatever form, increases credibility
and quality by countering the concern (or accusation) that a study's findings are simply an
artifact of a single method, or single source, or single investigator’s blinders” (p. 674). This
study followed a triangulation of the data, by member checking, or soliciting feedback from the
participants during emerging findings in the interview process to rule out misinterpreting the
meaning of what participants say and do and the perspective they have on what is going on
(Maxwell, 2013, pp. 126-127). Member checking is also an important way of identifying my

55
own biases and misunderstanding of what I interpreted during the interview protocol.
Additionally, I spent adequate time collecting data and self-reflecting on any assumptions,
worldviews, or biases by transcribing each interview purposefully, using two devices, both an
audio recorder and paper notes.
Recognition of Positionality
Villaverde (2008), states positionality is how one is situated through the intersection of
power and the politics of gender, race, class, sexuality, ethnicity, culture, language, and other
social factors. While I recognize it is both a privilege and responsibility to be a white, Englishspeaking, heterosexual female leader in education today, my position encompasses a bias for
non-exclusionary discipline practices, as I have seen a vicious cycle used to describe how
negative behavior influences teacher perceptions, leading to harsher treatment of racially
stigmatized students (Okonofua et al., 2016). Leaning into my positionality and bias is important
to examine as Maxwell states that the researcher’s bias influences the questions, scope, and
design of the study, deeply impacting the participants (2013). Milner strengthens this thought by
stating the importance of first researching oneself alone, and then in relation to others by
engaging in a critical reflection when embracing a truly collaborative study (2007). As a Dean,
my focus for building a positive school environment operates from courage, embracing the staff,
families, and students with humanity to engage in brave conversations to restore relationships.
While courage drives many of my daily restorative conversations, it is also important to consider
that my participants might feel less courageous in answering some of the study’s interview
questions, as honesty could have repercussions in a professional setting.
Additionally, as a female Dean, my gender plays a role in how my participants might
view my identity and relationship discipline practices. According to Robinson (1992), females

56
are considered more passive and submissive, lending to calmer discipline approaches, such as
negotiation, with students. Taking into account my gender when conducting research is critical to
examining the stereotypes of women in professional settings and specifically in a leadership
position. Schein (1975) found in her studies that both male and female respondents agreed that
successful leaders possess characteristics commonly associated with men, such as leadership
ability, competitiveness, self-confidence, and desire for responsibility. By contrast, women were
associated with qualities related to concern for the sympathetic treatment of others, including
sympathetic, affectionate, helpful, and interpersonally sensitive to others (Eagly & Carli, 2007).
While socio-cultural factors play a significant role in our own biases, it is critical to examine
these stereotypes and how they influence my research.
While my previous definition of an educational researcher stated the importance of
creating teamwork for inquiry, that definition has expanded to include the importance of action
and connecting it to the heart by humanizing myself and others within the work (Palmer, 2000).
By embracing my power and positionality, I hoped to engage my participants in the research by
using semi-structured interviews to encapsulate their language into my protocol. Prior to
conducting this study, I held simulated interviews, asking participants who would not be
included in my data collection for language and feedback on my interview protocol. Using a
transformational theory approach, holding these simulated interviews has provided a more
profound reflection in guiding my questions by using the language and thoughts of others,
ultimately humanizing the research experience (Northouse, 2019).
Summary
This study uses a qualitative design approach utilizing one-to-one interviews with each
participant. A semi-structured interview protocol was used to add flexibility to the setting and

57
allow for reflective conversation between myself and the participants. The interview protocol
was divided into four main sections including, background participant questions, thoughts
regarding non-exclusionary discipline practices, PD opportunities specific to non-exclusionary
discipline, and potential barriers to school discipline implementation and sustainability.
Interviews were conducted with Title 1 middle school classroom teachers, all from within the
same campus and district in Illinois. Interviews were conducted with classroom teachers to
address all three research questions:
1. What are Title 1 middle school teachers' beliefs regarding non-exclusionary discipline
practices and the sustainability of these practices?
2. How do Title 1 suburban middle school teachers describe their implementation of
professional development regarding non-exclusionary discipline practices for grades 6–8?
3. What (if any) organizational barriers do teachers identify that might inhibit
sustainability?
The findings are presented in chapter four, followed by a discussion for future research
recommendations in chapter five.

58
Chapter Four: Results
This study aimed to collect, analyze, and interpret the complexities that underlie
classroom teachers’ implementation and sustainability of non-exclusionary discipline practices in
a Title 1 suburban Middle School setting in Illinois. Through an examination of qualitative
interviews, this study delved into teachers’ personal and professional beliefs regarding nonexclusionary discipline practices. Additionally, teachers’ professional development, either
provided or lacking was explored by expanding upon the barriers, if any, that they could identify
that might inhibit the sustainability of non-exclusionary discipline practices. To accomplish the
purpose of this study, the following research questions were used as a guide:
1. What are Title 1 middle school teachers' beliefs regarding non-exclusionary discipline
practices and the sustainability of these practices?
2. How do Title 1 suburban middle school teachers describe their implementation of
professional development regarding non-exclusionary discipline practices for grades 6–8?
3. What (if any) organizational barriers do teachers identify that might inhibit
sustainability?
The Selected Site
In an effort to protect the identity of the participants in this study, a pseudonym for the
selected school was chosen and will be referred to as Huntington Middle School. This school
was selected due to receiving Title 1 funds for students based on the data from the Illinois State
Report Card, which states that 67% of students identify as low-income. Additionally, 78% of
students identify as Hispanic while the predominantly White teaching staff demonstrates racial
disparities among the students and adults. Table 2 demonstrates these racial disparities among
the staff and students. Although the research is limited regarding measuring the effect or impact

59
that White teachers have on students of color, there is an abundance of research that narrates the
positive impact teachers of color have on achievement and the social-emotional development of
students of color (NCES, 2019; Lewis, 2006; Valencia, 2015;). Involving Huntington Middle
School in this research study may bring awareness to the juxtaposition between the adult and
student demographics and the impact of the implementation and sustainability of nonexclusionary discipline practices.
Table 2
Data from Illinois State Board of Education 2022
In addition to racial and socio-economic disparities, Huntington Middle School also had
the highest suspension rates in the district according to the Illinois State Board of Education in
2022 (ISBE Discipline Report, 2022). The total enrollment of students consisted of 614, with 93
students receiving out-of-school suspensions. Sixteen students received in-school suspensions
that same year. Additionally, 91 of those students who either received an in-school or out-ofschool suspension were noted as Latino or Hispanic (ISBE Discipline Report, 2022). Table 3
illustrates the discipline data featured in this study.

60
Table 3
Data from Illinois State Board of Education Discipline Report 2022
Lastly, Huntington has also experienced a recent and impactful change in leadership.
During the 2022–2023 school year, both the principal and assistant principal were released, and
two interim Principals were assigned. The first interim principal was the former principal who
had retired a few years prior and was able to step in immediately. While the first interim
principal had a cap on the amount of time they could serve due to pension limitations, the second
interim principal was then hired to close out the school year. This interim was new to the
District, never having worked at Huntington. More recently, a first-year assistant principal within
the district was assigned as principal for the upcoming 2023–2024 school year, along with two
assistant principals, one for curriculum and learning and the second for climate and culture. Data
for this research study was collected just as the new leadership team began to serve the
community.
Participants
In this chapter, I report the findings from 15 participants who participated in a one-to-one
interview. Participants were thoughtfully chosen based on demographic survey data to represent
an array of teachers from various backgrounds. First, a demographic survey was sent to 51
middle school classroom teachers from the site selected. Out of the 51 surveys sent, 34 total
responses were collected. Ninety-four percent of the participants surveyed identified as White
and 70% were noted as having 15 to 30 years of teaching experience. Of the 34 responses, 15

61
participants were hand-selected, based on their demographic survey responses. Out of the 15
participants, nine identified as female, and six identified as male. Fourteen out of the 15
participants identified as White and 80% had between 15 to 30 years of teaching experience.
While I was hoping to capture a broader range of race and teaching experience, participant
demographics were limited. The initial demographic survey displayed a large gap in teachers
with between five to fifteen years of teaching experience. The survey indicates that only 9% of
the teachers who participated in the survey have between five and 15 years of teaching
experience, compared to 70% who have 15 to 30 years of teaching experience. Table 4 captures
brief participant demographic information to further enhance the understanding of the
information provided in this study.
In reporting the findings, I described the perspectives of 15 middle school teachers'
beliefs regarding non-exclusionary discipline practices. Each participant has been assigned a
pseudonym to protect their confidentiality. Table 5 lists all the participants, along with their
assigned pseudonyms and demographic information to provide a fuller contextual understanding

62
of the participant’s background. Additionally, I have analyzed how these beliefs either promote
or discourage the implementation and sustainability of non-exclusionary discipline practices.
Table 5
Interview Participants
Tables, figures, and examples of participants’ responses capture these phenomena in the
remainder of the chapter.

63
Results for Research Question 1
The study’s first research question seeks to explore teachers' backgrounds and the
correlation between their experiences and beliefs regarding non-exclusionary discipline
practices. This section focuses on the results of the question, “What are Title 1 middle school
teachers' beliefs regarding non-exclusionary discipline practices and the sustainability of these
practices?”
Responses to this question were grounded in teachers' personal educational experiences
to build upon how they perceive non-exclusionary discipline practices within their classrooms.
Several themes emerged, including teachers' positionality and epistemology in relation to their
beliefs working in a Title 1 school, the importance of building relationships, and the connected
belief between exclusionary discipline and physical safety.
Teachers’ Positionality and Epistemology in a Title 1 School
In an effort to capture the participants’ experiences and positionality, it was important to
begin the semi-structured interview protocol by building background knowledge of each
participant. Seidman (2013, p. 101) furthers this concept by discussing how our “experiences
with the issues of class, race, and gender interact with the sense of power in our lives,” and that
each interview relationship is individually crafted. One significant theme that emerged during the
interviews was teachers' descriptions of their own educational experiences and the impact it has
had on their own teaching styles with students. The interview protocol began with background
questions, which encouraged a sequential flow and elicited natural, meaningful responses that
captured stories not typically told (Krueger & Casey, 2015). Eleven out of 15 participants were
interested in the field of education from an early age based on having a strong connection to a
teacher or family member who was also an educator. Diane spoke about growing up with her

64
grandmother, who was a fifth-grade teacher. Although Diane moved a lot as a child, she said,
“My teachers were great role models. As a new kid in these settings, I still enjoyed school,
mostly due to my teacher’s positive feedback, which is important to how I teach students today.”
Cindy shared a similar sentiment regarding her experiences with two high school teachers that
influenced her both personally and professionally. She continued to talk about the balance of
respect that these two teachers exemplified throughout her educational journey. Cindy stated, “I
could talk to them on a personal level … they had that perfect balance of respect and trust as my
teacher, but I thought wow, you also have a good personality and are wonderful to talk to.”
Interview results supported the finding that many of the participants have a desire to
teach in a diverse school setting with minoritized students. Questions that correspond to teaching
in a diverse school setting were built into the experiential backgrounds questions to assess
teachers’ feelings in working with students of different racial and socio-economic backgrounds.
Seven out of the fifteen participants mentioned specifically choosing to work in a Title I school
setting with minoritized students. Brent spoke about his early student teaching experience and
specifically choosing a high-needs school. He said,
I had two internships to pick from, one was out in the suburbs, almost rural, and one was
in the city. I figured, If I’m going to do this education thing then I want to work with the
toughest kids in the toughest schools.
Researchers have suggested that teachers who choose to teach and, more importantly, teach in
low-income schools, often see themselves as part of the community. Through this lens, teachers
consequently see their responsibility as encouraging the success of every student as a way to give
back to the community (Ladson-Billings, 1995). Another participant, Christina, expressed
working as a one-on-one assistant for a student prior to working at Huntington. She spoke about

65
how other administrators and teachers advised her not to take the job as a one-on-one with the
student due to the mother of the child having a negative reputation. Christina was persistent in
wanting to work and support the student and soon found that the mother was an incredible
advocate for her son. She said, “I learned a lot through that experience and the power of
advocating for students who do not have a voice.” The conversation with Christina and several
other participants elicited strong emotional responses, specifically from those who had over 15
years of teaching experience at Huntington Middle School (Krueger & Casey, 2015).
The teachers who expressed a desire to work in a high-needs school also demonstrated
passion when talking about their work with students. Five of the seven participants who have
chosen to work in a Title 1 school also had a consensus that students must learn academics and
their role in providing meaningful curriculum. Tom was recruited to work in a high-needs school
in the Chicago Public School system, before teaching at Huntington. As he retold his experience
working at the school, he said “I was told that I was hired due to being male and the school
having 100% African-American student enrollment. I did not do well and ended up as a
substitute that year.” Bandura described self-efficacy as the belief about how effective you think
you can be in a situation to bring about a certain outcome, however in a classroom setting,
collective efficacy focuses on the communities’ beliefs about completing a task at a desired level
together, rather than just the individual effort (Bandura, 1997). Tom continued to explain that
due to a lack of training and struggling with presenting materials to kids, he contemplated
discontinuing a career in teaching, however, he decided that working in a high-needs school was
appealing. The challenge to connect with students and learn different ways to structure lessons
became a lasting motivation so his students could achieve success.
The findings in this section connect with the participant's positionalities and

66
epistemologies, focusing on the importance of their own educational experiences. While
McGrath states there are commonalities between adults and children regarding learning, intrinsic
motivating factors for adults center more on incorporating their own experiences, resulting in the
instructional environment being more engaging, supportive, and dynamic (Lawson, 2009).
Building background knowledge from each participant intertwines the emotions, values, and
ethics to reflect upon the participant's personal beliefs regarding discipline practices in a Title I
school setting (Northouse, 2019).
Importance of Relationships With Students
Teachers’ remarks confirmed that building relationships during the interviews was
important with 100% of participants expressing value for this theme. Teachers expressed the
importance of building relationships with their students, however, when asked to explain a
specific example regarding how they build relationships, more specifically at the beginning of
the school year, 12 out of the 15 participants spoke about setting up expectations, classroom
norms, or contracts as examples. Catherine spoke specifically about her classroom management
strategies, consistency, and relationships. She explained that consistency shows students the
importance of staying on track and having very strong expectations in her classroom. She said,
We have very strong expectations in the classroom which I think helps build
relationships. I typically do not have discipline problems in my classroom. Being
consistent and having respect is important. If you respect me, then I will respect you.
The quality of relationships that form between teachers and students is key to successful teaching
and learning (Aultman et al., 2009) which must extend beyond expectations, but rather student
perceptions of support from teachers to build a mutual understanding of one another to enhance
student attitudes and motivation (Midgley et al., 1989). While creating safety for all students by

67
setting up clear expectations is important, building safe spaces, both physically, intellectually,
and emotionally can promote a positive and healthy school culture, focusing on strengthening
relationships (Wachtel, 2016). Within the context of a Title 1 middle school, such as Huntington
where the racial demographics between the teachers and students is drastically different, the
relationships are built primarily on setting up expectations, rather than on the appreciation of
similarities and difference (Borowski, 2018., p. 3).
Eight out of the 12 participants who had 15 or more years of teaching experience spoke
about how their classroom management strategies have shifted over time, originally stemming
from their own educational or personal experiences regarding discipline. Current research states,
that newer teachers often begin their career acting as an authoritarian or having clearly defined
rules with an emphasis on strict enforcement, while more veteran teachers define themselves as
institutionalists, which embrace the voices of the entire class to ensure the expectations are
followed but rather in a friendly and inviting way (Kropáč et al., 2023). Michael discussed how,
when he first started teaching he was young and naive, wanting to “rule with an iron fist.” Over
time and through experience he has learned that making connections with kids and giving them
freedom by choosing seats or assigning jobs to specific students who are looking for leadership
opportunities has been more impactful and students become more responsive. Motivating
students for academic learning by ensuring school belonging with positive peer relationships
must be leveraged into the emotional aspects of learning (Immordino-Yang, 2016). Michael also
discussed the importance of being present in the hallway and giving handshakes, as a way to
learn about all the students in the school, not just the students he has in his direct classes.
Connecting emotionally with students which often requires strong social and communication
skills was also seen by another participant. Brent also spoke about how he has shifted from a top-

68
down approach to being firm without degrading students through active listening. He stated that
students often say, “You get us, you listen” which he credits to giving students the benefit of the
doubt and listening when they enter his classroom. Brent spoke about working hard to build a
classroom culture that embraces team building, either through stacking cups or scavenger hunts
at the beginning of the year, which focuses on students being collaborative and engaging in
dialogue together. Paulo Freire’s (1998) concept of radical love interrogates ways of teaching
and creating spaces for dialogue by calling attention to the importance of educators who work
with culturally and linguistically diverse students. His research states that it is important for
educators first to examine their own values and assumptions about working with students who
are different from them to create a learning environment that allows students to engage with one
another through dialogue (Arao & Clemens, 2013). Through this exploration, teachers can shape
their own beliefs regarding discipline practices, and move towards becoming more inclusive or
exclusionary, based on these beliefs.
In addition to building relationships, teachers' perceptions of their classroom management
also included the importance of listening, consistency, using humor, respect, and building trust.
One hundred percent of the participants spoke about the importance of listening to students.
Rhetorical listening does not demand that listeners accept all perspectives as truth. Rather, it
encourages listeners to attempt to understand how people reason both as individuals and as
members of cultural groups (Ratcliffe, 2020). Two out of the 15 spoke about being consistent
with their expectations and emotions when teaching. Teachers who are trained in a consistent
framework or approach to behavior management have been found to be more committed to using
it (Allensworth & Hart, 2018). Additionally, administrators who are consistent in their treatment
of behavior issues have more success in preventing erroneous behaviors (Allensworth & Hart,

69
2018). Four out of fifteen participants spoke about the importance of utilizing humor in their
classes, more specifically due to the age of the students being adolescents. Ten out of the 15
participants brought up respect as an important factor in classroom management. Daisy clearly
stated that she told her students, “If you show me respect, I will show you respect.” This
statement resurfaced in six of the fifteen interviews when respect was mentioned. Lastly, five out
of the 15 participants mentioned building trust with their students, primarily through connections
and again by following explicit expectations. Many studies indicate that adolescents change and
develop according to social norms such as respect and trust (Masselink et al., 2018).
Additionally, adults have been found to have the largest impact on adolescents and build positive
characteristics, such as respect, trust, and empathy (Williams et al., 2018). Figure 2 shows a list
of characteristics that teachers used to describe their own classroom management styles.
Figure 2
Characteristics of Classroom Management Styles
Safety and Exclusionary Discipline Practices
A consistent theme that emerged regarding suspensions and expulsions being an
appropriate response to student behavior was safety, primarily the physical safety of students and
staff. While there has been much controversy around zero-tolerance policies regarding student

70
behaviors and safety, one agreement centers around the importance of ensuring an environment
where students can learn and teachers can teach without chaos and disruption (APA, 2008). Most
participants favored non-exclusionary discipline practices; however, fourteen out of the fifteen
participants interviewed spoke about how suspensions are an appropriate response when a
student is a safety threat to themselves or another person. Seven out of the 14 specifically
mentioned that they prefer in-school suspensions when appropriate as they offer time for
students to deeply reflect with staff members and have more meaningful resolutions. Christina
described her perceptions of the importance of suspensions and how they must be facilitated in
order to be meaningful. She said:
“There are times when we need a break, which cannot be seen as negative. Sometimes we
need students to get out of the environment or away from the triggers for a while. The
more important part though is how do you use time wisely with students. Processing is
important.”
Casey also expressed that while he was not big on suspensions, sometimes students need more
mental and emotional support that cannot be found at home. He furthered his perceptions of
exclusionary discipline by stating:
“School is so important for kids so breaking the bond can really negatively impact that
student. I would always want a student to have the opportunity to rejoin their scholastic
family once they have reflected and learned new strategies. This sometimes cannot take
place at home and so they need a place within the school to reflect before rejoining.”
Discussion Research Question 1
Responses to Research Question 1 revealed several considerations. First, 11 of the 15
participants had a positive reaction when asked about their trajectory to becoming a teacher.

71
Some teachers described positive aspects of their childhood educational experience and how
those emotions have guided their characteristics as current educators. Villaverde (2008) states
positionality is how one is situated through the intersection of power and the politics of gender,
race, class, sexuality, ethnicity, culture, language, and other social factors which was an essential
piece to explore to better understand the perspectives of the participants featured in the study.
Seidman (2013, p. 101) furthers this concept by discussing how our experiences and positionality
interact with the sense of power in our lives. While the positionality and epistemology of each
participant were captured, the connection between the teachers and choosing to work in a Title 1
school was illuminated.
Secondly, teachers largely felt that building relationships with students is imperative
when embracing non-exclusionary discipline practices. Perhaps most notably, teachers expressed
the importance of restorative measures and social-emotional learning within the school context.
This reiterates findings from previous literature that teachers, as members of a helping
profession, seek out ways to include their students within the classroom setting. As Skiba and
Peterson state, restorative justice practices address “the complexity of emotional and behavioral
problems in schools” (Skiba & Peterson, 2000. p. 341) which involves developing care and
concern for others, establishing positive relationships, making responsible decisions, and
handling challenging situations constructively (CASEL, 2007).
Lastly, exclusionary discipline practices, such as suspensions and expulsions were
explored. While many factors might contribute to more exclusionary discipline practices,
participants expressed that when safety concerns, such as physical fighting are involved, it is
essential to take punitive measures. By categorizing behaviors, such as physical threats,
participants expressed a generalized concern and shifted from being restorative to not looking at

72
the individualistic characteristics of students themselves. These themes reiterated the exploration
of teachers' backgrounds and the correlation between their experiences and beliefs regarding
non-exclusionary discipline practices. Research question two examines in greater detail how
teachers have implemented their professional development, if at all, regarding non-exclusionary
discipline practices.
Results for Research Question 2
This study’s second research question, “How do Title 1 suburban middle school teachers
describe their implementation of professional development regarding non-exclusionary discipline
practices for grades 6–8?” seeks to examine how participants have come to learn about
restorative justice (RJ), social-emotional learning (SEL), and school wide positive behavior
intervention support (SWPBIS), if at all. Recent research shows that many teacher professional
development (PD) initiatives appear ineffective in supporting changes in teacher practices and
student learning (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017) due to inconsistent and sporadic training. Three
themes that emerged from this question: sporadic or nonexistent training regarding RJ, everchanging administrator expectations of PBIS, and lack of interwoven SEL.
Sporadic or Nonexistent Training Regarding Restorative Justice
Although restorative justice practices have existed in school settings for several years,
teachers at this site are just coming to learn more about what RJ is and how to implement it
within their classrooms. Several teachers expressed a disconnect between learning about RJ and
delving into formal professional development so they can implement the practice with their
students. Catherine expressed,
I have not personally had any training. There have been conversations at institute days
where the restorative justice coach was introduced. She has come in and talked about

73
restorative circles. After she was introduced she said, ‘If you want to do something like
this, you can reach out.
Daisy expressed a similar sentiment stating that restorative justice was first introduced last
school year at a staff meeting, however, it was not a presentation. She said:
At one staff meeting, the restorative justice coach came. It was last year at the beginning
of the year. It was very brief, you get ten minutes. The word is thrown around a lot but I
have not received any specific training. I feel as an explo teacher, it [RJ] is very specific
to home base teachers. I think most people believe that SEL and RJ are supposed to be
taught in home base. It is like the dumping ground.
Lucy noted some frustration about having many conversations about RJ practices but not fully
engaging in the process. She said, “More recently, we have talked a lot about restorative circles
and community circles but have not engaged in actually doing them as a building with our
students.”
While a vast majority of the participants spoke about the terminology around RJ, one
participant gave a specific example of having attended a formal RJ training several years ago
with the past administration. The training was a week-long and located in a nearby city. Cynthia
spoke about the training specifically focusing on inner city schools and how it was difficult to
draw connections between those experiences and what Huntington Middle School was seeing.
She said, “The training was very different than anything that our district experiences. Some
things were so far away from our experiences so not all of it was applicable.”
A majority of teachers interviewed struggled to give specific examples of ways in which
they have implemented restorative justice practices within their classrooms. While teachers
expressed they are familiar with the language regarding restorative justice practices, they were

74
unable to provide specific examples of facilitating circles with their students. Goleman’s work on
emotional literacy affirms that restorative justice promotes values, principles, and behaviors that
are inclusive and collaborative to the community (2012), however, the teacher must be an active
participant, validating the experiences of everyone in the circle. The outcome of this theme
verified that inconsistent PD, which lacks a structured sequence, personal connection, and builtin reflection, rarely results in a change of practice (Fullan, 2007).
Ever-Changing Administrator Expectations of SWPBIS
Teachers identified administrator support or lack of support as one of the most significant
challenges to implementing a school-wide positive behavior intervention program (SWPBIS).
Research has shown administrator support to be a critical variable for implementing and
sustaining evidence-based practices. A study by Rohrbach and colleagues (1993) indicated that
when principals were informed of the importance of a program and the impact that they (as
principals) can have on implementation, the fidelity of implementation by school staff was
higher. While many of the participants interviewed have seen a change in administration over the
years, several participants spoke about how SWPBIS was first implemented, completely
terminated, and then brought back. Francine spoke about how SWPBIS used to be implemented
across the entire school but was discontinued during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. She
spoke about how once the change in leadership took place in February, teachers and
administrators sought to bring it back. She said, “We worked hard to bring it back last year, and
as soon as it was brought back, the students responded really well.” She equated the success to
the administrative staffing change and teachers wanting to pursue PBIS to better support
students.
Research has supported that SWPBIS is related to positive outcomes for students,

75
including reduced problem behavior, increased emotional regulation, and improved academic
achievement (Bradshaw et al., 2010). In addition to positive outcomes for students, SWPBIS is
related to increases in staff morale, teacher efficacy, and teacher job satisfaction (Bradshaw et
al., 2012). Tom expressed how when SWPBIS was brought back last year, he was satisfied with
the results and enjoyed the process of implementing SWPBIS in the school. He said,
Staff meetings revolved around rolling out SWPBIS, very quickly once there was a
change in leadership. There was nothing in place prior but I like the tickets and raffles. I
dove in head first and while it did not make a significant difference in my own classroom,
it did seem to reinforce some of the kids who were doing well, already. Additionally,
those students who were in the middle did make positive changes and became more
motivated by the tickets.
Administrators, specifically principals, are critical to the successful implementation of
SWPBIS in schools due to their unique role in the school. For instance, they are able to allocate
resources such as funding and prizes while positively influencing the implementation by
selecting staff with prior experience to support the implementation process (Coffey & Horner,
2012). Olivia spoke about the raffles and prizes that were funded by the SWPBIS leadership
team to ensure student motivation. She said that at the end of last year, the SWPBIS leadership
team was re-established and students had the chance to take place in weekly all-school raffles, in
addition to classroom raffles. She said,
The students would put tickets in at the end of the week in our all-school raffle and have
the chance to win bigger prizes, like a McDonald’s gift card. In addition, we were given
smaller prizes that we could raffle off, like fidgets and stickers.
School administrators play a pivotal role in adopting, implementing, and sustaining

76
SWPBIS practices in schools. Their support, or lack of support, for SWPBIS, can make a
difference between successful implementation or complete abandonment, as their support can
serve as a lever to enhance other factors needed for implementation and sustainability (Elliott &
Mihalic, 2004).
One major theme to emerge was the distinct connection between the change of leadership
and the implementation of SWPBIS practices at Huntington Middle School. Twelve of the 15
participants interviewed have over fifteen years of teaching experience and have thus seen a
change in SWPBIS due to the direct correlation between administrative beliefs around SWPBIS.
While the teachers interviewed in this study were supportive of SWPBIS practices, past
administration led to inconsistent implementation and sustainability of SWPBIS.
Lack of Interwoven Social-Emotional Learning
Many teachers expressed the importance of SEL in a middle school setting, however, a
common theme that emerged was the questioning around when, where, and who is responsible
for teaching SEL. Eleven out of the 15 participants spoke about SEL and students engaging in
lessons during their home base classes. A theme that emerged within these conversations
centered around core teachers feeling they are the only ones responsible for implementing SEL.
Tom spoke about the pressure placed on home base teachers because it is becoming a place
where students get pulled out of class for various reasons. He said, “Students will often go to
band, chorus, or have academic interventions making it difficult to follow a sequenced and
structured SEL curriculum. If I want SEL to work, it has to be done with all students.”
Another theme that emerged was directly connected to staffing and schedules. Some
participants spoke about the recent change in administrative leadership, however, due to 12
participants having over 15 years of teaching experience, many of these participants discussed

77
schedule changes that have occurred, along with staffing. Lucy specifically spoke about the
change in schedule that occurred over the past two years. She said, “I think teaching one subject
and the same grade over the year is helpful so teachers feel less stressed. The more teachers are
stressed due to their load of classes, the less they will implement SEL within their classes.”
Christina had a similar sentiment, speaking about how so many students are hurting in many
different ways, so students have not gotten their SEL needs met. She continued to discuss that
due to a lack of staffing, students have suffered. She said, “We are simply not staffed enough.
Having two social workers at this school makes zero sense … and guess what, one of our social
workers just quit this past week.”
Another theme that emerged was the importance of choosing an SEL curriculum that
could be done with validity and credibility for all students. School leadership is essential when
training teachers to implement SEL curriculums (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2006). Brent spoke about
SEL and using the Second Step program, which was initiated a few years ago. He spoke about
the previous leadership team exposing teachers to the curriculum, however, many teachers did
not understand how to fully access the curriculum and tweak it to better serve their students. He
said, “Overall, I think teachers are not always flexible or they simply do not understand the
curriculum. If you stick right to the curriculum of Second Step then it is probably not going to
work out. You have to be able to adapt it to your classroom.”
Another theme that emerged from teachers was the question of how to motivate middle
school students to “buy-in” to SEL lessons. Catherine stated, “We do it, we do SEL but it is a
hard one to teach. Like how do you do it the correct way, or with justice that a middle schooler is
accepting of it?” In a 2015 qualitative study of 14 educators and mental health professionals in
an urban school serving predominately BIPOC students, implications from the study included the

78
importance of (a) integrating SEL in culturally relevant ways, (b) cultivating authentic
relationships with students, and (c) making community collaboration an important part of the
school culture (Slaten et al., 2015). Leadership is imperative when choosing a SEL curriculum
for two main reasons. First, implementation matters as research has shown that implementation
can be problematic when the research and theories underlying SEL reforms are not made explicit
(Elias et al., 2003). Secondly, school leaders must be able to bridge the theory of SEL to practice
by allowing staff to actively engage in SEL that meets the culturally diverse needs of the students
(Elias et al., 2003).
Discussion Research Question 2
Responses to Research Question 2 revealed several considerations. Measuring the effects
of professional development surrounding RJ, SWPBIS, and SEL is essential to understanding
and improving teaching strategies, classroom management, and relationship building. While the
teachers examined in this study strive to improve the school community through nonexclusionary discipline practices, there is a great need for quality professional development that
is sequential and consistent throughout the school year (Day & Qing 2009). Teachers
interviewed for this study supported non-exclusionary discipline practices as a way to minimize
students being excluded from their daily routines, however, due to a lack of professional
development, teachers have not been taught the skills necessary to facilitate restorative circles
and truly embrace SEL practices within their daily curriculum.
Given the majority of teachers interviewed in this study have over 15 years of teaching
experience, it is surprising that they have rarely received specific training regarding restorative
justice practices and culturally relevant SEL (Hargreaves, 1998). RJ, SWPBIS, and SEL have all
been proven to be acknowledged by students as a way to build community, more specifically

79
when the topics covered are relevant and relatable to students (Hulvershorn & Mulholland,
2018). School leadership is essential for initiating, implementing, and sustaining nonexclusionary discipline practices as consistent expectations, funding, and schedules can deeply
impact the success of these programs. These themes reiterated the lack of teachers' professional
development regarding non-exclusionary discipline practices. Research Question 3 examines in
greater detail the real and perceived barriers teachers have experienced preventing nonexclusionary discipline practices from either being implemented or sustained.
Results for Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked the following: What (if any) organizational barriers do
teachers identify that might inhibit sustainability? This question more closely examines the
barriers, both perceived and real, that participants believe affect the implementation and
sustainability of non-exclusionary discipline practices. School discipline is a perplexing issue,
sometimes educators are critically engaged in finding quick-fix solutions, rather than
transformative practices. While extensive research supports that repeatedly removing a student
from learning activities promotes a negative student-teacher relationship, which impacts the
learning environment, barriers to understanding, implementing, and sustaining non-exclusionary
discipline practices still exist (Wymer et al., 2020). Three major themes emerged regarding
barriers, including a loss of academic time, clarity of communication from administration to
support implementation, and district assessment pressure due to standardized testing. Figure 3
shows the breakdown of these barriers mentioned by participants.
Figure 3
Potential and Perceived Barriers

80
Loss of Academic Time
Teachers expressed several perceived and real organizational barriers that they accredit to
affecting the implementation and sustainability of non-exclusionary discipline practices. One of
the major themes that emerged was the essence of taking time to implement SEL, RJ practices,
and SWPBIS. Although time is a critical element when implementing a new initiative (Bandura,
2001), one hundred percent of the participants agreed that it is essential to implement nonexclusionary discipline practices, more specifically at the beginning of the school year. Francine
expressed this sentiment stating:
They (non-exclusionary discipline practices) absolutely do take time away from valuable
academic time but if kids are not available to learn, then they can't. There has to be that
time so kids feel comfortable and learn strategies to deal with their frustration even if it
takes away classroom time because otherwise, you will be dealing with these things every
day. Instead of taking 15 minutes at the beginning of class, the student will take 51
minutes. The kids will never retain anything though if we do not teach them how to be
available to learn.
Several other participants furthered this statement bringing to light the importance of ensuring

81
that students are emotionally ready to learn. Christina spoke about her students and the many
different traumas they face at home on a daily basis. She continued to explain how her students
will bring their personal lives to school with them and how if those traumas are not addressed,
then they will never be able to learn. She stated, “Students can’t learn if they are not emotionally
ready to even survive, or function.”
Although 100% of the teachers interviewed agreed that taking time out of their busy
academic schedules is important at the beginning of the school year, two participants took a
different approach by focusing more on how teachers have to make many decisions throughout
the school year. Tom focused on the difficulties of having to make so many decisions as a
teacher due to serving the needs of a diverse population. Tom stated:
I feel like there are a lot of choices you have to make as a teacher and one is investing in
structures, procedures, and introducing the rules. One of the choices you should make is
restorative circles as an example of a classroom structure so that when kids understand it
then when needed it can be very powerful.
Tom also discussed that teachers must fully commit to restorative practices and teach them in
ways they would any other lesson, otherwise, the students will not commit and one could end up
with a dysfunctional restorative circle. Leadership of non-exclusionary discipline practices,
specifically RJ and SEL builds on the foundations of scheduling blocks of time for teacher
collaboration, which allows for collective efficacy to emerge (Bandura, 2001). Allowing teacher
learning opportunities honors that teachers know how to build their own self-efficacy, which will
transform into their classrooms (Bandura, 2001).
Conversely, Cindy spoke about the importance of academics during core classes and how
RJ and SEL should only be embedded during home base. Cindy stated, “It is interesting

82
because…there is so much you have to get done. I think spending a little time during home base
is enough though.” Lockhart and Zammit (2005) focus on integrating RJ and SEL within all
aspects of the school day. They suggest that these practices must be interwoven into every
classroom and subject by creating caring climates to support healthy communities. Additionally,
instructional leadership of non-exclusionary discipline practices involves scheduling blocks of
time for teacher collaboration, which allows for collective efficacy to emerge (Kennedy, 2019).
Clarity of Communication to Support Implementation
Another pattern that emerged centered around the importance of communication between
district administrators and teachers regarding implementing discipline procedures and
expectations. When participants were asked about a discipline progression that was written and
implemented during the 2022-2023 school year, 13 out of the 15 participants referred to a
discipline flowchart, rather than the progression. Participants had an array of answers when
asked how the flowchart was initially implemented, including during team meetings, staff
meetings, via email, and institute days. Many of the participants also hesitated or paused when
answering this question, trying to remember the timeline of when the flowchart was brought to
their attention. Daisy said,
So [emphasis added], yes. It was sent out in an email and you could read through it but I
don’t really remember. I feel like it seemed great in theory but it does not always get
enforced or is always played out the way it is supposed to.
Cynthia also paused before answering this question stating, “I don’t remember spending a
tremendous amount of time but as a team, we looked at it. Some things in the chart are very gray
so the guidance of it was confusing. There was no training on how to read it.” It is important that
the leadership team convey clear expectations when creating and implementing a new document

83
that defines discipline expectations. Additionally, according to Kotter (2011), all communication
must be sent in various modes, such as emails, newsletters, speeches, and daily announcements,
along with administrators modeling how to engage in reading and implementing the new
discipline expectations.
Teachers specifically brought to light the breakdown of communication and
inconsistency regarding students receiving exclusionary discipline, such as suspensions.
Addressing student behaviors involves daily communication, however, it is also important that
messages are delivered in multiple forms and modeled consistently (Kotter, 2011., p. 11). Nine
out of the 15 participants mentioned contradictions between Senate Bill 100 (SB100), which was
passed in 2015 as a way for schools to minimize exclusionary discipline practices such as
suspension and expulsion while increasing the use of alternatives to suspension, and the current
practices of the district. Christina spoke about the contradictions she has endured over her time in
the District and more specifically at Huntington Middle School. She discussed how there was a
time when administrators would tell staff they must suspend or utilize time-out rooms as a form
of discipline. Christina said:
Over time there was a shift to we can’t suspend and now it seems to be going back
towards more punitive measures. I remember that before the change in leadership, the
principal stated “I can’t suspend kids” but after we had a lockdown, the administration
was telling us to go ahead and suspend whoever we wanted. There’s a shift. So, we were
told we can't suspend, then suspend whoever you want.
Stan also stated that it feels as though he does not see many students being suspended compared
to before, however, if the student is not on your team then teachers are not told. He stated that
teachers are never really told why or how long students might be out for suspensions. Stan said,

84
“It is very hush hush and the school keeps things very confidential.” Cindy also continued this
sentiment by explaining that as a newer teacher, the school would notify her if one of her
students received a suspension but would never disclose why. She said:
Last year, I would get an email the day of, that a student was serving a suspension and
never told what happened. So when the student would return then I didn’t know what to
look out for and although I understand I don’t need to know every detail, I am with them
for over fifty minutes a day.
She continued to state that the reason she wanted to know more details was so that she could
support the student transition back to the class but due to a lack of communication she was not
given the opportunity to add an extra layer of support for those students. While transparency and
building safe spaces among educators, both physically, intellectually, and emotionally can
promote a positive and healthy school culture, focusing on strengthening relationships through
dialogue must be centered upon when transitioning a student back into the classroom (Wachtel,
2016).
District Assessment Pressure Due to Standardized Testing
Several participants spoke about academic assessments and pacing guides given by the
district, which has resulted in feelings of internalized pressure. Six out of the 15 participants
mentioned pacing guides that the district utilizes in core classes, such as language arts and math,
and how data is analyzed at team meetings causing pressure among teachers. Catherine spoke
about her own internal pressure which she explained was caused by her belief in mastering her
job to serve her students. She said:
The pressure is both a personal piece of where I want my students to be and what I want
them to know before they leave the school. In the last 2 years, we have had to finish a

85
unit because we have to give the end-of-the-unit district assessment within a specific
week. Those results are analyzed by my team but the district office also looks at them
which adds more pressure because you are being watched and held accountable but also
compared across the district.
Catherine continued to explain how the other middle schools in the district have different
students with different needs. While Huntington Middle School is currently one of the most
economically disadvantaged schools in the district, she believes it is not realistic to compare
pacing assessments with the other schools. The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 has
also left many schools, specifically those with higher percentages of low-income and/or
minoritized students of color deeply affected by the NCLB accountability pressures (DarlingHammond, 2007). The six participants who spoke about internalized pressure due to district
assessments and standardized testing all have over fifteen years of teaching experience. While
the district must enforce specific assessments that are collected by the State of Illinois, the
sociopolitical stressors and injustices of NCLB, specifically those with over 15 years of teaching
experience, can still be felt among many Title 1 schools today.
Discussion Research Question 3
Barriers, both perceived and realistic, were critical to understanding why the
implementation and sustainability of non-exclusionary discipline practices have been affected
over time. The three main themes consisted of a loss of academic time, clarity of communication
from administration to support implementation, and district assessment pressure due to
standardized testing. Research shows that successful implementation of non-exclusionary
discipline practices leads to positive student outcomes such as increased social and emotional
skills, decreased problem behaviors, improved attitudes toward school, and increased academic

86
performance (Durlak, 2011). Creating meaningful spaces for teachers and students to engage in
RJ and SEL is critical, however, it must also be embedded into the daily community. Integration
of RJ and SEL into academic instruction weaves academic learning with opportunities for
students to practice and reflect on social and emotional competencies, such as perspective-taking
and developing a growth mindset (CASLE, 2013).
Summary
Key findings from this chapter focus on three areas of research: What are Title 1 middle
school teachers' personal beliefs regarding non-exclusionary discipline practices, how do
teachers describe their implementation of professional development, and what organizational
barriers do teachers identify that might inhibit the sustainability of non-exclusionary discipline
practices? Overall, teachers were extremely supportive of non-exclusionary discipline practices,
bringing in the importance of relationship building with their students, however, the ways in
which relationships have been executed focus primarily on expectations, norms, and setting up
rules.
Research Question 1 focused on teachers' prior and present beliefs regarding discipline
practices and delved into the juxtaposition between building relationships and establishing
expectations. A majority of the teachers interviewed spoke about how school was influential in
their own lives at a young age and how they always wanted to work with kids. Teachers then
described the following characteristics of their classroom management: listening, consistency,
utilizing humor, respect, and trust. Lastly, the participants spoke about their own beliefs
regarding SEL, RJ, and PBIS. While a majority of the teachers believed students should have
access to school, there were strong opinions regarding the safety and security when students

87
become physical and that in those cases, it is necessary for those students to be removed from the
classroom setting temporarily.
Research Question 2 focused on professional development, either received or lacking
regarding discipline. A majority of the participants stated that professional development through
the district has been sporadic and inconsistent, leaving unmemorable experiences due to a lack of
sequential and reflective learning. Additionally, participants spoke about the connection between
administrative changes and the effective implementation of new initiatives. When the
administration is transitioning, leadership regarding professional development of nonexclusionary discipline practices is deeply affected, often leading to stagnant implementation.
Lastly, Research Question 3 focused on barriers, both perceived and real, along with the
pressure of district assessment due to standardized testing. Many participants expressed concerns
about the contradictions of disciplinary procedures over the years, especially because a majority
of the participants have over 15 years of teaching experience in this district. Teachers related the
barriers of academic pacing guides and unit assessment which have added internalized pressure
among a small majority of the participants featured in this study.

88
Chapter Five: Discussion
Chapter Five summarizes findings related to non-exclusionary discipline practices and
implications for implementation and sustainability within the educational community. Key
research findings are discussed with the intention of informing current and future educational
leaders on how to effectively implement and sustain non-exclusionary discipline practices within
a middle school setting. These recommendations are based on the qualitative data that were
gathered from 15 individual interviews. Additionally, recommendations for future research are
made within the context of this study.
This study focused on problems associated with student transition to middle school and
effective implementation of non-exclusionary discipline practices, specifically social-emotional
learning, restorative justice practices, and school-wide positive behavioral intervention supports.
While most middle school classes become more formal and evaluative, the curriculum in these
settings often does not embed non-exclusionary discipline practices, leading to a problem of
exclusion for many students, specifically minoritized students (Meece & Campbell, 2002). While
there is no dispute that schools must ensure the safety of the learning environment, controversy
over exclusionary approaches still exists today (APA Zero Tolerance Task Force, 2008).
Disruptive behaviors are a concern in school settings, specifically, Title 1 schools as
exclusionary discipline practices often lead to high truancy rates, lower levels of academic
success, greater risks for placement in special education programs, and school dropout
(Gottfredson, 2005). Although behaviors must be addressed to ensure a flourishing learning
environment, how educators approach students can perpetuate or disrupt school discipline
inequities (Scheurich & Young, 1997). The purpose of this study was to better understand Title 1
middle school teacher’s personal and professional beliefs regarding non-exclusionary discipline

89
practices. Additionally, teachers’ professional development, either provided or lacking, was
explored by expanding upon the barriers, if any, that they could identify that might inhibit the
sustainability of non-exclusionary discipline practices. The following questions guided this
research:
1. What are Title 1 middle school teachers' beliefs regarding non-exclusionary discipline
practices and the sustainability of these practices?
2. How do Title 1 suburban middle school teachers describe their implementation of
professional development regarding non-exclusionary discipline practices for grades 6–8?
3. What (if any) organizational barriers do teachers identify that might inhibit
sustainability?
This study implemented a qualitative design approach utilizing individual interviews to
collect rich and meaningful data. First, a demographic survey was sent to fifty-one middle school
classroom teachers from the site selected. Thirty-four total responses were collected and a subset
of fifteen participants were hand-selected to ensure an array of backgrounds, including race,
gender, and teaching experience. All 15 participants were then individually interviewed in person
so each participant's thoughts, opinions, and feelings could be analyzed. It was imperative to
hold all fifteen interviews in person to better connect with each participant on a more accurate
level. The interview protocol that was utilized was purposefully designed to include personal
questions, leaning into each participant's heartfelt motivation for teaching. Patton states that a
good quality interview focuses more on what the participant is willing to share, which can be
accomplished by establishing a positive rapport between the interviewer and participants (Patton,
2015). As each interview relationship is individually crafted (Seidman, 2013), it was important to

90
hold these sessions live so a space of reflection, care, and healing could promote meaningful
dialogue.
Findings
After analyzing the data from the qualitative interviews, all three research questions were
answered. Study findings suggest that a majority of teachers believe in the importance of having
students connected to their school through non-exclusionary discipline practices, specifically
restorative justice practices (RJ), social-emotional learning (SEL), and school-wide positive
behavioral intervention supports (SWPBIS). Findings further suggest that school and district
leadership plays a vital role in the successful implementation and sustainability of nonexclusionary discipline practices. While leadership turnover has had a strong impact on the
implementation of non-exclusionary discipline practices, evidence from this study shows that
consistent, clear, and purposeful professional development which is supported by school
leadership is essential when implementing a new initiative. Nine themes emerged related to the
study’s three research questions. This section presents a summary and discussion of the study’s
findings in relationship to extant literature and current practice.
Research Question 1
Research Question 1 inquired, What are Title 1 middle school teachers' beliefs regarding
non-exclusionary discipline practices and the sustainability of these practices? Qualitative data
related to research question one produced three findings. The first finding that emerged was the
importance of teachers’ positionality and epistemology related to teaching in a Title 1 school
setting. This finding was consistent with the work of Villaverde (2008), which states that
positionality is how one is situated through the intersection of power and the politics of gender,
race, class, sexuality, ethnicity, culture, language, and other social factors. While teachers spoke

91
about positive childhood educational experiences, many teachers came from families that
promoted education and valued schooling. Participants spoke about the differences between their
motivation to succeed in school at a young age and how their current students lack that same
type of intrinsic motivation. Additionally, this theme recognizes Milner’s work which states that
self-reflection and awareness of one’s interpersonal insights are essential to teacher-student
relationships (2007). He furthers this concept, stating that to understand others, individuals must
first understand themselves (2007). While teachers reflected upon their educational experiences
there was a strong disconnect between their experiences attending non-Title 1 schools and the
community they teach at currently, which serves a population of sixty-seven percent of students
who identify as low-income.
The second finding suggested that building relationships between students and teachers is
essential for beginning the work of implementing non-exclusionary discipline practices. While
one hundred percent of the participants interviewed agreed with the relationships between
teacher and student being essential, the examples provided were primarily exclusive to setting up
expectations, norms, and rules. This theme aligns with Bickmore’s (2001) research which
explains how educators, directly and indirectly, shape the learning experiences of students. The
concept of community within a school setting is best understood through the teacher-student
relationship, which is critically important given that positive teacher-student relationships among
all racial groups are essential to creating an equitable and supportive school climate that does not
rely on punitive approaches to behavior (Bickmore, 2001). That relationship, however, depends
on how teachers and students define “responsible decision-making” and create classroom
agreements that can entice students to feel a part of the community, rather than push them out or
a top-down approach. Hulvershorn and Mulholland (2018) further the concept of building

92
relationships stating that a community, in all its diversity, is affirmed, by being the lens through
which social and emotional skills are learned and refined, demonstrating multiple ways of being
together and building relationships.
The third finding that emerged in relation to research question one confirmed the
juxtaposition between teachers who stated the importance of inclusion, however when a safety
issue was illuminated, teachers reverted to exclusionary discipline practices. Although
participants spoke about safety as an overarching concern, there were few specific examples of
what qualifies as a safety concern. Brookover and Erickson (1969) state that students who are
identified as defiant, maladjusted, safety threats, and difficult to deal with are more likely to
internalize these labels and act out in ways that match the expectations that have been set for
them (Johnson, 1995). Okonofua et al. 2016) furthers this concept stating that discrepancies
between race and school discipline are important to consider as often a vicious cycle is used to
describe how negative behavior influences teacher perceptions, leading to harsher treatment of
racially stigmatized students, thus reinforcing negative mindsets and behaviors among students
(Okonofua et al., 2016). Lastly, Rodriguez and Welsh (2022) presented and applied a
comprehensive analytic framework to examine patterns in school discipline. Similar to this
selected site, Rodriguez and Welsh found that students of color were more likely to have higher
experiences in disciplinary actions, as teachers were more likely to perceive students as
disruptive or unsafe based on gender, socioeconomic status, and race.
Research Question 2
Research Question 2 inquired, How do Title 1 suburban middle school teachers describe
their implementation of professional development regarding non-exclusionary discipline
practices for grades 6–8? Qualitative data related to research question two produced three

93
findings. The first finding to emerge was that sporadic or nonexistent training regarding
restorative justice practices has greatly affected implementation. While teachers expressed
familiarity with language associated with restorative justice practices, a juxtaposition was
illuminated between teachers learning about restorative practices and truly experiencing the work
by internalizing it first through meaningful professional development (PD). This aligns with
Goleman’s work on emotional literacy which affirms that restorative justice promotes values,
principles, and behaviors that are inclusive and collaborative to the community (2012), however,
the teacher must be an active participant, validating the experiences of everyone in the circle.
The outcome of this theme verified that inconsistent PD, which lacks a structured sequence,
personal connection, and built-in reflection, rarely results in a change of practice (Fullan, 2007).
The second finding suggested that frequent administrator turnover has greatly influenced
administrator expectations of school-wide positive behavioral intervention supports (SWPBIS)
leading to a lack of sustainability. Administrators, specifically principals, are critical to the
successful implementation of SWPBIS in schools due to their unique role in the school (Coffey
& Horner, 2012). School administrators' support, or lack of support, for SWPBIS, can make a
difference between successful implementation or complete abandonment, as their support can
serve as a lever to enhance other factors needed for implementation and sustainability (Elliott &
Mihalic, 2004). For instance, they can allocate resources such as funding and prizes while
positively influencing the implementation by selecting staff with prior experience to support the
implementation process (Coffey & Horner, 2012).
The third finding that emerged in relation to research question two confirmed that when
social-emotional learning (SEL) is not interwoven into every classroom, implementation and
sustainability can be greatly affected. Many teachers expressed the importance of SEL in a

94
middle school setting, however, a common theme that emerged was the questioning around
when, where, and who is responsible for teaching SEL. Thompson (2016) established that when
a school community implements an interwoven mixture of SEL, SWPBIS, and RP, the impact
can be strengthened (Thompson, 2016). According to Immordino-Yang (2016) motivating
students for academic learning begins by producing deep understanding and ensuring the transfer
of educational experiences into real-world skills and careers. Integrating SEL requires integrating
culturally relevant issues into daily learning, building authentic relationships with students, and
creating a sense of community collaboration to build school connectedness (Slaten et al., 2015).
Findings from qualitative interviews also demonstrated the importance of school
leadership when training teachers to implement SEL curriculums (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2006).
Participants spoke about previous SEL curriculums that were implemented but not sustained due
to a lack of staff and student “buy-in.” Additionally, teachers spoke about how it is impossible to
meet the needs of all students through a one-stop-shop SEL curriculum. School leaders must be
able to bridge the theory of SEL to practice by allowing staff to actively engage in SEL that
meets the culturally diverse needs of the students (Elias et al., 2003). Barrett et al. (2018) suggest
that school administration provides time and resources to implement an integrated approach to
teaching SEL, SWPBIS, and RJ. While teams are encouraged to use a broader source of data to
identify which SEL skills need to be prioritized for instruction, training must be provided to all
staff to teach, model, and reinforce SEL competencies for all students in a variety of settings
(Barrett et al., 2018).
Research Question 3
Research Question 3 inquired, What (if any) organizational barriers do teachers identify
that might inhibit sustainability? Qualitative data related to research question three produced

95
three findings. The first finding that emerged in relation to research question three was the
essence of taking time to implement SEL, RJ practices, and SWPBIS. Although time is a critical
element when implementing a new initiative, this theme connects with Bandura’s beliefs that
scheduling blocks of time for teacher collaboration allows for collective efficacy to emerge
(Bandura, 2001). This finding is also supported by Hackmann’s work (1995) which revealed that
effective professional development programs provide adequate time for teachers to acquire,
practice, and reflect on new concepts and skills, as well as time to collaborate and interact with
peers. In traditional school schedules, sufficient time for this kind of teacher activity is not
normally integrated into the school day (Hackmann, 1995). Cambone (1995) points out that
teachers, as adult learners, need both time for learning (e.g., workshops and courses) and time to
experience and digest new ideas and ways of working. Teachers from this study revealed that
they need time to understand new concepts, learn new skills, discuss, reflect, and assess,
integrating them into their practice, which aligns with Cambone’s theory of andragogy
(Cambone, 1995).
The second finding that emerged in relation to research question three was that clarity of
communication is needed to support the implementation of non-exclusionary discipline practices.
Teachers reported that communication has been inconsistent when implementing new discipline
procedures and protocols. This aligns with Kotter’s (2001) three areas of communication that
often are problematic within a school system. Research suggests that when implementing a new
initiative, stagnant modalities, uncommunicative facts throughout the process, and contradictions
between actions among leaders are often the three most common problems regarding
communication (Kotter, 2011). Teachers mentioned that when school leadership would
communicate, often it was in a staff meeting where not everyone was present, leading to

96
misinterpretations or little guidance on how to proceed with the next steps. Kotter explains that
when a new initiative is being implemented, various modes of communication, such as emails,
newsletters, speeches, and daily announcements, are critical, along with the leadership team
modeling and participating in the vision (Kotter, 2011).
The third finding in relation to research question three was the pressure of district
assessments due to standardized testing. Teachers spoke about academic assessments and pacing
guides given by the district, which has resulted in feelings of internalized pressure and ultimately
led to a lack of implementation of non-exclusionary discipline practices. While teachers
expressed pressure put on by themselves due to district assessments, a direct correlation was
found between the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), which has resulted in many teachers
feeling a sense of urgency to produce higher test scores. In 2007, James conducted a survey
among teachers to assess their attitudes toward the NCLB Act, which resulted in teachers
indicating they had eliminated curriculum material that was not tested (James, 2007).
Additionally, teachers also reported feeling pressured mostly by principals, administrators,
school boards, and the news media to raise student test scores (James, 2007). Title I schools
could be financially penalized for their low performance as they were restricted in using their
funding for interventions (Diem & Weltin, 2020). While No Child Left Behind is now a thing of
the past, the intended goal to raise educational achievement and close the racial and ethnic
achievement “gap,” (Klein, 2016) has left a mark on teachers' perceptions of standardized
testing, seen through the interviews of this study.
Limitations
Limitations of these findings included a small sample size of teachers, which led to the
inability to generalize the study’s findings. However, the purpose of this research was not to

97
generalize, but rather this study intended to provide a rich description of Title 1 middle school
teachers’ personal and professional beliefs regarding non-exclusionary discipline practices, and
teachers’ professional development, either provided or lacking by expanding upon the barriers, if
any, that they could identify that might inhibit the sustainability of non-exclusionary discipline
practices. A majority of the sample identified as White and 80% had between 15 to 30 years of
teaching experience. Limitations included a small range of races and teaching experience based
on limited participant demographics. Furthermore, because this study relied on self-reported data
through interviews, limitations could consist of respondent validity. Triangulation of findings
assisted in overcoming this threat to validity, including member checking and soliciting feedback
from the participants. These descriptive findings, while not generalizable across all educational
contexts, do allow for contextual inference and applicability through the depth of description.
Implication for Practice
This study examined the complexities that underlie classroom teachers’ implementation
and sustainability of non-exclusionary practices in a Title 1 suburban Middle School setting in
Illinois. Study findings established themes that inform educational practitioners at the site and
district level to provide valuable information for school principals and school district leaders
regarding the implementation and sustainability of non-exclusionary discipline practices.
Specifically, regarding the scope of the study and resulting thematic findings, implications for
improved implementation and sustainability of non-exclusionary discipline practices were
established.
The first implication for practice emphasizes the value of thorough and ongoing
consideration of teachers’ positionality and epistemology in relation to their own educational
experiences and how those experiences have shaped their beliefs regarding discipline practices.

98
Triangulation study findings appear to support increased levels of teacher participation through
building relationships by delving into their own stories and opinions. Study findings support that
when teachers feel heard and valued by their administration, they are more likely to implement
new initiatives and strategies, specifically when they are a part of the process rather than a topdown approach. Additionally, when adults build strong and meaningful relationships with their
administration and colleagues, they are more likely to transfer their lived experiences to their
students. When adults and students take part in co-learning about one another, a culture of
inclusiveness begins to promote physical and psychological safety, leading to a transformational
classroom environment.
The second implication for practice by school district leaders highlights the critical role
that school district leaders have in implementing effective professional development regarding
non-exclusionary discipline practices. This study found that when professional development is
sporadic, inconsistent, or nonexistent, a breakdown of implementing a new initiative, such as
restorative justice practices is deeply affected. Specifically, teachers indicated that the greatest
challenge to implementing effective professional development is lack of time. Teachers need
time to understand new concepts, learn new skills, develop new attitudes, research, discuss,
reflect, and assess by integrating them into their practice. This study demonstrates the
importance of addressing effective professional development by deeply reflecting upon the flaws
of traditional approaches, which were often criticized for being fragmented, unproductive,
inefficient, unrelated to practice, and lacking in intensity and follow-up.
The third implication for practice by school site principals and school district leaders
addresses the importance of breaking down barriers to create and maintain valuable collaboration
when learning about non-exclusionary discipline practices. Teachers emphasized time,

99
communication, and academic testing to be the root cause of why the implementation of
restorative justice practices, social-emotional learning, and school-wide positive behavioral
intervention supports are often delayed. Obstacles to effective implementation of nonexclusionary discipline practices are numerous, but researchers have offered guidance for
mediating these challenges. According to Payne and Welch (2017), moving towards a nonexclusionary discipline approach is a long-term and incremental reform. Schools must commit to
these practices and recognize that classrooms are a central site for change to occur (Cavanaugh,
2014). Gregory and colleagues (et al., 2016) emphasize that the reform process begins by
building a community, starting with adults. Schools must work to balance efforts of preventative,
proactive practices along with interventional, reactive practices (Gregory et al., 2016). As Payne
and Welch (2015) report, non-exclusionary discipline practices:
… will only continue to produce positive results when restorative values are adopted as a
philosophy by the entire school community rather than implemented as one practice or
program in one classroom or at one level of administration (p. 54).
As schools and districts consider how to allocate their resources, the time factor is a potentially
significant implementation barrier (Fronius et al., 2016). However, researchers suggest that
schools that integrate non-exclusionary discipline practices into their overall philosophy by all
stakeholders have been found to disrupt the potential barriers and sustain an all-inclusive
environment (Ashley & Burke, 2009)
Future Research
This study’s review of literature noted a need for further research regarding the
integration of non-exclusionary discipline practices into all aspects of the school community.
These practices include embedding restorative justice practices, social-emotional learning, and

100
school-wide positive behavioral intervention supports. While this study did assist in providing
additional contextual ways to better implement and sustain non-exclusionary discipline practices,
further research is needed. Additional research is recommended to address three areas related to
this study.
The first recommendation for future research is to provide further definition of teachers’
implicit bias and attitudes towards school discipline. The instrument used in this study broadly
measured teachers’ opinions and thoughts regarding non-exclusionary discipline practices,
however, a deeper dive into teachers’ implicit bias would be beneficial to better understand the
complexities that underlie teachers’ resistance to implementing restorative justice practices and
social-emotional learning within their classrooms. Study findings revealed that while many
teachers believe in the importance of non-exclusionary discipline practices, there was still a
strong resistance when safety was a concern. It would be beneficial for future research to further
investigate the correlation between teachers’ implicit bias regarding race and gender to office
referrals due to safety concerns.
The second recommendation for future research is to further investigate transformative
professional development concerning non-exclusionary discipline practices. Schools are cultural
institutions that advance dominant cultural norms, values, and practices; therefore, it is necessary
to integrate transformative discipline practices into the school system with a culturally proficient
lens. Delving into culturally proficient professional development regarding non-exclusionary
discipline supports and interventions could begin to support diverse populations equitably and
inclusively within our schools. A longitudinal study would be recommended to analyze the
effects of consistent and ongoing culturally proficient professional development along with the
implementation of interweaving RJ, SEL, and SWPBIS at a school site.

101
The final recommendation for future research is to further investigate the role of school
district leadership in the implementation and sustainability of non-exclusionary discipline
practices. Further investigation of non-exclusionary discipline practices in a variety of school
districts, including elementary and middle school Title 1 settings, could add to the body of
knowledge describing the effective implementation of restorative justice practice, socialemotional learning, and school-wide positive behavioral intervention supports. Expanding the
knowledge base through investigation of further contexts could serve to refine school district
implementation and sustainability for embracing non-exclusionary discipline practices.
Conclusion
This study confirmed that discipline practices in a Title 1 school setting are complex and
racial disparities in public schools still exist. While student transition to middle school is
especially problematic (Midgley et al., 1989), utilizing non-exclusionary discipline practices is
imperative to disrupt the inequities around school discipline, specifically for minoritized
students. Most middle school curriculums do not embed non-exclusionary discipline practices,
such as restorative justice practices, social-emotional learning, and school-wide positive
behavioral intervention supports, ultimately leading to a problem of practice for many educators.
Study findings suggest that building authentic, meaningful, and culturally responsive
relationships are of primary importance for middle school teachers and their students.
Additionally, leadership which emphasizes consistency, and explicit communication was found
to be most important to teachers within this study when implementing a new initiative and
approaching discipline. Findings further suggest that school district leaders play a vital role in
developing a clear philosophy regarding discipline procedures and sustaining practices with
valuable professional development and time for reflection. This study offers practitioners

102
additional insight into the implications that teachers and leaders in a middle school setting have
for implementing and sustaining non-exclusionary discipline practices. While many middle
school settings currently do not have curriculums which embed non-exclusionary discipline
practices, this study aims to suggest the importance of securing authentic and culturally relevant
interventions so students, teachers, schools, and districts can break down racial disparities and
create a successful transition to middle school.

103
References
Abend, Gabriel. "The Meaning of Theory." Sociological Theory 26 (June 2008): 173–199;
Swanson, Richard A. Theory Building in Applied Disciplines. San Francisco, CA:
Berrett-Koehler Publishers 2013.
Arcia, E. (2006). Achievement and enrollment status of suspended students: Outcomes in a large,
multicultural school district. Education and Urban Society, 38, 359-369.
American Academy of Pediatrics Council on School Health (2013). Policy statement: Out-ofschool suspension and expulsion. Pediatrics, 131, e1000-e1007. doi:10.1542/peds.2012-
3932
American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force. (2008). Are zero-tolerance
policies effective in schools?: An evidentiary review and recommendations. American
Psychologist, 63(9), 852–862. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.9.852
American Psychological Association. (2020b). Bias-free language. https://apastyle.apa.org/stylegrammar-guidelines/bias-free-language
American Psychological Association. (2021b). Equity, diversity, and inclusion framework.
https://www.apa.org/about/apa/equity-diversity-inclusion/equity-division-inclusionframework.pdf
Albert Zeggelaar, Marjan Vermeulen & Wim Jochems (2022) Evaluating effective professional
development, Professional Development in Education, 48:5, 806-826, DOI:
10.1080/19415257.2020.1744686
Allbright, T.N., Marsh, J.A., Kennedy, K.E., Hough, H.J. and McKibben, S. (2019), "Socialemotional learning practices: insights from outlier schools", Journal of Research in

104
Innovative Teaching & Learning, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 35-52. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIT02-2019-0020
Alnaim, M. (2018). The impact of a zero-tolerance policy on children with disabilities. World
Journal of Education, 8(1), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.5430/wje.v8n1p1
Achor, S. (2018). Big Potential: How transforming the pursuit of success raises our
achievement, happiness, and well-being. New York: Currency.
Anderson CM, Kincaid D. Applying behavior analysis to school violence and discipline
problems: Schoolwide positive behavior support. Behav Anal. 2005;28(1):49-63. doi:
10.1007/BF03392103. PMID: 22478439; PMCID: PMC2755344.
Anyon, Y. (2015), “Taking restorative practices school-wide: insights from three schools in
Denver”, a report of the Denver School-based Restorative Practices Partnership, Denver
School-Based Restorative Justice Partnership, Denver, CO.
Arao, B., & Clemens, K. (2013). From safe spaces to brave spaces. The art of effective
facilitation: Reflections from social justice educators, 135, 150.
Ashley, J., & Burke, K. (2009). Implementing restorative justice: A guide for schools. Chicago,
IL: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority.
Aud, Susan & Hussar, William & Kena, Grace & Bianco, Kevin & Frohlich, Lauren & Kemp,
Jana & Tahan, Kim. (2011). The Condition of Education 2011. NCES 2011-033.
National Center for Education Statistics.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.
Barrett, L. F. (2013). Psychological Construction: The Darwinian Approach to the Science of
Emotion. Emotion Review, 5(4), 379–389. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073913489753

105
Becker, G. S. (1993). Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, with Special
Reference to Education (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226041223.001.0001
Belfield, C., Bowden, B., Klapp, A., Levin, H., Shand, R., & Zander, S. (2015). The Economic
Value of Social and Emotional Learning. New York: Center for Benefit-Cost Studies in
Education.
Berry B., Byrd A., Wieder A. (2013). Teacherpreneurs: Teachers who lead without leaving. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bickel, F., & Qualls, R. (1980). The impact of school climate on suspension rates in the Jefferson
County Public Schools. Urban Review, 12, 79–86.
Bickmore, Kathy. (2001). Student Conflict Resolution, Power "Sharing" in Schools, and
Citizenship Education. Curriculum Inquiry - CURRICULUM INQ. 31. 137-162.
10.1111/0362-6784.00189.
Bickmore, K. (2011), “Location, location, location: restorative (educative) practices in
classrooms”, ESRC “Restorative Approaches to Conflict in Schools” Seminar (Vol. 4),
February, University of Edinburgh, Scotland.
Bradshaw, C. P., Mitchell, M. M., O’Brennan, L. M., & Leaf, P. J. (2010). Multilevel
exploration of factors contributing to the overrepresentation of Black students in office
disciplinary referrals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 508.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018450
Bradshaw, C.P., Koth, C.W., Thornton, L.A. et al. Altering School Climate through SchoolWide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports: Findings from a Group-

106
Randomized Effectiveness Trial. Prev Sci 10, 100–115 (2009).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-008-0114-9
Bradshaw, C. P., Koth, C. W., Bevans, K. B., Ialongo, N., & Leaf, P. J. (2008). The impact of
school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) on the organizational
health of elementary schools. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(4), 462–473.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012883
Bradshaw, C.P., Mitchell, M.M., & Leaf, P.J. (2010). Examining the effects of schoolwide
positive behavioral interventions and supports on student outcomes: Results from a
randomized controlled effectiveness trial in elementary schools. Journal of Positive
Behavior Interventions, 12, 133-148. doi: 10.1177/1098300709334798
Bradshaw, C.P., Waasdorp, T.E., & Leaf, P.J. (2012). Effects of school-wide positive behavioral
interventions and supports on child behavior problems and adjustment. Pediatrics, e1136-
e1145. doi: 10.1542/peds.2012-0243
Braithwaite, J. (1999), “Restorative justice: assessing optimistic and pessimistic accounts”,
Crime and justice, Vol. 25, pp. 1-127, available at: www.jstor.org/stable/1147608
Bryk, A., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in Schools: A Core Resource for Improvement. New
York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Buckley, P., Gann, G., & Thurau, L. 2013. If not now, when?: A survey of juvenile justice
training in America’s police academies. Cambridge, MA: Strategies for Youth.
Burris, M. W. (2012). Mississippi and the school-to-prison pipeline. Widener Journal of Law,
Economics, and Race, 3, 1–25. Retrieved from
http://blogs.law.widener.edu/wjler/files/2012/01/STPP Burris.pdf

107
Cavanaugh, T., Vigil, P., & Garcia, E. (2014). A story legitimating the voices of Latino/Hispanic
students and their parents: Creating a restorative justice response to wrongdoing and
conflict in schools. Equity & Excellence in Education, 47(4), 565-579.
Charles, C.M. (1999). Building Classroom Discipline. New York: Addison Wesley Longman,
Inc.
Cohen, David & Moffitt, Susan. (2009). The Ordeal of Equality: Did Federal Regulation Fix the
Schools? Bibliovault OAI Repository, the University of Chicago Press.
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (2007), CASEL Briefs: Youth and
Schools Today: Why SEL is Needed, Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional
Learning (CASEL), Chicago, IL.
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (2013). 2013 Casel Guide.
Effective Social and Emotional Learning Programs (Pre-School and Elementary School
Edition).http://static1.squarespace.com/static/513f79f9e4b05ce7b70e9673/t/526a220de4b
00a92c90436ba/1382687245993/2013-casel-guide.pdf
Collay, M. (2011). Everyday teacher leadership: Taking action where you are. Jossey-Bass.
Coffey, J., & Horner, R.H. (2012). The sustainability of school-wide positive behavioral
interventions and supports. Exceptional Children, 78, 407-422.
Clark, M.D., Walters, S.T., Gingerich, R., Meltzer, M. (2006). Motivational interviewing for
probation officers: Tipping the balance towards change. Federal Probation, 70, 38-44.
Clark, S. 2011. The role of law enforcement in schools: The Virginia experience—A practitioner
report. Directions for Youth Development, 129, 89-101.
Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches
(3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

108
Curran, F. C., Fisher, B., Viano, S., & Kupchik, A. 2020. Understanding school safety and the
use of school resource officers in understudied settings. Final report to the National
Institute of Justice, award number 2016-CK-BX-0020, NCJ 254621.
Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective Teacher Professional
Development. Palo Alto: Learning Policy Institute.
Davenport, J., & Davenport, J. A. (1985). A chronology and analysis of the andragogy debate.
Adult education quarterly, 35(3), 152-159.
Diem, S., & Welton, A.D. (2020). Anti-Racist Educational Leadership and Policy: Addressing
Racism in Public Education (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429487224
de Oliveira (Andreotti), Vanessa. (2012). Critical Literacy: Theories and Practices. Making
Literacy Real: Theories and Practices for Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 33–60.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473910508.n3
Denise C. Gottfredson, Scott Crosse, Zhiqun Tang, Erin L. Bauer, Michele A. Harmon, Carol A.
Hagen and Angela D. Greene Journal: Criminology & Public Policy, 2020, Volume 19,
Number 3, Page 905 DOI: 10.1111/1745-9133.12512
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: The Discipline and Practice of Qualitative
Research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative
research (pp. 1–32). Sage Publications Ltd.
Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development:
Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational researcher, 38(3), 181–199
Deschamps, P.K.H., Schutter, D.J.L.G., Kenemans, J.L. et al. Empathy and prosocial behavior in
response to sadness and distress in 6- to 7-year olds diagnosed with disruptive behavior

109
disorder and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 24,
105–113 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-014-0535-x
Devaney, E., O’Brien, M. U., Resnik, H., Keister, S., & Weissberg, R. P. (2006). Sustainable
schoolwide social and emotional learning (SEL): Implementation guide and toolkit.
Chicago, IL: CASEL.
Diamond, John B & Posey-Maddox, Linn (2020) The Changing Terrain of the Suburbs:
Examining Race, Class, and Place in Suburban Schools and Communities, Equity &
Excellence in Education, 53:1-2, 7-13, DOI: 10.1080/10665684.2020.1758975
Diem, S., & Welton Anjalé D. (2021). Anti-racist educational leadership and policy:
Addressing racism in public education. Routledge, Taylor et Francis Group.
Diffey L., Aragon S. (2018). 50-state comparison: Teacher leadership and licensure
advancement. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.
Downer, J. T., Goble, P., Myers, S. S., & Pianta, R. C. (2016). Teacher-child racial/ethnic match
within pre-kindergarten classrooms and children’s early school adjustment. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 37, 26–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2016.02.007
Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The
impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of schoolbased universal interventions. Child Development, 82(1), 405- 432.
Eagly A. H., , & Carli L. L. (2007). Women and the labyrinth of leadership. Harvard
Business Review, 85(9)63–71.
Egalite, A. J., Fusarelli, L. D., & Fusarelli, B. C. (2017). Will decentralization affect educational
inequity? The Every Student Succeeds Act. Educational Administration Quarterly, 53(5),
757–781.

110
El-Amin, Abeni. (2020). Andragogy: A Theory in Practice in Higher Education. Journal of
Research in Higher Education. 4. 54-69. 10.24193/JRHE.2020.2.4.
Elliott, D.S., & Mihalic, S.F. (2004). Issues in disseminating and replicating effective prevention
programs. Prevention Science, 5, 47-53. doi: 10.1023/B:PREV.0000013981.28071.52
Espelage, D., Sheikh, A., Robinson, L., & Delgado, A. 2020. Development of online
professional development for school resource officers: Understanding trauma, socialemotional learning, restorative discipline, and cultural diversity. Journal of Police and
Criminal Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-020-09404-z.
Ewing, C. P. (2000, January/February). Sensible zero tolerance protects students. Harvard
Education Letter. Retrieved July 21, 2004, from http://www.edlettr.org/past/issues/2000-
jf/zero.shtml
Fabelo, T., Thompson, M. D., Plotkin, M., Carmichael, D., Marchbanks, M. P., & Booth, E. A.
(2011). Breaking schools’ rules: A statewide study of how school discipline relates to
students’s success and juvenile justice involvement. New York, NY: Council of State
governments Justice Center. Retrieved from http://
justicecenter.csg.org/resources/juveniles
Farrington, C.A., Roderick, M., Allensworth, E., Nagaoka, J., Keyes, T.S., Johnson, D.W., &
Beechum, N.O. (2012). Teaching adolescents to become learners — The role of
noncognitive factors in shaping school performance: A critical literature review. Chicago,
IL: The University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research.
Freire, P. (1998). Teachers as cultural workers. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

111
Finn, P., Shively, M., McDevitt, J., Lassiter, W., & Rich, T. 2005. Comparison of program
activities and lessons learned among 19 school resource officer (SRO) programs.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Frankenberg, E. (2013). The Role of Residential Segregation in Contemporary School
Segregation. Education and Urban Society, 45(5), 548–570.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124513486288
Fryer, Roland & Levitt, Steven. (2004). Understanding the Black-White Test Score Gap in the
First Two Years of School. The Review of Economics and Statistics. 86. 447-464.
10.1162/003465304323031049.
Fullan, M. (2007). The New Meaning of Educational Change. New York: Routledge.
Fullan, M. (2020). Leading in a Culture of Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Gahungu, A. (2021). Adopting non-exclusionary discipline practices: The first steps are the most
confusing. International Journal on Social and Education Sciences (IJonSES), 3(2), 379-
393. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijonses.72
Girvan, E. J. (2019). The law and social psychology of racial disparities in school discipline. In
Advances in psychology and law. (pp. 235–276). Springer. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
Glassner, A., & Back, S. (2020). Three “Gogies”: Pedagogy, andragogy, heutagogy. In
Exploring Heutagogy in Higher Education (pp. 59-74). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-
15-4144-5_5
Goleman, D. (2012). Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ. United
Kingdom: Random House Publishing Group.
Gottfredson, G. D., Gottfredson, D. C., Payne, A. A., & Gottfredson, N. C. (2005). School
Climate Predictors of School Disorder: Results from a National Study of Delinquency

112
Prevention in Schools. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 42(4), 412–444.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427804271931
Gregory, A., & Fergus, E. (2017). Social and emotional learning and equity in school discipline.
The Future of Children, 27(1), 117-136. Stable Link to Article
(https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-89.4.588)
Gregory, A., Clawson, K., Davis, A. and Gerewitz, J. (2016), “The promise of restorative
practices to transform teacher-student relationships and achieve equity in school
discipline”, Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp.
325-353.
Gregory, A., & Evans, K. R. (2020). The starts and stumbles of restorative justice in education:
Where do we go from here? University of Colorado, Boulder: National Education Policy
Center.
Greenberg, M.T., Weissberg, R.P., O’Brien, M.U., Zins, J.E., Fredericks, L., Resnik, H., & Elias,
M. J. (2003). Enhancing school-based prevention and youth development through
coordinated social, emotional, and academic learning. American Psychologist, 58, 466-
474.
Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and
stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102(1), 4–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
295X.102.1.4
Hackmann, D. G. (1995). Ten guidelines for implementing block scheduling. Educational
Leadership, 53(3): 24-27.
Hill, H. C., Beisiegel, M., & Jacob, R. (2013). Professional development research: Consensus,
crossroads, and challenges. Educational Researcher, 42(9), 476–487

113
Homer-Dixon, Thomas F. (2002). The ingenuity gap : facing the economic, environmental and
other challenges of an increasingly complex and unpredictable world. New York :
Vintage Books
Horner RH, Sugai G. School-wide PBIS: An Example of Applied Behavior Analysis
Implemented at a Scale of Social Importance. Behav Anal Pract. 2015 Feb 24;8(1):80-85.
doi: 10.1007/s40617-015-0045-4. PMID: 27703887; PMCID: PMC5048248.
Hostetler, K. (2005). What is “good” education research? Educational Researcher, 34(6), 16-21.
Hulvershorn, K. and Mulholland, S. (2018), "Restorative practices and the integration of socialemotional learning as a path to positive school climates", Journal of Research in
Innovative Teaching & Learning, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 110-123.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIT-08-2017-0015
Hursh, D. (2007) Exacerbating inequality: The failed promise of the No Child Left Behind Act.
Race Ethnicity and Education, 10(3), 295–308.
Illinois State Board of Education. “2016-2022 End of Year School Discipline Report.” Accessed
at https://www.isbe.net/Documents/2015-eoy-student-discipline.pdf
Illinois State Board of Education Senate Bill 100. Accessed at
https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=100&GAID=13&DocTypeID=
SB&SessionID=88&GA=99
Imants, J. & Van der Wal, V. M. (2020). A model of teacher agency in professional development
and school reform. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 52(1), 1-14.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2019.1604809

114
International Institute for Restorative Practices (2009), Improving School Climate: Findings
from Schools Implementing Restorative Practices, International Institute of Restorative
Practices Graduate School, Bethlehem, PA.
International Institute for Restorative Practices. (2020, April). Defining Restorative: History.
https://www.iirp.edu/defining-restorative/history
International Association of Chiefs of Police. 2011. Juvenile justice training needs assessment: A
survey of law enforcement. Alexandria, VA: International Association of Chiefs of
Police.
Immordino-Yang, M. H. (2016). Emotion, Sociality, and the Brain’s Default Mode Network:
Insights for Educational Practice and Policy. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and
Brain Sciences, 3(2), 211–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732216656869
Ispa-Landa, S. (2018). Persistently harsh punishments amid efforts to reform: Using tools from
social psychology to counteract racial bias in school disciplinary decisions. Educational
Researcher, 47(6), 384-390. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X18779578
Jacob, Steve & Coustasse, Alberto. (2008). School-Based Mental Health: A De Facto Mental
Health System for Children. Journal of hospital marketing & public relations. 18. 197-
211. 10.1080/15390940802232499.
James, J. K. (2007). The influence of No Child Left Behind and the Wyoming Comprehensive
Assessment System on curriculum and instruction: Perceptions of Wyoming’s elementary
teachers (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Wyoming, Laramie.
James, N., & McCallion, G. 2013. School resource officers: Law enforcement officers in
schools. CRS Report for Congress R43126. Washington, DC: Congressional Research
Service. https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43126.pdf.

115
Jarvis, P. (1990). An international dictionary of adult and continuing education. London:
Routledge.
Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (1996). Social Skill Deficits and Learning Disabilities: A MetaAnalysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 226-257.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002221949602900301
Kavale, K. A., & Mostert, M. P. (2004). Social Skills Interventions for Individuals with Learning
Disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27(1), 31–43.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1593630
Kennedy, K. (2019). Centering equity and caring in leadership for social-emotional learning:
Toward a conceptual framework for diverse learners. Journal of School Leadership,
29(6), 473-492. Stable Link to Article (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1052684619867469)
Khalifa, M. A., Gooden, M. A., & Davis, J. E. (2016). Culturally responsive school leadership: A
synthesis of the literature. Review of Educational Research. 86(4), 1272-1311.
Klein, A. (March 31, 2016) The Every Student Succeeds Act: An ESSA Overview.
Education Week.
Kodelja, Z. (2019). Violence in schools: Zero tolerance policies. Ethics and Education, 14(2),
247–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449642.2019.1587682
Knesting, Kimberly Hokanson, Carol & Waldron, Nancy (2008) Settling In: Facilitating the
transition to an inclusive middle school for students with mild disabilities, International
Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 55:3, 265-276, DOI:
10.1080/10349120802268644
Knowles, M. S. (1984). Andragogy in Action. Applying Modern Principles of Adult Education.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

116
Knowles, M. S. (1996). Yetişkin öğrenenler gözardı edilen bir kesim [Adult learners a neglected
species] (S. Ayhan, Trans.). Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi.
Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2005). The adult learner: The definitive
classic in adult education and human resource development (6th ed.). Burlington, MA:
Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780080481913
Kristina Hulvershorn, Shaila Mulholland, (2018) "Restorative practices and the integration of
social-emotional learning as a path to positive school climates", Journal of Research in
Innovative Teaching & Learning, Vol. 11 Issue: 1, pp.110-123,
https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIT-08-2017-0015
Kropáč, Jiří, Buchtová, T & Chudý, Š (2023) The new teacher and discipline factors, Cogent
Education, 10:1, DOI: 10.1080/2331186X.2023.2170081
Kutash, K., Duchnowski, A. J., & Lynn, N. (2006). School-Based Mental Health: An Empirical
Guide for Decision-Makers. Tampa, FL: Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute
Publication.
Kutash, K., Duchnowski, A. J., & Green, A. L. (2011). School-based mental health programs for
students who have emotional disturbances: Academic and social-emotional outcomes.
School Mental Health: A Multidisciplinary Research and Practice Journal, 3(4), 191–
208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-011-9062-9
Lacoe, J. & Steinberg, M. P. (2018). Rolling back zero tolerance: The effect of discipline policy
reform on suspension usage and student outcomes. Peabody Journal of Education, 93(2),
207-227. DOI: 10.1080/0161956X.2018.1435047.

117
Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). It's Not the Culture of Poverty, It's the Poverty of Culture: The
Problem with Teacher Education. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 37(2), 104–109.
https://doi.org/10.1525/aeq.2006.37.2.104
Latimer, J., Dowden, C. and Muise, D. (2005), “The effectiveness of restorative justice practices:
a meta-analysis”, The Prison Journal, Vol. 85 No. 2, pp. 127-144.
Lawson, K. (2009). The trainer's handbook. Pfeiffer.
Leonardo, Zeus & Hunter, Margaret. (2007). Imagining the Urban: The Politics of Race, Class,
and Schooling. 10.1007/978-1-4020-5199-9_41.
Lewis-McCoy, R. L. (2018). Suburban Black Lives Matter. Urban Education, 53(2), 145–161.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085917747116
Lewis, T. J., Goodman, S., & Barrett, S. (May, 2021). Leveraging short-term funding to build
long-term capacity. Eugene, OR: Center on PBIS. www.pbis.org
Lochmiller, C.R. & Lester, J. N. (2017). An introduction to educational research: Connecting
methods to practice. Sage Publications.
Manassah, T., Roderick, T., & Gregory, A. (2018). A promising path toward equity. The
Learning Professional, 39(4), 36-40. Learning Forward
(https://learningforward.org/journal/august-2018-vol-39-no-4/a-promising-pathtowardequity/)
Martinez-Prather, K. E., McKenna, J. M., & Bowman, S. W. 2016a. The impact of training on
discipline outcomes in school-based policing. Policing: An International Journal of Police
Strategies & Management, 39(3), 478-490.
Masselink, M., Van Roekel, E., & Oldehinkel, A. J. (2018). Self-esteem in early adolescence as
predictor of depressive symptoms in late adolescence and early adulthood: The mediating

118
role of motivational and social factors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47(5), 932–
946. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-017-0727-z
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Merriam, S. B. (2001). Andragogy and self-directed learning: Pillars of adult learning theory. In
S. B. Merriam (Ed.), An update on adult learning theory (pp. 3-14). New Directions for
Adult and Continuing Education, No. 89. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.3
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and
Implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Milner, H. R. (2007). Race, culture, and researcher positionality: Working through dangers seen,
unseen, and unforeseen. Educational Researcher 36(7), 388-400.
McIntosh, Kent & Mercer, Sterett & Hume, Amanda & Frank, Jennifer & Turri, Mary &
Mathews, Susanna. (2012). Factors Related to Sustained Implementation of School-wide
Positive Behavior Support. Exceptional children. 79.
McGrath, V. (2009). Reviewing the Evidence on How Adult Students Learn: An Examination of
Knowles’ Model of Andragogy. The Irish Journal of Adult and Community Education
2009 [sic], 99-110. http://www.aontas.com
McKenna, J. M., Martinez-Prather, K., & Bowman, S. W. (2016). The Roles of School-Based
Law Enforcement Officers and How These Roles Are Established: A Qualitative Study.
Criminal Justice Policy Review, 27(4), 420–443.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403414551001

119
McIntosh, Kent, et al. Integrated Multi-Tiered Systems of Support : Blending RTI and PBIS. The
Guilford Press, 2016.
McMurran, Mary. (2009). Motivational Interviewing With Offenders: A Systematic Review.
Legal and Criminological Psychology - LEGAL CRIMINOL PSYCHOL. 14. 83-100.
10.1348/135532508X278326.
Meece, J. D., & Campbell, R. K. (2002). Insulin Lispro Update. The Diabetes Educator, 28(2),
269–277.
Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. S. (1989). Change in teacher efficacy and student selfand task-related beliefs in mathematics during the transition to junior high school.
Moreno, G., & Scaletta, M. (2018, November). Moving away from zero-tolerance policies:
Examination of Illinois educator preparedness in addressing student behavior.
International Journal of Emotional Education, 10(2), 93-110.
Morris, K. & Feinberg, A. (September, 2022). Collecting Fidelity Data to Support and Sustain
PBIS/MTSS in Schools. Center on PBIS, University of Oregon. www.pbis.org
Morrison, B., & Vaandering, D. (2012). Restorative Justice: Pedagogy, praxis, and discipline.
Journal of School Violence, 12(2) 11, 138-155.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2011.653322
Nance, Jason P. and Heise, Michael, Law Enforcement Officers, Students, and the School-ToPrison Pipeline: a Longitudinal Perspective (December 2, 2021). 54 Arizona State Law
Journal (2022 Forthcoming), Cornell Legal Studies Research Paper No. 22-29,
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3976360

120
National Center for Mental Health Promotion and Youth Violence Prevention (2009),
Restorative Justice: Implementation Guidelines, Education Development Center, Inc.,
Newton, MA.
Northouse, P. G. (2019). Leadership: theory and practice. Eighth Edition. Los Angeles, SAGE
Publications.
Noguera, P.A. (1995). Preventing and Producing Violence: A Critical Analysis of Responses to
School Violence. Harvard Educational Review, 65, 189-212.
Noguera, P. A. (2003). The trouble with Black boys: The role and influence of environmental
and cultural factors on the academic performance of African American males. Urban
Education, 38(4), 431–459. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085903038004005
Noltemeyer, A. L., Ward, R. M., & Mcloughlin, C. S. (2015). Relationship between school
suspension and student outcomes: A meta-analysis. School Psychology Review, 44, 224–
240.
Nowicki, E. A. (2003). A meta-analysis of the social competence of children with learning
disabilities compared to classmates of low and average to high achievement. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 26(3), 171–188. https://doi.org/10.2307/1593650
Nguyen, B. M. D., Noguera, P., Adkins, N., & Teranishi, R. T. (2019). Ethnic Discipline Gap:
Unseen Dimensions of Racial Disproportionality in School Discipline. American
Educational Research Journal, 56(5), 1973–2003.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831219833919
Okonofua, J. A., Walton, G. M., & Eberhardt, J. L. (2016). A Vicious Cycle: A Social–
Psychological Account of Extreme Racial Disparities in School Discipline. Perspectives
on Psychological Science, 11(3), 381–398. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616635592

121
Ozerem, A., & Akkoyunlu, B. (2015). Learning environments designed according to learning
styles and its effects on mathematics achievement. Eurasian Journal of Educational
Research, 61, 61-80. http://dx.doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2015.61.4
Palmer, P. J. (2000). Let your life speak: Listening for the voice of vocation. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Patti, J. & Tobin, J. (2003). Smart school leaders: Leading with emotional intelligence. Dubuque,
Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company
Patton. M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Pasi, R.J. (2001). Higher Expectations: Promoting Social Emotional Learning and Academic
Achievement in Your School. Series on Social Emotional Learning.
Payne, A., & Welch, K. (2015). Restorative justice in schools: The influence of race on
restorative discipline. Youth & Society, 47(4), 539-564.
Payton, J., Weissberg, R. P., Durlak, J. A., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., Schellinger, K. B., &
Pachan, M. (2008). The positive impact of social and emotional learning for kindergarten
to eighth-grade students: Findings from three scientific reviews. Retrieved from
http://www.casel.org/library/2013/11/1/the-positive-impact-ofsocial-andemotionallearning-for-kindergarten-to-eighth-grade-students
Peterson, E.R. (2016). Teachers' explicit expectations and implicit prejudiced attitudes to
educational achievement: Relations with student achievement and the ethnic achievement
gap, Learning and Instruction, Volume 42, Pages 123-140, ISSN 0959-4752,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.010.
Pounder, J. S. (2006). Transformational Classroom Leadership The Fourth Wave of Teacher
Leadership? Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 34(4), 533-545.

122
Pounder, J. (2014), "Quality teaching through transformational classroom leadership", Quality
Assurance in Education, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 273-285. https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-12-
2013-0048
Puma, M. et al. “Prospects: The Congressionally Mandated Study of Educational Growth and
Opportunity: Interim Report.” Washington, DC: Abt Associates (1993).
Ravitch, S., & Carl, N. M. (2016). Qualitative Research: Bridging the Conceptual, Theoretical,
and Methodological. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Robinson, K. H. (1992). Class‐Room discipline: Power, resistance and gender. A look at teacher
perspectives. Gender and Education, 4(3), 273-288. Academic Article (https://web-a- 56
ebscohost-com.ezproxy.csusm.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=528d134a-41bd43ab93c16d44aac8812c%40sdcvsessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY2
9wZT1zaXRl#AN=10015123&d b=aph)
Robinson S. B. & Leonard K. F. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. SAGE Publications.
Rodriguez, L. A., & Welsh, R. O. (2022). The Dimensions of School Discipline: Toward a
Comprehensive Framework for Measuring Discipline Patterns and Outcomes in Schools.
AERA Open, 8. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584221083669
Rogers, A. (2014). The Classroom and the everyday: The importance of informal learning for
formal learning. Investigar em Educação, 2(1), 7-34. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311419581
Rohrbach, L.A., Graham, J.W., & Hansen, W.B. (1993). Diffusion of a school-based substance
abuse prevention program: Predictors of program implementation. Preventive Medicine,
22, 237-260. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/pmed.1993.1020
Rosiak, J. 2020a. Your SRO MOU: A better process = a better MOU. Journal of School Safety.

123
Rosiak, J. 2020b. “Mobile” or “assigned”? Pros and cons of two different models of deploying
SROs. Translational Criminology, Spring (18).
Ritter, G. W. (2018). Reviewing the progress of school discipline reform. Peabody Journal of
Education, 93(2), 133-138. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2018.1435034
Rudestam, K. E., & Newton, R. R. (2007). Surviving your dissertation: A comprehensive guide
to content and process (3rd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.
Sadruddin, M.M. (2012). Discipline - Improving Classroom Management through Action
Research: A Professional Development Plan.
Sanocki, S.J. (2013). The process of how teachers become teacher leaders and how teacher
leadership becomes distributed within a school: A grounded theory research study.
[Doctoral dissertation, Western Michigan University]. ScholarWorks at WMU.
https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations/171
Saptura, H.A. (2020). Reframing transformational classroom leadership in the didactic room.
SSRN. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3665995
Scott, T. M., & Barrett, S. B. (2004). Using staff and student time engaged in disciplinary
procedures to evaluate the impact of school-wide PBS. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions, 6, 21–27.
Schein V. E. (1975). The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management
characteristics among female managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(3), 340–344.
Scheurich, J., & Young, M. (1997). Coloring epistemologies: Are our research epistemology
racially biased? Educational Researcher, 26, 4-16. doi:10.3102/0013189X026004004
Skiba, R.J. and Peterson, R.L. (2000), “School discipline at a crossroads: from zero tolerance to
early response”, Exceptional Children, Vol. 66 No. 3, pp. 335-346.

124
Skiba, R.J., M.I. Arredondo, and N.T. Williams. “More Than a Metaphor: The Contribution of
Exclusionary Discipline to a School-to-Prison Pipeline.” Equity & Excellence in
Education, 47:4, November 2014. pp. 557–558. Accessed via EBSCOhost
Skiba, R. J., & Rausch, M. K. (2006). Zero Tolerance, Suspension, and Expulsion: Questions of
Equity and Effectiveness. In C. M. Evertson & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of
classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 1063–1089).
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Skiba, R.J., & Losen, D.J. (2016). From Reaction to Prevention: Turning the Page on School
Discipline. The American Educator, 39, 4.
Sprague, J., & Nelson, C. M. (2012). School-wide positive behavior interventions and supports
and restorative discipline in schools. Monograph for the Office of Specialised Education
Programmes, 3.
Silva, D.Y., Gimbert, B., & Nolan, J. (2000). Sliding the doors: Locking and unlocking
possibilities for teacher leadership. Teachers college record, 102(4), 779-804.
Simon, N.S. and Johnson, S.M. (2015) Teacher Turnover in High-Poverty Schools: What We
Know and Can Do. Teachers College Record, 117, 1-36.
Statistics Canada. (2008). Adult learning in Canada: Characteristics of learners. Retrieved from
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/81-004-x/2008001/article/10560-
eng.pdf?st=b2RqMrh1
Steinberg, M. P., & Lacoe, J. (2017). What do we know about school discipline reform?
Assessing the alternatives to suspensions and expulsions. Education Next, 17(1), 44-52.
Smolkowski, K., Girvan, E. J., McIntosh, K., Nese, R. N. T., & Horner, R. H. (2016). Vulnerable
decision points for disproportionate office discipline referrals: Comparisons of discipline

125
for African American and White elementary school students. Behavioral Disorders,
41(4), 178-195. DOI: 10.17988/bedi-41- 04-178-195.1
Smith, L. T. (2002). Chapter 2: Research through imperial eyes. In Decolonizing methodologies:
Research and indigenous peoples. (pp. 42-57). Zed Books, Ltd.
Smith, M., Segal, J., & Segal, R. (2013). Preventing burnout: Signs, symptoms, causes, and
coping strategies. Retrieved from www.helpguide.org/mental/burnout_signs
_symptoms.htm. Sugiarti R, Erlangga E, Suhariadi F, Winta MVI, Pribadi AS. The
influence of parenting on building character in adolescents. Heliyon. 2022 Apr
27;8(5):e09349. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09349. PMID: 35586332; PMCID:
PMC9108886.
Tatum, B. D. (2001). Professional development: An important partner in antiracist teacher
education. In S. H. King & L. A. Castenell (Eds.), Racism and racial inequality:
Implications for teacher education (pp. 51–58). Washington, DC: AACTE Publications.
Taylor, R. C., Oberle, E., Durlak, J. A., & Weissberg, R. P. (2017). Promoting positive young
development through school-based social and emotional learning interventions: A metaanalysis of follow-up effects. Child Development, 88(4), 1156-1171.
Teacher Leadership Exploratory Consortium. (2011). Teacher leader model standards. Carrboro,
NC: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.teacherleaderstandards.org/downloads/TLS_Brochure.pdf
Tezcan, Fatma (2021). Andragogy or Pedagogy: Views of Young Adults on the Learning
Environment. Department of Educational Sciences Faculty of Education Muğla Sıtkı
Koçman University, 48100 Menteşe, Muğla, Turkey.
https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v15n1p136 https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1331126.pdf

126
Tillman, L. C. (2002). Culturally sensitive research approaches: An African-American
perspective. Educational Researcher, 31(9), 3–12.
Thompson, J.L. (2016), “Eliminating zero tolerance policies in schools: Miami-Dade public
school’s approach”, available at:
http://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1390&context=elj
Villaverde, L. (2008). Feminist primer. New York: Peter Lang.
Virtanen, Pirjo Kristiina. Introduction: toward more inclusive definitions of sustainability,
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, Volume 43, 2020, Pages 77-82, ISSN
1877-3435, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2020.04.003.
Wachtel, T. (1999), “Restorative justice in everyday life: beyond the formal ritual”, paper
presented at the Reshaping Australian Institutions Conference: Restorative Justice and
Civil Society, The Australian National University, Canberra, February 16-18, available
at: www.iirp.edu/eforum-archive/4221-restorative-justice-in-everyday-life-beyond-theformal-ritual
Wachtel, T. (2016), “Defining restorative. International institutes for restoratives practices”,
available at: www.iirp.edu/images/pdf/Defining-Restorative_Nov-2016.pdf (accessed
January 6, 2018).
Walker, I., & Smith, H. J. (Eds.). (2002). Relative deprivation: Specification, development, and
integration. Cambridge University Press.
Wardell, M. (2020). Twice as Good ([edition unavailable]). Morgan James Publishing. Retrieved
from https://www.perlego.com/book/1350710/twice-as-good-leadership-and-power-forwomen-of-color-pdf (Original work published 2020)

127
Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., & Adamson, F. (2010). Professional development in the
United States: Trends and challenges (Vol. 28). Dallas, TX: National Staff Development
Council.
Weisz, J. R., Jensen-Doss, A., & Hawley, K. M. (2006). Evidence-based youth psychotherapies
versus usual clinical care: A meta-analysis of direct comparisons. American Psychologist,
61(7), 671–689. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.61.7.671
Williams, W. C., Morelli, S. A., Ong, D. C., & Zaki, J. (2018). Interpersonal emotion regulation:
Implications for affiliation, perceived support, relationships, and well-being. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 115(2), 224–254.
https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000132
Wilson, Shawn, 1966- author. Research Is Ceremony: Indigenous Research Methods. Black
Point, Nova Scotia: Fernwood Publishing, 2008.
Yanek, K. & Goodman, S. (January, 2023). Organizing and Supporting Adults to Implement
PCBS. Eugene, OR: Center on PBIS, University of Oregon. www.pbis.org.
Zins, Joseph & Elias, Maurice. (2007). Social and Emotional Learning: Promoting the
Development of All Students. JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL AND
PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSULTATION. 17. 233-255. 10.1080/10474410701413152.
Zepeda, C. D., Hlutkowsky, C. O., Partika, A. C., & Nokes-Malach, T. J. (2019). Identifying
teachers’ supports of metacognition through classroom talk and its relation to growth in
conceptual learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(3), 522–541.
https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000300

128
Appendix A
Survey Introduction
Hello, middle school classroom educator. My name is Colleen Evens, and I am a current
doctoral student at The University of Southern California, Rossier School of Education. I am
conducting a study regarding “Analyzing Middle School Teachers Implementation and
Sustainability of Professional Development Regarding Non-Exclusionary Discipline Practices.
The term “non-exclusionary discipline” is based on the following definition: alternative
disciplinary supports that reconnect youth to better create a responsive school environment (IspaLanda, 2018). Supports include restorative justice, social-emotional learning, and school-wide
positive behavioral support interventions (Lacoe & Steineberg, 2017).
This survey will take approximately five minutes to complete and will help guide the remainder
of the study. Fifteen participants who complete the survey will be hand selected to participate in
a 1:1 interview session.
The purpose of conducting the interviews will be to gain a better understanding of your
perspectives regarding discipline practices. Additionally, your name and the organization you
work for will not be disclosed. Any information collected from the survey will be protected
through the use of pseudonyms and I will try my best to de-identify any of the data I gather. You
were chosen for this study because you identify as a Title 1 middle school classroom teacher.
Your thoughts, feelings, and opinions are instrumental in my study. Please be aware that I will
not be making judgments or critiquing your answers. If you choose to continue, you are
volunteering to participate in this survey. You can stop at any time or skip questions you prefer
not to answer. Thank you for your time and feedback.

129
Survey
Demographic background questions:
Survey question
stem: 1 (Ordinal)
Survey question
response options:
CF alignment:
What is your age
range?
● 18-29
● 30-39
● 40-49
● 50-59
● 60-above
● Prefer not to answer
Teacher demographics
Survey question
stem: 2 (Ordinal)
Survey question
response options:
CF alignment:
What is your highest
level of education received?
● Bachelor’s degree
● Master’s degree
● Professional
degree
● Doctorate degree
Teacher demographics
Survey question
stem: 3 (Ordinal)
Survey question
response options:
CF alignment:
What race do you best
associate with?
● Latino or Latina
● Black/ African
American
● Asian
● Middle Eastern
● Indigenous
● White
● Multi-Racial
● I prefer not to disclose
Teacher demographics
Survey question
stem: 4 (Ordinal)
Survey question
response options:
CF alignment:

130
What gender do you
associate with?
● Male
● Female
● Non-binary
● Heterosexual
● I prefer not to disclose
Teacher demographics
Survey question
stem: 5 (Ordinal)
Survey question
response options:
CF alignment:
What social class
would you associate with
when you were in grades 6-8?
● Upper class
● Middle class
● Working class
● Lower class
Teacher demographics
Survey question
stem: 6 (Ordinal)
Survey question
response options:
CF alignment:
How many years of
teaching experience do you
have?
● 1-5 years
● 5-10 years
● 10-15 years
● 15-20 years
● 20-25 years
● 25-30 years
● 30+ years
Teacher demographics
Survey question
stem: 6 (Ordinal)
Survey question
response options:
CF alignment:
What grade level do
you currently teach?
● 6th-grade
● 7th-grade
● 8th-grade
● A combination of
grade levels
● All three grade levels
Teacher demographics
Survey question
stem: 7 (Open-ended)
Survey question
response options:
CF alignment:
Please write in what Teacher demographics

131
subject or subjects you
currently teach:
Closing
Thank you for your participation in this survey. I truly appreciate your time and
willingness to share. Your thoughts, feelings, and opinions are instrumental in my study. Please
note that your name will not be shared with anyone outside of this study. The intention of this
survey is to lift the voices of Title 1 Middle School classroom teachers and their experiences
regarding student discipline. If chosen to participate in the 1:1 interview process, you will be
notified via email. You do not have to continue your participation and the interview is
completely voluntary. Thank you for being a part of this research journey.

132
Appendix B
Participate Study Sheet
GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT THIS STUDY AND THE RESEARCHER
Study title: Analyzing Middle School Teachers’ Implementation and Sustainability of
Professional Development Regarding Non-Exclusionary Discipline Practices
University: The University of Southern California, Rossier School of Education
Name of
researcher:
Colleen Evens
PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY
Study purpose: The purpose of this study is to collect, analyze, and interpret the
complexities that underlie classroom teachers’ implementation and sustainability of nonexclusionary practices in a Title 1 suburban Middle School setting in Illinois. Through an
examination of interviews, this study will delve into the training that middle school teachers
either received or are lacking regarding non-exclusionary discipline practices. Additionally,
teachers’ personal and professional beliefs regarding non-exclusionary discipline practices will
be explored by expanding upon the barriers, if any, that they can identify which might inhibit the
sustainability of non-exclusionary discipline practices.
INFORMATION ABOUT STUDY PARTICIPANTS (SUBJECTS)
Taking part in this study is completely voluntary. You do not have to participate if you don't
want to. You may also leave the study at any time. If you leave the study before it is finished,
there will be no penalty to you.
INFORMATION ABOUT STUDY PARTICIPATION
You will be asked to participate in a 1:1 interview. The interview will take approximately 1 hour
to complete.
CONFIDENTIALITY CLAUSE

133
Your name will not be shared with anyone outside of the research team and all data from
this study will be kept in a password-protected computer or locked filing system. While I do
intend to use direct quotes, none of the data will be directly attributed to you and a pseudonym
will be used to protect your confidentiality.
DEFINITION OF TERMS
Exclusionary: any behavioral consequence that serves as a punishment, where the
student is required to miss school due to the consequence being administered. For this study, the
term encompasses detentions, suspensions, expulsions, and/or alternative educational placements
(“CCSD Code of Conduct,” 2019; “Behavior Guidelines,” 2017).
Non-exclusionary discipline: will be used throughout this study based on disciplinary
alternatives, such as but not limited to, restorative justice, social-emotional learning, and
schoolwide positive behavioral intervention supports (Ispa-Landa, 2018; Steineberg & Lacoe,
2017).
Implementation: a practitioner’s enactment of a policy or program that has been adopted
by those at a higher level of authority (Cohen & Moffitt, 2009).
Sustainability: taken from our Indigenous communities, the term is used to describe
healthy living, taking into consideration skills, reflexivity, competencies, and emotional,
economic, and social well-being to create, foster, and maintain communal existence (Virtanen et
al., 2020).

134
Appendix C
Interview Protocol
Introduction
Thank you for agreeing to be a participant in this study. I appreciate your time in sitting
down with me today to answer my questions. Today’s interview should take approximately one
hour to complete. Does that time frame still work for you?
Taking part in this study is entirely voluntary. You do not have to participate if you don't
want to. You may also leave the study at any time. I’d like to take a few moments to remind you
about this study. Prior to today, I provided you with a Study Information Sheet, which included
terminology and the purpose of the study. As a current doctoral student at the University of
Southern California, I am conducting this study to Analyze Middle School Teachers’
Implementation and Sustainability of Professional Development Regarding Non-Exclusionary
Discipline Practices. I am interviewing multiple middle school teachers. The purpose of
conducting this study is to gain a better understanding of the perspectives and stories of those
interviewed. I will not be making judgments or critiquing your answers. This interview is an
opportunity for you to tell me your perspective. Do you have any questions regarding the nature
of this study or my role as a researcher?
I would like to also take a moment to walk through the Study Information Sheet that you
received. As stated in the confidentiality clause, your name will not be shared with anyone
outside of the research team. Data from this study will be compiled into my dissertation and
while I do intend to use direct quotes, none of the data will be directly attributed to you. I plan to
use a pseudonym to protect your confidentiality and will try my best to de-identify any of the

135
data I gather from you. I am happy to provide you with a copy of my final dissertation if you are
interested.
In an effort to better capture your thoughts, I have brought a recording device. The
recording will only be used for me to encapsulate your thoughts. All data collected, including the
recording of this conversation, will be locked in a password-protected database. I would like to
use this recording device so I do not miss anything and I do not want to rely solely on my notes,
perhaps missing something or inadvertently changing your words. If at any time during the
interview, you would like me to turn off the recording device, please let me know and I would be
happy to oblige. Do you give permission for me to use this recording device during our
conversation?
Setting the Stage:
I’d like to start by asking you some background questions about yourself.
1. First, tell me about your background in education. (CF: Background; Q: Background)
a. How did you become interested in the field of education?
b. How long have you worked in the field?
c. What role or position do you currently hold?
2. Tell me about your classroom management strategies and techniques. (CF: Background;
Q: Feelings/Opinions)
a. How would you describe your classroom management style?
b. Describe a specific activity you lead at the beginning of the school year to
promote your classroom management style.

136
Throughout this interview, I will be referring to the term non-exclusionary discipline
practices. When you hear this terminology, how would you describe or define this term in your
own words?
Non-exclusionary discipline: will be used throughout this survey and is based on the following
definition: alternative disciplinary supports that reconnect youth to better create a responsive
school environment (Ispa-Landa, 2018). Supports include restorative justice, social-emotional
learning, and school-wide positive behavioral support interventions (Lacoe & Steineberg, 2017).
Heart of the Interview:
I’d like to continue by asking you about non-exclusionary discipline practices.
3. Restorative practices are a form of non-exclusionary discipline. From your knowledge,
what do restorative practices mean to you? (CF: Non-exclusionary Practices; Q:
Opinion)
a. Can you give an example of a restorative measure that you might have taken in
your own classroom recently, if at all?
b. How did that experience feel to you?
4. What is your perspective on suspension or expulsion from school? (CF: Barriers; Q:
Opinion)
a. Describe a time when you feel suspension would be an appropriate response, if at
all.
b. Describe a time when expulsion would be an appropriate response, if at all.

137
5. If you were to imagine a school that embraced non-exclusionary discipline practices,
what would be an ideal model? (CF: Learning Conditions; Q: Hypothetical)
a. If you walked through the doors of that school, what would you see?
b. How would you know the school was implementing these practices?
Now I would like to ask you some questions regarding how you have come to learn about nonexclusionary discipline practices, if at all.
6. What types of coaching or training regarding restorative justice practices have been
offered to you, if any? (CF: Professional Development; Q: Knowledge)
a. When did the training occur?
b. Who ran the training?
c. How many people were involved?
7. Describe a recent meeting, if any, with staff in which you discussed non-exclusionary or
exclusionary discipline practices (more specifically detentions, suspensions, and/or
expulsions). (CF: Professional Development; Q: Experience/Knowledge)
a. Who conducted the meeting?
b. Who was present for the meeting?
c. What was a key takeaway in that meeting that resonated with you, if any?

138
8. Tell me about a time, if any, when you discussed non-exclusionary discipline practices
with other teachers or administrators. (CF: Andragogy/Learning Conditions; Q:
Feeling/Opinions)
a. Where did the conversation take place?
b. Who was involved in the conversation?
c. What words or comments stood out to you during the conversation?
d. How did you feel about those words or comments?
9. If someone were to ask you about the ways in which your school encourages all-school
connectedness, how would you describe that encouragement, if at all? (CF: Learning
Conditions; Q: Knowledge)
a. Can you recall a specific example of how staff and students participate in allschool activities?
Lastly, I would like to ask you some questions regarding potential barriers to school discipline
implementation and sustainability.
10. Some would say, non-exclusionary discipline practices (restorative practices, socialemotional learning, and positive behavioral intervention supports) might take away
valuable academic time. What would you say to them? (CF: Implementation Barrier; Q:
Devil’s Advocate)
11. Would you describe for me what your approach is for handling a disruptive student in the
classroom? (CF: Implementation; Q: Experience)
a. What questions would you ask the student to better understand the situation?
b. What actionable steps would you take with this student?

139
12. The district has written a new disciplinary progression for the middle school setting.
What are your thoughts regarding this progression? (CF: Sustainability Barrier; Q:
Opinion)
a. What would you change, if anything regarding this disciplinary progression?
b. What would you keep the same, if anything regarding this disciplinary
progression?
13. Senate Bill 100 (SB100) was passed in 2015 as a way for schools to minimize
exclusionary discipline practices such as suspension and expulsion while increasing the
use of alternatives to suspension (SB0110, 2015). Describe any ways you feel your
district and/or school site has taken actionable steps to implement SB100. (CF:
Implementation and Sustainability; Q: Experience/Knowledge)
a. Have you seen a shift in the way discipline is handled since the COVID-19
pandemic?
b. Have you seen a shift in the way discipline is handled in just the last year?
Closing
Thank you for you sharing your thoughts with me today. I truly appreciate your time and
willingness to share. Your thoughts, feelings, and opinions are instrumental in my study. If I find
myself with a follow-up question, may I contact you? Would you prefer me to contact you via
phone or email? Again, thank you for participating in my study.

140
Appendix D
Informed Consent Form
Title of Project: “Analyzing Middle School Teachers’ Implementation and Sustainability of
Professional Development Regarding Non-Exclusionary Discipline Practices”
Researcher: Colleen Evens (email: evens@usc.edu)
Doctoral Student, The University of Southern California
Waite Phillips Hall, 3470 Trousdale Pkwy, Los Angeles, CA 90089
Phone: (213) 740-0224
Dissertation Chair: Dr. Maria Ott (email: mariaott@rossier.usc.edu)
The University of Southern California
Waite Phillips Hall, 3470 Trousdale Pkwy, Los Angeles, CA 90089
Phone: (213) 740-0224
IRB Number: UP-23-00742
1. Purpose of the Study: The purpose of this study is to collect, analyze, and interpret the
complexities that underlie classroom teachers’ implementation and sustainability of nonexclusionary practices in a Title 1 suburban Middle School setting in Illinois. Through an
examination of interviews, this study will delve into the training that middle school teachers
either received or are lacking regarding non-exclusionary discipline practices. Additionally,
teachers’ personal and professional beliefs regarding non-exclusionary discipline practices will
be explored by expanding upon the barriers, if any, that they can identify which might inhibit the
sustainability of non-exclusionary discipline practices.
2. Procedures to be followed: Participation in this study entails a single, brief interview
(approximately 60 minutes), consisting of open-ended questions designed to gather information
about teachers’ personal and professional beliefs regarding non-exclusionary discipline practices
by expanding upon the barriers, if any, that may be identified inhibiting the sustainability of nonexclusionary discipline practices. The interviews will be audio recorded. Below you will need to
provide consent for the audio recording of the interview.
3. Discomforts, Risks, and Benefits: The current study will gather non-sensitive information
about non-exclusionary discipline practices and professional development received, if at all. You
may refuse to answer any question for any reason at any time during your interview and there
will be no penalty. The only risk of participating, beyond risks you likely experience as part of
everyday life, would be a breach in maintaining the confidentiality of your identity. However, I

141
will make all possible efforts to maintain the confidentiality of your identity by using
pseudonyms and de-identification of sensitive demographic and personal information. Any
publications using the data from the study will not contain your name or any other information
that could be used to individually identify you or your institution. There will be no compensation
provided for participation in the study. Benefits to your participation include having a forum to
discuss issues in discipline practices on your school campus. Your words will be analyzed and
future recommendations will be made to the administrative team to better support classroom
teachers. By looking for patterns among classroom teachers, professional development
opportunities may be offered during staff meetings to implement non-exclusionary discipline
practices to better serve the students.
4. Duration/Time: Interviews will last approximately 60 minutes and will occur in person at the
new Gill administration center. This location has been chosen to ensure confidentiality and
protect all participants. A time and date will be chosen that is convenient for both the participant
and the researcher.
5. Statement of Confidentiality: Your participation in the research is confidential. Interview
data, audio recordings, transcriptions of the interview, and other correspondence will be stored
and secured in a locked file cabinet in the primary researcher’s home office. Names will not be
associated with the interview data at any point, as a pseudonym will be assigned to each
participant. All transcriptions of audio recordings will be performed by me. All notes, email and
phone communications, audio recordings, memos, and other research materials will be kept
confidential. Access will be limited to the researcher, the University of Southern California
faculty members associated with the study, and the Institutional Review Board (IRB). All digital
data will be encrypted and physical media kept locked when not in active use.
6. Right to Ask Questions: Please feel free to contact the researcher with questions or concerns
about this research using the contact information listed above. If you have any questions
regarding your participation in the study or if you want to verify the authenticity of the study,
please contact the Dissertation Chair, Dr. Maria Ott at mariaott@rossier.usc.edu. You may also
contact the University of Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB)
7. Voluntary Participation: Your decision to participate in this research is voluntary. You have
the right to refuse to answer questions at your discretion. You may end the interview at any time,
for any reason without penalty. Should you wish to withdraw, please inform me of your decision.
If you do withdraw from the study, informed consent documents will be retained and all other
data will be destroyed.
Consent to Participate

142
I have read and understand the preceding information. Any questions or concerns I have
regarding participation in the study have been answered satisfactorily. By checking the
authorization box and signing below, I signify that I meet the requirements for participation and I
affirm my consent to participate in this study, including the recording of the interview. The
consent provided below shall remain in effect unless explicitly withdrawn. Further, I understand
that I may withdraw from the study at any time, for any reason, and without penalty.
● I authorize an audio recording of my interview.
● I agree to participate in this study.
Printed Name: _______________________________________________________________
Signature: ___________________________________________________________________
Date: _______________________________________________________________________

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study investigated middle school classroom teachers’ implementation and sustainability of non-exclusionary discipline practices in a Title 1 suburban Middle School setting in Illinois. Student transition to middle school and effective implementation of non-exclusionary discipline practices, specifically social-emotional learning, restorative justice practices, and school-wide positive behavioral intervention supports were explored through qualitative interviews. The site studied received Title 1 funding with over 67 percent of students identifying as low-income. Additionally, 78 percent of students at the school site identify as Hispanic while the teaching staff has few faculty of color. Participants were chosen based on demographic survey data to represent an array of teachers from various experiences and backgrounds. Participants were then hand-selected, based on their demographic survey responses and fifteen teachers participated in one-on-one interviews. Study findings suggest that a majority of teachers believe in the importance of having students connected to their school through non-exclusionary discipline practices, specifically restorative justice practices (RJ), social-emotional learning (SEL), and school-wide positive behavioral intervention supports (SWPBIS). Findings further suggest that school and district leadership plays a vital role in the successful implementation and sustainability of non-exclusionary discipline practices. While leadership turnover has had a strong impact on the implementation of non-exclusionary discipline practices, evidence from this study shows that consistent, clear, and purposeful professional development which is supported by school leadership is essential when implementing a new initiative.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Teachers' classroom pedagogy and perception: In schools with high rates of exclusionary discipline practices for African American students

PDF

The role of positive behavior systems in reducing exclusionary school discipline

PDF

PBIS and equity for African American students with and without disabilities: a gap analysis

PDF

The role of the principal in schools that effectively implement restorative practices

PDF

A relational approach to discipline: a comparative case study of restorative justice implementation in US secondary schools

PDF

Disciplinary systems in California high schools and their effects on African American males’ self-efficacy

PDF

Barriers experienced by teachers regarding restorative justice practices in Title 1 schools

PDF

Using restorative practice community-building activities to meet the social-emotional needs of students

PDF

Decreasing racial disproportionalities within exclusionary discipline at the middle school level

PDF

Teacher well-being matters: an explorative study of early childhood teacher well-being, their experiences, and perspectives

PDF

Latina elementary principals’ promising practices to disrupting disproportionate suspension of Latina and Latino students

PDF

Principal implementation of Education Code 215: pupil and student suicide prevention policies in southern California public middle schools

PDF

Implementation of restorative justice in schools from a teacher's perspective

PDF

Special education grading practices and challenges to implementing equitable grading practices

PDF

Impact of disciplinary and alternative practices on educational access

PDF

The characteristics of high schools that have successfully implemented Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports

PDF

Culturally responsive positive behavior interventions and supports for youth incarcerated

PDF

Reciprocal relationships among high school teachers’ beliefs about the purpose of grades, grading practices, and environmental influences

PDF

School disciplined reimagined: centering Black students in discipline policies

PDF

Sustainable intervention for learning gaps in middle school mathematics: a gap analysis

Asset Metadata

Creator Evens, Colleen (author)

Core Title Analyzing middle school teachers’ implementation and sustainability of professional development regarding non-exclusionary discipline practices

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Educational Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2024-05

Publication Date 02/05/2024

Defense Date 01/16/2024

Publisher Los Angeles, California (original), University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag non-exclusionary discipline practices,OAI-PMH Harvest,professional development,restorative justice practices,school-wide positive behavioral intervention supports,social-emotional learning

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Ott, Maria (committee chair), Cash, David (committee member), Gothold, Paul (committee member)

Creator Email evens@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113825944

Unique identifier UC113825944

Identifier etd-EvensColle-12655.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-EvensColle-12655

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Evens, Colleen

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20240208-usctheses-batch-1125 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu