Content uploaded by Yolanda Anyon
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Yolanda Anyon on Jan 11, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cree20
Race Ethnicity and Education
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cree20
Sent out or sent home: understanding racial
disparities across suspension types from critical
race theory and quantcrit perspectives
Yolanda Anyon, Kathryn Wiley, Ceema Samimi & Miguel Trujillo
To cite this article: Yolanda Anyon, Kathryn Wiley, Ceema Samimi & Miguel Trujillo (2021): Sent
out or sent home: understanding racial disparities across suspension types from critical race theory
and quantcrit perspectives, Race Ethnicity and Education, DOI: 10.1080/13613324.2021.2019000
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2021.2019000
Published online: 21 Dec 2021.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Sent out or sent home: understanding racial disparities across
suspension types from critical race theory and quantcrit
perspectives
Yolanda Anyon
a
, Kathryn Wiley
b
, Ceema Samimi
c
and Miguel Trujillo
d
a
Associate Professor, School of Social Work, San José State University, One Washington Square, San Jose, CA,
USA;
b
Faculty Fellow School of Education, University of Colorado, BouLder, CO, USA;
c
Assistant Professor,
School of Social Work, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA;
d
Doctoral Student Graduate School of
Social Work, University of Denver, Denver, CO, USA
ABSTRACT
Although in-school suspensions may be viewed as less severe than
out-of-school suspensions, both discipline consequences limit stu-
dents’ access to learning opportunities and are negatively asso-
ciated with a range of educational outcomes. Moreover, if sending
students out of class perpetuates the same racial disparities as
sending them home, this practice does not realize the equity
goals of discipline reforms over the last decade. Our study draws
on Critical Race Theory and QuantCrit to understand racial disci-
pline gaps across in-school and out-of-school suspensions using
data from students and schools in one large district. Results of
multilevel regression models indicate similar racial disparities in
both suspension types, suggesting neither approach is equitable.
These ndings illustrate the limits of race-neutral policies in miti-
gating exclusionary discipline gaps. Addressing the thorny issues
that contribute to racial disparities will likely require greater
resources for high quality implementation of school-wide culture
change initiatives that are explicitly anti-racist.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 2 February 2021
Accepted 20 November 2021
KEYWORDS
Suspension; school
discipline; racial disparities;
exclusionary; Critical Race
Theory; Quantcrit
Althoughmuch attention has been paid to the overrepresentation of Black, Native
American, and Latinx youth among those who receive out-of-school suspensions
(OSS) and expulsions, patterns related to in-school suspensions (ISS) have gone
relatively unexamined (Noltemeyer, Ward, and Mcloughlin 2015; Trinidad 2021).
Through ISS, school staff send students out of their regular classrooms and physically
separate them into another room or office within the school building. ISS can range
from partial day increments (such as one class period), to multiple days (Fabelo et al.
2011; Trinidad 2021). Ostensibly, ISS accomplishes the goal of keeping young people
in school, but this practice still results in lost instructional time, segregates youth from
their teachers and peers, and can be stigmatizing (Kennedy-Lewis and Murphy 2016).
Both approaches therefore fall in the category of exclusionary discipline, which
involves “a student’s removal from the typical educational setting.’ (Noltemeyer and
Mcloughlin 2010, 27). Correlational and longitudinal research suggests that ISS, like
CONTACT Yolanda Anyon yolanda.anyon@sjsu.edu
RACE ETHNICITY AND EDUCATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2021.2019000
© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
OSS, is negatively associated with standardized test scores, GPA, school persistence,
enrollment in advanced courses, college attendance, and student reports of school
connectedness (Cholewa et al. 2018; Hwang 2018; Huang and Anyon 2020; Jabbari and
Johnson 2020, 2021; Noltemeyer, Ward, and Mcloughlin 2015). Moreover, while the
use of ISS may help schools reduce their reliance on OSS, such practices do not
address the equity goals of discipline reforms if they perpetuate the same racial
disparities.
The current study considered whether racial discipline gaps were indeed similar
across both types of suspensions in a large urban school district. Our aim was to
generate evidence that could inform debates about the most promising approaches to
promoting racial equity in school discipline. In this manuscript, we first summarize the
extant literature on racial disparities in suspensions, and then describe our use of two
frameworks, Critical Race Theory and QuantCrit, to frame our research questions. Our
results indicate meaningful racial disparities in ISS that essentially replicate those in
OSS. We draw on both critical theories to make sense of these patterns and consider
the limitations of our study. Finally, we offer implications for future research, policy,
and practice that could advance racial justice in school discipline, including qualitative
studies of ISS implementation and school change interventions that go beyond man-
dates to limit OSS.
Prevalence and nature of suspensions by type
During the 2017–2018 school year, 2.5 million students in U.S. public schools received
one or more OSS and 2.6 million were assigned ISS, both representing a little more than
5% of the 50.9 million students enrolled at that time (United States Department of
Education, Office for Civil Rights [USDOE] 2020a). The actual numbers of both types
of suspensions are likely even higher. For example, reports from Florida and Texas that
suggest that schools used ISS with nearly a million students in those two states alone
(Fabelo et al. 2011; Gonzalez 2012). Parents, students, and advocacy groups have also
reported the growing use of ‘off-the-book’ suspensions, where schools do not report these
practices to caregivers or in data management systems used for monitoring and account-
ability (PowerU 2017; Malkus 2017).
Though varied in duration, the nature of OSS is relatively straightforward: school staff
send students home. In contrast, ISS always involves school staff sending students out of
the classroom and remaining in the school building, but its structure and substance can
vary widely, even in the same school district (Wiley et al. 2020; Dupper, Theriot, and
Craun 2009; Trinidad 2021). The federal government’s definition of ISS is when ‘a child is
temporarily removed from his or her regular classroom for at least half a day, but remains
under the direct supervision of school personnel. Direct supervision means school
personnel are physically in the same location as students under their supervision’.
(USDOE OCR. 2020b, 11). However, schools, districts, and states may organize the
time students spend in ISS differently depending on the underlying discipline philosophy
and committed resources. Indeed, some scholars and professional organizations have
provided ‘best practice’ guidelines for ISS, such as providing students with academic
tutoring, mental health services, behavioral interventions, or conflict resolution pro-
grams (Dupper, Theriot, and Craun 2009; Delisio 2018).
2Y. ANYON ET AL.
Yet available evidence suggests the typical ISS experience rarely involves supportive
services or high-quality educational activities. Ann Ferguson’s seminal ethnographic
study, Bad Boys (2008), documented ‘the punishing room’, where ‘troublemakers’ were
sent during the school day. Similarly, Gregory and colleagues (2006) found the on-
campus suspension room at Berkley High School was a ‘holding tank . . . for simply
watching the clock until the period of punishment expired’ (134). More recently,
students in Florida have described ISS as a place ‘like jail’ for the ‘bad kids’ where
they ‘didn’t really do anything’ other than ‘read a book and watch teachers talk and eat
and things’ (Gonzalez 2012, n.p.). In another district, youth observed that, ‘most
students didn’t get the support they need’ through these in-school discipline
approaches (PowerU 2017, 35).
Student and school outcomes by suspension type
Research has consistently documented negative relationships between OSS and a wide
range of student and school outcomes (Welsh and Little 2018). Young people with
a history of OSS are more likely to have contact with the juvenile justice system and be
arrested, incarcerated, or on probation as adults, hold negative perceptions of multiple
dimensions of school climate, report lower school engagement, and be pushed out of
school before graduation (Huang and Anyon 2020; Rosenbaum 2020; Welsh and Little
2018). At the school-level, greater use of OSS is positively associated with all students’
depressive symptoms and negatively related to their views on school climate and safety
(Eyllon et al. 2020; Welsh and Little 2018).
Although ISS is also a common practice, research on this consequence is more limited
than studies on OSS (Cholewa et al. 2018; Trinidad 2021). Recent evidence suggests that
ISS may undermine educational opportunities much like OSS. In one district, students
who received ISS were more likely to report negative perceptions of school discipline
structure, lower school bonding, and a weaker sense of school safety (Huang and Anyon
2020). A meta-analysis of twelve studies found a consistently negative relationship
between ISS and academic achievement (Noltemeyer, Ward, and Mcloughlin 2015).
The results of newer studies are similar, finding being assigned to ISS was inversely
related to math achievement (Hwang 2018; Jabbari and Johnson 2020), grade point
average (Cholewa et al. 2018), high school graduation (Cholewa et al. 2018; Jabbari and
Johnson 2020), and college attendance (Jabbari and Johnson 2020). One study also found
that students who attend high schools with high rates of ISS – regardless of whether they
themselves were suspended or not – had lower math achievement and were less likely to
attend college full time (Jabbari and Johnson 2020).
Disparities and disproportionalities
Given consistent findings regarding the negative influence exclusionary discipline
can have on students’ academic and developmental trajectories, racial disparities in
their application represent a civil rights issue of great concern to many educational
stakeholders. A large body of research documents the overrepresentation of Black
students receiving OSS, with more variable findings among Native American,
Multiracial, and Latinx youth (Welsh and Little 2018). There is far less scholarship
RACE ETHNICITY AND EDUCATION 3
on racial disparities in ISS, but national data is available for both types of suspen-
sions. For example, in the 2017–2018 school year, Black students in the
U.S. constituted 31.4% of those who received one or more ISS and 38.2% of OSS,
despite representing 15.1% of total students enrolled in public schools (USDOE
OCR 2020a). Nationally, Latinx students were slightly underrepresented among
students assigned to ISS or OSS. They comprised 27.2% of total enrollment, 23.2%
of those with one or more ISS, and 21.7% of OSS. However, disparities varied widely
by state and district. To illustrate, Latinx students represented 24.8% of all students
in Connecticut during the 2017–2018 school year, but made up 34.2% of those with
an ISS and 38.7% of OSS.
Racial gaps in OSS have been well documented in qualitative research and
quantitative studies, including those that control for a wide range of student- and
school-level covariates, including adult- and student-reported behaviors, office refer-
ral reasons, special education classification, individual socioeconomic status, school
poverty rates, and school racial composition (Anyon et al. 2014; Anyon, Zhang, and
Hazel 2016; Gregory et al. 2018; Cruz and Rodl 2018). Moreover, school-level racial
disparities in OSS are associated with racial achievement gaps and weaker percep-
tions of student-teacher connectedness among all students (Pearman et al. 2019;
Anyon et al. 2016). Though research on ISS is much more limited, emerging
evidence suggests that ISS also disproportionately affects Black students (Blake
et al. 2011; Cholewa et al. 2018; Hilberth and Slate 2014; Wiley 2021) and is more
common in racially segregated schools with higher proportions of Black students
(Cholewa et al. 2018; Trinidad 2021). Of these studies, only Cholewa et al. (2018)
and Blake et al. (2011) reported findings for Latinx students, finding no statistically
significant differences when compared to White youth. Cholewa et al.’s study was
unique in using multivariate regression methods, finding that disparities for Black
students persisted after controlling for cumulative GPA, gender, special education
status, socioeconomic status at the student-level, along with racial composition,
poverty rate, and locale at the school-level (2018).
Study aims
Although many consider ISS less severe than OSS, both responses to rule-breaking
behavior are exclusionary and involve removing students from their classrooms with
lost instructional time, which can have negative consequences for students’ relation-
ships with teachers and peers, sense of school connectedness, grades, and standar-
dized test scores. Combined with evidence of racial disparities, the use of ISS may
also be cause for civil rights concern, and would indicate a need for continued
discipline reforms in support of non-exclusionary approaches that are more resource
intensive to implement. In the current study, we aim to address these issues by
examining racial disparities in ISS and OSS from Critical Race Theory and
QuantCrit perspectives using student- and school-level data from one large urban
district.
4Y. ANYON ET AL.
Theoretical and analytic frameworks
Critical race theory
Critical Race Theory focuses on the legal, economic, and social conditions that create and
maintain White supremacy and the subjugation of communities of color. Although
several principles guide this framework, in this manuscript we focus on two: the
persistence of racism and challenge to the dominant ideologies of colorblindness and
meritocracy (Crenshaw, Gotanda, and Peller 1995; Delgado and Stefancic 2017).
A foundational tenet of CRT is the centrality of race and racism in creating inequities
across multiple systems, including education, historically and contemporaneously
(Delgado and Stefancic 2017; Ladson-Billings and Tate 1995). Far from being uncom-
mon, CRT proposes that racism is endemic and interwoven into all aspects of society.
CRT also explicitly critiques liberal notions of neutrality, objectivity, and equal treatment
regardless of context (Delgado and Stefancic 2017). These dominant ideologies can
impede recognition of, or entirely stand in the way of changing, a purportedly race-
neutral policy or practice’s disparate impact. Instead, CRT scholars draw attention to the
ways systemic biases and the unequal distribution of structural resources intersect to
reproduce inequality without the use of explicitly discriminatory laws or practices
(Bonilla-Silva 2006).
In the context of school discipline, CRT suggests that racial disparities in the use of
exclusionary and punitive practices are the result of an education system that primarily
values conformity and compliance to White ways of being and knowing (Watts and
Erevelles 2004; Bell 2020). Simson (2013) argues centuries of racial stigma, stereotypes,
and biases have been infused into seemingly objective standards for appropriate behavior at
school (Simson 2013, 506). Policies and practices used to enforce these ‘normative base-
lines’ are also racialized through the subjective ‘perception and evaluation’ of discipline
incidents (Simson 2013, 533). Educators determine the severity of the event and its
consequence based on an ‘existing framework of social meanings associated with the
student’s racial category’ such as whether the behavior is malleable (e.g. the student is
having a bad day) or fixed (e.g. the student is a troublemaker; 2013, 533). Though these
perceptions of and standards for rule-breaking are socially constructed, the consequences
for students are both material and psychological (Watts and Erevelles 2004; Simson 2013).
When school adults label students as deviant or violent for breaching White norms,
exclusionary and punitive practices can serve as form of racialized social control that
mediates access to educational opportunity (Bell 2020; Morris 2005; Watts and Erevelles
2004).
QuantCrit
In the current study, we used critical quantitative methods, or QuantCrit, to consider
racial disparities across different types of suspensions. Researchers have often used CRT
to frame qualitative examinations of educational inequities, but scholars have outlined
approaches to quantitative research that are consistent with the theory’s key tenets. In our
case, we primarily drew on the QuantCrit principles outlined by Gillborn, Warmington,
and Demack (2018)and Crawford et al. (2018), but our methods are consistent with the
RACE ETHNICITY AND EDUCATION 5
ideas and examples of other critical quantitative researchers such as Covarrubias and
Verónica (2013), Jang (2018), López et al. (2018), Sablan (2019), Stage (2007), and
Zerquera and Gross (2017).
First, we recognize that racism is a complicated, multifaceted, and multilevel social
phenomenon that is difficult to quantify (Danso 2015; Irons 2019). Our study relies on
student race as a proxy for lived experience, but this approach can promote deficit
discourses about youth that serve White racial interests unless explicitly interrogated
(Gillborn et al. 2018; Kirkland 2019). To be clear, the variables used in this study are not
biological categories, they are social constructs, and the quantitative relationships in this
study are associative, not causal. We interpret racial discipline gaps to be indicators of
structural inequities, not ‘pre-existing fixed qualit[ies]’ of students (Gillborn et al.
2018, 15).
Another principle of QuantCrit is that ‘numbers are no more obvious, neutral and
factual than any other form of data’. (Gillborn et al. 2018, 6). From this perspective,
concerns about objectivity, transparency, and bias are as applicable to quantitative
research as they are to qualitative studies (Fielding and Schreier 2001; Kirkland 2019).
It is not possible to conduct research that is completely unbiased given that scholars are
‘the medium by which information is generated, analyzed [and] interpreted’. (Danso
2015, 576). Instead, we recognize that ‘all knowledge is mediated through lived experi-
ence’ and to suggest otherwise ‘replicates false assumptions inherent to objectivity as real
and attainable’ in ways that can serve to maintain White supremacy (Kirkland 2019, 2–3).
We therefore describe positionalities below to make clear how our subjective realities
influenced the questions we asked, the literature and frameworks we brought to bear, and
our interpretation of the results. In other words, we aim to aid the reader in ‘judging the
trustworthiness’ of our study by being transparent about how our lived experiences have
influenced this line of inquiry and analysis (Crawford et al. 2018, 125).
Statements of positionality
First author: My only exposure to exclusionary school discipline was in high school,
when I was assigned one day of ISS for truancy. Upon entering the discipline room,
I immediately noticed that I was the only White person there, despite my school being
predominantly White. When I mentioned my time in ISS to a teacher, she told me that
I did not belong there. Through interdisciplinary studies and youth work in urban
schools, I came to understand that the patterns I observed at my high school were not
singular, but systemic. These experiences bias me towards understanding racism as the
root causes of disparities, to look at institutions and people in power, rather than
behavior or actions of young people, as the reasons why we have educational inequities.
Second author: I am a White woman from the Midwest, where I went to one of the
largest high schools in Ohio with over 2,000 students, 90% of whom were White and 7%
of whom were Black. I remember multiple security guards walking the grounds, busting
kids for smoking, arriving late, or leaving early. That Black students were suspended at
twice the rate of White students was entirely off my radar, as was the discipline system as
a whole. My intellectual exposure to the school-to-prison pipeline began in graduate
school and it became deeply personal as I began witnessing the pipeline’s attempt to
envelope Black youth at the middle school where I conducted my dissertation.
6Y. ANYON ET AL.
Third author: I am a mixed-race first-generation college student, child of an immigrant,
and product of school push out. The schools I attended as a child were poor, mostly or
completely non-White, and often ran more like prisons than centers of learning. I learned
early in my schooling to keep my mouth shut and head down, mostly from observing my
peers who were often disciplined for trivial matters. I remember one school I attended
having a policy mandating that shoes be tied in a particular way. In 7th grade, a friend of
mine, who was Black, was sent to the office for wearing a red scrunchie. Despite my ability
(luck?) in evading the disciplinary gaze of adults in these buildings, I stopped attending
school regularly when I was in 9th grade, and no effort was made to intervene. These
experiences have resulted in my strong belief that schools have never adopted the ideals of
equal education for all, and that educational disparities are not accidental.
Fourth author: As a Latinx male attending overwhelmingly White secondary schools,
I quickly recognized the system was not built for me. Early in my 7
th
grade education,
a White student repeatedly called me a ‘Spic’ in front of my Spanish teacher with no
repercussions. I was angry, hurt, confused, and never wanted to go into a classroom
again. Thanks to my family, who after three generations showed I could survive the
school system, I found I could get through by keeping to myself and spending as little
time in the school as possible. My familial knowledge and education provided the space
for me to succeed in school despite not engaging. As a young adult volunteering and
working in schools, I was able to witness what happens to students that looked like me
who didn’t have the same privilege. Seeing how the schools targeted these students I was
again angry, hurt, and confused. This time however, I was able to turn those emotions
into action; learning, growing and pushing back ever since.
Taken together, our experiences reveal inconsistencies and biases in school discipline
policies and their implementation, with disproportionately negative consequences for
students of color. In addition, we observed the harm and stigma of disciplinary actions,
like ISS, that did not always involve sending students home.
Methods
Sample
Our dataset included more than 100,000 K-12 students enrolled in over 200 schools in
one urban district in the western region of the United States during the 2018–2019
school year. The student population was approximately 50% Latinx, 25% White, 15%
Black, 5% Multiracial, 5% Asian, and 1% Native American and 1% Pacific Islander
(numbers have been rounded at district request to ensure confidentiality and therefore
add up to more than 100). Students were predominantly low-income (65%) and 10% had
one or more dis/abilities.
Measures
Independent variables were student racial categories used by this district: Black,
Latinx, Native American, Asian, Pacific Islander and Multiracial. Dependent variables
were dichotomous indicators of whether or not a student received one or more ISS
or OSS.
RACE ETHNICITY AND EDUCATION 7
Covariates were based on available data and prior research indicating their relation-
ship to school discipline outcomes. At the student-level, analyses controlled for gender,
gifted and talented program eligibility, special education status, classification as emo-
tionally disabled, identification as homeless, English language learner status, and grade-
level. At the school-level, covariates included grade configuration (high, middle, elemen-
tary, or other grade span, e.g. K-8), school size, governance model (charter or district-
managed), the proportion of student body that was eligible for free and reduced lunch,
and the percent that were Black.
Study context
Several years prior to this study, the district began implementing a new discipline
policy focused on reducing OSS rates and racial disparities. It described classroom
interventions that students should receive prior to an office discipline referral and
outlined when OSS was permitted. For example, OSS was not allowed when
a teacher perceived a student to be challenging their authority for the first time; it
was only allowed if a student continued to be defiant after non-exclusionary inter-
ventions had been attempted. The policy also encouraged schools to use alternatives
to OSS, such as ISS and behavior contracts, and did not place constraints on
assigning these types of consequences. The only guidelines offered for ISS were
that students were supervised by a staff member inside the school building and
given classwork they would miss. Finally, schools were required to report their
discipline data to the district using an electronic records system. The policy did
not provide schools with additional resources, such as funding or support staff, to
implement these reforms.
Since then, OSS rates have consistently been on the decline, but the use of ISS
steadily increased and now surpasses OSS. Prior to discipline reform, nearly half of
students with an office discipline referral in the district received one or more OSS (48%)
and less than a third were assigned to ISS (28%). In the year that was the focus of this
study, those numbers had almost flipped, with more disciplined students receiving ISS
(48%) than OSS (38%). Qualitative observations we conducted in seven schools indi-
cated wide variation in ISS implementation (Wiley et al. 2020). In a few schools,
students in ISS de-escalated and processed conflict with a social worker, but in others,
students were disparaged and required to sit silently under the supervision of a security
guard (Wiley et al. 2020).
Analysis
To construct our dataset, we merged student and school data with school identification
number as the matching variable. Descriptively, we calculated disparities by comparing
the suspension rates of students of color to White students in the district to determine
relative risk. We also calculated disproportionalities by comparing the percentage of
each racial group in the general population to their proportion among those suspended,
which indicates over- or under-representation. The concepts are related in that dis-
proportionalities happen when there are disparities in suspensions. In other words, to
8Y. ANYON ET AL.
reduce the overrepresentation of Black students among those suspended, Black stu-
dents would need to be assigned suspensions at the same or lower rate than students
from other racial categories.
We then used Stata 13 software to create multilevel logistic regression models that
estimated the relationships between student race and discipline outcomes as odds ratios
(Rabe-Hesketh and Skrondal 2008). These hierarchical models accounted for the nested
structure of the dataset with students (level 1) clustered within schools (level 2). Our
analyses controlled for all available student sociodemographic and school composition
variables.
Results
Descriptive statistics
More than 3,500 students received one or more ISS, and nearly 2,800 were suspended
out-of-school. Below we provide descriptive statistics to illustrate racial discipline gaps in
two ways.
Racial disparities
Table 1 illustrates pronounced disparities across both types of suspensions, especially for
Black students. Six percent of Black students in the district received one or more ISS, in
contrast to less than 2% of White youth. That means Black students’ risk of being sent out
was nearly four times as high as their White peers. Only 1% of White youth received one
or more OSS, so Black students’ risk of being sent home was almost five times higher.
Racial disproportionalities
The disproportionalities illustrated in Table 2 reflect the same disparate patterns that
were evident in Table 1, but here we used two sample tests of proportion, which take into
account the size of each population, to determine whether the differences were
Table 1. Racial disparities in suspensions by type.
All Students (n = 105,451)
In-School Suspension
(n = 3,529)
Out of School Suspension
(n = 2,797)
Rate
Relative Risk Ratio
(compared to White students) Rate
Relative Risk Ratio
(compared to White students)
Latinx 3.6% 2.2 2.7% 2.3
Black 6.0% 3.6 5.8% 4.9
Native American 2.6% 1.6 4.1% 3.5
Asian 1.4% 0.8 0.7% 0.6
Multiracial 3.3% 2.0 2.4% 2.1
Pacific Islander 2.6% 1.5 2.3% 2.0
White 1.7% 1.0 1.2% 1.0
a
The rate is the proportion of students from one racial group who have been suspended. It is computed by dividing the
number of students suspended from one group by the total number of students from that group
b
The risk ratio and is computed by taking a ratio of the rates per 100 between two groups
RACE ETHNICITY AND EDUCATION 9
statistically significant. Black students were significantly overrepresented among students
with one or more of either type of suspension. Latinx students were overrepresented
among those with one or more ISS, whereas Native American youth were overrepre-
sented among those with one or more OSS. For example, Black students comprised 13.4%
of the general student population, but represented 23.9% of students with one or more
ISS and 28.9% with one or more OSS. Students who were Asian and White were issued
suspensions of either kind at significantly lower rates than their enrollment. As illustra-
tion, Asian students made up 3.2% of all students, 1.4% of students with one or more ISS,
and 0.8% of students with one or more OSS.
Multilevel models
All students
Results from multilevel logistic regression models (Table 3) using data from all students
in the district indicate statistically significant racial disparities in both ISS and OSS,
though they varied in magnitude depending on the type of suspension and the inclusion
of other covariates.
In-school suspensions
Model 1 illustrates the relationship between student racial categories and assignment of
one or more ISS without including any covariates, but accounting for students being
nested in schools. Black (OR 3.0, p < .001), Latinx (1.5, p < .001), and Multiracial students
(OR 1.9, p < .001) had significantly higher odds of one or more ISS than White students,
whereas Asian students (OR .6, p < .01) had significantly lower odds. In Model 2,
accounting for other covariates, Black (OR 2.7, p < .001), Latinx (OR 1.5, p < .001),
and Multiracial students (OR 1.8, p < .001) still had significantly higher odds of one or
more ISS than White youth. Several student-level factors increased students odds of
receiving one or more ISS; youth in special education (OR 1.3, p < .001), boys (OR 2.0,
p < .001), students experiencing homelessness (1.5, p < .001), students designated with an
emotional dis/ability (OR 3.6, p < .0001), and students in higher grades (OR 1.2, p < .001)
also had significantly higher odds of experiencing one or more ISS than their peers. On
the other hand, English language learners (0.8, p < .001) and students in the gifted and
talented program (0.6, p < .001) had lower odds of one or more ISS than their peers. At
Table 2. Racial disproportionality in suspensions by type.
All Students In-School Suspension Out-of-School Suspension
(n = 105,451) (n = 3,529) (n = 2,797)
%
Latinx 53.3 57.4*** 54.1
Black 13.4 23.9*** 28.9***
Native American 0.7 .6 1.1*
Asian 3.2 1.4*** 0.8***
Multiracial 4.1 4.1 3.7
Pacific Islander 0.4 0.3 0.4
White 24.9 12.4*** 10.9***
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001 based on a two-sample test of proportions, compared to each group’s representation
among all students
10 Y. ANYON ET AL.
the school-level, students enrolled in middle schools (OR 3.8, p < .001), charter-run
schools (OR 1.8, p < .05), and larger schools (OR 1.2, p < .001) were more likely their
counterparts to have one or more ISS.
Out-of-school suspensions
In model 3, without accounting for other covariates, Black (OR 4.1, p < .001), Latinx (1.6,
p < .001), Multiracial (OR 1.9, p < .001), Native American (OR 2.6, p < . 001) had significantly
higher odds of one or more OSS than White students, whereas Asian students (OR.6, p < .01)
had significantly lower odds. After including other variables in model 4, Black (OR 3.5,
p < .001), Latinx (1.8, p < .001), Multiracial students (OR 1.8, p < .001), and Native American
(OR 2.0, p < .001) had significantly higher odds of one or more ISS than White students, and
Asian (OR 0.6, p < .05) had significantly lower odds. With respect to other categories included
in model 4, students in special education (OR 1.8, p < .001), boys (OR 1.6, p < .001), students
experiencing homelessness (1.5, p < .001), students designated with an emotional dis/ability
(OR 5.9, p < .001), and students in higher grades (OR 1.2, p < .001) also had significantly
higher odds of experiencing one or more OSS than their peers. In contrast, English language
Table 3. Multilevel logistic regression model of factors related to suspensions.
All Students
(n = 105,471)
ISS OSS
Odds Ratio
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Student-Level
Race (ref. group = White)
Latinx 1.5*** 1.5*** 1.6*** 1.8***
Black 3.0*** 2.7*** 4.1*** 3.5***
Native American 1.2 1 2.6*** 2.0***
Asian 0.6** 0.7* 0.5*** 0.6*
Multiracial 1.9*** 1.8*** 1.9*** 1.8***
Pacific Islander 1.0 1 1.5 1.6
Gender (ref. group = female) 2.0*** 1.6***
Homeless 1.5*** 1.5***
English Language Learner 0.8*** 0.7***
Gifted and talented 0.6*** 0.7***
Special Education 1.3*** 1.8***
Emotional dis/ability 3.6*** 5.9***
Grade 1.2*** 1.2***
School-Level
Student Composition
% Black 0.5 3.9*
% Eligible for Free & Reduced Price Meals 2.4 3.1***
Grade Level (ref. group = elementary)
High School .7 1.7*
Middle school 3.8*** 4.3***
Other Grade Spans (e.g. K-8) 1.5 1.4
Governance Model
(ref group = district-run schools)
Charter School 1.8* 1.4
School Size 1.2*** 1.0
Log likelihood −12,588 − 12,153 −11,338 −10,768
Between School Variation 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.2
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001
RACE ETHNICITY AND EDUCATION 11
learners (0.7, p < .001) and students in the gifted and talented program (0.7, p < .001) had
lower odds of one or more OSS than their peers. At the school-level, students enrolled in high
schools (OR 1.7, p < .05), middle schools (OR 4.3, p < .001), schools with a greater percentage
of Black students (OR 3.9, p < .05), and schools with a greater concentration of low-income
students (OR 3.0, p < .001) were more likely their counterparts to have one or more OSS.
Discussion
Results indicated racial discipline gaps in both types of suspensions that varied in
magnitude and statistical significance depending on the quantitative method employed.
Descriptively, Latinx, Black, Native American, Multiracial and Pacific Islander youth
were more likely to be assigned either type of suspension compared to White students,
and Asian youth were less likely (Table 1). We then considered the representation of each
racial group in the district as a whole and among those suspended using two sample tests
of proportion that take into account the size of each population. Black students were
significantly overrepresented among those assigned both types of suspensions, whereas
White and Asian youth were significantly underrepresented (Table 2). Latinx students
were significantly overrepresented in ISS but not OSS. These descriptive results are
especially valuable as representations of discipline inequities because they do not control
for factors in our dataset that are also the product of racism, such as school segregation.
Finally, we estimated the odds of students experiencing one or more ISS or OSS using
multilevel logistic regression models that controlled for factors like gender, special
education status, and English language learner classification. In our statistical models,
we also accounted for students being grouped within schools with different racial
compositions, grade-levels, and governance types (Table 3). Results indicate that youth
who were Black, Latinx, or Multiracial had significantly greater odds of receiving one or
more ISS and OSS than their White counterparts, and Asian students had lower odds.
Native American students had significantly greater odds of one or more OSS but not ISS.
Differences between Pacific Islander students and White youth were not statistically
significant, though they had higher odds of being assigned OSS.
Before discussing these findings in detail, we want to emphasize the principle of
QuantCrit that ‘where race is associated with an unequal outcome it is likely to indicate
the operation of racism’ rather than ‘race as a cause in its own’ (Gillborn et al. 2018, 14).
In other words, we do not interpret these patterns as indicators of problems located in
students, explained by differences in which groups ‘lack something (e.g. motivation,
grit, resilience, etc.)’ (Dixson and Rousseau Anderson 2018; Kirkland 2019; Simson
2013). Instead, we draw on CRT to suggest that racial disparities in school discipline are
the result of complex and interlocking systemic inequities, such as discipline conduct
codes that privilege White norms, high stakes and standardized assessments that do not
assess contextually relevant skills or strengths, a dearth of teacher preparation pro-
grams that are explicitly anti-racist or prepare instructors to use non-punitive disci-
pline approaches, culturally unresponsive curriculum, lack of diversity among school
adults, and the disproportionate presence of security guards and police in schools
serving predominantly Black and Latinx students (Anyon et al. 2018; Little and
Welsh 2019; Welsh and Little 2018)
12 Y. ANYON ET AL.
With that in mind, the racial discipline gaps evident in this study, especially for
Black students, are consistent with extensive research on OSS. They also parallel the
results of a smaller number of quantitative studies of ISS. Cholewa et al. (2018),
Hilberth and Slate (2014), Trinidad (2021) all found that Black students of both
genders were more likely to receive ISS than their White peers. In Blake et al.’s
(2011) study, the likelihood of ISS for Black girls in one midwestern district was
higher than that of Latinx and White girls. Both Cholewa et al. (2018) and Jabbari
and Johnson (2020) reported that the proportion of Black students in the school was
positively associated with higher rates of ISS. Our research makes a unique con-
tribution to this literature by examining both types of suspensions, using multilevel
statistical models that account for students being clustered within schools, reporting
disaggregated results for a wider range of racial groups, and drawing on theory to
guide our questions and interpretation of results.
From the perspective of CRT and QuantCrit, we suggest that our findings illustrate
how purportedly race-neutral discipline policies are insufficient tools for reducing or
eradicating racial disparities in exclusionary practices. In this district, school staff can
assign ISS for low-level discipline incidents, including developmentally typical behavior
like classroom disruption, dress code violations, tardiness, profanity, cell phone use,
pushing, and shoving. OSS may be warranted for mid-level offenses that include beha-
viors like repeated disrespect or defiance. These nonviolent, subjective behaviors are
especially prone to racial bias. For example, a student bringing a knife to school lends
itself to a more objective determination of misconduct than does a student who is being
defiant. The former is based on a tangible good, while the latter is related to cultural
constructions of appropriate versus deviant behavior (Bell 2020; Ferguson 2000; Irby
2014). Thus, our findings indicate that differential selection into the discipline system is
the primary driver of racial disparities in ISS, whereas for Black students, both differential
selection and treatment in the assignment of OSS appear to be at play (Gregory, Skiba
and Noguera 2010).
If both types of suspension limit access to educational opportunities for Black, Latinx,
Native American, and Multiracial students, they likely contribute to disparate academic
outcomes. Indeed, a meta-analysis of 34 quantitative studies from 1986–2012 found that
students assigned to either type of suspension were consistently less likely to make gains
on standardized achievement tests or graduate high school (Noltemeyer, Ward, and
Mcloughlin 2015). More recently, Hwang (2018) examined the longitudinal associations
between suspensions and standardized test scores over a three-year period in one
California district. Results indicated that multiple ISS or OSS were both negatively
associated with students’ Math scores, controlling for quarter, school, teacher, and
grade fixed effects (Hwang 2018). Cholewa et al. (2018) analyzed a nationally represen-
tative sample of high school students, finding students who received ISS had significantly
lower subsequent academic achievement and were nearly five times less likely to graduate
than their peers who did not. Similarly, using a longitudinal study of a nationally
representative sample of high school students, Jabbari and Johnson (2021) found that
students who received either type of suspension were subsequently less likely to take
advanced math classes or graduate.
RACE ETHNICITY AND EDUCATION 13
Limitations and directions for future research
From a QuantCrit perspective, several limitations to our research design suggest our
analysis, findings, and discussion should be met with caution. Our ability to make
meaning of the results is constrained because our research team did not include
students who have experienced ISS or OSS in this district at the time when this data
was collected. Our interpretation reflects gaps in our understanding that we may not
be aware of due to our positionalities. Quant Crit also encourages researchers to
critically evaluate the units of analysis. All of the variables we used in our statistical
models were drawn from administrative data that are based on adults’ perceptions
and decisions, not students. In particular, the racial grouping ascribed to students by
caregivers or school officials may not be consistent with their self-perceived racial
identity or the way they believe others see them (López et al. 2018). Moreover, racial
groups are not a monolith. For example, Hannon et al. (2013) study found that
Black students’ odds of suspension vary by their perceived skin tone, suggesting that
colorism also contributes to racialized discipline outcomes. Finally, the questions
that guided this study emerged out of reports from advocacy groups (PowerU 2017),
but its utility in the struggle for racial justice is limited because the research was not
explicitly tied to a social movement.
School discipline studies such as ours are often critiqued for not including
indicators of individual family income or student behavior. Student-level poverty
information was not available to us, but it is indeed likely that such data would
moderate the relationship between student racial categories and ISS or OSS, given
that race and class converge in this district (and most others) more so than any of
the other variables included in this study (Carter et al. 2017). That said, a growing
body of research has shown that controlling for socioeconomic status only partially
moderate racial disparities in suspensions (e.g. Anyon et al. 2014; Anyon, Zhang,
and Hazel 2016; Cholewa et al. 2018; Gregory et al. 2018). Moreover, QuantCrit
requires that we consider how ‘racist logics’ shape the units of analysis to protect
the power of privileged groups (Gillborn et al. 2018, 13). The notion that racial
disparities are only worthy of concern if adults’ perceptions of student behavior are
accounted for reflects one such way of thinking. It is teachers and administrators,
who are predominantly White and middle class, and not parents, students, or
independent observers who determine what behaviors are problematic in schools
and when they warrant disciplinary action. Experimental evidence indicates that
school adults tend to view the same behavior as more troubling and severe when
exhibited by Black students and respond with harsher punishment (Okonofua and
Eberhardt 2015). This finding is also suggested by longitudinal and correlational
studies using national and local datasets (Anyon et al. 2014; Gregory et al. 2018;
Huang 2018; Huang and Anyon 2020; Huang and Cornell 2020).
As is often the case in research, this study raises more questions than answers,
especially about ISS, as fewer studies have considered the practice of sending
students out of the classroom and what they do when outside of the typical
educational setting can take many forms. First, it would be helpful to understand
the malleable factors that influence educators’ decisions to use different disciplinary
14 Y. ANYON ET AL.
consequences. Further, studies that consider whether patterns of ISS use differ
depending on the way ISS is implemented and what actually happens to students
in these spaces are needed.
Conclusion
In contrast to OSS, ISS keeps disciplined students inside their school building, and for
this reason, many stakeholders may perceive it as a superior strategy for managing
student behaviors that adults find challenging. However, we, like other scholars, argue
that any approach that removes students from their regular classrooms and results in
missed instructional time constitutes a form of school exclusion. Our findings suggest
that instead of achieving the aims of recent discipline reform movements, schools may
simply be replacing OSS with ISS to avoid addressing the thorny issues that give rise to
racial disparities in exclusionary discipline, including racially biased discipline policies,
culturally unresponsive instruction, the preponderance of school staff who do not share
students’ lived experiences, weak relationships between students and staff, hostile school
climates, and the involvement of law enforcement in responding to developmentally
typical student behaviors (Little and Welsh 2019; Welsh and Little 2018). Moreover, links
between both types of suspensions and negative student outcomes suggest these practices
are affecting students who need more support in schools, not less. In short, although ISS
may be ‘better’ than OSS, any discipline practice that primarily relies on students sending
students out may be only a marginal improvement from sending them home. Instead of
ISS, we need policies that provide sufficient resources for high quality implementation of
school-wide culture change initiatives that address the technical, normative, and political
dimensions of school discipline (Wiley et al. 2018). Explicitly anti-racist and healing-
centered practices are promising approaches towards this end and warrant further
investigation (Carter et al. 2017; Ginwright 2018).
Acknowledgments
Following the recommendations of Beltran and Mehrotra (2015), the authors would like to honor
our intellectual ancestors who shaped our thinking in this manuscript.
First Author: I am grateful to my parents, Joan and Bob, and my Aunt Jean for exposing me
to injustice, nurturing my critical thinking, complicating my understanding of oppression, and
modeling different approaches to promoting equity. The young people I worked with for many
years in the Bay Area taught me too many relevant lessons to name, but most of all, they
helped me understand my Whiteness and how racism works in students’ everyday lives. My
mentors at the beginning of my academic career, Al Camarillo and Milbrey McLaughlin
influenced my commitment to community-engaged research that incorporates multiple ways
of knowing.
Second Author: I owe my awareness and understanding of racial inequality to the many
teachers that I have had, both formal and informal, whose powerful curriculum and deeply
humanizing spirits brought me into political consciousness about the workings of power,
inequality and racism in society. This line of teachers began for me in high school, with
English teachers Mr. Nicholas, Mrs. McSherry, and Mrs. Henry who used literature to elevate
issues of privilege and oppression. It continued into graduate school, where sociologists,
historians, philosophers and legal scholars including Drs. Marki LeCompte, Linda Mizell,
Michelle Moses and Kevin Welner expanded my worldview, and this line continued through
RACE ETHNICITY AND EDUCATION 15
my dissertation work, when I met several Black youth who shared their knowledge and wisdom
on racism in schools. These young people are in large part the reason why this work has
become so important to me.
Third Author: My intellectual family tree is rooted with the first people who taught me true
humility, my peers and the staff at the homeless shelter I resided in as a young person. [De-
identified], and all of the others who never let me off the hook, and always had my back. These
people taught me how to listen, and how to be authentic in my voice. The tree was strengthened
with guidance from professors like Glenn T. Morris who crossed the line at some point from
instructor to comrade, and who introduced me to the work of Derrek Bell and critical race
theory. In my PhD program, I was fortunate to have the guidance of Dr. Frank Tuitt, who
gently pushed me to think deeper not only about the world around me, but also about my own
values and goals as a scholar. The tree constantly blooms with all the things I have learned from
the young people I worked with, as well as all the students I have had the opportunity to
instruct.
Fourth Author: I would like to first acknowledge my parents, Rose and Ed, for paving the way
for my own education. Not only were you an example of how to survive as a person of color in
academia, but also how to use that education to give back to the community. To the rest of the
Alvarado and Trujillo family both past and present; thank you for all your tireless work and
support that brought me to this point. Lastly, Eileen, Javier, and all the youth and staff at at Latinas
Adelante and the Youth Empowerment Program. Thank you all for helping me to understand the
intricacies of the education system, and the power of community.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
This work was supported by the Spencer Foundation [201900065].
ORCID
Miguel Trujillo http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7827-3250
References
Anyon, Yolanda, Anne Gregory, Susan Stone, Jordan Farrar, Jeffrey M Jenson, Jeanette McQueen,
Barbara Downing, Eldridge Greer, and John Simmons. 2016. “Restorative Interventions and
School Discipline Sanctions in a Large Urban School District”. American Educational Research
Journal 53 (6): 1663–1697. doi:10.3102/0002831216675719.
Anyon, Yolanda, Chalane Lechuga, Debora Ortega, Barbara Downing, Eldridge Greer, and
John Simmons. 2018. “An Exploration of the Relationships between Student Racial
Background and the School Sub-contexts of Office Discipline Referrals: A Critical Race
Theory Analysis.” Race Ethnicity and Education 21 (3): 390–406. doi:10.1080/
13613324.2017.1328594.
Anyon, Yolanda, Duan Zhang, and Cynthia Hazel. 2016. “Race, Exclusionary Discipline, and
Connectedness to Adults in Secondary Schools.” American Journal of Community Psychology
57 (3–4): 342–352. doi:10.1002/ajcp.12061.
16 Y. ANYON ET AL.
Anyon, Yolanda, Jeffrey M. Jenson, Inna Altschul, Jordan Farrar, Jeanette McQueen,
Eldridge Greer, Barbara Downing, and John Simmons. 2014. “The Persistent Effect of Race
and the Promise of Alternatives to Suspension in School Discipline Outcomes.” Children and
Youth Services Review 44: 379–386. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.06.025.
Bell, Charles. 2020. ““Maybe if They Let Us Tell the Story I Wouldn’t Have Gotten Suspended”:
Understanding Black Students’ and Parents’ Perceptions of School Discipline.” Children and
Youth Services Review 110: 104757. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.104757.
Beltrán, Ramona, and Gita Mehrotra. 2015. “Honoring Our Intellectual Ancestors: A Feminist of
Color Treaty for Creating Allied Collaboration.” Alia 30 (1): 106–116. doi:10.1177/
0886109914531958.
Blake, Jamilia J., Bettie Ray Butler, Chance W. Lewis, and Alicia Darensbourg. 2011.
“Unmasking the Inequitable Discipline Experiences of Urban Black Girls: Implications for
Urban Educational Stakeholders.” The Urban Review 43 (1): 90–106. doi:10.1007/s11256-009-
0148-8.
Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 2006. Racism without Racists: Color-blind Racism and the Persistence of
Racial Inequality in the United States. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Carter, Prudence L., Russell Skiba, Mariella I Arredondo, and Mica Pollock. 2017. “You Can’t Fix
What You Don’t Look At: Acknowledging Race in Addressing Racial Discipline Disparities.”
Urban Education 52 (2): 207–235. doi:10.1177/0042085916660350.
Cholewa, Blaire, Michael F. Hull, Catherine R. Babcock, and Alexandre D. Smith. 2018.
“Predictors and Academic Outcomes Associated with In-school Suspension.” School
Psychology Quarterly 33 (2): 191–199. doi:10.1037/spq0000213.
Covarrubias, Alejandro, and Vélez Verónica. 2013. “Critical Race Quantitative Intersectionality:
An Anti-racist Research Paradigm that Refuses to “Let the Numbers Speak for Themselves”
Lynn, Marvin, and Dixson, Adrienne.” In Handbook of Critical Race Theory in Education,
290–306. New York: Routledge.
Crawford, Claire E., Sean Demack, David Gillborn, and Paul Warmington. 2018. “Quants and
Crits: Using Numbers for Social Justice (Or, How Not to Be Lied to with Statistics) 1 DeCuir-
Gunby, Jessica, Chapman, Thandeka, and Schutz, Paul.” In Understanding Critical Race
Research Methods and Methodologies, 125–137. New York: Routledge.
Crenshaw, Kimberlé, Neil Gotanda, and Gary Peller. 1995. Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings
that Formed the Movement. New York: New Press.
Cruz, Rebecca A., and Janelle E. Rodl. 2018. “Crime and Punishment: An Examination of School
Context and Student Characteristics that Predict Out-of-school Suspension.” Children and
Youth Services Review 95: 226–234. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.11.007.
Danso, Ransford. 2015. “An Integrated Framework of Critical Cultural Competence and
Anti-oppressive Practice for Social Justice Social Work Research.” Qualitative Social Work
14 (4): 572–588. doi:10.1177/1473325014558664.
Delgado, Richard, and Jean Stefancic. 2017. Critical Race Theory. New York: New York
University Press.
Delisio, Ellen 2018. “In-school Suspension: A Learning Tool.” Education World. http://www.
educationworld.com/a_admin/admin/admin329.shtml
Dixson, Adrienne D., and Celia Rousseau Anderson. 2018. “Where are We? Critical Race Theory
in Education 20 Years Later.” Peabody Journal of Education 93 (1): 121–131. doi:10.1080/
0161956X.2017.1403194.
Dupper, David R., Matthew T. Theriot, and Sarah W. Craun. 2009. “Reducing Out-of-school
Suspensions: Practice Guidelines for School Social Workers.” Children & Schools 31 (1): 6–14.
doi:10.1093/cs/31.1.6.
Eyllon, Mara, Carmel Salhi, John L Griffith, and Alisa K. Lincoln. 2020. “Exclusionary School
Discipline Policies and Mental Health in a National Sample of Adolescents without Histories of
Suspension or Expulsion.” Youth & Society 1: 1–20. doi:10.1177/0044118X20959591.
RACE ETHNICITY AND EDUCATION 17
Fabelo, Tony, Michael D. Thompson, Martha Plotkin, Dottie Carmichael, Miner P Marchbanks,
and Eric A. Booth. 2011. Breaking Schools’ Rules: A Statewide Study of How School Discipline
Relates to Students’ Success and Juvenile Justice Involvement. New York: Council of State
Governments Justice Center.
Ferguson, Ann Arnett. 2000. Bad Boys: Public Schools in the Making of Black Masculinity. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Fielding, Nigel, and Margrit Schreier. 2001. “Introduction: On the Compatibility between
Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods.” Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum:
Qualitative Social Research 2 (1): Art. 4. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs010146 .
Gillborn, David, Paul Warmington, and Sean Demack. 2018. “QuantCrit: Education, policy,‘Big
Data’and Principles for a Critical Race Theory of Statistics.” Race Ethnicity and Education
21 (2): 158–179. doi:10.1080/13613324.2017.1377417.
Ginwright, Shawn. 2018. “The Future of Healing: Shifting from Trauma Informed Care to Healing
Centered Engagement. Medium. https://medium.com/@ginwright/the-future-of-healing-
shifting-from-trauma-informed-care-to-healing-centered-engagement-634f557ce69c
Gonzalez, Sarah. 2012. “In-school Suspension: A Better Alternative or A Waste of Time?” National
Public Radio. https://stateimpact.npr.org/florida/2012/05/04/floridas-in-school-suspension-
policy-keeps-students-out-of-class
Gregory Anne, Skiba Russell and Noguera Pedro. 2010. “The Achievement Gap and the Discipline
Gap: Two Sides of the Same Coin“. Educational Researcher, 39(1), 59–68. doi: 10.3102/
0013189X09357621
Gregory, Anne, Francis L. Huang, Yolanda Anyon, Eldridge Greer, and Barbara Downing. 2018.
“An Examination of Restorative Interventions and Racial Equity in Out-of-school Suspensions.”
School Psychology Review 47 (2): 167–182. doi:10.17105/SPR-2017-0073.V47-2.
Gregory, Anne, Kysa Nygreen, and Dana Moran. 2006. “The Discipline Gap and the
Normalization of Failure Noguera, Pedro, and Wing, Jean.” In Unfinished Business: Closing
the Racial Achievement Gap in Our Schools (California: Jossey-Bass), 121–150.
Hannon, Lance, Robert DeFina, and Sarah Bruch. 2013. “The Relationship between Skin Tone and
School Suspension for African Americans.” Race and Social Problems 5 (4): 281–295.
doi:10.1007/s12552-013-9104-z.
Hilberth, Michele, and John R. Slate. 2014. “Middle School Black and White Student Assignment
to Disciplinary Consequences: A Clear Lack of Equity.” Education and Urban Society 46 (3):
312–328. doi:10.1177/0013124512446218.
Huang, Francis L., and Dewey G. Cornell. 2020. “Student Attitudes and Behaviors as Explanations
for the Black-White Suspension Gap.” Children and Youth Services Review 73: 298–308.
doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.01.002.
Huang, Francis L. 2018. “Do Black Students Misbehave More? Investigating the Differential
Involvement Hypothesis and Out-of-school Suspensions.” The Journal of Educational
Research 111 (3): 284–294. doi:10.1080/00220671.2016.1253538.
Huang, Francis, and Yolanda Anyon. 2020. “The Relationship between School Disciplinary
Resolutions with School Climate and Attitudes toward School.” Preventing School Failure:
Alternative Education for Children and Youth 64 (3): 212–222. doi:10.1080/1045988X.2020.1722940.
Hwang, NaYoung. 2018. “Suspensions and Achievement: Varying Links by Type, Frequency, and
Subgroup.” Educational Researcher 47 (6): 363–374. doi:10.3102/0013189X18779579.
Irby, Decoteau J. 2014. “Trouble at School: Understanding School Discipline Systems as Nets of
Social Control.” Equity & Excellence in Education 47 (4): 513–530. doi:10.1080/
10665684.2014.958963.
Irons, Jenny. 2019. In Shifting the Lens: Why Conceptualization Matters in Research on Reducing
Inequality. New York: William T. Grant Foundation.
Jabbari, Jason, and Odis Johnson Jr. 2020. “Veering off Track in US High Schools? Redirecting
Student Trajectories by Disrupting Punishment and Math Course-taking Tracks.” Children and
Youth Services Review 109: 104734. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104734.
18 Y. ANYON ET AL.
Jabbari, Jason, and Odis Johnson Jr. 2021. “The Process of “Pushing Out”: Accumulated
Disadvantage across School Punishment and Math Achievement Trajectories.” Youth &
Society 0044118X2110071. doi:10.1177/0044118X211007175.
Jang, Sung Tae. 2018. “The Implications of Intersectionality on Southeast Asian Female
Students’ Educational Outcomes in the United States: A Critical Quantitative
Intersectionality Analysis.” American Educational Research Journal 55 (6): 1268–1306.
doi:10.3102/0002831218777225.
Kennedy-Lewis, Brianna, and Amy Murphy. 2016. “Listening to “Frequent Flyers”: What
Persistently Disciplined Students Have to Say about Being Labeled as “Bad”.” Teachers College
Record 118 (1): 1–40. doi:10.1177/016146811611800106.
Kirkland, David E. 2019. No Small Matters: Reimagining the Use of Research Evidence from a Racial
Justice Perspective. New York: William T. Grant Foundation.
Ladson-Billings, Gloria, and William F. Tate. 1995. “Toward a Critical Race Theory of Education.”
Teachers College Record 97 (1): 47–68.
Little, Shafiqua J., and Richard O. Welsh. 2019. “Rac(e)ing to Punishment? Applying Theory to
Racial Disparities in Disciplinary Outcomes.“ Race Ethnicity and Education. doi:10.1080/
13613324.2019.1599344.
López, Nancy, Christopher Erwin, Melissa Binder, and Mario Javier Chavez. 2018. “Making the
Invisible Visible: Advancing Quantitative Methods in Higher Education Using Critical Race
Theory and Intersectionality.” Race Ethnicity and Education 21 (2): 180–207. doi:10.1080/
13613324.2017.1375185.
Malkus, Nat “Lessons from Cooking the Books on Suspension Rates.” American Enterprise
Institute, Accessed 28 July 2017. https://www.aei.org/articles/lessons-from-cooking-the-books-
on-suspension-rates
Morris, Edward W. 2005. ““Tuck in that Shirt!” Race, Class, Gender, and Discipline in an Urban
School.” Sociological Perspectives 48 (2005): 25–48. doi:10.1525/sop.2005.48.1.25.
Noltemeyer, Amity L., Rose Marie Ward, and Caven Mcloughlin. 2015. “Relationship between
School Suspension and Student Outcomes: A Meta-analysis.” School Psychology Review 44 (2):
224–240. doi:10.17105/spr-14-0008.1.
Noltemeyer, Amity, and Caven S. Mcloughlin. 2010. “Patterns of Exclusionary Discipline by
School Typology, Ethnicity, and Their Interaction.” Penn GSE Perspectives on Urban
Education 7 (1): 27–40.
Okonofua, Jason A., and Jennifer L. Eberhardt. 2015. “Two Strikes: Race and the Disciplining of
Young Students.” Psychological Science 26 (5): 617–624. doi:10.1177/0956797615570365.
Pearman, Francis A., F. Chris Curran, Benjamin Fisher, and Joseph Gardella. 2019. “Are
Achievement Gaps Related to Discipline Gaps? Evidence from National Data.” Aera Open
5 (4): 1–18. doi:10.1177/2332858419875440.
Power U Center & Advancement Project. 2017. “Miami-Dade County Public Schools: The Hidden
Truth.” Published, https://poweru.org/sdm_downloads/1002
Rabe-Hasketh, Sophia, and Skondral, Anders. 2008. Multilevel and Longitudinal Modeling using
STATA.Texas: STATA Press.
Rosenbaum, Janet. 2020. “Educational and Criminal Justice Outcomes 12 Years after School
Suspension.” Youth & Society 52 (4): 515–547. doi:10.1177/0044118X17752208.
Sablan, Jenna R. 2019. “Can You Really Measure That? Combining Critical Race Theory and
Quantitative Methods.” American Educational Research Journal 56 (1): 178–203. doi:10.3102/
0002831218798325.
Simson, David. 2013. “Exclusion, Punishment, Racism, and Our Schools: A Critical Race Theory
Perspective on School Discipline.” UCLA L. Rev 61: 507–563.
Stage, Frances K. 2007. “Answering Critical Questions Using Quantitative Data.” New Directions
for Institutional Research 2007 (133): 5–16. doi:10.1002/ir.200.
Trinidad, Jose Eos. 2021. “Structural Limitations and Functional Alternatives Reducing
Suspensions and Preserving Racial Suspension Gaps.” Race Ethnicity and Education 24 (1):
96–111. doi:10.1080/13613324.2018.1538119.
RACE ETHNICITY AND EDUCATION 19
United States Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights [USDOE]. 2020a. “Data and
Research: Civil Rights Data Collection.” Washington, D.C. Office of Civil Rights. https://
www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/data.html
United States Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights [USDOE]. 2020b. “Master List of
2017-2018 CRDC Definitions.” Washington D.C. U.S. Department of Education. https://ocr
data.ed.gov/resources/datadefinitions
Watts, Ivan Eugene, and Nirmala Erevelles. 2004. “These Deadly Times: Reconceptualizing School
Violence by Using Critical Race Theory and Disability Studies.” American Educational Research
Journal 41 (2): 271–299. doi:10.3102/00028312041002271.
Welsh, Richard O., and Shafiqua Little. 2018. “The School Discipline Dilemma: A Comprehensive
Review of Disparities and Alternative Approaches.” Review of Educational Research 88 (5):
752–794. doi:10.3102/0034654318791582.
Wiley, K., Yolanda Anyon, Cierra Townsend, Jeff Keltner, Marisa Santarella, Savanna Deiser, and
Allison Scheider. 2020. “School Discipline Rooms: A Mixed Methods Study.” Graduate School
of Social Work, University of Denver.
Wiley, Kathryn E., Yolanda Anyon, Jessica L. Yang, Malina E. Pauline, Alyssa Rosch,
Giovana Valladares, Barbara J. Downing, and Lisa Pisciotta. 2018. “Looking Back, Moving
Forward: Technical, Normative, and Political Dimensions of School Discipline.” Educational
Administration Quarterly 54 (2): 275–302. doi:10.1177/0013161X17751179.
Wiley, Kathryn. 2021. “A Tale of Two Logics: School Discipline and Racial Disparities in A “Mostly
White” Middle School.” American Journal of Education 127 (2): 163–192. doi:10.1086/712084.
Zerquera, Desiree D., and Jacob P. Gross. 2017. “Context Matters: A Critical Consideration of
Latina/o Student Success Outcomes within Different Institutional Contexts.” Journal of
Hispanic Higher Education 16 (3): 209–231. doi:10.1177/1538192715612915.
20 Y. ANYON ET AL.
