Restorative Justice as a Legal Obligation: Equal Protection Limits on Exclusionary School Discipline
Written by Exahalia K. Lawrence
Criminal Law Department
Spring 2026 Volume 1: Issue 1
April 20, 2026
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19658816
ABSTRACT
After decades of research indicating the harms of school discipline, public schools across the country still choose to rely on zero-tolerance policies (i.e. suspensions, expulsions, and law enforcement referrals). Zero-tolerance policies affect students of color, students with disabilities, and students from low‑income communities disproportionately. Black students are 3.6 times more likely to be suspended outside of school, 2.5 times more likely to be suspended in school, 3.6 times more likely to be expelled, 2.4 times more likely to be referred to law enforcement and 2.9 times more likely to experience school-based arrest in comparison to their White peers.[1] Even as restorative justice gains more support as an approach, it is generally considered a discretionary practice rather than a mandatory measure in light of proven inequalities in disciplinary actions at schools. This paper argues that the failure to effectively put restorative justice practices into action in public schools constitutes not only a policy shortcoming, but a systemic legal failure and potential civil rights violation.
Relying on constitutional doctrine, federal civil rights law, and educational policy, this paper asserts that punitive disciplinary systems can produce racially unequal outcomes that raise concerns under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause. Using an analysis of zero-tolerance policies, the expansion of police authority in schools, and the criminalization of minor forms of student behavior such as classroom disruptions or defiance, this paper demonstrates how current disciplinary methods expose school districts to legal liability by perpetuating discriminatory practices under the guise of neutrality. Empirical evidence from school districts that have implemented restorative justice practices is used to refute claims that exclusionary discipline is necessary for safety and order. Thus, this paper redefines restorative justice as a legally necessary response to systemic inequities in school discipline, as opposed to voluntary reforms.
I. INTRODUCTION
Public Schools in the United States rely on exclusionary disciplinary practices like suspension, expulsions, and referrals to law enforcement in order to address student misconduct. Throughout several decades, these practices, typically associated with zero-tolerance policies, have become the standard for maintaining order in educational settings. Zero-Tolerance policies are disciplinary frameworks that enforce predetermined punishments without considering context or intent. These practices were adopted during the 1990s in an effort to ensure school safety. However, research shows that exclusionary discipline can impact educational outcomes, increase student disengagement, and contribute to what scholars call the “school-to-prison pipeline.”[2]
These disciplinary systems have been shown to affect students unequally. Research shows that students of color, students with disabilities, and students from low-income backgrounds experience suspensions and expulsions at disproportionately high rates relative to their peers.[3] Black students are three times more likely to be suspended than their white counterparts for the same behaviors.[4] Students with disabilities tend to receive out-of-school suspensions at higher rates compared to their peers who do not have disabilities.[5] The consequences of these disparities are visible beyond the classroom, increasing the likelihood of students becoming disconnected from schools and experiencing consequences that impact them beyond the classroom. Even though these disciplinary practices are framed as unbiased responses to student behavior, the outcomes suggest patterns of inequality that raise important questions about fairness and systemic bias within public education.
For the purpose of this paper, restorative justice is defined as the practice of a disciplinary system used by schools to address any form of harm experienced without resorting to direct punishment or even punishment through exclusion from school. Instead, this approach uses methods like holding circles, dialogue, and conferences in order to try to solve the root causes, understand why the behavior was exhibited, and rectify the situation as a way of dealing with it. Opposed to punitive justice, which tends to exclude students from schooling during punishment, restorative justice ensures that the students are not excluded.
The restorative justice model has been developed to be an alternative for dealing with school discipline issues. While traditional models utilize punitive measures and removal from classrooms, the restorative process attempts to foster responsibility, conversation, and healing within schools.[6] The implementation of restorative justice is being tested by many school districts throughout the United States to reduce suspensions.[7] Even with the growing support of restorative justice practices, it is constantly treated as a discretionary policy reform as opposed to a structural or legal necessity.[8]
This paper asserts that reliance upon exclusionary disciplinary practices, especially considering the evidence of inequality observed, raises legal concerns. To be specific, disciplinary systems that produce racially inequitable outcomes may violate protections under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The continued use of these discriminatory systems of discipline, despite the evidence regarding the inequalities they perpetuate, leaves room for legal action to be taken. While advocates for these policies may argue neutrality by pointing out instances of student misconduct, the effect of said programs makes this inherently flawed. It is even more challenging to explain the use of exclusionary discipline when one considers the fact that there are other ways of addressing the issue that involve lesser punishment. When educational institutions keep systems that result in disparities while effective methods are available, it makes one question the legitimacy of such a system in terms of equity and equal opportunities in education.
This paper consists of five sections. Section I examines the historical development of exclusionary discipline in American public schools. Section II explores the unequal impact of exclusionary disciplinary practices on certain student populations and the policy’s relation to the school-to-prison pipeline. Section III considers the constitutional basis for regulating student discipline, referencing rulings by the Supreme Court on student rights and school governance. Section IV evaluates the empirical results of school districts using restorative justice programs. To conclude, section V will evaluate how restorative justice may function not only as a policy reform but as a framework necessary for addressing systemic inequities in school discipline.
II. THE RISE OF EXCLUSIONARY SCHOOL DISCIPLINE
The process of exclusion from the public education system is certainly not something new. In the past, access to schooling in the US was determined by various structures of inequality, ranging from legally enforced segregation to the denial of equal educational opportunities for people of color. Before the mid-twentieth century, Black students had been systematically barred from a majority of academic institutions and denied even the basic right of receiving a proper education.[9] Even following the implementation of judicial decisions such as Brown vs. Board of Education, where racial segregation in schools was declared unconstitutional, there remained the continuity of educational discrimination, albeit in other forms.
Although past forms of exclusion were clearly stated, current forms of exclusion may manifest more subtly. The practices of exclusionary discipline, such as suspension, expulsion, and even referral of the students to police officers, have been key processes through which certain students are deprived of continuous learning. Several studies have established that such exclusionary disciplinary measures tend to target students coming from disadvantaged backgrounds.[10] Thus, it can be suggested that the present processes of exclusion can be seen as a continuation of past processes of exclusion.
The use of suspensions, expulsions, and police referrals has become increasingly common as a means of managing behavioral problems. These approaches represent a relatively recent development regarding how schools handle behavioral problems, specifically with the expansion of zero-tolerance policies in the late twentieth century.[11] Traditionally, school discipline’s purpose was intended to correct behavior while maintaining students’ access to education. Yet, recently, disciplinary frameworks have instead adopted measures that remove students from the learning environment rather than addressing the underlying causes of said misconduct.
The expansion of exclusionary discipline increased during the late 20th century with the rise of zero-tolerance policies. This was created in the context of President Reagan’s “War on Drugs” campaign; the zero-tolerance approaches were then adopted across school systems in the 1990s. This came after the passage of the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994, which required strict disciplinary responses to weapons in school. Gradually, these policies were used beyond serious infections and included a wide range of student behavior.[12] and [13] Although the goal was originally to tackle infractions, such as weapon possession, zero-tolerance policies expanded to include minor forms of misconduct (i.e., classroom disruption). In parallel with the expansion of these models, another trend observed was the increased presence of law enforcement officials in schools. More precisely, the emergence of school resource officers (SROs) in public schools evidences another attempt to make schools safer. The presence of police in schools appears to be associated with an altered perception of student conduct, as conduct previously dealt with by school teachers or school administrators became more often viewed as an issue demanding intervention from a law enforcement official. Subsequently, consequences that would traditionally be enacted by educational administrators transitioned into law enforcement issues, contributing to the criminalization of student behavior.[14]
Consequently, it has been found that there is a greater effect on marginalized student groups when it comes to being disciplined. Black students compose only around seventeen percent of the public school population, but constitute almost thirty-four percent of those suspended from school. Students with disabilities are also disproportionately affected by disciplinary actions. This trend is proven by the relatively higher percentage of mentally and physically disabled juveniles who enter the juvenile detention centers. Studies have proven that almost two-thirds of male detainees and two-thirds of female detainees meet the criteria for at least one psychiatric disorder, showing the overrepresentation of vulnerable youth in the juvenile justice system.[15]
A historical examination of how educational exclusion operates suggests that, although the form of exclusion may have changed, the consequences have continued to be deeply rooted within the educational system. Exclusion has now become a process of disciplining that excludes children from the learning environment. Exclusionary discipline must be seen not only as an administrative procedure aimed at controlling student conduct, but as one that perpetuates the same inequality that characterizes the educational process.
III. DISPARITIES AND THE SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE
A. Race
National data shows that students of color are disciplined at higher rates across different punishment classifications like suspensions, expulsions, and law enforcement referrals, showing consistent disparities in how disciplinary policies are applied.[16] These disparities have become a concern within the education policy and civil rights scholarship, especially as researchers analyze the relationship between school discipline and future involvement in the criminal justice system. Scholars have demonstrated that Black children have been over three times more prone to suspension than white children, with no difference in behavior noted between them.[17] Research shows that Black students make up ninety-nine percent of measured disciplinary outcomes over one thousand five hundred and eighty one analytic comparisons.[18]
Zero-tolerance policies have been a significant part of this trend. In cases where both groups violate school rules to an equal extent, it appears, more often than not, that Black or Latino students face tougher forms of punishment, from suspension or expulsion to police intervention. There is evidence to indicate that racial discrimination within the schools does not derive from more frequent misbehavior on the part of Black or Latino students, but is due to differential perceptions and responses to misbehavior.[19] It was found that Black children are more frequently disciplined for subjective reasons, such as “defiance” or “disruption,” whereas white children receive discipline for objective misconduct. This difference becomes critical due to the nature of subjective definitions, which enable the exercise of discretion by school authorities in punishing similar actions according to their interpretation.[20]
These trends demonstrate that the practice of using exclusionary punishment is not an unbiased approach to handling student behaviors, but rather one that leads to discrimination among racial groups. This makes exclusionary practices more common for minority groups, which in turn denies them their right to education and increases the risk of their academic disengagement and failure. This becomes even more relevant because exclusion from educational institutions correlates highly with increased juvenile crime rates and higher dropout rates.[21]
B. Disabilities
The correlation between disabilities and punishment at schools is yet another example of the uneven distribution of exclusions in disciplinary practice. Children with special needs have a greater tendency to be suspended, expelled, or even put in the juvenile justice system as opposed to their non-disabled counterparts. According to national statistics, students with disabilities are more than twice as likely to receive out-of-school suspensions compared to their peers, although these differences are not fully explained by variations in behavior.[22]
Race and disability provide a unique intersection when examining these disparities. It has been found that black children tend to be disproportionately represented in special education classes that focus on problem behaviors, despite no significant difference in the level of problem behavior between Black and White students.[23] The disproportionate representation of Black children within disability programs has been explained using two theories: racism within disability classification, and broader inequality in education.
Discipline disparities do not emerge merely from the students’ conduct, but rather from institutional failure in recognizing the true state of affairs. If students with special needs are punished rather than assisted, then such an approach will only lead to a cycle of further marginalization and push students into punishment structures.
C. The School-to-Prison Pipeline
These patterns have contributed to what scholars refer to as the “school-prison-pipeline,” describing the process in which exclusionary discipline policies increase the possibility that students (specifically marginalized students) will be removed from educational systems and will later encounter juvenile or criminal justice systems.[24] Although schools argue that exclusionary discipline is necessary to maintain order and safety, empirical evidence suggests that these practices instead reinforce systemic inequalities within education. This raises legal questions regarding whether the current disciplinary structures can be repaired with comprehensive principles of equality and fairness within public education. If these practices consistently produce unequal outcomes for marginalized students, then continuing to rely on these systems calls for legal scrutiny.
IV. CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK OF SCHOOL DISCIPLINE
Public schools have significant jurisdiction over regulating student conduct, yet their authority is not entirely unrestricted. The Supreme Court has confirmed that public schools exist under the respective state’s discretion and should conduct themselves within the parameters of the Constitution while disciplining students many times. However, even with that in mind, the Court has recognized that schools need leeway in creating and maintaining an orderly learning environment. Evidently, school discipline is practiced within a legal setting, granting power to school officers, while also ensuring there are limits on the power given.
One of the most well-established limitations in terms of school discipline set forth in the U.S. Constitution is the decision made in Goss v. Lopez (1975). In this particular case, the issue considered was whether public school students in the state of Ohio could be expelled for up to ten days without a hearing.[25] According to the court, an individual’s fundamental right to public schooling meant that, irrespective of the time, any suspension required a minimal form of due process of law. It entails that students must be provided with information about allegations brought against them and an opportunity to respond to those claims. The ruling in New Jersey v. T.L.O (1985) has contributed to the constitutional structure of school searches by clarifying the extent of power granted to school officials over their students.[26] As per the court’s judgment, searches by school authorities are subject to the Fourth Amendment, which implies that public school officials cannot be considered immune to constitutional protection. However, the court ruled that the standard would shift from “probable cause” to “reasonableness,” arguing that such searches are constitutionally valid if they are reasonable at their inception and in terms of scope.[27]
The struggle between student rights and the power of the school system is again evident in the landmark case of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969). While this is primarily considered a First Amendment case, Tinker is relevant to the doctrine on student rights, since the Supreme Court ruled that students do not surrender their constitutional rights when they enter a public school. The court decided that student speech is allowed, provided there is no material and substantial disruption to the operation of the school.[28] Unlike Goss and T.L.O, which were cases involving student discipline, this case is applicable because of the ruling that schools are not above constitutional boundaries. In addition, the Supreme Court, in the Safford Unified School District v. Redding (2009), made it clear that, despite the standard set in T.L.O, schools are not entitled to unlimited authority in disciplining students. In Safford (2009), an investigation on a thirteen-year-old girl led to a strip search since there were reports of her possession of prescription-strength ibuprofen pills. However, this practice was found to be unconstitutional since the degree of invasion was disproportionate to the alleged crime. The significance of the ruling is that, even in the school environment, there should be proportionality of disciplinary and investigatory procedures.
In Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the court ruled that racial segregation through public schools run by the state constitutes an unconstitutional discrimination against minority populations under the Equal Protection Clause, regardless of whether such schools have equal resources. Though Brown relates to segregation in the sense of desegregation, rather than exclusionary discipline policy. Brown is significant since it establishes the rule that equal protection of law precludes any system of public education based on systematic discrimination of people according to their racial background.
Together, the legal precedents outlined above illustrate two fundamental principles. First, public schools have legitimate power over the preservation of security and order. However, the scope of that power is not unlimited in any way. Students continue to enjoy their constitutional rights, the processes involved in punishment are expected to adhere to at least some form of due process standards, searches are supposed to be proportional, and the system of public schooling continues to be implemented in a fair and equal manner. This becomes relevant in demonstrating the fact that exclusionary discipline cannot simply be considered an administrative matter.
V. RESTORATIVE JUSTICE AS AN ALTERNATIVE FRAMEWORK
Restorative interventions in large urban school districts have found declines in suspension rates after these practices were implemented; however, the effectiveness of this is more clearly demonstrated in their ability to reduce repeated misconduct and alter disciplinary practices.[29] Research has also suggested that restorative approaches can improve school climate, strengthen communication between students and staff, and reduce the amount of repeated behavioral incidents.[30] These findings are important because they challenge the assumption that exclusionary discipline is a necessity to maintain safety and order in schools.
Oakland Unified School District has shown that with the usage of restorative justice practices, there is a substantial decline in suspensions and a shrinking display of racial discipline gaps. At Cole Middle School, suspensions dropped by eighty-seven percent and expulsions were eliminated after implementing a school-wide restorative justice model.[31] Denver Public Schools similarly saw a reduction of forty percent in out-of-school suspensions following the implementation of restorative processes within the school system. These findings are important not only because suspensions decreased, but because they suggest that restorative justice practices reduce the amount of disciplinary involvement that repeats and limit student contact with exclusionary discipline systems. When restorative processes are applied, students are much less likely to be punished again.[32] For instance, when the Chicago Public School system implemented restorative practices, there was an eighteen percent decline in suspensions and a thirty-five percent decrease in student arrests.[33] These findings indicate that restorative strategies can reduce reliance on exclusionary discipline and decrease student contact with law enforcement. Although this evidence does not explicitly measure school safety, it suggests that schools can maintain order without the use of punitive disciplinary approaches. This is significant because it suggests schools can provide security without resorting to punitive measures like suspension or expulsion, as proven by the instances in which restorative justice programs were successfully carried out.
In addition to reducing instances of punishment, restorative justice also transforms how school systems approach students’ behavior. Many restorative justice programs utilize a model that includes trauma-informed approaches, training for educators, and partnership with families and community agencies as key elements. According to studies, restorative methods tend to be used in conjunction with other initiatives at school, which include social and emotional learning (SEL), trauma-informed schools, and multi-tiered system of supports, highlighting the importance of relationships, intervention, and community involvement in discipline change.[34] For example, when trauma-informed and restorative practices are considered together, there is a strong emphasis on tackling the reasons behind student behavior, which include stressful or difficult experiences, through the use of strategies such as structured dialogue and peer mediation.[35] This integration is a clear indication that restorative justice is not an isolated practice, but one within a larger structural strategy of dealing with disciplinary issues in schools.
In this context, restorative justice does not constitute any single action, but rather a transformational process that reflects a change in approach taken by schools towards disciplinary processes. Restorative justice, as it seeks accountability, encourages and engages communities in a way that makes it easy to achieve better results without the need for exclusionary disciplinary measures. With all these factors, the continued reliance on exclusionary disciplinary practices becomes difficult to justify when other options have proven effective.
VI. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS AND POLICY REFORM
The continuation of racial disparities within exclusionary school discipline also raises legal questions regarding the obligations of the public educational institutions for reform. Not only does the school have the responsibility of maintaining order, but it also must provide equal opportunity for learning and promoting student success. If a disciplinary process results in some students being excluded from their classes more than others, one may question whether or not the school is fulfilling its duties.
Research continues to show that suspensions, expulsions and law enforcement referrals disproportionately impact marginalized students, with data showing that Black students, boys, and students with disabilities are disciplined at higher rates across various categories of school discipline. This data shows Black students represent approximately 15.5% of public school populations, yet about 39% are suspended from school.[36] The continued use of these disciplinary systems may create concerns under both the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the federal civil rights law. Although schools hold the authority to regulate student conduct, it is important to note that the authority must operate within constitutional limits that protect students from discriminatory treatment. School discipline must adhere to minimum standards of procedures, must be reasonable, and not violate fundamental fairness. Goss v. Lopez (1975) and New Jersey v. T.L.O (1985) have set precedent that school discipline must also conform to the requisites of due process and reasonableness.[37]
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from denying any person equal protection under the law.[38] As state actors, public school systems are required to administer policies in a way that is consistent with principles of fairness and equality. Even though many disciplinary policies are written in race-neutral terms, the fact that we can consistently see racially disparate outcomes creates concerns about whether these policies weaken equal access to education.
Taking into account constitutional concerns, it is also important to mention that exclusionary discipline practices may also compromise federal civil rights protections under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This act prohibits discrimination based on race in programs receiving federal funding. Public school districts rely more heavily on punitive disciplinary systems that often show evidence of disproportionate impacts, which may cause an increasing amount of investigation about whether these policies produce discriminatory outcomes in practice. While Title VI claims generally require proof of intentional discrimination, there are other issues raised by the continued prevalence of racial inequities in school discipline that go beyond just intention. If disciplinary practices show a pattern of discrimination in school policies, even if it results from unintentional action, it may nonetheless subject the system to federal investigation or consideration of potential policy changes in order to address the problem, especially when there is an alternative method that is more efficient in reducing these racial disparities. For instance, if other strategies for achieving similar ends as punitive discipline policies have proven to be successful in addressing school discipline problems without discriminating based on race, then these policies might be seen as inconsistent with equal protection laws.
The fact that there are alternatives that are effective increases the complication in the continued use of exclusionary discipline. Empirical research on restorative justice programs has shown that schools can maintain order and accountability without relying only on suspensions and expulsion. Studies have shown that restorative practices can lower suspension rates, improve school climate, and encourage constructive responses to student misconduct. In particular, the introduction of restorative justice programs resulted in a significant decrease in suspensions in the Oakland Unified School District, while expulsions became rare events.[39] In the same way, one school in Baltimore managed to reduce the number of suspensions from eighty-six to just ten per year after implementing the program.[40] When there are less punitive and more equitable disciplinary approaches available, the justification for maintaining systems that produce significant disparities becomes increasingly difficult to defend.
Restorative justice represents more than just a policy preference or optional reform strategy. Ideally, it would function as a framework that is capable of addressing the structural inequalities that exclusionary practices have resulted in. By prioritizing structured, school-based interventions rather than removal, restorative practices allow schools to address misconduct while preserving students’ access to education, offering an approach that is more consistent with principles of equal access and fairness in public education. In this way, restorative justice offers a model of discipline that aligns more with constitutional principles of fairness and equality.
While concerns about discriminatory discipline practices continue to grow, policymakers and legal scholars have questioned whether the existing disciplinary systems are adequately satisfying the legal obligations required for public schools. This prompts the question of whether exclusionary discipline practices consistently show unequal outcomes, while there are strong alternatives that exist, then the continued use and reliance of such systems require reconsideration.
Based on these considerations and the effectiveness of the methods mentioned above, the authorities must make more resolute efforts toward tackling exclusionary discipline in schools. It is important to note that when tackling racial differences in relation to the matter under discussion, it is vital not just to recognize the problem, but also to find effective ways of addressing it. At the institutional level, it is critical to avoid using the mentioned disciplinary practices when violations are subjective in nature and do not pose any threat to security, namely defiance and disruption. Moreover, school districts should not have a choice in deciding whether they would adopt restorative justice approaches to discipline problems; instead, it should be mandatory. It will mean funding, training, and implementing strategies like trauma-informed care to build restorative programs at schools. Essentially, reporting on the results of punishments and collecting data on racial, disability, and economic disparities in disciplining students must become mandatory.
At the national level, current civil rights laws need to be enforced better. Bodies like the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights could conduct investigations into the discrimination against students and guide institutions on how to conform to Title VI in their attempts to curb discrimination. Ultimately, for public schools to fulfill their obligations in terms of both constitutional and civil rights, they have to shift from excluding students to inclusion.
VII. CONCLUSION
Exclusionary school discipline continues to create environments in public schools that disproportionately harm students of color, students with disabilities, and students from low-income communities. This paper has shown that suspensions, expulsions, and law enforcement referrals are not neutral responses to student behavior and, in practice, they reinforce patterns of inequality within schools. These inequalities contribute to long-term educational and legal consequences for students who are already marginalized.
Restorative justice should be treated as more than an optional approach, but instead as an obligation schools have to their students to uphold the promise the Department of Education makes: “promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.”[41] When exclusionary disciplinary systems create a cycle of racially disparate outcomes and ignore the existence of less harmful and more equitable alternatives, legal concerns are formed under the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Restorative justice offers a different approach; this approach centers accountability, dialogue, and community repair while still protecting students’ needs and access to education.
In practice, treating restorative justice as discretionary truly undermines both the documented harms of punitive discipline and the legal implications of allowing those harms to continue. Assuming that public schools are committed to fairness, equality, and educational access, then they truly have to move beyond disciplinary systems that are rooted in exclusion and transition to frameworks that address harm without reproducing injustice.
Edited by Sienna Sferrazza, Jacob Lieberman, & Valentina Guzman-Gutierrez
Footnotes
[1] Sean Darling-Hammond and Eric Ho, No Matter How You Slice It, Black Students Are Punished More: The Persistence and Pervasiveness of Discipline Disparities, 10 AERA OPEN 1, 1-21 (2024).
[2] Mara Schiff, Dignity, Disparity and Desistance: Effective Restorative Justice Strategies to Plug the “School-to-Prison Pipeline,” UCLA CENTER FOR CIVIL RIGHTS REMEDIES 1, 1-18 (2013).
[3] Russell J. Skiba et al., The Color of Discipline: Sources of Racial and Gender Disproportionality in School Punishment, 34 URBAN REVIEW 317, 317–342 (2002).
[4] Id.
[5] Daniel J. Losen and Russell J. Skiba, SUSPENDED EDUCATION URBAN MIDDLE SCHOOLS IN CRISIS 19 (Marion Chartoff et al. eds., 2010).
[6] Thalia González, Keeping Kids in Schools: Restorative Justice, Punitive Discipline, and the School-to-Prison Pipeline 41 J.L. & EDUC 281, 281-335 (2012).
[7] Yolanda Anyon, Restorative Interventions and School Discipline Sanctions in a Large Urban School District, 53 AMERICAN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNAL, 1663, 1663-1697 (2016).
[8] Trevor Fronius et al., Restorative Justice in U.S. Schools: A Research Review 6 (Fredrika Baer et al. eds., 2016).
[9] Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
[10] Daniel J. Losen & Russell J. Skiba, Suspended Education: Urban Middle Schools in Crisis 19 (Marion Chartoff et al. eds., 2010).
[11] Russ Skiba and Reece Peterson, The Dark Side of Zero Tolerance: Can Punishment Lead to Safe Schools?, 80 THE PHI DELTA KAPPAN 372, 372-376, 381-382 (1999).
[12] 20 U.S.C. § 796 (1994).
[13] Are Zero Tolerance Policies Effective in the Schools? An Evidentiary Review and Recommendations, 63 AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION 852, 852-862 (2008).
[14] Matthew T. Theriot, School Resource Officers and the Criminalization of Student Behavior, 37 JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE 280, 280-287 (2009).
[15] Linda A. Teplin et al., Psychiatric Disorders in Youth in Juvenile Detention, 59 ARCHIVES OF GENERAL PSYCHIATRY 1133, 1133-1143 (2002).
[16] Sean Darling-Hammond and Eric Ho, No Matter How You Slice It, Black Students Are Punished More: The Persistence and Pervasiveness of Discipline Disparities, 10 AERA OPEN 1, 1-21 (2024).
[17] Daniel J. Losen & Russell J. Skiba, Suspended Education: Urban Middle Schools in Crisis 19 (Marion Chartoff et al. eds., 2010).
[18] Darling-Hammond & Ho, supra note 17.
[19] Russell J. Skiba et al., The Color of Discipline: Sources of Racial and Gender Disproportionality in School Punishment, 34 THE URBAN REVIEW 317, 317-342 (2002).
[20] Id.
[21] American Civil Liberties Union, Bullies in Blue: The Origins and Consequences of School Policing (2017).
[22] U.S. Dep’t of Educ., Office for Civil Rights, Civil Rights Data Collection (2013–2014).
[23] Torin D. Togut, The Gestalt of the School-to-Prison Pipeline, 20 Am. U. J. Gender Soc. Pol’y & L. 1 (2011).
[24] Mara Schiff, Dignity, Disparity and Desistance: Effective Restorative Justice Strategies to Plug the “School-to-Prison Pipeline” 1 (UCLA Ctr. for Civ. Rts. Remedies 2013).
[25] Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975).
[26] New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985).
[27] Id.
[28] Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
[29] Yolanda Anyon et al., Restorative Interventions and School Discipline Outcomes in a Large Urban School District, 53 Am. Educ. Res. J. 1663 (2016).
[30] Trevor Fronius et al., Restorative Justice in U.S. Schools: A Research Review (WestEd Justice & Prevention Research Ctr. 2016).
[31] Sujatha Jain et al., Restorative Justice in Oakland Schools: Implementation and Impacts (Oakland Unified Sch. Dist. 2014); Michael D. Sumner, Carol J. Silverman & Matthew L. Frampton, School-Based Restorative Justice as an Alternative to Zero-Tolerance Policies: Lessons from West Oakland (Univ. of Cal., Berkeley Sch. of Law 2010).
[32] Yolanda Anyon et al., Restorative Interventions and School Discipline Outcomes in a Large Urban School District, 53 AM. EDUC. RES. J. 1663 (2016).
[33] Mara Schiff, Dignity, Disparity and Desistance: Effective Restorative Justice Strategies to Plug the “School-to-Prison Pipeline” (UCLA Civil Rts. Project 2013); Univ. of Chi. Educ. Lab, Restorative Practices in Chicago Public Schools (2023).
[34] Andrea A. Joseph-McCatty & Rebecca J. Hnilica, Restorative Practices: The Application of Restorative Circles in a Case Study School, TEACH. & TEACHER EDUC. (2022), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103935.
[35] Dayna Sedillo-Hamann, Trauma-Informed Restorative Justice Practices in Schools, 44 CHILD. & SCH. 98 (2022).
[36] U.S. Gov’t Accountability Off., K–12 Education: Discipline Disparities for Black Students, Boys, and Students with Disabilities, GAO-18-258 (2018).
[37] Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975); New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985).
[38] U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.
[39] Sujatha Jain et al., Restorative Justice in Oakland Schools: Implementation and Impacts (Oakland Unified Sch. Dist. 2014).
[40] Laura Mirsky, “Building Safer, Saner Schools,” Educational Leadership (2011).[41] U.S. Dep’t of Educ., Mission of the U.S. Department of Education, https://www.ed.gov/about/ed-overview/mission-of-the-us-department-of-education (last visited Apr. 19, 2026).