Are you experienced in dissertation writing/research?

The police routinely arrest and transport youths to a juvenile detention center for minor classrooms misbehaviors. The police are given fettered authority to stop, frisk, detain, question, search and arrest school children on and off school grounds. Some are even permanently stationed in nearly every high school. Very many schools employ this method in the country to get discipline in the high-schools (Mallett, 2016).

It is considered that this method pushes the children out of the classrooms. It is believed that they are forced out of classrooms into other crimes in the society. The criminal justice system at alarming rates leads to many students being siphoned into the criminal justice system a process called school-to-prison pipeline.

The policy encourages police presence at schools, harsh tactics including physical restraint, and automatic punishments that result in suspensions and out-of-class time are vast contributors of the pipeline, but the problem is more complicated than that (Guenther & Taylor, 2016).

The process begins with combined zero-tolerance policies in the classroom. When the teacher needs to punish the students, they are referred to the school in the prison system. The process might not be direct, but they are pushed out of class, this will lead students engaging in anti-social behaviors that will lead to them being detained by the police officers designed by the school. The zero-tolerance policies have pre-determined punishments for a full degree of rule violations. The system does not distinguish between serious and non-serious offenses. All student who makes such mistakes is committed to the same level of punishments. The most common example would be showing any signs of indiscipline to the teacher (Guenther & Taylor, 2016).

The second reason is mostly due to school disturbances laws that for example fighting in school or participating in racially discriminatory activities. These policies are managed mainly by school resources officers. The crime that has led to most youths being expelled under this category are students coming to school with drugs or weapons like guns. Male students have registered the highest number of expulsion under the same policies.

Finally, when the kids break municipal laws, they are likely to face the same consequences. The city ordinances that are mostly broken include; youth and students organizing parties that run late into the night causing disturbance to the neighboring community that in turn calls the police. In this case, females who cannot vanish as quickly enough are the ones that are highly subjected to the juvenile systems that will, in turn, lead to school drop-out (Guenther & Taylor, 2016).

A total approximation of 3.3 million is suspended from school each year. An expulsion of 100,00 thousand that occur every year. This number is increasing due to the rate of growing adoption across several states and schools. This shows the reason why there are rising rates of youths in crime. Once the children drop-out they are likely to be incarcerated than graduated teenagers (Heitzeg, 2016).

There have been several debates as to whether this policy should be brought to a halt or should be continued. An essential step towards ending this policy is favoring the different techniques in the education system. Representatives from both the education and justice systems have offered testimonies of how this form of punishment has led to high cases of drop-outs in school (Heitzeg, 2016).

According to (Nance,2015) the highest surprise, in this case, is that these children, the majority of them are arrested for non-violent cases. They are just arrested for being disruptive. Seventy percent of these are cases of African Americans, the Hispanic origin that has been fitted into these trends.

Education is a fundamental right that should be accessed by everyone, the suspension and the school to prison form limit this right very much. Students in the minority groups that involve African Americans, Latinos and other racial minority groups. According to research figures from the odds, one in every six black students was suspended. Another one in every American –Indian student was suspended in the same year. That was slightly higher than the Latino students where one in every fourteen of them was suspended. The Asian and the whites are the least, where only one out of fifty is either suspended or excelled (Nance,2015).

The disparity does not end there. It continues to affect even children living with a disability. About 1 in 4 black children with disabilities was suspended the same year at least once. Children with emotional disabilities were the profoundly affected victims. They were the ones that were highly suspended or expelled from their classrooms. Suspension and expulsions have become the new disciplinary tool without considering its drastic consequences (Nance,2015).

According to Mathew Cregor, an attorney with the NAACP legal defense fund, the more we don’t tackle the issue the higher number of dropouts from high school we shall have. He further suggests that the drop out crisis is part of the achievement gap that cannot be assumed like thought by many. This situation is viewed on as a local responsibility while it is much of a collective responsibility since it affects the community in general. Variables such as socio-economic class can be brought into the system but not quite compared to the racial factor (Mallett, 2016).

The research is based on the belief that this notion can be changed through other methods. Discipline can be achieved by both the students and teachers but not necessarily through criminalization. The UNHCR has equally expressed concerns with the increased criminalization of students in response to school disciplinary problems. In their recommendation, they requested the government and other stakeholders to use alternatives forms and application of laws that will in any way, reduce the rates of dropouts in school. The same organization also raised concerns about corporal punishment in schools while comparing it to the school-to-prison pipeline. Expressing the fears that the school-to-prison was even causing more harm than corporal punishment (Mallett, 2016).

The literature review, therefore, focuses on the best practices that have been used successfully and assessed by other scholars who have documented them down. The literature focuses on the school-wide discipline, traditional punitive model suspension, expulsions increasing criminal activity among the youth, restorative school discipline, a favorable school climate that is inclusive and safe. Additionally, the role of quality instructions and how the student focus and learning styles affect the same. The literature extends to differentiated instructions that will lead to a reduced number of school drop out that happen through the school-prison pipeline. Finally, the paper will focus on literature about culturally responsive teaching and how teacher development can be achieved through culturally responsive ways (Erevelles, 2014).

According to the literature by Morgan, Salomon, Plotkin & Cohen, (2014), school discipline entails more than just punishment. It is quite complicated and even entails the student self-discipline. Discipline and its opposite are transactional phenomena, not only nested in classrooms but also in the society and the environment around the student. The interactions of how the children produce disciplined behavior are created and moderated during the pedagogical development of the child influenced by the environment. The environment, in this case, in this case, includes; social-economic status, school, and classroom composition and structure. It is from this structure that the student learns their professional roles in the society and even in the school. It would be very judgmental to secure punishments that lead to school-to-prison juvenile justice systems. The school should therefore at some point provide support for the children that are affected by their previous social community. At risk youth that includes; racially affected, gender and culturally troubled youth should find the school the neutral place that provides a second home for them, but this isn’t the case.

According to literature by Kupchik & Catlaw, (2015) schools typically respond to disruptive students with external forces that include; office referrals, corporal punishment, suspension, and expulsions. These acts as proof that school does not provide the second home that it is supposed to.

The article by Monahan, VanDerhei, Bechtold & Cauffman, (2014) creates three stages of the classroom and school management where discipline can be achieved without using the three school to prison methods especially for children living in the urban centers. He further exploits practical approaches that examine the epistemological and empirical roots of the three methods. The article further assumes that these methods are the best to be used even to persons with disabilities. It doesn’t exclude emotionally and mentally challenged children. The underlying argument of the article is that school intervention can be used to create discipline, create cognitive and behavioral ecologies that promote both situational and student learning order than school-to-prison methods as already mentioned. The research explores behavior approaches, school-wide positives behavioral support and positive youth development.

According to the paper by Monahan, VanDerhei, Bechtold, & Cauffman, (2014) improving school management through behavioral approaches focuses on improving the efficacy and holding the power of the classroom. It deals with school discipline by increasing the strength and quality of classroom activities. The underlying appreciation of this method is that the classroom activities that encourage self-discipline by educating students about it foster healthy student developments and motivation. It is doubtful therefore that these students can afterward participate in indiscipline cases. In the stronger external circumstance, the school-wide approaches can be adopted but for the classroom management approach stands-out.

According to literature by Gregory, Clawson, Davis & Gerewitz, (2016), classrooms are viewed as behavioral streams, divided into sections that can mentor behavior change. These programs and sections are responsible for creating orders at a given time and ensuring that these orders are followed to create a particular routine. These routines are developed into behaviors. It is assumed that these behaviors can become create good discipline.

Additionally, the classroom creates instructions and signal systems that have to be adhered to. Norms, rules and interpersonal relationships play a role, but they are endowed with the overall picture of the classroom management. The psychologist believes that it is the classroom order and management that create and maintains the overall discipline. The strengthening of the classroom program will not provide idle time for the engagement of the student into indiscipline behaviors (Gregory, Clawson, Davis & Gerewitz, 2016).

The teacher core management task is to gain and maintain student’s cooperation in the program. The activity segment is defined by the teacher. He then introduces the same to the student and relays to them what should be accomplished. The task by the student and the teacher are supposed to be collaborative. The teacher and the students should jointly construct classroom order. The complexity of the task will be defined by many other factors that include. Social and emotional capacities of the students, the quality of the relationship between the teacher and the student and seasonal variations and distractions (Okonofua, Walton & Eberhardt, 2016).

Classroom management according to literature by Okonofua, Walton & Eberhardt, (2016), is an enterprise of creating conditions for student involvement in other curricular activities. These curricular events helped in directing the youthful energy from the students. The holding power of concentration is likely to go down. But in this case, the reaction of the teacher helps to manage the system. An alert teacher would give an “shh” gesture or give close physical proximity so that the student can be aware that the teacher is noticing their misbehavior. Skiba & Losen, (2016), in their article on teachers, emphasizes that it is these short, unobtrusive reminders that make the student co-operate even if the vectors of the lesson are weak.

The literature by Skiba & Losen, (2016), creates a slight difference in the literature by Okonofua, Walton & Eberhardt, (2016). Skiba & Losen (2016) reasons that a well-managed classroom supports academic achievements rather than discipline. According to them, discipline is preferably an outdoor SWPBS and PYD approach. The academic result variation will come from the variation by the teacher. Nonetheless, the article agrees with the latter that promoting classroom engagement shapes the character of the learner. Therefore, creating discipline. He further claims that, when there is unruly classroom behavior, it will later manifest in the overall school discipline and finally the adverse effects like the school to prison method will be used. The holding power in the classroom, if not efficient, it is doubtful that the school will make up for it.

By speaking of a classroom, there have to be students willing to attend and be engaged. It is through the same that parental and societal guidance will be needed so that the student understands the importance of being the classroom. It would be tough to engage the students in a chaotic, unsafe and alienating environment. The literature by (Losen, Hodson, Keith, Michael, Morrison & Belway, (2015). supports the same by adding that it is difficult to make learners who struggle with barriers to settle for learning.

The second method of achieving discipline is referred to as school-wide. School-wide positive behavioral support and social-emotional learning. The two are stressed in the article by Morgan, Salomon, Plotkin, & Cohen, (2014). According to the article, these methods can successfully solve the school-to-prison method of discipline. The school-wide behavioral support is a school-wide system used to communicate and teach rules. They are combined with function-based behavioral interventions and supports. Social-emotional learning (SEL) emphasizes the importance of self-awareness, self-management, social management, relationship skill and responsible decision making. According to the article by EDUCATION, (2015), SEL is meant to build on connectedness between students and the world around them. The connectedness of students and staff of the schools. He emphasizes that with this connection it is almost impossible for any authorities to recommend a student to the juvenile systems that lead them to prisons.

The two systems are however different on their aims according to the literature by Espelage, Rose & Polanin, (2015). He argues that the SWPB is developing systems that counter and manage student behavior. This is so that students with good behaviors are rewarded while the ones with bad behaviors are otherwise punished. The SEL is focused on developing student assets that foster self-discipline. The student is then able to comprehend alone, why they need to be disciplined. The two methods, however, emphasize positive techniques over punitive techniques. The two also recognize the role of academic instructions and the participation of teachers, administration, students, families, and the community.

The SWPBS approach to discipline to solve punitive measures that lead to the school-to-prison method

According to the paper by Kurth, & Enyart, (2016), the primary aim of SWPBS is to decrease problematic behavior in schools and classrooms. It does this through integrated systems that provide support for both staff and adults in the school. The approach does not stop there; there are support systems for each that extends to the family level. The article continues to specify that when positive behavior is rewarded in compliance with the adult request, academic effort, and safe behavior, the proportion of students with mild and severe discipline behaviors will be reduced. However, the article by Bear provides a different approach, in this article SWPBS is viewed as an instead multiple branded approach. Several programs are combined to get the same results. He argues that the approach applies the classical B.F Skinner developed a theory of positive behavioral support. Which is what Skinner developed in his behavioral theory and applied to it to the behavior analysis (Skinner, 2014).

According to the article by Fallon, McCarthy & Sanetti, (2014), the SWPBS does not apply a combined approach but rather organizes the discipline procedures into three themes. Prevention, multitier support, and decision making. Prevention involves providing the students with a standard set of expectations that in many schools is referred to as rules and regulations. These expectations are familiar to every, and if there are any exceptions, they are also specified. As much as there is a reward for positive behavior, there are consequences set for problem behavior. The consequences are not punitive in this case but rather re-teaching of the rules or providing an alternative behavior. All this is in the light of establishing a favorable environment for both the student and the teachers so that there are no punitive measures that will lead to school-to-prison juvenile justice.

The student expectations are predicted, directly taught, consistently acknowledged and actively monitored. Turnbull in his literature provides an approach where the students need is taken into consideration before a decision is made. The higher the students need the most intense the support system will be prevented. Selective and indicate supports is supposed to be based on principles and applied behavior analysis to define behavioral challenges. The designed approaches for correction should be efficient with procedures for correcting patterns of problem behavior in an agreement with both the student, teacher and the family. The planning should, therefore, be in three-tier (Burke, Davis, Hagan-Burke, Lee & Fogarty, 2014).

For schools that adopt the SWPBS system, there is a regularly scheduled period for instructions for the student for positive social behavior. They offer appropriate motivational systems that reinforce these social instructions. Classroom-handled versus administrator handled behavioral problems are distinctively handled. These regulations are summarized and presented at meetings to support decision making and ensure there is consistency within the discipline line (Kurth, Hagiwara, Enyart & Zagona 2017)

According to literature by Kurth, Hagiwara, Enyart & Zagona (2017), a school established clear expectations for learning and positive behavior while providing the firm but fair discipline. SWPBS builds on a solid research base to design alternatives to effective administration. He further adds that setting a small number of specific stated rules and expectation, teaching appropriate social behavior, monitoring compliance with rules and expectation, consistently enforcing rule violations with very limited negative consequences and providing a pact schedule of positive reinforcement for appropriate social behavior. His article just like the other stresses the needs of appreciating individual uniqueness. This provides the reason why the family should be involved in the instruction and rules constructions.

The literature, however, stresses the need to consider social culture. According to the article the reason why most African –Americans and Latinos are the ones who fall, a victim of the circumstance in punitive measures that lead to the school-to-prison juvenile system, is because most school-based regulations do not consider their culture or background. The same is also applied to students with chronic and intense problem behavior (Kurth, Hagiwara, Enyart & Zagona, 2017).

Evidence by Darwin, (2016) in his article suggests that SWPBS can prevent many of the problems in school arising. His studies reveal that adopting these method has led to a 50% reduction of indiscipline behavior in schools. The indiscipline includes vandalism and any form of student’s aggression in a past period of three years. In comparison, to school that did not adopt SWPBS, the same literature shows 35% less of students visiting the principal’s office on indiscipline matters. There is proof of how the SWPBS can be used to reduce the school-to-prison punitive measures.

Individual qualities are good for discipline. It is believed that individual can inculcate discipline in them that will make them not engage in indiscipline behaviors. The SEL methods noted in the literature by Catalano focuses on building individual qualities, strengths, and assets related to social, emotional, cognitive and moral development. This will automatically ensure automatic mental growth. The proximal goals that are supposed to be achieved by engaging in this method include self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship skills and responsible decision making. According to Walberg, it is through this foundation that more positive social behavior is built. Fewer conduct behavior is noted while creating an impact on the academic performance of the individual (Dworkin & Serido,2017).

According to Gregory & Fergus (2017), his article relates the approach in helping develop the social and emotional capacities that enable the student to realize discipline related goal and individually achieve them individually. They are capacitated with the moral reasoning that exhibits such qualities as respect, positive resilience and bonding with others. The students can even have individual capacities that enable them to solve conflict among themselves. Some extra-ordinary students can solve family conflicts.

Yosuf, Zafar & Kausar (2016), in their paper argues that this method has an additional advantage of the other two approaches to discipline. The paper acknowledges that the method creates the capacity in the student that makes them realize any opportunities in the environment and grasp them. The paper further relates to acknowledge that there are no written regulations but just unwritten rules that are followed in silence.

This method according to Kendziora & Yoder, (2016) is a further development of the psychological, social cognitive theory. The method is believed to integrate capacities that develop the cognitive ability of the student so that they don’t engage in measures that lead to punitive measures against students.

According to Harder & Shelter (2017), implementation of SEL in school is easily done through the schools learning the curriculum. Lessons should be packaged so that they breed to self-responsibility. They can be taught directly through the introduction of a social skill lesson in the curriculum. It can also be embedded within other disciplines taught in schools.

According to Low, Smolkowski, & Cook (2016), part of the curriculum should create planned opportunities where the student is expected to apply the learned social morals in new situations. The opportunities allow students to practice and further develop social, emotional, and moral competencies. In well-developed schools, the students are allowed to participate in CSRs. Service learning to the community helps develop the emotional discipline of the student. At a lower level, there should be organized class interactions meetings and cooperative learning activities.

Weissberg, Durlak, Domitrovich & Gullotta, (2015), however, emphasizes that the approach is very fundamental in building a teacher-student relationship. A supportive teacher is likely to enhance student morality by giving the correct advice. These devices can be used as rewards to enhance positive behavior or punishment in preventing and correcting behavior problems.

According to Durlak, (2016), this approach is the most appropriate to be used for anti-social and emotionally disturbed children. Having recognized, that most students who drop out of school due to punitive measures exhibit anti-social behaviors, the literature suggests that: SEL as the most curative measure to the school-to-pipeline juvenile system.

The literature suggests that anti-social behavior from students is caused by the lack of empathy from their fellows. They are given guilty looks each time. It is advisable to create supportive bonding among the students to make anti-social students feel part of the system. Slowly and slowly they will develop pro-social behavior. For anti-social children, they are likely to make mistakes not because of the seeking empathy but wanting to feel heroic, when they are facing grieve consequences. It is therefore advisable to create consequences that do not create a lot of attention, such students. That is the reason why suspension and expulsion are severe to anti-social students. They are supposed to be given relative advises by either the family members or the children (Durlak,2016).

Finally, according to the literature by Lawlor, (2014), the SEL method is very crucial to encouraging a relationship between the home and the school collaboration. For the African-American students and Latinos, who might be having a unique culture in their background that causes a specific behavior considered unruly by the school, the relationship would help the school understand the student even better. This prevents the school-to-prison punitive measures while reducing the rate of racially discouraged students to be taken to prison.

In a study by Fagan, Hawkins & Shapiro, (2015) adaption of this method by many urban schools reduced cases of anti-social behavior. They have also increased in socially competent behavior. They have also reduced cases of bullying and argumentative behavior. The study goes further to directly compare reductions in indiscipline cases in school in case the SEL and SWPB were combined. The argument is that both approaches, combine both social-cognitive and behavioral programs for preventing discipline problems. His study was based on control groups. The control group where two of the methods were combined resulted in practical results.

The common factor across these studies is that they lack the outstanding research that associates, examine and control measures that can be used with students already suspended or expelled. These students should be advised so that they avoid being lowered into criminal behaviors. This leaves the gap that the study should find out on the effects of how traditional punitive method of the same lead to many youth joining prison. The method they give, however, is the best to be used in maintaining school discipline to ensure that no more youth leave school to prison through the pipeline.

The research also fails to acknowledge if the school-wide discipline leads to indiscipline cases or it is the classroom effect that leads to this problem. A disconnect between the two is likely to lead to the behavioral problem.

Suspension and expulsion can influence some adverse outcomes across development, health, and education. Some of these effects are so adverse that the community can’t run away from. According to U.S Department of education (2014), students expelled or suspended are likely to drop out of school and engage in crime. This is because there is a negative attitude about a school that is created in the mind of the student once they are suspended out of school. Early childhood expulsion or suspension usually eventually lead to later school grades that eventually discourage the students from staying in school (Skiba, Chung, Trachok, Baker, Sheya & Hughes 2014).

Early youth suspension alienates the children from social, emotional and behavioral development. The same also entirely remove children from the early learning environment. This will, in turn, lead to limited cognitive development. When the corresponding cognitive enrichment of the child is delayed, it, therefore, means that at an early stage, the student begins to feel the community is cruel to them, and therefore they get withdrawn at an early stage. The student is therefore in a different world from his fellows. When this happens, the student is likely to engage in criminal activities as a way of getting back the time they had lost (Payne, 2017).

According to the literature by Owens & McLanahan (2017), expulsion and suspension interfere with the ability of the student to address underlying issues. The two main issues under this class are race and disability. Suspension and expulsion do not take into consideration this main critical issues. There is the likelihood that students with such underlying issues get broken and drop out of school direct into crime.

These children require suspension or expulsion follow up activities. The follow-up activities are supposed to make sure the student understand why they are suspended. Counseling and therapy also are given to them to ensure they understand the reason why they are given such punitive measures. Without which the students are likely to drop out of school blaming the circumstances. Expulsion rarely requires follow-up activities, since the student is considered an all destroyed individual that cannot be resolved back to the society (Owens & McLanahan, 2017).

According to the literature by Meek & Gilliam, (2016)., most students get suspended at the age of the youth for reasons that are out of their reach. Undiagnosed health behaviors, behavioral health issues, language difficulties and communication barriers. By giving such students suspension or expulsion, this is not an intervention measure but punitive measure that will likely lead to dropping out of school. When they drop out, it is very likely that they will get into criminal activities.

According to a study by Gagnon, Jaffee & Kennedy (2016), families of the student who under-go these punitive measures, might be stressed to the level of allowing the student to engage in criminal activities. It is very likely to find an African American family hiding one of their students, who smuggles drugs into the school because of the displeasure and disbelief, they have in the education system. For low-class economies family affording a higher-learning institution after suspension or expulsion can be out of their reach. Affording a correctional facility can also not be possible for them. It is very likely that such families would stop their students to engage in criminal activities. In cases where help is offered, it is limited since the family is viewed differently from the rest of the other families whose students are in school.

There has been a relationship of suspension and expulsion to criminal activities. According to Smith, & Harper, (2015), schools that entirely endorse suspension and expulsion as the dominant form of discipline in schools have reduced the number of graduates compared to ones that employ other alternative methods to discipline. The school aren’t made safer for learning environment but are made a den where indiscipline cases are hunted for. This method even with its cruelty is applied unequally. There is a head hunt for racially disadvantaged students. Usually the Latinos and African-Americans. They are likely to be subjected to severe punishment than their fellow peers. It is not a surprise that jails are full of blacks and Latinos charged with juvenile crimes than any other of their peers. This is because most of them drop out and join criminal activities.

Owens & McLanahan, (2018), a former principal of high school recognizes in his study that traditional disciplinary practices often do not result in desired outcomes. He stresses that for students with challenging behavior the outcome is even worse. Where the student is expected to transform, it is likely that the teenage will develop repulsive behaviors. The repulsive behaviors include; increased truancy, anti-social acts, school vandalism, tardiness and finally dropping out of school. All these unwanted outcomes are the indiscipline that the school staff and management are trying to manage but it backfires right on their faces.

The principal further attests that out of five students on suspensions, maybe one of them would be the one to come back to school feeling enthusiastic to learn again. Most of them return to school feeling more withdrawn than before. The principal attests that when the student gets back, they are withdrawn academically and do not fully join the rest like they are supposed. The moment they are left behind they are supposed to play a catch-up game, and that removes them from the learning attitude. This creates a platform to trigger further misbehavior to escape further classroom frustration or failure. The article by the principal suggests that there should be other ways of administering discipline that is not hurting the students. The underlying belief in the article of the principal is that excessive use of traditional extraordinary discipline methods has a negative impact on the learning environment, student achievement, graduation rates and at the end it all it reflects on the high rise of numbers in juvenile crime and delinquency (Owens & McLanahan, 2018).

According to an article by the American Academy of Paediatrics. Suspension and expulsion are not safer for students or faculty. According to these group, students are not the only ones that are affected by students’ suspension. They also affect the demographic area where these students are released into. The school climate and community surrounding the school will develop a negative feeling about the school. These might lead to a lot of transfers and children removing the children out of the school (Heilbrun, Cornell & Lovegrove, 2015).

An article by Anderson & Ritter, (2017), stresses the rate at which suspension affects a student. He reports that a suspension or an expulsion can be life-altering. After poverty, it is the second most factor that leads to children dropping out of school and walking down the road of unemployment. If the students become such, they then engage in reliance on social-welfare programs and to the worst life imprisonment. Life imprisonment, therefore, therefore, confirms that suspension is a pipeline from school-to-prison. He, therefore, suggests that it is time to shut such draconian events down. There are too many students at teenage that are excluded from class for minor offenses that entirely ruin their life.

According to the national teacher’s federation, they report the same thing as reported by the principal. However, as much as school staff thinks that suspension given to students make them reflect on their previous mistakes so that they change on their behavior. Most students during the suspension period are likely to engage in illegal activities. These activities are likely to lead the student into imprisonment. The teachers record that out of 10 students 8 are likely to engage in further illegal activities. These activities are so traumatizing and stigmatizing if the children will end up in a child support facility, the rest of the students isolate themselves from the one involved, and he is likely to seek salvage from engaging in criminal activities. According to the study by the teacher’s federation, a single suspension can lead to several criminal activities, not mentioning the effects that expulsion can do to a student (Skiba, Chung, Trachok, Baker, Sheya & Hughes, 2014).

The number of students missing instructional time during suspensions has adequately increased therefore creating an alarm to the national school boards association who are interested in the economic consequences suffered when such traditional punitive measures are incurred on such individuals (Skiba, Chung, Trachok, Baker, Sheya & Hughes, 2014).

The national parent-teacher association in their position statement, believe that discipline is essential in the school. They however further continue to record that, the discipline measures should be in school and within the learning environment. They further continue to argue that exclusionary discipline policies tend to push student away from the school. The only case where the methods should be used is when all the other punitive measures have failed, and there is danger created by the same student to staff and other fellow students. The association believes that risky and dangerous behavior is on the rise due to extra-engaging punitive measures. The risky behaviors are the reasons that will lead to student’s involvement in the juvenile systems (Skiba, Chung, Trachok, Baker, Sheya & Hughes, 2014).

The American Association of school administrators in their article dismantling the pre-k to prison discipline. They confirm that suspensions and expulsions disengage and disconnect the students from the reality of a school environment, therefore, feeding them to the developing systems in the country. Criminalizing children at a tender age instigate them into criminal behavior that will eventually lead to prison. Harsh policies devastate the lives of children and therefore should be drop-out of the education system (Okonofua, Paunesku & Walton,2016)

According to Huang, (2018) who is an expert in psychology students suspended out of school due to any anti-social behavior are likely to accelerate their delinquencies for such behaviors since there isn’t any parental supervision from both parents and teachers. This creates for them a better opportunity for socializing with other deviant fellows. For expulsions, it creates the student with ethical dilemmas that can make them participate in very negative behaviors. The psychology in his article disagrees with the parental association that suspension and expulsion create school safety. According to him removing the student from the school doesn’t have any direct connection to the school safety.

Gregory, Bell & Pollock, (2016), has a different view from all the rest of the articles. Their article argues that the current disadvantage experienced by the youth is because the juvenile court systems have neglected their roles. They think that the traditional punitive measures are not, but the rot is within the juvenile system. If the juvenile system was like in the 70s and the 80s where its role was not a correctional center but rather a rehabilitation center where good behavior was natured. According to the article current landscape in the transformation of the juvenile system is what leads most of the students into prisons. They go further to give an instructional account of how the juvenile justice system has assumed adult behaviors instead of making it conducive for children.

All these articles condemn the use of punitive measures that are traditional. Especially the suspension and expulsion methods of punishment. All the articles seem to acknowledge that the two methods are the ones that lead to children engaging in crime and then they are imprisoned or taken to a juvenile justice system. The articles further give ways in which these measurements can be avoided. Proposing other measures that are thought to be more applicable and successful in creating good behaviors in the students. However, there is an essential gap that the research will seek to answer. The articles do not express why these traditional measures were adapted into the schools in the first place. If the measures were so groove, then why were they introduced into the school and education system. Was is for lack of a better method, or it was to prevent a particular disadvantaged racial group from attending school. An earlier assessment was made of the effects of these behaviors. If all these assessments were thrown under the bridge and the method adopted. Then there has to be an explanation for it that the research is supposed to find out and fill the existing gap. The adaption of this traditional method must have had meaning to the schools that adopted the same (Huang, 2018).

Restorative school discipline program is also referred to as school ethos. Different from how many people would think that they are programs that are purposed to help in the management of discipline. School restorative discipline is based on the school culture. The school culture combines school organization with other all permeates of the school. Building a relationship between the school and the community. Restorative school discipline programs recognize that schools are educational institutions, policy and practice should be educative to the students and the school community at large (Gregory., Clawson, Davis & Gerewitz, 2016).

According to Lustick, (2017) restorative discipline recognizes that schools are educational institutions. The behavior of the students should be molded into; educational goals that support teaching and learning. Not any of the educational learning goals support retribution and exclusion as a process of punishment for students who might have shown negative behavior. In his articles, he continues to recognize that the school is a social community where every child belongs. The children behavioral challenges should, therefore, be addressed through supportive, educational interventions. Restorative discipline practices, therefore, have an aim to develop positive relationships and peaceful resolution of conflicts between staff and students.

Restorative discipline is reflected right from the classroom practice level to the school level. Restorative agrees with the societal goal that the role of a school is to educate. According to Lustick, (2017) the responsibility of the school goes beyond the necessary skills like literacy, numeracy and subject knowledge. The role of education should include providing all the members with extra skills. The extra skills include understanding positive social interactions, peaceful resolutions to conflicts and becoming a competent individual that supports the community that he lives in.

According to the study by Lustick, (2017). restorative practices have their origins in the concept of restorative justice criminal justice. From a restorative justice perspective, offenses are viewed as an interpersonal conflict. There are a victim and an offender. The offender is most likely supposed to be punished. Restorative justice approaches shift away from the punishment and retribution method. For young offenders and less serious crimes, it is advisable to use restorative measures that are geared toward making things right. It doesn’t mean the offender will not suffer consequences; they will suffer consequences that are otherwise meant to design their behaviors. The best method would be an apology to the victim.

The restorative justice principles for use in schools by educators and families are referred to as restorative practices. Several principles are critical to the restorative justice.

According to an article by Payne & Welch (2015), interpersonal relationships is the central principle towards affirming positive behavior. Children, families, school and the community create a deficit theorizing that blames should not be put to people experiencing antisocial behavior. They should be welcome to create a positive relationship.

Preserving the personal dignity of all members of the school community creates the virtue of belonging in each one of them. The idea that everyone is valued and cared for, and has the right to be treated relatively makes the reconciliation quite easy (Payne & Welch, 2015).

The last principal of restorative justice is restitution, agreements regarding what needs to happen to set things right, defuse conflict, and restore positive relationships.

Restorative school discipline according to Vincent, Inglish, Girvan, Sprague & McCabe (2016), is not a behavior management system. It includes a lot of other vital elements. While restorative discipline utilizes strategies that were developed and validated through decades of behavior management research, it is entirely different from it. The aspect of relationship and interaction that focuses on the school as an organization makes it different from the rest of the groups.

The literature by Amstutz (2015), expresses different ideas that restorative discipline has. Restorative discipline does not concentrate on the rules and how people adhere to them. The administration does not transcend the rules. The restorative discipline is people focused, focusing on how positive and supportive relationships are crucial for learning to occur. Educational conflicts should, therefore, therefore, be addressed by making amends where the relationship will otherwise be damaged and even broken.

The article further addresses the role of parent and teachers in building the same relationship. The parents should develop these skills at different stages of the child development. Each step should have expectations provided for each developmental stage. He describes how these approaches can build children socio-emotional capacities to help prevent cases of bullying and harassment in schools. Especially to racially discriminated groups like the African-Americans and Latinos, these are the best restorative discipline measures that can be used in preventing school to prison pipeline (Amstutz, 2015).

According to Feuerborn, Wallace & Tyre, (2016), apparently, some restorative understandings of age aren’t appropriate. It would be very demanding of a teacher to expect a diplomatic explanation from a student of about 11 to 16 years of age. The restorative conversation does not confuse the problem with the person. The article proves that most adults have a problem with this. Teenagers are only ready to learn how to reason diplomatically but cannot apply it to a new situation. Adults in school expect complete reasoning from the students whose mental development is not mature enough yet.

Anyon, Gregory, Stone, Farrar, Jenson, McQueen, & Simmons, (2016) describe the characteristic of active restorative practice in school. In their study, they propose several measures that prove that the school is adopted to restorative discipline and not punitive measures that will lead to students landing in correctional facilities or the juvenile justice systems.

There is a favorable school climate inclusive of all students, where students have a strong sense of belonging rather than being at risk for exclusion. This is the first measure of a school that uses restorative practice. Students do not feel discriminated because of either their race or any disabilities (Anyon, Gregory, Stone, Farrar, Jenson, McQueen & Simmons, 2016).

Secondly, the experience of positive learning relationship with adults and one another feel safe. This creates high regard for everyone in the community. They are given the opportunity to make decisions surrounding them. Everyone, therefore, has a chance of making things go right. It is likely that there wouldn’t be any wrong if the opportunity is given to everyone in the community to make decisions (Anyon, Gregory, Stone, Farrar, Jenson, McQueen & Simmons, 2016).

Staff should focus on the strengths of the students and appreciate them. They should reject any deficit of explanations for failure. In case there are any agencies for the children, there should be successful educational outcomes for children and youth. Families should feel welcome in the school programs. They should actively participate in activities designed for parents, regularly receive information about how the students are doing in school. These are important in collaborating actively to solve any problems that might lead the student engaging in any immoral behaviors (Anyon, Gregory, Stone, Farrar, Jenson, McQueen & Simmons, 2016).

There should be an average attendance report. This is to make sure students attend school every day. A daily attendance ensures that there is a total percentage of transition. Any problem that might cause absenteeism in the school is received by the school and communicated to the parent. This reduces any behavior of truancy, which might be shown by the students. The follow-up to any absenteeism should be timely by the teacher and the school to prevent any further tardiness (Wadhwa, 2015).

The article further recommends that each school should have, student emotional support system. The emotional support system should be managed by the unique trained psychological unit. The unit supports and encourages meeting socio-emotional needs of the students. This unit should ensure each student is in the proper emotional state before they settle in school and class. There is proof that when students are in good relationships with peers and good emotional support they can work to the best of their academic abilities. When a student achieves their academic abilities, they are very likely to join criminal activities that will make them end up, either in court or and juvenile correctional systems (Wadhwa, 2015).

Reasonable and well-understood behavior expectations for the students should be explained to them adequately. These behavior expectations are then shared among the school community. Each of them should have a copy of the expectation. The behavior expectations should have comprehensive systems of how and when they are to be applied. The programs should also be among all the students equally. Students who are racially discouraged should be treated the same as students who aren’t. These should be done since restorative practice, and mutual respect is the foundations for interaction between the members of the school and the community. Retribution and punishment do not lead the community into the school they even further the community from the interaction with the school (Song & Swearer, 2016).

The school can interact with backup professionals that educate the students, once in a while on the importance of remaining discipline. These professionals can also assume agency for any student outcome that is un-accepted. The professionals can also add value to every student’s achievement. Each of them can be gifted, every year without exceptions or excuses. Background characteristics or challenges should be avoided at all cost (Amstutz, 2015).

The teacher and the school should be ready to accept, that children come from the different situation. Each of them has a unique thing about them. It is possible that they might challenge educators and schools. However, children background cannot be allowed to justify low expectations for their behavior and achievement at school. An excellent educational program gives opportunities to individual respect and learning that can make all the difference (González, 2015).

An article by Ispa-Landa, (2018). based its findings on research that was carried out in Los Angeles. The research was conducted to help identify the reason why it was difficult for schools to adopt restorative discipline programs. The study agrees that restorative justice is confident, but the problem is that they are in philosophy form and cannot be implemented at the school levels for various reasons.

The first reason is that there are so many high schools and concentration on each of them can be difficult. In Los Angeles, for example, there are 900 campuses, in a school district more than 60,000 employees and 660,000 students. School administrators have difficulty creating a follow-up for all these people. For example, it can be difficult to identify if all the students are present and follow-up with why a few of them did not come to school. The teachers would instead suspend one and concentrate on the rest. So the one acts as a sacrificial lamb (Ispa-Landa, 2018).

There are very few resources and personnel to construct an alternative system for addressing student misconduct. Teachers even felt they lacked adequate training in restorative justice principles and therefore could not give the best to the students. The teachers according to the research blamed sufficient class time. There are so many disciplines all of which cannot be handled and still create time for follow-up activities of each student (Ortega, Lyubansky, Nettles, & Espelage, 2016).

The article argues that formal law-based interventions are necessary for reforming schools. But the same applies to restorative discipline where such applies are wholly insufficient. Up to date, several court orders have been used to order schools to make them stop using traditional punitive measures, but since the order does not give how they should be implemented, it becomes tough to put the same into action. To translate school-based restorative justice into actionable policy, the article proposes a collection of legal rules and standard. These standards are not based on court orders, but the people involved that include; the board of management all the way to the students and other staff members (Ortega, Lyubansky, Nettles, & Espelage, 2016).

The court order reform mission will otherwise only endanger it, by allowing zero-tolerance endurance that method that is pseudo-restorative practices (Stahl, 2016). The pseudo-restorative practices will not deliver the intended benefits of a restorative approach. When it is given a formal approach, only the topmost people will commit to it. The restorative formality should be implanted from bottom-to-top. The strategy should be endorsed by the student and flow-up the system until the school administrators. In this case, therefore, the success story can be real. With top-down directives, the situation will only remain a dictatorship program and not an explicit endorsement (Skiba, 2014).

Lastly, the article suggests that if the restorative justice program is to be successful. There has to be changed in the community in general. Which is a difficult thing to achieve within a short period? The community should also change their view of the school. Changing community values cannot be imposed just verbally, it has to be done formally, through several measures administered by government-led initiatives. Skepticism and concern about this article cannot be dismissed or be discounted since it deals with issues that address how the adoption of restorative discipline is limited (Skiba, 2014).

Positive school climate

A favorable school climate contributes to the academic success of both student and teachers. It, therefore, means it can also be used as a remedy to school-to-prison method of punishment. School discipline that sits alongside and supports teaching and learning within a conducive environment for all parties is the ideal. There are two significant aspects of a favorable school climate that each school should provide to both its teachers and students. Safety and inclusivity (Borkar, 2016).

Safety

Safety encompasses physical aspects. Winkler & Flood, (2015), describes safety as an attitude about violence, clearly communicated rules, people in the school feeling safe, and school staff knowing and agreeing to crisis plan. There is a social and emotional level of support for staff and student, there is respect for individual differences, conflict resolution is taught, and there are quick responses to any form of bullying including cyber-bullying.

According to the literature by Dean, Warren, Richard & D'Orazio, (2017) safeties’ can be achieved when specific programs are put in place in the school. According to him, the primary method which students are not sure of their safety and can lead them to anti-social behavior is through bullying. He, therefore, therefore, proposes several ways in which the school climate can be positive by reducing bullying. He proposes the following methods:

Put in place a whole school bullying prevention and intervention programs. Develop confidence for each student, so that they can make their own decisions and they dare to stand up for what they believe is right. The student who has the bullying behavior should be empowered to think about their choices of behavior. They should be encouraged to take responsibility for their actions (Dean, Warren, Richard & D'Orazio, 2017).

The school should provide support for any activities that seem to promote team building and awareness among the students. The school can do this by participating in bullying awareness campaigns, respect and inclusiveness to show the students that such behavior will not be tolerated. These un-tolerated behaviors include discrimination of any form, harassment, and bullying. This will create respect among all students, and it will be doubtful to record cases of racism (Bosworth & Judkins, 2014)

Create understanding among students, so that stigma that might arise due to a student emotional weakness or race is reduced. The school can even create a poster advocating for social well-being (Bosworth & Judkins, 2014).

The literature by (Yablon,2015). suggests that safety can only be provided to the student who feels pre-disposed to risks that come with the unsafe environment. Therefore, the safety measures should support a student who has previously undergone bullying by showing them love and connecting them to people who can help them reform. The healing students can also be given insights that help them build self-insight instead of planning for revenge. Make the student to be engaged and spend time with other individuals. Isolation can lead to anti-social behavior making the student vulnerable to punishments that might lead to school drop-out.

O'malley, Voight, Renshaw & Eklund, (2015) believes that a positive school environment is achieved in the classroom more than any other place. The classroom should, therefore, be set in a way that it reduces any form of indiscipline and bullying. The classroom teacher should organize the classroom in a way that promotes collaboration among students making them bond. The teacher should also ensure that at classroom level there is respect to diversity of the student population that is in the class. All the races in the class should feel welcome and appreciated. The student should be able to recognize themselves in their environment.

Apart from just the classroom, the school has a role to play in providing a favorable climate for the student. Engage the student in many forms of eco-friendly behaviors. School clean-up programs, equity walk, a welcome banner organization that have several languages to show diversity. The school can organize regular drills to avoid emergency fall-outs caused by fires or any other accidents. These ensure the physical safety of the student (DiPaola & Tschannen-Moran 2014).

Inclusivity

Favorable school climate encourages all the voices to speak and contribute to the agendas of the school. The student should have a voice in the making of the school. Students should feel like partners and not as passengers. The student council should be engaged responsibly to help solve any matters before they get out of hand (Gray, Wilcox & Nordstokke, 2017).

Provide opportunities for the students. Peer mentoring programs and any appropriate list where the students are supposed to participate should be openly gifted to them. The students should also be encouraged to participate in any forms of self-learning environments, that will make them feel important. This is according to the literature by Osher, Kidron, DeCandia, Kendziora, Weissberg, Wentzel & Ramani, (2016)

Apart from the student being given the voices, the literature further gives the role of the parent. The parent and the community should be engaged in the school progress. The school should, therefore, foster and sustain a positive and welcoming environment for the parents and the community. The communication strategy should be programmed so that the parents and the community receive frequent communication on what goes on, in the life of the school and the discipline of the student. Parents can be provided with the tip- sheet of how they should contribute to the discipline program of the school. Parents, who have diverse talents example coaches, arts and dancers can help students of anti-social behavior feel welcome and not out of this world (Osher, Kidron, DeCandia, Kendziora, Weissberg, Wentzel & Ramani, 2016)

The inclusivity part of ensuring a favorable school climate has challenges. It is, therefore, tough to ensure that it achieves disciplinary actions that will save young students from dropping out of school or face the juvenile criminal system. Unwilling parents and community can make it exceptionally difficult to achieve transparency between the two groups so that the students are engaged both at home and in school. Some families are also over-protective of their students. They never want their students to be fully engaged and any disciplinary actions, they blame it on the teacher (Cornell, Shukla & Konold,2015).

Quality teacher instruction to be used to reduce school to prison pipeline

A research-based article by Ngwokabuenui, (2015), gives an in-depth analysis of how classrooms and the student instructions can be used along with other issues to help solve increased cases of dropouts and criminal cases based on school indiscipline. The article draws its research from cognitive science, master teachers, and cognitive supports. Through cognitive science, the research focused on how the brains acquire instructions from the teachers. How the mental space of the brain, conceive and stores it permanently. Master teachers are those teachers that benefitted from their instructions and therefore shared their story in the article. The children instructions that are complex and unique to each of them and help achieve the wanted result.

The article by Ngwokabuenui, (2015), suggests that there are ten ways in which instructions can be given to the student so that it sticks. It is assumed that when instructions are delivered well, they lead to excellent academic achievement. The academic achievement is then translated into good behavior that prevents any further drop-outs or even students landing in criminal behavior.

The literature suggests that instructions should be given with a short review of the previous learning. These will ensure that the students efficiently acquire, rehearse and connect knowledge. It is easier for the student to apply the learned information in new situations with a lot of ease (Ngwokabuenui, 2015).

New material should be presented slowly in steps, presenting all of them at once can lead to confusion among the students, the material should be presented slowly at a time. This makes the children slowly adapt to the new system. Bring a new instruction once is likely to create jittery among students. The students might retaliate through very aggressive ways that might warrant punitive measures like suspension (Ravitch, 2016)

Before the introduction of a new rule, the students and other key stakeholders should be questioned, and their suggestions are taken into significant consideration. The questioning also helps the student practice the new instruction, therefore helping them relate. If the instruction is too complicated, the teacher might develop a prompt, models and guide that will make the student get the rough idea of what is expected of them. They, therefore, can quickly develop independence of applying the newly learned instruction (Ravitch, 2016).

Providing a clear line of instructions, with no contradiction. This helps the student know the boundaries of operation of the suggested rule. Check for student understanding by confirming, they understood what was going on. They will learn the instructions with very few errors. The teacher should also be able to predict the errors that the student might do following the instructions. All this when respected, there would be a high retention rate by the student. This leads to a high success rate that translates into good academic and social behavior (Araujo, Carneiro, Cruz-Aguayo & Schady, (2016).

Learning styles

There are several learning styles, that can be used to nature good behavior. Nurturing good behavior will lead to reduced indiscipline conduct.

(Entwistle & Ramsden,2015), advises that several learning styles can help, he gives seven learning styles that he explains, will work exceptionally well. The seven learning styles are; aural, visual, verbal, kinesthetic, active and reflective, sensing and intuitive and sequential and global.

According to Entwistle & Ramsden (2015), visual memory records that which comes to us through the eye. 60% of the learner’s population learn through this method. The teacher should, therefore, be able to make the learner see more of the examples by showing them how.

Verbal –auditory learning makes learners remember things best when explained or written in words. They should, therefore, be clear instructions that enhance learning. Kinesthetic learning is learning through manipulation, with the provision of concrete instructions and techniques. This helps the student the reason with things that they can see (Cheng & Chau,2016)

Differentiated instructions

Differentiated instructions according to the literature by (Subban, 2014), a process by which teachers enhance instructions according to the nature of the learners they have. They create an assessment that matches the level of their learners. All students have access to the same instruction, but more is tailored towards making it more real to the type of learner, their background, and ability.

The teacher, therefore, has to introduce the content to the ability of the student. Make the student access the information in every ability they can. The demonstration of the instruction by the student will be according to their uniqueness. The article further dictates that differentiated instruction help caters to students with disabilities and students of a different race from the teacher and the student. This measure, therefore, ensures that students from African-American families are appreciated compared to students from white families. Same case with Latinos (Dixon, Yssel, McConnell & Hardin, 2014)

Benjamin (2014), stipulates that it might be discouraging for students to learn they are unique, so they are given a unique system if it’s not explained to them adequately. It should be a free exercise guided by formative assessment, where each ability is noted. Each student individual is then clustered in their right classes and given the right treatment unique to them. The teacher can even provide tools that develop personal agendas. So each student feels unique. This method according to the same literature can be complicated when the student to teacher ratio is very biased. There should be a balanced class that encourages connection between the two.

Park & Datnow (2017), applauds the method by appreciating that it encourages students to create their programs. Therefore, they don’t have to engage in criminal activities. The teacher will only give the required elements that are required for the project. He further says that aggressive children can re-direct their aggressiveness, anti-social students can re-direct their intrinsic strength to arts. Therefore, each energy is directed to the correct path thereby reducing the story of a particular group feel stigmatized so that they engage in harmful behavior.

21st-century skills

21st-century students should have unique skills specific to them (Griffin & Care,2014). They need to possess the ability to be self-directed and collaborate with individuals, groups, and machines. Basten, Evers, Geijsel, & Vermeulen (2018), stresses that the unique current education should be even more specific to its unique style, which comes with a lot of social networking.

Students can communicate with students from other forums. (Abao, Dayagbil, & Boholano, 2015) acknowledge that education in the 21st century highlights globalization and internationalization. Any advancement of technology presents the teacher and the student with the opportunity to interact even more. Theoretical constructs are given more insights and therefore creating knowledge, skills, and attitudes in the learner.

As revealed by Boholano (2017), ICT is one of the best methods used in this century. School absenteeism can be monitored using the technological method ensuring that student attendance is easily monitored by the teachers. The teachers’ role is to motivate the learner about the advantages of technology and other 21st-century learning skills.

Learners who might need the teachers’ guidance in using social networking should be offered support and guidance from the teacher (Boholano, 2017). These students can then solve real-world problems by designing their inquiries, planning their learning, organizing their research and implementing a multitude of learning strategies (Canoy & Boholano, 2015).

21st-century learning skills can solve the problems of drop-outs and criminal activities within students. But according to Griffin & Care (2014), there is a problem in the system. Most teachers training are not updated to the 21st-century skills. They are limited to the traditional teacher training. If they adapt to the new system, it would be easier to implement the 21st-century skills in solving the school to prison pipeline challenges.

Culturally responsive teaching students from different cultures in the school

Schools operate from different backgrounds. There are several students from diverse backgrounds. Cultural responsive teaching is where the teacher appreciates all the students and their diversity. This is done by including the student's cultural background to their learning. According to Gruenewal (2014), describes these as the best form of ensuring African American students and Latinos are included in the learning environment so that they don’t feel odd about themselves.

Cultural responsive teaching

According to Herrera (2015), there are teacher strategies that can make sure the culturally responsive teaching is adopted by teachers. The first strategy is the teacher making sure they learn about their students. Learning about the students makes the student warm-up to the teacher. The warm-up will lead to the creation of the trust. If any of the children will have been undergoing any school challenges, it easier for them to open up to the teacher so that the teacher can take action before the problem can lead to criminal measures.

Integrating world cultural problems to each leaner help them understand that it’s not only their culture that undergoes the same, but all the others do undergo the same problem. But they have to learn to manage their problems. Retaliation might lead to jail sentencing or even worse (Hollie, 2017).

The teacher should invite guest speakers from different cultures. The speakers will help the student understand how each of them is important and unique in their way. A war veteran, for example, would deliver a speech on how people can get out of difficult situation. Getting out of this situation make the learners understand how, each of them can be unique in their way (Hollie, 2017).

Involving everyone according to Hollie (2017) is the crucial feature that culturally responsive teaching is built upon. Calling on each student during lessons allow them to share their unique perspectives. Each of them, therefore, feels wanted in the class and that their culture is appreciated.

These pieces of literature, therefore, suggest clear ways in which school-to-prison through the pipeline can be avoided within the school before they get too serious juvenile crimes. The discriminated races are also mentioned in the pieces of literature and how they are pre-disposed to such factors that led them to school drop-out and finally jail. These build into the research even further having a clear view of what other scholars say about the school-to-prison pipeline (Lewthwaite, Owen, Doiron, Renaud & McMillan, (2017).

References

Amstutz, L. S. (2015). The little book of restorative discipline for schools: Teaching responsibility; creating caring climates. Skyhorse Publishing, Inc.

Anderson, K., & Ritter, G. (2017). Do school discipline policies treat students fairly? A second look at school discipline rate disparities.

Anyon, Y., Gregory, A., Stone, S., Farrar, J., Jenson, J. M., McQueen, J., ... & Simmons, J. (2016). Restorative interventions and school discipline sanctions in a large urban school district. American Educational Research Journal, 53(6), 1663-1697.

Araujo, M. C., Carneiro, P., Cruz-Aguayo, Y., & Schady, N. (2016). Teacher quality and learning outcomes in kindergarten. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 131(3), 1415-1453.

Basten, F., Evers, A., Geijsel, F., & Vermeulen, M. (2018). 21st-century leadership skills for learning networks

Benjamin, A. (2014). Differentiated Instruction: A Guide for Elementary School Teachers. Routledge.

Boholano, H. B. (2017). Smart social networking: 21st Century teaching and learning skills. Istraživanja u pedagogiji, 7(1), 21-29.

Borkar, V. N. (2016). Positive school climate and positive education: Impact on students well-being. Indian Journal of Health & Wellbeing, 7(8).

Bosworth, K., & Judkins, M. (2014). Tapping into the power of the school climate to prevent bullying: One application of schoolwide positive behavior interventions and supports. Theory Into Practice, 53(4), 300-307.

Burke, M. D., Davis, J. L., Hagan-Burke, S., Lee, Y. H., & Fogarty, M. S. (2014). Using SWPBS expectations as a screening tool to predict behavioral risk in middle school. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 16(1), 5-17.

Canoy, J. P., & Boholano, H. B. (2015). Early start DENVER model: A meta-analysis. Journal of Education and Learning (EduLearn), 9(4), 314-327.

Cheng, G., & Chau, J. (2016). Exploring the relationships between learning styles, online participation, learning achievement and course satisfaction: An empirical study of a blended learning course. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(2), 257-278.

Cornell, D., Shukla, K., & Konold, T. (2015). Peer victimization and authoritative school climate: A multilevel approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(4), 1186.

Darwin, C. (2016). The Relationships Among Behavior, Teacher Efficacy, Academic Achievement and Cultural Considerations: Accentuating the Positive.

de Leon-Abao, E., Boholano, H. B., & Dayagbil, F. T. (2015). Engagement to Social Networking: Challenges and Opportunities for Educators. European Scientific Journal, ESJ, 11(16).

Dean, T. D., Warren, J. S., Richard, F., & D'Orazio, M. (2017). Using Student Ambassadors to Create and Maintain a Positive Climate.

DiPaola, M., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2014). Organizational citizenship behavior in schools and its relationship to school climate. Journal of School Leadership, 11(5), 424-447.

Dixon, F. A., Yssel, N., McConnell, J. M., & Hardin, T. (2014). Differentiated instruction, professional development, and teacher efficacy. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 37(2), 111-127.

Durlak, J. A. (2016). Programme implementation in social and emotional learning: basic issues and research findings. Cambridge Journal of Education, 46(3), 333-345.

Dworkin, J., & Serido, J. (2017). The Role of Families in Supporting Social and Emotional Learning.

EDUCATION, P. (2015). SOCIAL/EMOTIONAL LEARNING.

Entwistle, N., & Ramsden, P. (2015). Understanding student learning (Routledge Revivals). Routledge.

Erevelles, N. (2014). Crippin’Jim Crow: Disability, dislocation, and the school-to-prison pipeline. In Disability incarcerated (pp. 81-99). Palgrave Macmillan, New York.

Espelage, D. L., Rose, C. A., & Polanin, J. R. (2015). Social-emotional learning program to reduce bullying, fighting, and victimization among middle school students with disabilities. Remedial and special education, 36(5), 299-311.

Fagan, A. A., Hawkins, J. D., & Shapiro, V. B. (2015). Taking SEL to scale in schools: The role of community coalitions.

Fallon, L. M., McCarthy, S. R., & Sanetti, L. M. H. (2014). School-wide positive behavior support (SWPBS) in the classroom: Assessing perceived challenges to consistent implementation in Connecticut schools. Education and treatment of children, 37(1), 1-24.

Feuerborn, L. L., Wallace, C., & Tyre, A. D. (2016). A qualitative analysis of middle and high school teacher perceptions of schoolwide positive behavior supports. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 18(4), 219-229.

Gagnon, D. J., Jaffee, E. M., & Kennedy, R. (2016). Exclusionary Discipline Highest in New Hampshire's Urban Schools: Suspension and Expulsion Found to Disproportionately Affect Disadvantaged Students. Regional Issue Brief Number 46. Carsey School of Public Policy.

González, T. (2015). Socializing schools: Addressing racial disparities in the discipline through restorative justice.

Gray, C., Wilcox, G., & Nordstokke, D. (2017). Teacher mental health, school climate, inclusive education and student learning: A review. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 58(3), 203.

Gregory, A., & Fergus, E. (2017). Social and emotional learning and equity in school discipline. The Future of Children, 117-136.

Gregory, A., Bell, J., & Pollock, M. (2016). How educators can eradicate disparities in school discipline. In Inequality in School Discipline (pp. 39-58). Palgrave Macmillan, New York.

Gregory, A., Clawson, K., Davis, A., & Gerewitz, J. (2016). The promise of restorative practices to transform teacher-student relationships and achieve equity in school discipline. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 26(4), 325-353.

Gregory, A., Clawson, K., Davis, A., & Gerewitz, J. (2016). The promise of restorative practices to transform teacher-student relationships and achieve equity in school discipline. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 26(4), 325-353.

Griffin, P., & Care, E. (Eds.). (2014). Assessment and teaching of 21st-century skills: Methods and approach. Springer.

Gruenewald, D. A. (2014). Place-based education: Grounding culturally responsive teaching in geographical diversity. In Place-based education in the global age (pp. 161-178). Routledge.

Guenther, L., & Taylor, C. (2016). Introduction: Queer, Trans, and Feminist Responses to the Prison Nation. Philosophia, 6(1), 1-8.

Harder, A., & Shelter, C. W. S. E. (2017). Promoting social-emotional learning to improve academic achievement, mental health, and overall well-being in youth.

Heilbrun, A., Cornell, D., & Lovegrove, P. (2015). Principal attitudes regarding zero tolerance and racial disparities in school suspensions. Psychology in the Schools, 52(5), 489-499.

Heitzeg, N. A. (2016). The School-to-Prison Pipeline: Education, Discipline, and Racialized Double Standards: Education, Discipline, and Racialized Double Standards. ABC-CLIO.

Herrera, S. G. (2015). Biography-driven culturally responsive teaching. Teachers College Press.

Hollie, S. (2017). Culturally and linguistically responsive teaching and learning. Teacher Created Materials.

Huang, F. 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.

Ispa-Landa, S. (2018). Persistently Harsh Punishments Amid Efforts to Reform: Using Tools From Social Psychology to Counteract Racial Bias in School Disciplinary Decisions. Educational Researcher, 0013189X18779578.

Kendziora, K., & Yoder, N. (2016). When Districts Support and Integrate Social and Emotional Learning (SEL): Findings from an Ongoing Evaluation of Districtwide Implementation of SEL. Education Policy Center at American Institutes for Research.

Kupchik, A., & Catlaw, T. J. (2015). Discipline and participation: The long-term effects of suspension and school security on the political and civic engagement of youth. Youth & Society, 47(1), 95-124.

Kurth, J. A., & Enyart, M. (2016). SWPBS and students with significant disabilities: Where are we?.

Kurth, J. A., Hagiwara, M., Enyart, M., & Zagona, A. (2017). The inclusion of students with significant disabilities in SWPBS evaluation tools. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 52(4), 383-392.

Lawlor, M. S. (2014). Mindfulness in practice: Considerations for implementation of mindfulness‐based programming for adolescents in school contexts. New directions for youth development, 2014(142), 83-95.

Lewthwaite, B., Owen, T., Doiron, A., Renaud, R., & McMillan, B. (2017). Culturally responsive teaching in Yukon First Nation settings: What does it look like and what is its influence?. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, (155).

Losen, D. J., Hodson, C. L., Keith, I. I., Michael, A., Morrison, K., & Belway, S. (2015). Are we closing the school discipline gap?.

Low, S., Smolkowski, K., & Cook, C. (2016). What constitutes high-quality implementation of SEL programs? A latent class analysis of Second Step® implementation. Prevention Science, 17(8), 981-991.

Lustick, H. (2017). “Restorative Justice” or Restoring Order? Restorative School Discipline Practices in Urban Public Schools. Urban Education, 0042085917741725.

Lustick, H. (2017). Administering discipline differently: A Foucauldian lens on restorative school discipline.

Mallett, C. A. (2016). The school-to-prison pipeline: A critical review of the punitive paradigm shift. Child and adolescent social work journal, 33(1), 15-24.

Meek, S., & Gilliam, W. (2016). Expulsion and Suspension in Early Education as Matters of Social Justice and Health Equity.

Monahan, K. C., VanDerhei, S., Bechtold, J., & Cauffman, E. (2014). From the schoolyard to the squad car: School discipline, truancy, and arrest. Journal of youth and adolescence, 43(7), 1110-1122.

Morgan, E., Salomon, N., Plotkin, M., & Cohen, R. (2014). The school discipline consensus report: Strategies from the field to keep students engaged in school and out of the juvenile justice system. New York, NY: Council of State Governments Justice Center.

Morgan, E., Salomon, N., Plotkin, M., & Cohen, R. (2014). The school discipline consensus report: Strategies from the field to keep students engaged in school and out of the juvenile justice system. New York, NY: Council of State Governments Justice Center.

Nance, J. P. (2015). Over-disciplining students, racial bias, and the school-to-prison pipeline. U. Rich. L. Rev., 50, 1063.

Ngwokabuenui, P. Y. (2015). Students' Indiscipline: Types, Causes, and Possible Solutions: The Case of Secondary Schools in Cameroon. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(22), 64-72.

Okonofua, J. A., Paunesku, D., & Walton, G. M. (2016). Brief intervention to encourage empathic discipline cuts suspension rates in half among adolescents. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(19), 5221-5226.

Okonofua, J. A., Walton, G. M., & Eberhardt, J. L. (2016). A vicious cycle: A social–psychological account of extreme racial disparities in school discipline. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(3), 381-398.

O'malley, M., Voight, A., Renshaw, T. L., & Eklund, K. (2015). School climate, family structure, and academic achievement: A study of moderation effects. School Psychology Quarterly, 30(1), 142.

Ortega, L., Lyubansky, M., Nettles, S., & Espelage, D. L. (2016). Outcomes of a restorative circles program in a high school setting. Psychology of Violence, 6(3), 459.

Osher, D., Kidron, Y., DeCandia, C. J., Kendziora, K., Weissberg, R. P., Wentzel, K. R., & Ramani, G. (2016). Interventions to promote safe and supportive school climate. Handbook of social influences in school contexts, emotional, motivation, and cognitive outcomes. New York: Routledge, 384-404.

Owens, J., & McLanahan, S. (2017). The Origins of the Racial Gap in School Suspension and Expulsion (No. wp17-15-ff).

Owens, J., & McLanahan, S. (2018). Unpacking the Drivers of Racial Disparities in School Suspension and Expulsion (No. wp18-04-ff).

Park, V., & Datnow, A. (2017). Ability grouping and differentiated instruction in an era of data-driven decision making. American Journal of Education, 123(2), 000-000.

Payne, A. A., & Welch, K. (2015). Restorative justice in schools: The influence of race on restorative discipline. Youth & Society, 47(4), 539-564.

Payne, R. L. (2017). The Relationship of Principal Gender and Teacher Perceptions of School Climate on Suspension and Expulsion Rates of High School Students (Doctoral dissertation, University of Mississippi).

Ravitch, D. (2016). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education. Basic Books.

Skiba, R. J. (2014). The failure of zero tolerance. Reclaiming children and youth, 22(4), 27.

Skiba, R. J., & Losen, D. J. (2016). From Reaction to Prevention: Turning the Page on School Discipline. American Educator, 39(4), 4.

Skiba, R. J., Chung, C. G., Trachok, M., Baker, T. L., Sheya, A., & Hughes, R. L. (2014). Parsing disciplinary disproportionality: Contributions of the infraction, student, and school characteristics to out-of-school suspension and expulsion. American Educational Research Journal, 51(4), 640-670.

Skinner, B. F. (2014). Verbal behavior. BF Skinner Foundation.

Smith, E. J., & Harper, S. R. (2015). The disproportionate impact of K-12 school suspension and expulsion on Black students in southern states. Center for the Study of Race and Equity in Education. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved from http://www. use. UPenn. edu/equity/sites/use. UPenn. ed. equity/files/publications/SOUTHADVANCEDDRAFT24AUG15. pdf.

Song, S. Y., & Swearer, S. M. (2016). The cart before the horse: The challenge and promise of restorative justice consultation in schools.

Stahl, S. D. (2016). The Evolution of Zero-Tolerance Policies. CrissCross, 4(1), 7.

Subban, P. (2014). Differentiated instruction at work: The creation of a checklist for beginning and pre-service teachers. In South Africa International Conference on Education (p. 38).

Vincent, C. G., Inglish, J., Girvan, E. J., Sprague, J. R., & McCabe, T. M. (2016). School-wide positive and restorative discipline (SWPRD): Integrating school-wide positive behavior interventions and supports and restorative discipline. In Inequality in school discipline (pp. 115-134). Palgrave Macmillan, New York.

Wadhwa, A. (2015). Restorative justice in urban schools: Disrupting the school-to-prison pipeline. Routledge.

Weissberg, R. P., Durlak, J. A., Domitrovich, C. E., & Gullotta, T. P. (2015). Social and emotional learning: Past, present, and future.

Winkler, D. M., & Flood, K. (2015). Sustaining a Positive School Climate at the Middle School Setting.

Yablon, Y. B. (2015). Positive school climate as a resilience factor in armed conflict zones. Psychology of Violence, 5(4), 393.

Yosuf, I., Zafar, N., & Kausar, R. (2016). Perceived Inter-Parental Conflicts, Emotional Security and Self-Discipline in Adolescents. Journal of Behavioural Sciences, 26(1).