Buy ebook Inequality in school discipline: research and practice to reduce disparities 1st edition r
Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://textbookfull.com/product/inequality-in-school-discipline-research-and-practice-t o-reduce-disparities-1st-edition-russell-j-skiba/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant download maybe you interests ...
Research Methods and Design Beyond a Single Discipline: From Principles to Practice 1st Edition Heting Chu
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature
The registered company is Nature America Inc. New York
It is to the many individuals and organizations who have dedicated themselves to discovering more effective and socially just practices in education and juvenile justice, and to the children and youth who are the beneficiaries of those efforts, that we dedicate this book.
A
CKNOWLEDGMENTS
This volume grew directly out of the efforts of the Discipline Disparities Research-to-Practice Collaborative, whose members committed three years to meetings, writing, and collaboration in order to identify the critical issues in the field, and commission the research projects that form the heart of this book. The Collaborative was composed of researchers, advocates, educators, policy analysts, juvenile justice representatives, and funders who contributed a disproportionate share of their professional lives to clarifying the issues, acting as review panels for research applications, writing and editing Collaborative publications, and most of all, building a hard-won consensus across disciplines. In particular, we are deeply grateful to the other members of the leadership team, Dan Losen and Tanya Coke, themselves intellectual leaders in this field, for their extraordinary effort and insight in helping establish the direction and activities of the Collaborative. Other members of the Discipline Disparities Collaborative include James Bell, Judith Browne-Dianis, Prudence Carter, Christopher Chatmon, Tanya Coke, Matt Cregor, Manuel Criollo, Jim Eichner, Eddie Fergus, Michelle Fine, Phillip Atiba Goff, Paul Goren, Anne Gregory, Damon Hewitt, Tammy Bang Luu, Pedro Noguera, Blake Norton, Mica Pollock, Stephen Russell, Leticia Smith-Evans Haynes, Lisa Thomas, Michael Thompson, and Ivory Toldson. We are extremely grateful to the numerous professional organizations, researchers, and policymakers at the federal and state level who contributed to the effort through their participation in stakeholder meetings and in the release and dissemination of the Collaborative briefing papers.1
We also gratefully acknowledge the funders who made this effort possible—the Atlantic Philanthropies, the Open Society Foundations, and a group of anonymous donors—who not only provided resources for the effort, but remained actively engaged throughout the lifespan of the Collaborative in moving the efforts and issues forward. A big thanks is also due to the staff of the Equity Project at Indiana University—Mariella Arredondo, Shana Ritter, Fatima McKenzie, Jillian DeHaan, Amara Lovato, and Natasha Williams—for their work on coordination and logistics in planning complex meetings and conferences in multiple cities across the nation.
This volume could not have been completed without the hard work, perseverance, and expertise of Jennifer Turrentine, who helped manage the organization of all aspects of the book from start to finish, doing whatever she had to do to keep it on track. We’re grateful for the keen copyediting skills of Leigh Kupersmith, and for her ability to track down the hardestto-find references and citations. Thanks also to the Palgrave Macmillan editorial team, Mara Berkoff, Milana Vernikova, and Sarah Nathan for their gracious and helpful assistance. Finally, words are not sufficient to express our gratitude to our partners and families, whose patience and support during the process never flagged.
The pace at which the public discourse on school discipline and inequity has changed in our nation has been remarkable. Finally, we acknowledge the ongoing efforts of individuals and organizations, too numerous to mention, who have made a long-term commitment to finding equitable and research-based alternatives to out-of-school suspension and expulsion. It is to many individuals and organizations who have dedication to discovering more effective and socially just practices in education and juvenile justice, and to the children and youth who are the beneficiaries of those efforts, that we dedicate this book.
NOTE
1. A complete listing of the institutional affiliations of all members and partner organizations as well as the products and publications of the Collaborative can be found at the Discipline Disparities website http://rtpcollaborative. indiana.edu/.
5 Does Student–Teacher Racial/Ethnic Match Impact Black Students’ Discipline Risk? A Test of the Cultural Synchrony Hypothesis 79
Jamilia J. Blake, Danielle M. Smith, Miner P. Marchbanks III, Allison L. Seibert, Steve M. Wood, and Eun Sook Kim
6 Reducing Racial Disparities in School Discipline: Structured Decision-Making in the Classroom 99
Aishatu R. Yusuf, Angela Irvine, and James Bell
7 School-wide Positive and Restorative Discipline (SWPRD): Integrating School-wide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports and Restorative Discipline 115
Claudia G. Vincent, John Inglish, Erik J. Girvan, Jeffrey R. Sprague, and Timothy M. McCabe
8 Ecologies of School Discipline for Queer Youth: What Listening to Queer Youth Teaches Us About Transforming School Discipline 135
L. Boyd Bellinger, Nicole Darcangelo, Stacey S. Horn, Erica R. Meiners, and Sarah Schriber
9 The Potential of Restorative Approaches to Discipline for Narrowing Racial and Gender Disparities 153
Anne Gregory and Kathleen Clawson
10 Intersectional Inquiries with LGBTQ and Gender Nonconforming Youth of Color: Participatory Research on Discipline Disparities at the Race/ Sexuality/Gender Nexus 171
Jennifer F. Chmielewski, Kimberly M. Belmonte, Brett G. Stoudt, and Michelle Fine
11 Research and Training to Mitigate the Effects of Implicit Stereotypes and Masculinity Threat on Authority Figures’ Interactions with Adolescents and Non-Whites
Kimberly Barsamian Kahn, Phillip Atiba Goff, and Jack Glaser
12 Discipline Disparities for LGBTQ Youth: Challenges that Perpetuate Disparities and Strategies to Overcome Them
Shannon D. Snapp and Stephen T. Russell
13 From Punitive to Restorative: One School’s Journey to Transform Its Culture and Discipline Practices to Reduce Disparities
Marieka Schotland, Harriet MacLean, Karen Junker, and Jean Phinney
Daniel J. Losen and Leticia Smith-Evans Haynes
L IST OF C ONTRIBUTORS
Mariella I. Arredondo, Ph.D., is an Associate Director of the Equity Project at Indiana University. Her research interests include the examination of impediments to educational equity, such as racial/ethnic disparities in exclusionary school discipline, as well as improving the educational access, survival, and outcomes of underserved students.
James Bell, Esq. is the Founder and Executive Director of the W. Haywood Burns Institute. Since 2001, Bell has spearheaded a national movement to address racial and ethnic disparities in public systems serving youth of color and their communities.
L. Boyd Bellinger is a Doctoral Student studying the social foundations of education in the Policy Studies in Urban Education department at the University of Illinois-Chicago. Boyd’s research interests include the experience of LGBTQ young people with policing and surveillance both inside and outside of school contexts.
Kimberly M. Belmonte, M.A., is a Doctoral Student in the Critical Social/ Personality Psychology program at the Graduate Center, City University of New York. Her research interests focus on the intersection of justice, gender, and sexuality.
Jamilia J. Blake, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor in the School Psychology program in the Department of Educational Psychology at Texas A&M University. Her research interests surround children’s peer relations and she is interested in exploring peer-directed aggression in ethnic/minority populations and females and the relation between peer-directed aggression and children’s psychological/social adjustment, academic achievement, and familial risk and protective factors.
Jennifer F. Chmielewski, Ed.M., is a Doctoral Student in Critical Social/ Personality Psychology at the Graduate Center, City University of New York. Her research uses critical feminist theories and methods to explore women and girls’ lived experiences of gender, desire, and sexual identity.
Eddie S.K. Chong holds an M.A. in Mental Health Counseling from Boston College (2014). His research relates to stigmatized groups across lifespans and cultures, and examines factors that foster community building and resilience of such groups.
Kathleen Clawson, Psy.D., is a School Psychologist in the Upper Darby School District. Her research interests include disproportionality in academic and behavioral outcomes.
Nicole Darcangelo is a Doctoral Student in the Educational Psychology program at the University of Illinois-Chicago. Darcangelo is interested in the intersections of race, gender, sexuality, and mental health within the school and prison nexus.
Michelle Fine, Ph.D., is a Distinguished Professor of Social Psychology, Women’s Studies, and Urban Education at the Graduate Center, City University of New York (CUNY), and co-founder of the Public Science Project at the Graduate Center, CUNY. Her work addresses theoretical questions of social injustice that sit at the intersection of public policy and social research, particularly with respect to youth in schools and criminal justice.
Erik J. Girvan, J.D., Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor at the University of Oregon School of Law. Girvan teaches courses on the law and psychology of discrimination and the psychology of conflict. His research focuses on investigating practical, theory-driven ways to help reduce the effects of bias in the legal system and other related contexts.
Jack Glaser, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor at the Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley. He conducts research on stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination, examining phenomena ranging from unconscious thoughts, feelings, and motives to discriminatory behaviors like racial profiling and hate crimes.
Phillip Atiba Goff, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Social Psychology at UCLA and Co-founder and President of the Center for Policing Equity. An expert in contemporary forms of racial bias and discrimination, Goff’s research focuses on how contextual explanations play an under-explored role in producing racial inequality. He is also one of the four lead Principal Investigators on the National Justice Database, the first national-level data collection on police officer behavior in North America.
Chrystal Gray is a Ph.D. candidate in the School Psychology program at Indiana University. She works as a graduate assistant at the Equity Project at Indiana University. Her research interests include racial and gender disproportionality in school discipline and the evaluation of interventions used to reduce these disparities.
Anne Gregory, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor at the Graduate School of Applied and Professional Psychology at Rutgers University. Her research has focused on the persistent trend that African American adolescents are issued school suspension and expulsion at higher rates than adolescents from other groups.
Stacey S. Horn, Ph.D., is a Professor of Education and Developmental Psychology and Chair of the Department of Educational Psychology at the University of Illinois-Chicago. Her research focuses on issues of sexual prejudice among adolescents and adolescents’ reasoning about peer harassment.
John Inglish, J.D., is an Education Specialist at the Oregon Department of Education. Formerly, he was a research associate at the University of Oregon where he directed Technical Assistance and Consulting Services in the College of Education. His work focuses on the intersection of law, public policy, and education, with an emphasis on restorative practices.
Angela Irvine, Ph.D., is a Vice President at Impact Justice, in Oakland, California. Irvine has more than 20 years of experience in education, health, and criminal justice policy and has served as the principal investigator of a national study of juvenile de-incarceration, and a national study of LGBT youth in the juvenile justice system.
Karen Junker, M.Div., is a Consultant and Trainer for the International Institute for Restorative Practices, and works in a variety of school districts throughout California. She is also a 6th grade math teacher with an expertise in communitybuilding circles.
Kimberly Barsamian Kahn, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of Social Psychology at Portland State University. Kahn’s research addresses contemporary forms of subtle racial bias, including implicit bias and social identity threats. Her work focuses on how racial stereotypes affect behavior within the criminal justice domain and in police–suspect interactions.
Eun Sook Kim, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of Educational and Psychological Studies in University of South Florida. She has a broad interest in research methodology and psychometrics including structural equation modeling, multilevel modeling, latent growth analysis, and propensity score analysis. Her focal research interests include measurement invariance testing in multilevel and longitudinal data.
Daniel J. Losen, J.D., is the Director of the Center for Civil Rights Remedies at UCLA’s Civil Rights Project (CRP). On school-to-prison pipeline issues, Losen has conducted law and policy research; published books, reports, and articles; and provided guidance to policymakers, educators, and civil rights’ advocates.
Harriet MacLean, Ed.D., is an Assistant Superintendent of Education Services for San Rafael City Schools in San Rafael, California. Her research interests include school culture and climate, academic motivation, and disproportionality in school discipline.
Miner P. Marchbanks III, Ph.D., is an Associate Research scientist for the Public Policy Research Institute at Texas A&M University. His expertise is in the use of advanced statistical methodologies to answer public policy questions. Statistical capabilities include maximum likelihood estimation, time-series analysis, and other advanced econometric techniques.
Timothy M. McCabe, M.S., is a Restorative Justice Program Manager at the Center for Dialogue and Resolution in Eugene, Oregon. His work focuses on creating opportunities for healing and learning with youth offenders and victims of crime. His recent projects include leading the Restorative Peer Court program and bringing restorative justice principles to schools.
Kavitha Mediratta, Ph.D., is the Head of Racial Equity Programmes at the Atlantic Philanthropies and leads the foundation’s efforts to reform zero-tolerance school discipline policies and promote racial equity. Mediratta is one of the leading researchers on grassroots activism for public education reform in the USA.
Erica R. Meiners, Ph.D., is a Professor in the Department of Educational Leadership and Development at Northeastern Illinois University. Meiners’s work is in the areas of prison/school nexus; gender, access, and technology; community-based research methodologies; and urban education.
Jean Phinney, Ph.D., is a Retired Professor of Psychology at California State University, Los Angeles. Her research interests include adolescent and young adults in first- and second-generation immigrants and restorative justice.
Mica Pollock, Ph.D., is a Professor of Education Studies and Director of the Center for Research on Educational Equity, Assessment, and Teaching Excellence (CREATE) at the University of California, San Diego. Pollock’s work explores how diverse communities can come together in student support efforts. In projects based in schools, districts, cities, community organizations, and the government, Pollock has focused on how people might communicate so they can work together to support every young person’s full human talent development.
V. Paul Poteat, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor in the Department of Counseling, Developmental, and Educational Psychology at Boston College. His research
examines peer norms that perpetuate sexual prejudice and homophobic discrimination across adolescence and identifies factors that buffer against the negative effects of experiencing discrimination.
M. Karega Rausch, Ph.D., is the Former Associate Director and Research Associate with the Equity Project at Indiana University, has authored or coauthored more than 20 professional publications with an emphasis on racial/ethnic disproportionality in school discipline and special education. He is also a sought-after speaker and expert in charter school accountability.
Stephen T. Russell, Ph.D., is the Distinguished Professor and Fitch Nesbitt Endowed Chair in Family and Consumer Sciences in the John & Doris Norton School of Family and Consumer Sciences at the University of Arizona, and Director of the Frances McClelland Institute for Children, Youth, and Families.
Jillian R. Scheer Ph.D., is a Doctoral Student in Counseling Psychology at Boston College. Her research focuses on developmental and chronic trauma, experiences of LGBT youth and heterosexual youth allies in high school Gay Straight Alliances (GSAs), and trauma-informed care for survivors of domestic violence.
Marieka Schotland, Ph.D., is an Independent Consultant specializing in research and program evaluation in schools. Her research interests focus on school culture and climate, socio-emotional connections to school, and restorative justice.
Sarah Schriber, J.D., is the Policy Director at the Illinois Safe Schools Alliance, an organization that supports the safety and healthy development of LGB/T youth in schools and communities. Schriber’s work focuses on ways to support LGB/T youth at different points along the school-to-prison pipeline through policy advocacy.
Allison L. Seibert, M.Ed., is an Associate Director of Advancement for Catholic Charities of Central Texas. Her work focuses on strengthening individuals, families, and communities through direct services, community collaboration, and social justice advocacy.
Russell J. Skiba, Ph.D., is a Professor in the School Psychology program at Indiana University and Director of the Equity Project at Indiana University. His research interests include racial and ethnic disparities in school discipline, school violence prevention, and special education disproportionality. He served as lead facilitator and project director of the Discipline Disparities Research-to-Practice Collaborative. Discipline Disparities Research-to-Practice Collaborative.
Danielle M. Smith, M.Ed., is a Doctoral Student in the School Psychology program at Texas A&M University. Her research interests center on the implications of trauma exposure in educational, criminological, and social/emotional contexts.
Leticia Smith-Evans Haynes, J.D., Ph.D., is an Interim Director of the Education Practice for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. Haynes, a former elementary school teacher, frequently speaks and writes on eliminating racial, gender, and other disparities in education and has served as adjunct faculty at a number of educational institutions.
Shannon D. Snapp, Ph.D., is a Postdoctoral Research fellow at the University of Arizona with interests in health, well-being, sexuality, gender, and sociocultural contexts that support youth. Snapp holds M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in Developmental Psychology from Boston College.
Jeffrey R Sprague, Ph.D., is a Professor of Special Education and Director of the Institute on Violence and Destructive Behavior, University of Oregon. His work focuses on positive behavior interventions and supports, multi-tiered support systems, alternative education, juvenile delinquency prevention and treatment, and school safety.
Brett G. Stoudt, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor in the Psychology Department with a joint appointment in the Gender Studies Program at John Jay College of Criminal justice, as well as the Environmental Psychology Doctoral Program at the Graduate Center, City University of New York.
Claudia G. Vincent, Ph.D., is a Senior Research Assistant in the College of Education at the University of Oregon. Her primary research interests are disparate discipline outcomes across vulnerable student groups and blending positive behavior support with restorative practices to achieve greater equity in student outcomes.
Steve M. Wood, Ph.D., is an Assistant Research Scientist at PPRI working on projects related to criminal justice issues. He has over five years of experience conducting court-related research and specializes in research methodology, survey instrument development, focus groups, and multivariate statistical analysis techniques.
Aishatu R. Yusuf, M.P.A., has nearly 10 years of experience working in Social Policy. Yusuf’s areas of interest include education, juvenile justice, disproportionality in school discipline, criminal justice, justice reforms for girls and women, and child welfare.
L IST OF F IGURES
Fig. 4.1 A model reflecting how the differential behavior perspective, in conjunction with minority stress theory, could account for sexual orientation-based discipline disparities
Fig. 4.2 A model reflecting how the differential selection/processing perspective, in conjunction with minority stress theory, could account for sexual orientation-based discipline disparities
Fig. 5.1 Odds ratio of discipline when moving from a high- to low-congruence school over a six-year secondary school career
Fig. 7.1 Three-tiered continuum of SWPRD blending restorative discipline practices with SWPBIS support tiers
Fig. 9.1 RP implementation and defiance/misconduct referrals by gender and race
Fig. 10.1 Comparisons of LGBTQ and straight youth of color who have been suspended, feel pushed out of school, or have dropped out or been pushed out
Fig. 14.1 Elementary and secondary suspension rates by subgroup, 2011–2012
67
68
88
119
162
178
248
L IST OF T ABLES
Table 5.1 Predictors of first time school discipline within a year
Table 6.1 Common behavior infractions identified by teachers
Table 6.2 How individual OUSD teachers respond to student behavior
Table 6.3 Collaborative classroom matrix
Table 7.1 Demographic characteristics for student survey respondents at pre- and post-intervention
Table 7.2 Changes in self-reported teacher use of RD practices 124
Table 7.3 The impact of race/ethnicity on student perceptions of the constructs of interest, and means and standard deviations for the largest non-white student groups at pre- and post-intervention 125
Table 7.4 The impact of sexual orientation on student perceptions of the constructs of interest, and means and standard deviations for heterosexual and LGBT students at pre- and post-intervention 127
Table 7.5 Students enrolled, students with ODR, and referral rates by student race/ethnicity across academic years and discipline approaches 128
Table 9.1 Predicting misconduct/defiance referrals by gender and race using ordinary least squares regression
Table 10.1 Intersectional survey demographics for participants of color
Table 13.1 Measurement information for survey items
Table 13.2
Table 13.3
PART I
Discipline Disparities: A Research-to-
Practice Collaborative
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Kavitha Mediratta and M. Karega Rausch
Our country recently witnessed the profound and life-altering consequences students face when engaging punitive disciplinary systems. Sitting quietly at her desk at Spring Valley High School in Columbia, South Carolina, Shakara1—a Black female teenager—was grabbed, thrown on the ground and then dragged across the classroom and arrested by a White male school resource officer for failing to comply with instructions to put away her cell phone (Jarvie, 2015; Savali, 2015). The incident, which was captured on video, left Shakara facing misdemeanor charges for “disturbing schools,” a charge that carries a $1000 maximum fine and up to 90 days in jail, as well as a broken arm and injuries to her face, neck, ribs, back, and left shoulder (Love, 2015).
While Shakara’s case sparked national outrage, including an investigation from the US Department of Justice, it is one of many examples of the excessive and racialized overuse of punitive discipline common in schools (Ferris, 2015). Data from the US Department of Education show that Black students, who comprise 16% of overall student enrollment in US public schools, make up more than a quarter of students referred
K. Mediratta ( )
Atlantic Philanthropies, New York, NY, USA
M.K. Rausch
The Equity Project, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA
R.J. Skiba et al. (eds.), Inequality in School Discipline, DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-51257-4_1
to law enforcement from schools and 31% of those arrested for schoolrelated incidents (CRDC, 2014). Nationally, 3.45 million students were suspended from school during the 2011–2012 school year; among those students, Black students were three times more likely to be suspended and expelled than their White peers. Students with disabilities also face increased risk of exclusionary discipline; in 2012, they were twice as likely to be suspended as those without disabilities and represented a quarter of students arrested and referred to law enforcement, although they represented only 13% of the nation’s student population (CRDC, 2014).
Data like these have been the subject of increasing concern to policymakers, civil rights advocates, parents, students, and scholars. Reflecting this growing national awareness, one news report on Shakara’s case observed: “The aggressive discipline [in Spring Valley] is just one example of the school-to-prison pipeline phenomenon, in which Black children are more likely to be criminalized for their behavior than their White peers” (Bellware, 2015). Professional associations such as the American Psychological Association (APA, 2008) have issued reports on the ineffectiveness of and risks associated with disciplinary exclusion, particularly for Black students. Prominent school districts, such as the Los Angeles Unified School District (Jones, 2013), San Francisco Unified School District, and the New York City Department of Education (Blad, 2014), and states such as Colorado (Marcus, 2012), Maryland (St. George, 2014), and California (Public Counsel, 2014) have revised their codes of conduct to focus on preventive alternatives to suspension and expulsion and curb the inequitable use of exclusionary discipline. At the federal level, the US Departments of Justice and Education led a national initiative on school discipline that resulted in federal civil rights guidance aimed at reducing the use of, and disparities in, suspension and expulsion, as well as expanded data collection and monitoring of disciplinary exclusion nationally. Federal agencies are also providing new funding for school-climate interventions, research on best practices, and judicially led multi-stakeholder coalitions to reform policy and practice (U.S. Department of Justice/Department of Education, 2014).
Yet, despite this growing sense of the need for a change and initial steps in some places to address the issue, the field lacks comprehensive analysis of why disciplinary exclusion and disparities have become so prevalent, and what can be done to reverse this trend. Why are some students subjected to harsher discipline than others, and why are suspensions, expulsions, and arrests so widely used? What should we do to change these patterns in schools?
This book intends to answer those questions by providing the most up-to-date and authoritative information on what has been learned from research, data, and practical experience about disciplinary disparities, and the latest findings regarding disparity-reducing approaches. We argue that there is a need to examine the roles of bias and inequality in educational and societal opportunities in the creation of disciplinary disparities in schools. In a context of increasing stakes for educational achievement, the work of disparity reduction could not be more important. Moreover, in light of growing evidence of disparate treatment by law enforcement authorities on the basis of race, we must explore how school-based authorities’ perception of and response to youth behavior contribute to large and continuing disparities in school punishments.
THE DISCIPLINE DISPARITIES COLLABORATIVE
The chapters in this book draw from and were commissioned by the Discipline Disparities Research-to-Practice Collaborative (hereafter, Collaborative). The Collaborative is an inter-disciplinary, multi-sector, and highly diverse group of 28 nationally recognized researchers, advocates, content experts, and practitioners. Launched by the Equity Project at Indiana University and The Atlantic Philanthropies, with additional support from the Open Society Foundations and anonymous donors, the purpose of the Collaborative has been to explore and fill gaps in knowledge specific to disparities in school discipline, and to grow the evidence-base on effective practices, policies, and approaches that substantially reduce or eliminate disparities in discipline.
Initiated in 2011, the Collaborative engaged in more than seven multi-day face-to-face meetings with diverse stakeholders from across the country. That effort was intentional: we believed that such meetings would facilitate a deeper understanding of the context in which disciplinary disparities occur, ensure that our work was grounded in the lived experiences of key stakeholders, and also increase the likelihood that the Collaborative’s research efforts would have real-world applicability and usefulness. The Collaborative met with (1) educators, including parents, teachers, principals, superintendents, and school board representatives; (2) state and national policymakers and policy analysts; (3) communitybased organizations operating disciplinary and juvenile justice–reducing interventions; (4) local and national advocacy organizations; (5) juvenile justice specialists; and (6) researchers and equity trainers.
In addition to grounding the work, those meetings identified key areas in need of additional research. The Collaborative subsequently funded a set of research projects and produced briefing papers and forums to address the important questions and needs of practitioners, parents, advocates, and policymakers, and in particular, expand the availability and knowledge base of promising interventions that could reduce disparities in school discipline for students of color, girls, and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) youth.
This volume presents findings from the Collaborative’s multi-year work. The chapters that follow document the continuing overuse of exclusionary discipline and law enforcement interventions for vulnerable students, and present evidence showing how removal from school for disciplinary purposes contributes to a range of negative school and life outcomes, including grade retention, school dropout, and involvement with the juvenile justice system. In addition to adding to the knowledge base on disparities for students of color and those with disabilities for whom the overuse of exclusionary discipline is increasingly recognized, the book also examines patterns and consequences of exclusionary discipline for students who are gender non-conforming or identify as LGBT, about which comparatively little is known. Finally, the book offers new strategies that policymakers and practitioners can use to reduce disparities.
SCHOOL DISCIPLINE AND EDUCATIONAL EQUITY: FALSE NARRATIVES ON THE NEED FOR EXCLUSIONARY DISCIPLINE
School exclusion—out-of-school suspension, expulsion, and arrest—has become a central component of discipline in our nation’s schools over the past several decades, and both its implementation and consequences fall disproportionally on certain groups. Some studies have suggested that at least a third of all students are now likely to experience an out-of-school suspension or expulsion at some point in their school career (Fabelo et al., 2011). The use of such measures is even higher for Black males, with one estimate suggesting that nearly 70% of these students experience at least one suspension or expulsion during their K-12 academic careers (Shollenberger, 2015).
Chapter 2 of this volume details the substantial negative consequences of the frequent and inequitable use of school exclusion in discipline. In brief, exclusionary discipline is associated with student and teacher perceptions of a more negative climate (Steinberg, Allensworth, & Johnson,
2015); lower levels of academic achievement (Arcia, 2006) and civic and voter participation (Kupchik & Caitlaw, 2013); and an increased risk of negative behavior over time (Tobin, Sugai, & Colvin, 1996), school dropout or failure to graduate on time (Suh & Suh, 2007), and contact with the juvenile justice system (Fabelo et al., 2011). Indeed, the perceived and actual linkage between exclusionary discipline and justice system involvement led youth and civil rights advocates to coin the term “School-toPrison Pipeline” that is now widely used (Mediratta, 2012).
But despite the growing evidence of the harms of exclusionary discipline and its ineffectiveness in increasing safety and academic success, belief in the efficacy of the approach is steadfast among wide-ranging sectors of the public. While the arguments for exclusionary discipline are varied, at least three meta-narratives appear to anchor its support among public school parents, policymakers, school leaders, and staff. These include (1) the narrative of safety and order, (2) the narrative of concentrated poverty, and (3) the narrative of culturally deficient norms of behavior among some students. We explore these narratives below, and present evidence from research and practice on each.
The Safety and Order Narrative
A common view of suspensions and other forms of punitive and exclusionary discipline is that they are necessary to maintain safety and order in schools (Wright, Morgan, Coyne, Beaver, & Barnes, 2014). Initially intended for violence and drug possession (Skiba & Knesting, 2001), exclusionary discipline approaches growing out of “zero tolerance” policies have become the predominant response to children’s misbehavior. This expansion of exclusionary discipline echoes a “broken windows” theory of policing, where a swift and aggressive response to minor offenses is presumed to prevent more serious crimes (Kelling & Wilson, 1982). Suspensions, expulsions, and arrests are assumed to play a key role in “cracking down” on behavior that, if left unchecked, could undermine learning in the classroom. Proponents of the safety and order narrative generally believe that a trend of worsening student behavior both justifies and necessitates broad application of an exclusionary disciplinary strategy (MacDonald, 2012).
Implicit in this narrative, when viewed through the lens of disciplinary disparities, is that students of color, those with disabilities, and students whose sexual orientation or gender expression run counter to
heteronormative assumptions in schools are more likely to have significant behavior problems compared to their peers. Stated differently, proponents of this narrative suggest that marginalized student groups are disproportionately more likely to be violent and disrespectful, and thus afford an increased need to be removed in order to protect the learning environment for other students. However, a growing body of research and practice contradicts these assumptions.
Myth #1: The increasing number of suspensions, expulsions, and arrests in schools is because student behavior in schools is growing worse. A stream of studies indicate that the largest contributor to the rise in use of exclusionary discipline is not a growth in seriously disruptive or violent behaviors, but in the use of these forms of discipline for more minor behaviors (APA, 2008). The use of exclusionary discipline, particularly for out-of-school suspension, is not restricted to serious or dangerous behavior, but rather appears to be most commonly used for more interactive day-to-day disruptions, especially defiance and non-compliance (Gregory & Weinstein, 2008; Skiba et al., 2011). Exclusionary disciplinary strategies have been used for lateness, dress code violations, and similar low-level offenses that do not pose a threat and could be handled differently and, in many schools, are dealt with through non-exclusionary means (Morgan, Salomon, Plotkin, & Cohen, 2014). Moreover, there remains no evidence that the racial disciplinary disparities can be explained by higher rates of disruptive behavior among Black and Latino students. If anything, available evidence suggests that, rather than being more disruptive, those students are punished more severely for similar infractions (Skiba et al., 2011).
Myth #2: Exclusionary discipline is necessary to maintain safety and order, and limiting its use will unleash chaos in schools. Experiences from schools and districts across the country suggest that reform of school disciplinary practice does not result in higher levels of disorder and disruptive behavior in schools. Rather, early findings suggest that school systems shifting away from suspensions toward non-punitive and non-exclusionary forms of discipline and behavior management have experienced higher ratings of safety and improved student attendance and achievement (Gonzalez, 2015). Indeed, rather than improving the learning climate for students who remain in the classroom, frequent use of student removal is associated with a less effective classroom and school climate (Steinberg et al., 2015) and lower academic achievement (Beck & Muschkin, 2012; Perry & Morris, 2014; Rocque, 2010).
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
uses of land outgrown, 5
P : markets in public square, 7
P : agencies created, 280-282
P C : appointment of, in New York in 1913, 190-191; appointment of, in unit idea, 190; creation of, in 1913, in Pennsylvania, 193; history of, 190-198; opportunities of, 202-208
P P , 138-167; building limitations, 140-149; regulations for nuisances, 152-165
P : methods in city planning, 186
P : jury verdict for condemnation in, 93; land-taking procedure in, 35
P T : services of, in condemnation proceedings, 49-50
P O : power limited by municipal regulation, 1; rights in notice and hearing, 25
P P : control of, for public, 19
P P : assessment on land benefited by, 65-66; case cited, 9; ratio of increase in value of assessed area of, 66; special assessment district in, 66
P C : private property under, 19
P H : regulations to prevent encroachment on, 150152
P L : new use for, 7
P O : of land, 1-21
P R : used by municipality, 3
P L : inheritance of, in California, 16
P L : economy in, by cities, 14, 17
R S , C : finding of commissioners for land taking, 40; widening of, 29
R E : instances of appreciation in Chicago, 7-8; sacrifice of, through error, 6
R N : community money appropriated, 2
R : opinions of Londoners regarding, 129
R A : draft of bill in Massachusetts, 107-110; principles of, 107-111; supreme court decision in Massachusetts, 112-114
R : appropriation of, in foreign countries, 107; appropriation of, in France, 119; control in excess taking, 134-135; disposition of, 104-106; Massachusetts act for, 111; near Williamsburg Bridge, 104; policy of French council, 121-122; results of street changes, 103, 104; revenue from sale of, in France, 119-122; unsightliness of, 104-105; unsuitable, in Boston, 104
R D : ordinances for, 155-157
R : building lines, 211; esthetics promoted by, 19-21
R J : appointment in Philadelphia, 33, 34, 35
R D : objections to, 93-94
S F : condemnation proceedings in, 43
S H S : acquired by condemnation, in Chicago, 42; minimum price in New York, 16; purchase of, by New York City, 15, 16
S : city planning commission appointed in 1910, 196-197
S A : Boston an exception to rule of, 96; comparison of returns from, 98-99; definition of, 56-57; difference of, from tax, 57; efficiency of, in different communities, 95; former practice in Boston, 89; history of, 87-90; ineffectiveness in Boston, reasons for, 97; in Kansas City, 72; limit of, in some states, 84; process of collection of, in New York City, 96; regulation of, in different states, 83-102; tables showing returns from, 99-101; testing of, an advantage, 101-102
S A A : relation of, for land takings, 92
S B : area of, in Boston, 90, in Milwaukee, 90, in Philadelphia, 90, in St. Louis, 90-91; assessing board to determine area, 90-91; assessments for, 84-102
S T : provision for, in cities, 31-32
S . L , M : appointment of commissioners in, 33; area of special benefit in, 90-91; boulevard law and King’s Highway in, 90-91; city charter, 211; city hall in public square, 7; commission’s compensations, 33; commissioners’ time in reaching decisions, 33; damage appeals by jury, 28; ordinance for bill-boards, 165
S L : governing assessments, 59-60
S R : on special assessments, 83-102
S C : awards of, in Boston, 36-38
S P : bureaus for, 173-180; bureaus for, in Greater New York, 180-181; community benefits of, 169; control of, in cities, 169-183; court decisions on, in Pennsylvania, 174-175; limitations of, in cities, 182; Pennsylvania statutes for, 174; width in cities, 173-176
S : assessments and expenses for opening, 87-88; assessments for widening in New York City, 87-88; building line in, 204; Chicago commission on improvements, 39-40; entries for opening in Milwaukee, 26; lack of co-operation of departments of, 201; Minneapolis findings in, 94; one-way, in Boston, 204; proceedings for improvements in Boston, 37-38; remnants from change in, 103-104; system in Belgium, 122-125; widening of, in Philadelphia, 176;
widening of, in business districts, 204-205
S P : land taking for, in New York City, 43-44
S C : last resort in condemnation cases in Indiana, 81
S C : height limitations, 141-145
S B , 280-282; appointed in Boston in 1891, 89, 177-179; supervision of, on highways, 171-180
S B : in Philadelphia, 176-177
S C : work of, in Baltimore, 182
S L : in Brooklyn, 243-246
S P , K C : appropriation for, 73
T P : excess condemnation relief, 103-106; land cost a burden to, 22
T B : in Greater New York, 180-181
T S : Baltimore commission, 182
T P : German examples of, 1
T J : in condemnation cases, 24
T E : administered by cities, 4; city as trustee, 4; creation of, 4
U W : municipal regulation for, 152
U I : city planning advantages, 188; in city government, 186-188; planning commissions appointed, 190
V : acts of assembly in 1906, 271; condemnation, in 1906 assembly, 110
W , D. C.: building regulations in, 142
W : eminent domain assessors in, 85-86; state codes of, 50
W , A R.: opinion of, on condemnation matters, 4445
W , T , . S , et al., 1908, 234-242
W . S : 193 Mass. 364, 226-234
W B : remnants near, 104
W : amendments for excess taking in, 114, 116; amendment to constitution, 279
W , M : city hall in common, 6-7
RUSSELL SAGE FOUNDATION
PUBLICATIONS
THE PITTSBURGH SURVEY. Findings in six volumes, edited by Paul U. Kellogg. 8vo. Fully illustrated. Maps, charts, and tables. Price per set, postpaid, $10.
T P D : C F 534 pages Postpaid, $2 70
W - P . 420 pages. Price, $2.50 net. (In press.)
W T By Elizabeth Beardsley Butler. 2d ed. 440 pages. Postpaid, $1.72.
W -A L . By Crystal Eastman. 350 pages. Postpaid, $1.72.
T S W . By John A. Fitch, New York Dept. of Labor. 350 pages. Postpaid, $1.73.
H : T H M T By Margaret F Byington 292 pages Postpaid, $1 70
WEST SIDE STUDIES. Embodying the results of an investigation into social and economic conditions on the Middle West Side of New York, carried on under the direction of Pauline Goldmark. In two volumes. 12mo. Illus. Price per volume, postpaid, $2.00.
B L . Illus. 204 pages.
T N G By Ruth S True 148 pages
Published in one volume. Postpaid, $2.00.
T M W S : A H S By Otho G Cartwright Illus 60 pages
M W M E . By Katharine Anthony. Illus. 224 pages.
Published in one volume. Postpaid, $2.00.
SAN FRANCISCO RELIEF SURVEY. Compiled from studies made by six prominent relief workers. Illus. Map. 8vo. 510 pages. Postpaid, $3.50.
WORKINGMEN’S INSURANCE IN EUROPE. By Lee K. Frankel and Miles M. Dawson, with the co-operation of Louis I. Dublin. 8vo. 450 pages. 145 tables. Bibliography. 2d ed. Postpaid, $2.70.
FATIGUE AND EFFICIENCY. By Josephine Goldmark. Introduction by Frederic S. Lee, Ph.D. Appendix containing comparative schedules of hours and extracts from laws regulating women’s labor. 8vo. 358 pages. 4th ed. Postpaid, $2.00.
THE DELINQUENT CHILD AND THE HOME: A Study of Children in the Chicago Juvenile Court. By Sophonisba P. Breckinridge and Edith Abbott. 8vo. 360 pages. Postpaid, $2.00.
CO-OPERATION IN NEW ENGLAND: Urban and Rural. By James Ford, Ph.D. 12mo. 260 pages. Postpaid, $1.50.
SOCIAL WORK IN HOSPITALS. A Contribution to Progressive Medicine. By Ida M. Cannon, R.N. 12mo. 272 pages. Postpaid, $1.50.
WOMEN IN THE BOOKBINDING TRADE. By Mary Van Kleeck. Illus. 12mo. 290 pages. Postpaid, $1.50.
ARTIFICIAL FLOWER MAKERS. By Mary Van Kleeck. Illus. 12mo. 280 pages. Postpaid,
$1.50.
SALESWOMEN IN MERCANTILE STORES. Baltimore, 1909. By Elizabeth Beardsley Butler. Illus. 12mo. 234 pages. 2d ed. Cloth, postpaid, $1.08. Paper, postpaid, $0.75.
THE STANDARD OF LIVING Among Workingmen’s Families in New York City. By Robert Coit Chapin, Ph.D. 8vo. 388 pages. 131 tables. Postpaid, $2.00.
MEDICAL INSPECTION OF SCHOOLS. By Luther Halsey Gulick, M.D., and Leonard P. Ayres, Ph.D. Illus. 8vo. 244 pages. 4th edition, completely revised. Postpaid, $1.50.
LAGGARDS IN OUR SCHOOLS. A Study of Retardation and Elimination. By Leonard P. Ayres, Ph.D. 8vo. 252 pages. 4th ed. Postpaid, $1.50.
WIDER USE OF THE SCHOOL PLANT. By Clarence Arthur Perry. Illus. 12mo. 434 pages. 3d ed. Postpaid, $1.25.
AMONG SCHOOL GARDENS. By M. Louise Greene, M.Pd., Ph.D. Illus. 12mo. 380 pages. 2d ed. Postpaid, $1.25.
A MODEL HOUSING LAW. By Lawrence Veiller. 8vo. 80 diagrams. 352 pages. Postpaid, $2.00.
HOUSING REFORM. A Handbook for Use in American Cities. By Lawrence Veiller. 12mo. 220 pages. 5 schedules. 2d ed. Postpaid, $1.25.
A MODEL TENEMENT HOUSE LAW. By Lawrence Veiller. Working Edition. 130 pages. Postpaid, $1.25.
ONE THOUSAND HOMELESS MEN. By Alice Willard Solenberger. 12mo. 398 pages. 50 tables. Postpaid, $1.25.
THE ALMSHOUSE. Construction and Management. By Alexander Johnson. Illus. Plans and Specimen Records. 12mo. 274 pages. Postpaid, $1.25.
CORRECTION AND PREVENTION. Four volumes prepared for the Eighth International Prison Congress. Edited by Charles Richmond Henderson, Ph.D. 8vo. Price per set, express prepaid, $10; per volume, $2.50 net.
P R By Chas R Henderson, F H Wines and Others And C L U S . By Eugene Smith. Illus. 326 pages. Postpaid, $2.67.
P R I By Sixteen Leading Authorities Illus 358 pages Postpaid, $2 70
P A M . By Charles Richmond Henderson, Ph.D. 454 pages. Postpaid, $2.68.
P T N C By Hastings H Hart, LL D With special papers by leading authorities. Illus. 430 pages. Postpaid, $2.70.
JUVENILE COURT LAWS in the United States: Summarized. Edited by Hastings H. Hart, LL.D. 8vo. 160 pages. Postpaid, $1.60.
CIVIC BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR GREATER NEW YORK. Edited by James Bronson Reynolds, for the New York Research Council. 8vo. 312 pages. Postpaid, $1.50.
HANDBOOK OF SETTLEMENTS. Edited by Robert A. Woods and Albert J. Kennedy. 8vo. 342 pages. Cloth, postpaid, $1.50. Paper, postpaid, $0.75.
CARRYING OUT THE CITY PLAN. By Flavel Shurtleff. Introduction by Frederick Law Olmsted. 12mo. 360 pages. (In press.)
SURVEY ASSOCIATES, Inc.
PUBLISHERS FOR THE RUSSELL SAGE FOUNDATION
105 EAST 22d STREET, NEW YORK
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CARRYING OUT THE CITY PLAN ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other
medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGESExcept for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH
1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project
