the racial disparity of zero tolerance: shackles of the ... willis mp 2018.pdf · underlying...

THE RACIAL DISPARITY OF ZERO TOLERANCE 1

The Racial Disparity of Zero Tolerance: Shackles of the African American Student

A Master’s Project

Presented to

The Faculty of the Adler Graduate School

-----------------------------------------

By:

Caleb L. Willis

-----------------------------------------

Chair: Doug Pelcak

Reader: Amy Foell

----------------------------------------

July 2018


Abstract

Zero tolerance practice conducted in public educational institutions have affected students of

color, primarily African Africans due to disparate implementation. The use of harsh disciplinary

methods has hindered students of color educational attainment. Four decades of research has

exhibited persistent data showing African Americans have been disproportionately suspended

and expelled. For school counselors this is a critical problem because it affects these students in

the domains of academic achievement, post-secondary options, and social/emotional. School

counselors can disrupt such impediments by advising on pertinent disciplinary approaches such

as trauma-informed education. Adlerian Psychology is an instrumental approach to

understanding the development of children, the foundation and structure of misbehavior, and

how to work with children who misbehave.


Table of Contents

Abstract ............................................................................................................................... 2

Zero Tolerance Background ................................................................................................ 5

Racial Disparity in Referral, Suspension, and Exclusion ................................................... 7

Criminalization of Student Conduct ................................................................................. 10

School-to-Prison Migration ...............................................................................................11

Black Stock ....................................................................................................................... 15

Implication for School Counselors and Educators............................................................ 19

Trauma-Informed Education ............................................................................................. 20

Trauma and Discrimination .......................................................................................... 22

The Adolescent Brain .................................................................................................... 24

Trauma-Informed Schools ............................................................................................ 26

Adlerian Perspective and Application ............................................................................... 29

Mistaken Goals of a Discouraged Child ........................................................................... 33

Goal of Attention........................................................................................................... 33

Goal of Power ............................................................................................................... 34

Goal of Revenge ........................................................................................................... 35

Goal of Inadequacy ....................................................................................................... 35

Encouragement ................................................................................................................. 36

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 37

References ......................................................................................................................... 39


The Racial Disparity of Zero Tolerance: Shackles of The African American Student

Do you remember getting in trouble at school? Do you remember how you felt during

that disciplinary situation? Should not discipline be horizontally serviced across all racial

groups? The Supreme Court’s ruling in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 created a gateway

toward equitable educational opportunities for all students (Skiba et al., 2011). According to

Browne, Losen, and Wald “the right to not be discriminated against on the basis of race, color, or

national origin was explicitly guaranteed by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964” (as cited in

Skiba et al., 2011, p. 86). Additionally, the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth

Amendment protects against discrimination on these bases also (Skiba, Eckes, & Brown, 2009).

Public education is the embarkation for communal and pecuniary fortuity, along being the

amelioration and cornerstone of egalitarianism (Simmons, 2017). Yet, public education in the

U.S. is satiated with inequalities racially, ethnically, and socioeconomically (Teske, 2011).

Whereas dissimilitude in educational institutions thwarts the moral obligation of education,

society observes the defalcation of freedom (Simmons, 2017). A number of researchers found

that over the past three decades, national, state, district, and building level statistics have

exemplified high representation of African Americans in school discipline notation (Skiba et al.,

2009).

Research analyzing demographic correlates of school discipline have found that African

American students are disciplined at higher rates than white students (Bottiani, Bradshaw, &

Mendelson, 2017). Gregory and Weinstein; Skiba, Michael, Nardo, and Peterson examined

underlying dynamics of racial discrepancies and reported that African American students are

overrepresented in referrals for subjective offenses, while white students are disciplined for

objective offenses (as cite in Bottiani et al., 2017). Within this educational context, school


counselors are faced with important challenges to meet the needs of students (Vega, Moore, &

Miranda, 2015). Parikh, Post, and Flowers reported that school counselors must advocate for

equity and access and support students and families by being a change agent combating

structures of oppression and injustice (as cited in American School Counselor Association,

2015). Today, one of the most important challenges school counselors are faced with is the racial

discipline gap between students of color and white students established by zero tolerance

discipline practice in schools. To understand the problems of today, one must know the

foundational bricks laid by history.

Zero Tolerance Background

The American Psychological Association (APA) Zero Tolerance Task Force defined zero

tolerance as a disciplinary practice that calls for mandatory consequences for student violations

regardless of the situational context (as cited in Heilbrun, Cornell, & Lovegrove, 2015). Teske

(2011) stated “The history and etymology of the term ‘zero tolerance’ can be traced back to the

1980s during State and Federal efforts to combat drugs, or what became known during the 1980s

as the ‘war on drugs’” (p. 88). Garland; Western reported that during this time the War on Drugs

had been extended and renamed to the War on Crime in which American society became fixated

with criminality that was not realistic to the presented evidence of crime rates (as cited in

Simmons, 2017). Zimring stated zero tolerance administration, three strike policies, and

irrevocable incarcerating sentences were the mode to use for the governments mantra of being

“tough” on crime (as cited in Simmons, 2017). U.S. Department of Homeland Security and other

researchers have highlighted that consequently school systems duplicated the criminal justice

system tactics on crime as an approach for handling disciplinary problems within schools (as

cited in Simmons, 2017). Skiba found zero tolerance broadly spread throughout U.S. school


systems based on widespread perception of school violence (as cited in Heilbrun et al., 2015).

Skiba reported the Clinton Administration legislation of the Gun Free Schools Act (GSFA) of

1994 shifted disciplinary practice, requiring schools to expel students for about a year for

bringing a gun to school (as cited in Heilbrun, et al., 2015). Additionally, the GSFA mandated

schools to report all armament infractions to the juvenile justice system (Krezmien, Leone,

Zablocki, & Wells, 2010). Heaviside, Rowand, Williams, and Farris reported in 1998, 94% of

public schools in the U.S. immersed themselves into the zero-tolerance movement with their

policies and procedures (as cited in Krezmien et al., 2010). The GSFA of 1994 extensively

integrated zero tolerance policies into the school system by requiring schools to comply or risk

losing federal funding (Wilson, 2014). In addition to GSFA burdening schools about safety, Title

1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act placed pressure on school officials to foster

high student achievement, which resulted in schools vigorously focusing on the constriction of

student misconduct (Krezmien et al, 2010).

According to the Council of State Governments Justice Center, several states and school

systems protracted zero tolerance policy on firearms to include violations such as drugs, alcohol,

and aggressive behavior (as cited in Heilbrun et al., 2015). Poe-Yamagata and Jones reported

this is evident in the fact that student suspension doubled from 1.7 million in 1974 to 3.1 million

in 2001 (as cited in Teske, 2011). Zero tolerance policies are conducted with the philosophical

belief that the removal of disruptive students will deter other students from the same behaviors

while at the same time creating a safe and learning environment (Teske, 2011). However, APA

Task Force on Zero Tolerance reported no evidence to support the efficacy of zero tolerance as a

viable disciplinary practice (as cited in Heilbrun et al., 2015). The belief in zero tolerance

policies fails to consider the effects on students (Teske, 2011).


Racial Disparity in Referral, Suspension, and Exclusion

Zero tolerance practice is supposed to be applied to all students regardless of race,

gender, and socioeconomic status. However, several groups of researchers emphasized in their

studies race to be a significant predictor of disparities in referral, suspension, and expulsion rates

more so than socioeconomic status (SES) throughout all learning environments (as cited in

Bryan, Day-Vines, Griffin, & Moore-Thomas, 2012). Skiba et al. found African American

students to be overrepresented in office referrals for behavioral problems from elementary to

middle school compared to white students; while Latino students were only overrepresented at

the middle school level (as cited in Sullivan, Klingbeil, & Van Norman, 2013). Vavrus and Cole

reported that high rates of exclusion of African Americans starts with the racial discrepancy of

office disciplinary referrals by classroom teachers (as cited in Skiba et al., 2009). Tenenbaum

and Ruck study of teacher expectations and teacher referrals showed teachers had better

expectations and lower referrals for white students than for African American and Latino

students (as cited in Bryan et al., 2012). Skiba et al. reported that white students were referred

for objective circumstances such as using illegal substances, destruction of property, unexcused

classroom attendance, and offensive rhetoric (Skiba et al., 2009). Conversely, African American

students were referred for seemingly subjective circumstances such as discourtesy, loud clamor,

intimidation, and dawdling (Skiba et al, 2009). According to the U.S. Department of Education

Office of Civil Rights, during the 2011-2012 school year, 3.5 million students were suspended

in-school and 3.45 million were suspended out-of-school (as cited in Noltemeyer, Ward, &

Mcloughlin, 2015). Losen et al. estimated these numbers could put Super Bowl capacity at a

maximum for about fifty decades (as cited in Simmons, 2017). The National Center for

Education Statistics and Losent et al. reported that 1.55 million of those students were


suspended on more than one occasion, along with the estimation of a typical suspension being

3.5 days, it was noted 18 million days of schooling were missed during the 2011-2012 school

year (as cited in Simmons, 2017). Bush et al. showed there are typically 180 school days within

a year and 18 million days of missed schooling is comparable to 100,000 scholarly years (as

cited in Simmons, 2017). Several studies have found that black students to be significantly

overrepresented in school suspension (Noltemeyer et al., 2015). Skiba et al. emphasized that

suspension rates doubled for black students in kindergarten through 12th grade, while rates for

white students slightly increased less than two percentage points (as cited in Heilbrun et al.,

2015). Per Office for Civil Rights, African American students are 3.8 times more likely to be

given a suspension compared to their white counterparts (U.S Department of Education, 2016),

which is represented in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1. Racial Disparities in School Discipline. Source: American Institutes for

Research (2018, June 18). Retrieved from https://www.air.org/resource/disparities-school-

discipline-race. Copyright 2009 by U.S. Department of Education.

https://www.air.org/resource/disparities-school-discipline-race

https://www.air.org/resource/disparities-school-discipline-race


Losen et al. reported since the 1972-73 school year, the national rate of out-of-school

suspension for African American students increased by about 200 percent (from 12 percent to 23

percent in 2011-12), while the rate for white students only increased 12 percent (from 6 percent

to 7 percent in 2011-12) (as cited in Bottani et al., 2016). Examining all racial groups, male

students were twice as likely to be suspended than female students and African American males

had the highest rates of all racial groups (Sullivan et al., 2013). Losen and Skiba along with

Petras et al. identified black males to have high-level suspension risk, be suspended for lesser

disciplinary violations than all racial subgroups and receive harsher punishment for minor

misconduct (as cited in Heilbrun et al., 2015). KewalRamani et al. and Gregory found that

African American males are twice as likely as African American females to be expelled and six

times more likely than Caucasian females to be suspended (as cited in Bottiani et al., 2017).

Fabelo et al. found in Texas that 83 percent of black male students across the state experienced

the degree of one discipline violation from seventh grade to twelfth grade, ultimately resulting in

increased discontinuity than any other racial group or gender group (as cited in Simmons, 2017).

Per Fabelo et al. for 94 percent of these black males, this was their initial experience in dealing

with discipline at school for violating the protocol for behavior (as cited in Simmons, 2017). In

school, penal involvement for black males stems from severe measures for petty encroachment

(Simmons, 2017). Geronimo showed that regardless of African American students reporting the

same or lower drug use, alcohol use, and possession of weapons in contrast to other students,

African American students were most likely to be suspended in comparison to white students for

the same infractions (as cited in Thompson, 2016). Bowditch; Raffaele-Mendez; Wald and

Losen as well as Skiba and Rausch found increased rates of suspension are linked to detrimental

effects such as heightened disorderly conduct, diminished academic achievement, and upsurge of


school dropouts (as cited in Krezmien et al., 2010). Further, an inadvertent consequence under

zero tolerance practice of suspension and expulsion is an increased risk in marginalized students

facilitated into the juvenile justice system (Monahan, VanDerhei, Bechtold, & Cauffman, 2014).

Criminalization of Student Conduct

Public education has been deservedly apotheosized for being an avenue toward vast

endeavors, but it also has served as a place riddled of youth criminality, creating hope while

concurrently spawning discrepancy (Simmons, 2017). Meiners reported that adolescents are

treated as criminals by school safety personnel, disciplinary regulations, and by daily

interpersonal actions which has resulted in the adults perceiving them negatively as an enemy to

fight against (as cited in Simmons, 2017). Per the U.S. Department of Education, schools that

are overloaded and underfunded possess increased suspension and expulsion rates due to the

criminality of common teenage developmental characteristics (as cited in Mallet, 2016). The

despair of school safety has risen, along with zero-tolerance practice and increased suspension

rates have become a norm in the function of school operations to which law enforcement and the

juvenile justice system act in response to student mischief (Krezmien et al., 2010). According to

Advancement Project; and Hirschfield; Kupchik originally under the GFSA, law enforcement

was only supposed to be used for serious violations (armaments and illegal substances), however

school officials expanded law enforcement to enact zero tolerance for minor violations as well

(as cited in Krezmien et al., 2010). Casella; Dinkes, Cataldi, and Lin-Kelly reported that from

1993 to present, the estimation of physical encounters has remained at a fixed rate, while

referrals to the juvenile justice system for misconduct seemly not critical has escalated (as cited

in Krezmien et al., 2010).


For instance, according to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored

People, during the 2004-2005 academic year in the state of Florida, 75 percent of 26,990

referrals sent to the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice were for school related problems (as

cited in Krezmien et al., 2010). Several research studies found in 2010 that above 2.1 million

youth below the age of 18 were taken into custody causing juvenile court systems to conduct

about 1.3 million minor crime cases associated with youth given criminal misdemeanors (Mallet,

2016). Conversely, documentation has shown the rate of student infractions and misconduct has

relatively declined since the 1990s (Krezmien et al., 2010). According to the Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention as well as James and McCallion, in relevance to risk to life, educational

institutions have become securer since 1992 (as cited in Simmons, 2017). For example,

according to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), from 1992 to 2015, rates of

student victimization in school has receded “82% from 181 victimizations per 1,000 students in

1992 to 33 victimizations per 1,000 students in 2015” (NCES, 2017, p.7). Another example,

NCES found in grades 9-12, physical altercations have declined 21 percent, from 42 percent in

1993 to 23 percent in 2015 (NCES, 2017). Zimring found the rate of criminality throughout the

U.S. has declined and this trend has been mirrored within the school systems, which cannot be

ascribed to the rigid disciplinary methodologies used (as cited in Simmons, 2017). Several

studies have also expounded that educational institutions have used stern tactics on youth

without the data to substantiate this practice and driven youth away from school in astronomical

figures (Simmons, 2017).

School-to-Prison Migration

The flooding of African Americans into correctional services is like the Great Migration

(Simmons, 2017). This influx of African Americans has transformed the U.S. demographical


landscape in comparison to the historical movements of populations over the course of history

(Simmons, 2017). Several studies have reported that over the last five decades, empirical

research assessing the juvenile courts have found disproportionately at each legal justice process

such as arrest, referral, conviction, and incarceration (Nicholson-Crotty, Birchmeier & Valentine,

2009). According to Hsia, Bridges, and Mchale youth of color makeup over 60 percent of youth

confined in the juvenile justice system in the U.S. (as cited in Nicholson-Crotty, Birchmeier, &

Valentine, 2009). According to Wolf, during the 2009-2010 school year 250,000 students were

linked to the justice system by school officials, 96,000 were detained, and students of color made

up 70% of these demographics (as cited in Simmons, 2017). Per Sum et al., in this same year,

6.2 million students dropped out of school (as cited in Simmons, 2017). Sum et al. disclosed

data that displays students who are no longer connected to education are profoundly susceptible

to imprisonment: ten percent of boys that dropped out are in juvenile detainment and the lifelong

confinement rate for black male students that decided to no longer attend school is 25 percent (as

cited in Simmons, 2017). Ward and Jones found that youth of color are eight times more likely

than their white counterparts to be placed in juvenile detention facilities (as cited in Nickolson-

Crotty et al., 2009). Rimer stated since the initiation of zero tolerance practice, schools have

become the biggest driver of students into the criminal justice system (as cited in Teske, 2011).

Wald and Losen defined the term school-to-prison pipeline as emphasizing students at risk for

school removal (suspension and expulsion) are in consequence at risk to be placed in the juvenile

justice system (as cited in Monahan et al., 2014).

Geronimo emphasized how armed police officers at school was an important component

under zero tolerance policies, which was endorsed by state legislators and local school districts

(as cited in Thompson, 2016). The harsh nature of zero tolerance practice grew with the arrival


of police on school campuses, which resulted in increased arrest of students and referrals to

juvenile court for violations usually managed by school administration (Teske, 2011). Several

studies have also reported that in the 1970s there were less than 100 school resource officers

(SROs) stationed in schools throughout the U.S.; these numbers grew to 12, 500 in 1997; in 2007

there were about 20,000, causing this sector of law enforcement to rapidly grow (Simmons,

2017). Per Kim and Geronimo, hypothetically SROs are supposed to enhance safety and security

of school environments, but finite documentation infers an inadequacy of lucidity in the

applicable role of law enforcement in the management of student misbehavior within the

confines of school parameters (as cited in Krezmien et al., 2010). Mukherejee; Kupchik and

Bracy emphasized how the lack of knowledge in education and human development, along with

an enforcement mindset creates a foolproof avenue for student criminalization (as cited in

Simmons, 2017).

Per Skolnick and Fyfe, police are educated to enforce abrupt conformity by using

authoritative rhetoric and overpowering control (as cited in Simmons, 2017). Mukherjee;

Kupchik and Bracy reported that detainment within the confines of school are at their worse

physically abusive (as cited in Simmons, 2017). Several researchers showed that online videos,

generally of black students, illustrates exorbitant police brutality against school age youth (as

cited in Simmons, 2017). For example, Giroux discussed a video of Marshawn Pitts, a black

male special needs student, was attacked by an SRO by being thrown against the lockers for non-

conformity (as cited in Simmons, 2017). In another example, Fausset and Southhall emphasized

a video capturing a police officer tossing a female black student backwards from her desk to the

floor and dragging her across the floor (as cited in Simmons, 2017). A number of studies found

schools serving demographics in which African Americans makeup the majority possess the


topmost student-to-police ratios, largest use of advanced security components, and most rigid

penalties under zero tolerance practice (as cited in Simmons, 2017). Additionally, Contractor

and Staats found schools serving huge minority student body’s bared increased rates of school

detainment (as cited in Simmons, 2017). Dohrn and the Advancement Project stated police

officers stationed within urban school districts supplemented racial disparities as racial profiling

practices seeped from the streets into school hallways (as cited in Heitzeg, 2009). Skiba,

Arredondo, and Rausch found bias in school discipline and the criminal justice system to be

integral (as cited in Thompson, 2016). According to the National Association for the

Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), African Americans represented 17% of the

adolescent population while accounting for 45% of juvenile arrest (as cited in Heitzeg, 2009).

Geronimo reported juvenile detention centers to be detrimental to adolescents (as cited in

Thompson, 2016). Geronimo found detained youth endure an immense level of sexual assaults,

high-level of committing suicide, and increased recidivism (as cited in Thompson, 2016).

Furthermore, on a national level, one in three African American students and one in six Latino

students born after 2001 are at risk of incarceration within their lifetime (Heitzeg, 2009).

Whitely emphasized how rather than spending money on social welfare programs to improve the

quality of life for children, major funding was used for the sustainment of prisons and jail; which

in turn cost taxpayers about six billion dollars in 2010 (as cited in Thompson, 2016). Geronimo

showed from 1991 to 2010, the Federal Bureau of Prisons operation expenditures rose from $1.3

billion to over $6 billion (as cited in Thompson, 2016). Kozol stated “At issue are the values of

a nation that writes off many of its poorest children in deficient urban schools starved of all the

riches found in good suburban schools nearby, criminalizes those it has short-changed and


cheated, and then willingly expends ten times as much to punish them as it ever sent to teach

them when they were still innocent and clean” (as cited in Heitzeg, 2009, p. 16).

Black Stock

Wacquant emphasized that the criminal justice system consumes and belies millions that

are jobless, lack education, are destitute, and are discrepantly black (as cited in Simmons, 2017).

Jimmy LeBlanc, Louisiana Secretary of Corrections, stated “Our prison intake is fifteen thousand

a year. Our high school dropout rate is fifteen thousand a year. I mean, that tells you the story of

what is happening to us. They’re coming out of these schools and coming to prison” (as cited in

Simmons, 2017, p. 47). Dictionary.com defines stock as “a supply of goods kept on hand for

sale to customers by a merchant, distributor, and manufacturer (Stock, 2018). Wacquant;

Casella; Mora and Christianakis found strict disciplinary practice to monetarily encourage

neoliberal approaches that turn public divisions into private ownership for corporate gain (as

cited in Simmons, 2017). Schools which administer severe discipline endow the notions of the

enlargement of the criminal justice system and have capacitated the chance of monetary

advancement within the web of the penal system (Simmons, 2017). While school officials across

the U.S. during the 1990’s grappled with the misconception of safety, security companies were

exploiting their seemingly despair (Simmons, 2017). Packaged Facts and Chaddock reported

school violence such as Columbine was a golden enterprise for security industries to foster

aggrandized sales (as cited in Simmons, 2017). Packaged Facts found that these industries were

giving away security commodities to entice schools in hopes of a prospective and financial

partnership (as cited in Simmons, 2017). Packaged Facts stated were the industries that created

metal detectors which accounted for 35 percent security pay out (as cited in Simmons, 2017).

Additionally, 30 percent of school safety budgets were spent on cameras and 25 percent on


access control systems (Simmons, 2017). Pitts stated in 1996, a spokesman of Garrett Metal

Detectors confabulated about how schools were their biggest target sector beyond prisons and

airports (as cited in Simmons, 2017). Noguera found some schools did not have the resources to

afford security gadgets and systems; consequently, they turned to federal government for grant

money or pulled from their instructional accounts (as cited in Simmons, 2017).

IHS Research revealed data showing the totality of the exponential school expenditures

on security during the end of the 1990s into the 2000s (as cited in Simmons, 2017). Together,

public and private schools spent $328 million dollars in 1996 (Simmons, 2017). According to

IHS Research, the school security sector ascended to $3 billion in 2013 (as cited in Simmons,

2017). Lee reported the leading corrections business, the Corrections Corporation of American

(CCA) earns $1.7 billion (as cited in Simmons, 2017). Directly behind the CCA, comes the Geo

Group, which earns $1.6 billion (Simmons, 2017). Wacquant found that the school security

sector will become as large as the four private prison corporations, which gross $6 billion (as

cited in Simmons, 2017). Not only are security industries attracted to school criminality, but

media companies as well, extending the grasp and web of correctional connections (Simmons,

2017). Up till 2013, General Electric (GE) controlled 49 percent of the stake in the National

Broadcasting Company (NBC) (Simmons, 2017). Monahan highlighted that NBC, under GE

umbrella, was heavily entrenched in the political battle on drugs using harbor protection, optical

character recognition of storage bins, school security, and high-tech observation (as cited in

Simmons, 2017). According to Goldberg and Evans, GE provides high-tech safety accessories to

correctional facilities and has contributed financially into private penitentiaries (as cited in

Simmons, 2017).


These companies surreptitiously exploit juvenescence due to the shortfall of education

and austerity of corrective management ahead of definite imprisonment (Simmons, 2017).

SunTrust Equitable Securities presented a financial report for its shareholders perceiving

disenfranchised students as fiscal stock (as cited in Simmons, 2017). The report revealed how

corporations take an ardent outlook at youth in the correctional sector as stock instead of the

rationalization that they are investing in prison beds (Simmons, 2017). According to Press and

Washburn, Luis Lamela, president and CEO of Ramsay Youth Services stated, “It’s a product-to-

market approach…We view everything as a product…What we look for is the achievement of

economies of scale” (as cited in Simmons, 2017, p. 59). Press and Washburn reported that as

students venture through the school system to prison, they are funneled through a multitude of

publicly bankrolled and privately managed facilities (as cited in Simmons, 2017).

Students of Color Perception of Discipline

It is essential to note disportionate disciplinary practice has distinguished connotations

for both students of color and white students (Bottiani et al., 2017). Though African American

and white students may observe incidence of penal treatment of black students, the actual

experience may be more personalized by black students (Bottiani et al., 2017). Whether or not

disparate disciplinary consequences are a cause of school faculty racial bias, African American

students may see racial differences in discipline rates as unequal; consequently, possibly causing

detrimental effects (Bottiani et al., 2017). A number of studies found perception of unequal

treatment is linked to several developmental issues such as problem behavior, anger, depression,

and decline in student engagement amongst children of color (as cited in Bottiani et al., 2017).

Sheets’ study of students’ perceptions of disciplinary practices showed that students are

cognizant of the differential treatment and discern them as unfair (as cited in Bottiani et al.,


2017). For instance, Howard reported in a qualitive study a black student stated “I watch it all

the time. One of us [Black males] do something, and we get suspended or expelled. A White kid

does the exact same thing, and he gets a warning, or an after-school referral. Sometimes it’s so

obvious that they treat us different than them” (as cited in Bottiani et al., 2017, p. 533). In

another qualitative study, an African American student said “There are some really, small rules

that you’ll get kicked out of school for and I don’t think it’s necessary. I remember one of my

friends was wearing flip-flops one day and she got suspended for three days for it, for wearing

flip flops” (Vega et al., 2015, p. 46). Ruck and Wortley found African American students

distinctly report sensitivity to teacher intercommunication and discipline practices that are

unequal (as cited in Bottiani et al., 2017).

Debnam, Johnson, Waasdorp, and Bradshaw found inequitable discipline practice could

have ramifications on African American students sense of belonging and how welcome they felt

at school (as cited in Bottani et al., 2017). Dreikurs stated “The desire to feel belonging to others

is the fundamental motive in man” (as cited in Griffith and Powers, 2007, p. 9). Bottiani et al.

(2017) found greater racial gaps in suspension risk was correlated to decreased levels of reported

school belonging amongst African American students. Bottiani et al. (2017) reported when

African American students are consistently suspended than their white counterparts, it signifies

to a certain extent how welcome and accepted African American students are in school settings

(as cited in Bottiani et al., 2017). Bottiani et al. found data on adaptation complications for

African American students were axiomatically linked to the racial disparities in suspension

exposure (as cited in Bottiani et al., 2017). Steele and Aronson reported that a contributor to this

adaptation complication may lay in part to stereotype threat (as cited in Bottiani et al., 2017).

Rydell, Rydell, and Boucher explained stereotype threat the stimulus of concerned thinking and


brief cerebral defalcation induced by circumstances where an individual’s conduct of a group

possibly validates adverse biases about that group’s capabilities (as cited in Bottiani et al., 2017).

According to Benner and Graham, the degree of racial division in disciplinary practice in schools

may increase African Americans consciousness of racial stigma (as cited in Bottiani et al., 2017).

In addition to this, Noguera found that tough discipline policies create sense of dubiosity that

undermines the future of young individuals and use of suspension and expulsion explicitly

confines their capacity to grasp promising endeavors (as cited in Simmons, 2017).

Implication for School Counselors and Educators

Monahan et al. (2014) found zero tolerance practices in schools led to an upsurge in

students being suspended and expelled, while at the same time placing youth at risk to be

funneled toward the school-to-prison migration. The evidence of student gender and race

continually predicting if students will receive a disciplinary referral, portrays the school systems

conflict with dismantling barriers to achieve fair disciplinary policies amongst all students

(Bryan et al., 2012). Race and ethnic disparities that widen the discipline gap remain prevalent

in U.S. education (Skiba et al., 2011). Toldson; Caldwell, Sewell, Parks, and Toldson reported

personal, family, and community components along with school and teacher characteristics such

as student attitudes of school safety and being respected and supported by teachers influence

discipline disparity (as cited in Skiba et al., 2011). For the last 20 years, it is evident that zero-

tolerance policies have been counterproductive to its intended purpose of creating safe learning

environments (Craig, 2017). Per Nance, still in a plethora of states, the correctional system is

perceived as the default setting for students’ behavioral problems (as cited in Craig, 2017).

Despite the fact school counselors are not supposed to discipline, they are important in

advocating for fair and objective disciplinary policies, because they primarily work with the


referred students (Bryan et al., 2012). As an educator, school counselors should be cognizant of

student perceptions of their educational experience to handle the concerns of students (Vega et

al., 2015). Parikh, Post, and Flowers conversed that school counselors have an important role in

advocating on behalf of students for equity and access, guiding students and families through

their entanglements of oppression and injustice, and being ambassadors of change in their

schools (as cited in American School Counselor Association, 2015). School counselors have an

essential part in which they can acquaint staff with educational resources on the provenance of

trauma, traumatic influence on student development, and strategies to managing student

problems in the school (Crosby, 2015). Relevant knowledge on current evolution of brain

research, abstract context of functionality, and pervasiveness of traumatic experiences are vital

components of information that is keenly practical for school personnel (Crosby, 2015). Day et

al. noted that school counselors should foster a unified partnership to systematize and disclose

knowledge among administrators, therapist, social workers, child welfare workers, and juvenile

case managers (as cited in Crosby, 2015). Additionally, school counselors can facilitate guidance

and training on trauma-sensitive methods, evidence-based approaches, and auspicious

developing ways to handle misbehavior (Crosby, 2015). Trauma-informed education provides an

alternate approach to exclusionary discipline practices (Craig, 2017).

Trauma-Informed Education

Low engaged students are repeatedly late or absent, and often have failing grades (Craig,

2017). During their time at school, these students employ disruptive behavior that impedes their

learning and their peers (Craig, 2017). The conventional perspective to such misconduct is that

the behavior is happening due to voluntary misdeed or deliberate rebellion (Craig, 2017).

Interventions provided have been contingency-based, implying students will conduct themselves


accordingly for a reward or to evade unfavorable punishment (Craig, 2017). The ineptitude of

these interventions to make significant change in student conduct have left educators to ponder

on the reasoning of why (Craig, 2017). Siegel found that research examining trauma and self-

regulation incites a reason for such behavior (as cited in Craig, 2017). The prominent medical

analysis conducted by Dr. Vincent Felitti of Kaiser Permanente and Dr. Robert Anda of the

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) of 17,000 Caucasian middle-class individuals

between 1995 to 1997 coined the term adverse childhood experience (ACE) (Nealy-Oparah &

Scruggs-Hussein, 2018). The study stemmed from an obesity center and showed that being

overweight is associated with traumatic experiences within the first 18 years of life, which are

classified into three components of abuse, neglect, and domestic hardship (Nealy-Oparah &

Scruggs-Hussein, 2018). Further examination into the study showed that the greater an

individuals’ ACE number, the high risk they are for the occurrence of maladaptive behaviors and

considerable long-term health complications (Nealy-Oparah & Scruggs-Hussein, 2018).

Lansford et al.as well as Veltman and Browne found that these difficulties can be disclosed in

school-based settings as maladaptive behaviors such as aggressiveness, not being present for

schooling, dolefulness, abstraction, anxiety, alienation, deferred dialect and mental growth (as

cited in Cavanaugh, 2016). Childhood trauma and its effect on adolescent functionality has

received ample contemplation throughout child-serving professions (Crosby, 2015). Juvenility

emotional, physical, or sexual trauma is a prevailing experience (Cavanaugh, 2016). Pappano

reported that literature shows 68 percent of children experience a traumatic circumstance (as

cited in Cavanaugh, 2016). Several research groups have emphasized that children of color (low

socioeconomic status), and children placed in the foster care and correctional institutions are at a

higher risk (as cited in Crosby, 2015). Lawrence and Hasse reported that children of color


notably in impoverished neighborhoods are more susceptible to occurrences of community

violence, which fosters persisting effects (as cited in Crosby, 2015). A number of researchers

found that about 90 percent of adolescents confined in juvenile justice institutions have noted

experiencing trauma (as cited in Crosby, 2015). The Substance Abuse and Mental Health

Services Administration (SAMHSA) delineates trauma as “experiences that cause intense

physical and psychological stress reactions. It can refer to a single event, multiple events, or a

set of circumstances that is experienced by an individual as physically and emotionally harmful

or threatening and that has lasting adverse effects on the individual’s physical, social, emotional,

or spiritual well-being” (as cited in Crosby, 2015, p. 223). Per the National Child Traumatic

Stress Network (NCTSN), one in every four students in the U.S. school systems have laid bare to

trauma that affects their education and conduct (as cited in Deihl, 2013). Further, per Burk et al.

one in three youth experienced with trauma deal with posttraumatic stress disorder (as cited in

Wiest-Stevenson & Lee, 2016). According to Carter, adolescents of color are disparately at a

higher chance of experiencing increased traumatic circumstances due to race-based injustice (as

cited in Craig, 2017).

Trauma and Discrimination

Smith-Bynum, Lambert, English, and Ialongo found that the risk of being disclosed to

bigotry due to cumulative identification (race, ethnicity, socio-economic status, gender identity,

religion) increases during the developmental period of growing from a child to a teen (as cited in

Craig, 2017). This is because social establishments, such as schools, arbitrates their mannerisms

(Craig, 2017). Per Kira, this repeatedly intensifies previous trauma and hinders striving for

restoration (as cited in Craig, 2017). Haslam, Rothschild, and Ernest found that conventionally

Western cultures perceived youth as virtuous and are more safeguarded than adults (as cited in


Craig, 2017). Yet, the perception of the virtuousness of Black youth is fleeting in comparison to

their white counterparts (Craig, 2017). At age 10, the perception of virtuousness of African

American youth is commensurate to older Caucasian youth (Craig, 2017). Goff, Jackson,

DiLeone, Culotta, and DiTomasso noted African American males ages 14 to 17 are discerned as

possessing equivalent accountability for their conduct as that of Caucasian males 18 to 21 (as

cited in Craig, 2017). Per Kimmel, a few analyses convey that Black children are looked at as

adults by the age of 13 (as cited in Craig, 2017). This view of Black youth as possessing greater

culpability for their behavior in comparison to White youth at the same developmental age

curtails their safety (Craig, 2017). Black children are viewed as less virtuous compared to their

counterparts, consequently making them assailable to severe adult-like punishment (Craig,

2017).

A number of research groups found that the day-to-day situations for teens is defined not

just by continual vulnerability to traumatic circumstances, but that of impoverishment, deficient

community resources, racial prejudice, tumultuous environmental conditions, and social

marginalization (as cited in Craig, 2017). Per Kohli and Solorzano, ostensibly verbal or

behavioral communication which belittles students of color are prevalent within schools (as cited

in Craig, 2017). Griffin found that these “micro-aggressions” though unconsciously biased are

similar to “death by a million tiny cuts” (as cited in Craig, 2017). Rudd found that students of

color given harsher consequences than white students is a typical micro-aggression (as cited in

Craig, 2017). Micro-aggressions infuriate the mental well-being of youth who have dealt with

past traumatic events (Craig, 2017). Fuhrmann, Knoll, and Blakemore emphasized that

adolescence is akin to childhood in the importance of the brain’s augmentation (as cited in Craig,

2017).


The Adolescent Brain

Adolescence is a developmental stage of essential transformations within the brain

(Craig, 2017). Essential changes take place in the limbic compartment that affect youth

connection patterns, emotive responses, reasoning, and aptitude (Craig, 2017). The limbic

section and brain stem serve as the reactor to stimulations (Craig, 2017). The brain stem

becomes active when occurrences create sensations of danger, initiating the reaction of fight,

flight, or freeze (Craig, 2017). Neural functions activate, switching the body into a survival

mechanism until the perceived danger is gone (Craig, 2017). The limbic section expends more

clout upon the cortical parts of the brain during the adolescent period than childhood or

adulthood (Craig, 2017). Therefore, youth seem to have overblown responses to impartial

conduct of other individuals (Craig, 2017). The establishment of peer to peer relations is

significant (Craig, 2017). Steinberg reported that comparably to children’s enjoyment of being

with their caretakers, adolescents are mentally compelled to feel strong gratification around their

friends (as cited in Craig, 2017). The release of dopamine in the brain is the catalyst for teens

searching for positive experiences (Craig, 2017). This feeling of positivity provided by the surge

of dopamine gives way to youth consistently seeking such feelings through oddity and elation,

while disregarding possible dangers (Craig, 2017). According to Siegel, this pursuit of gratifying

feelings against any dangers is bolstered by adolescent mental processes being hyperrational (as

cited in Craig, 2017).

Per Siegel, the cortex and prefrontal cortex compartments grow according to usage,

signifying the more life circumstances that trigger these compartments, the greater adept and

dependable interrelated neurological circulation evolves (as cited in Craig, 2017). The cerebral

cortex consists of four parts linked to greater brain function which includes autonomous


movement, management of sensory information, acquisition of knowledge, remembering

information, and temperament (Craig, 2017). Siegel as well as Weinberger, Elvevag, and Giedd

emphasized that remarkable modifications take place in the frontal lobe and prefrontal cortex

while youth expand their scope for high level reasoning and executive functioning (as cited in

Craig, 2017). These modifications happen due to two instances such as pruning and myelination

(Craig, 2017). Pruning involves the trimming of synaptic connections and neurons that are

unused (Craig, 2017). Pruning functions to ready the brain for favorable adaption and practical

usage (Craig, 2017). Myelination serves to adjust neuron transmissions, thus reinforcing

connections and increasing accelerated communication (Craig, 2017). These conversion

processes advance neurological communications boosting youth capability to manage their

feelings and interpretations (Craig, 2017). As teens move forward upon their educational track,

their psychological development becomes profoundly contingent upon executive functions such

as cognitive pliability, sublimation, and active remembrance (Craig, 2017). Cognitive pliability

gives youth the capability to change their mindset in response to new information, broaden their

beliefs about life, foster new explications to problems, and be skillful at collective alliances

(Craig, 2017). Sublimation provides teens the capacity to withstand distractions (Craig, 2017).

However, in totality, trauma impedes these functions because it reduces cognitive pliability,

confines youth aptitude to adjust their convictions about themselves and others, dwindles

individuals gauge of time and space (Craig, 2017). Further, per Steinberg, increased acuteness of

the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, which generates reactions to stress, combined

with a unmatured pre-frontal cortex causes youth to be sensitive to stress (as cited in Craig,

2017). In addition, hormonal variations weaken adolescent attempts to manage their behavior

(Craig, 2017). Emotional strain escalates youth chances of emotional trauma causing


dysfunctional mental growth (Craig, 2017). This distress heightens preceding traumatic

problems with social isolation and suicidality (Craig, 2017). Murphey, Barry, and Vaughn found

that the maladaptive changes neurologically can produce a descending path for adolescents into

precarious activities, educational decline, use of habituating drugs, and entanglement of the

juvenile justice system (as cited in Craig, 2017).

Trauma-Informed Schools

Schools have an important part in enhancing educational results for students dealing with

traumatic experiences (Crosby, 2015). Wolpow et al. found trauma to be associated with

declined grades and test scores and increased disposition for suspension, expulsion, and

educational deficiency (as cited in Crosby, 2015). Farmer, Burns, Phillips, Angold, and Costello

as well as Ko et al. emphasized that schools have an influential effect on students’ welfare,

because they are the commonplace for mental health services (as cited in Crosby, 2015). Per

Oehlberg, fostering a trauma-informed school setting can increase student educational success

and conduct, school atmosphere, class instruction time, and staff contentment (as cited in Crosby,

2015). Further, it decreases students and educators stress, exclusionary practice, and requisite for

special education assistance (Crosby, 2015). Oehlberg noted that trauma-informed schools need

absolute endorsement from administrators, trauma-sensitive disciplinary guidelines, staff

training, and dynamic relations between school personnel and mental health staff (as cited in

Crosby, 2015).

Trauma-informed methods conducted in schools can help traumatized students indirectly

(Crosby, 2015). Approaches, guidelines, and processes periphrastically impacting students

school atmosphere are essential in affecting educational attainment (Crosby, 2015). Cole et al.

and Oehlberg reported that trauma education can foster a cultivation of school climate sensitivity


using trauma-sensitive methods and administration support (as cited in Crosby, 2015). Principals

have an imperative part in building a Trauma-Informed School Model (TISM) (Crosby, 2015).

Cole et al. found that administrators can evaluate personnel needs for implementing trauma-

informed strategies, audit policies optically through the knowledge of trauma, and advise

personnel of protocols for student confidentiality, legal reporting, and partnership with multiple

service systems (as cited in Crosby, 2015). Trauma-sensitive school guidelines depend upon

persistent and benevolently conveyed disciplinary procedures that possess applicable

expectations for traumatized youth, while simultaneously helping students be culpable (Crosby,

2015). Per Cole et al and Oehlberg, school policies must encourage positive student conduct

while not impeding classroom instruction by using suspension and expulsion approaches (as

cited in Crosby, 2015).

Teachers communicate with students everyday (Wiest-Stevenson & Lee, 2016).

Accordingly, teachers are essential in the aspects of pinpointing and aiding student needs (Wiest-

Stevenson & Lee, 2016). Employee training on trauma is a component of constructing a trauma-

sensitive school atmosphere (Crosby, 2015). Cole et al .and Oehlberg reported that training on

trauma provides teachers and educational assistants the knowledge of trauma itself, how to aid

students in the classroom, and legal parameters of handling traumatized students (as cited in

Crosby, 2015). Per Australian Childhood foundation, teachers and support personnel gain an

understanding of the development stages and how trauma hinders such distinct developmental

components of students (as cited in Crosby, 2015). Perry conversed that employees are taught to

become aware of crucial indicators of student conduct (tonality and non-verbal communication)

to evaluate student concentration levels and time needed aside from classroom instruction (as

cited in Crosby, 2015). Further, Anderson, Christenson, Sinclair, and Lehr noted that teachers


learn to incorporate coping strategies and relaxation modus (belly breathing, guided imagery, and

giving break time for students to reestablish self-composure) into lesson plans (as cited in Wiest-

Stevenson & Lee, 2016). Stein et al. highlighted that these methods help students deal with past

problems while giving them ways to deal with impending stress (as cited in Wiest-Stevenson &

Lee, 2016). Perry; Wolpow et al.; Australian Childhood Foundation; Cole et al. emphasized that

staff must be affectionally attuned, display genuine care, and build vigorous relationships to

mend past calamitous relations and increase student forms of social alliances (as cited in Crosby,

2015). However, Wolpow et al. reported some staff come into school buildings with cultural

preconceptions and suppositions that consequently pigeonhole certain students and obstruct their

rapport with these students (as cited in Crosby, 2015). Wolpow et al. expressed that

compassionate teaching advises that staff confront these preconceptions to best illustrate

constructive decision making when handling student conduct (as cited in Crosby, 2015).

Wolpow et al. found that students need an atmosphere of compassionate teaching, which focal

point is about mutual control instead of students being subdued to an environment of absolute

ascendancy (as cited in Crosby, 2015). School staff are at the front-line to witness the conduct,

scholastics, and socioemotional problems of students inflicted by trauma (Crosby, 2015).

Conversely, Ko et al., divulged that staff are not taught about trauma in their academic programs,

thus hampering their knowledge about its effect on students and how to handle such matters

within school (as cited in Crosby, 2015). Evans, Stephan, and Sugai found this to be concerning

due to schools often being an initial place for mental healthcare for students (as cited in

Cavanaugh, 2016). School personnel should also incorporate practices that bolster cultural

competency (as cited in Crosby, 2015). Ming and Dukes reported that the extent to which

cultural competency is instituted is commonly at the circumspection of staff being among


students (as cited in Crosby, 2015). Craig, Hull, Haggart, and Perez-Selles as well as Ming and

Dukes emphasized that to aggrandize cultural sensitivity within the school system, principals

must consolidate it into their customs and framework, which school counselors are quintessential

for being the point person for this task (as cited in Crosby, 2015). Ming and Dukes emboldened

school faculty to ponder about the dynamics of culture and the students they work with, facilitate

classroom sessions to confer on school problems, designate time for culture and diversity

discourse, talk with students on a one-on-one basis, incorporate multicultural education for

professional training, incorporate multicultural education into lesson plans, use evidence-based

methods with marginalized student bodies, pursue experienced consultancy, and foster tenacious

relations with students’ caretakers (as cited in Crosby, 2015).

Adlerian Perspective and Application

Adlerian psychology or formally known as Individual Psychology was created by Alfred

Adler, a prominent philosopher and psychiatrist in the early 20th century. Though the name

“Individual Psychology” seemly sounds like it focuses on a singular aspect, it is rooted in a

holistic approach to a person’s life. To understand an individual in their wholeness, every aspect

(convictions, sensitivities, emotions, and behaviors) of an individual’s life must be considered.

Adler postulated that people are galvanized by social relatedness and that all movement in life

has purpose. Human behavior is fixed on a purpose and a person’s emotions are the spur for

steps taken toward achieving their intended goal. The underlying force behind an individual’s

striving or movement through life is their self-perceived inferiority to other people. If a person is

encouraged they will strive on the useful side of life making contributions toward social

cooperation. If a person is discouraged they will strive on the useless side of life making

contributions to the self. Adlerian psychology has been impactful in its utilization on the


development of children (Ansbacher & Ansbacher, 1964; Mosak & Maniacci, 1999; Oberst &

Stewart, 2003).

An educator’s advent to the educational system is rooted in a cinched conception of

human disposition (Dreikurs, Grunwald, & Pepper, 1998). The disposition gives the educationist

the inference of the child’s mannerism and ways to handle them. However, there is

disorientation in dealing with children’s behavior due to a non-established universal idea of

human disposition. Alfred Adler fostered an exemplary template of humanness that contributes

contemporary notions from which to fathom children (Dreikurs et al., 1998). Some of these

dynamic Adlerian principles are: Mannerism is goal-oriented, behavior is comprehensible when

individuals can grasp its purpose, the effort that drives human action is the goal, the totality of a

persons’ conduct, traits, and emotions are discerned due to their attempts at finding their niche in

the community, adults must comprehend the reasons children create false beliefs about

themselves and others, one must understand that humans possess biases of their worldview,

children are keen to their environment and probe within it, and humans seek belonging and to

establish their footing in society (Dreikurs et al., 1998).

Importantly, children are social beings and from this derives their robust inclination to

belong (Dreikurs & Soltz, 1990). Their safety or paucity of it relies upon their sense of

belonging within their associations. This feeling is an elemental necessity. From childhood and

thus after, children are probing ways to integrate into communal living (family, school, peer

groups). Concluded from children’s exploration of their environment, they choose the approach

to which they aspire to obtain their goal (Dreikurs & Soltz, 1990). The approach is the

instantaneous goal and is the foundation for their conduct. The inclination to belong is a child’s

main goal, while the approach is the instantaneous goal, thus determining that children’s conduct


is goal-oriented. Children are innately driven and learn from attempts and mistakes. They reuse

the behavior that provides the feeling of belonging and disregards that which makes them feel

isolated. This provides the groundwork for advising and managing children (Dreikurs & Soltz,

1990).

There is a plethora of circumstances that may make a child discouraged such as homelife,

war, criminality, manners of prejudices, and educational institutions (Mosak & Maniacci, 1999).

Educators frequently inquire about the reasoning of children’s misconduct (Dreikurs et al.,

1998). They often ponder upon “What causes them to behave this way?” Educators often

insinuate that these misbehaviors are due to animosity, fatuousness, apathy, and absence of

appropriate rearing without substantial and factual grounding (Dreikurs et al., 1998). Every

individual is different in the way they integrate into social circumstances and finding their place

(Dreikurs et al., 1998). Rudolph Dreikurs, a renowned psychologist, stated “Discouragement is

at the root of all misbehavior” (as cited in Nelson, Lott, & Glenn, 2013, p. 55). As children feel

they do not belong, they use inappropriate behavior, consequently choosing faulty methods to

feel belonging and importance (Nelson et al., 2013). Discouragement is the basis of faulty

methods (Dreikurs et al., 1998). When educators focus on just the behavior (what they can see

externally) alone, they exclude the discouragement (internal feeling) that is the impetus for the

conduct (Nelson et al., 2013). This clandestine covering is called the “belief behind the

behavior” (Nelson et al., 2013, p. 20). Educators are often deluded by assuming student conduct

is the problem rather than the conviction that is underlying the behavior (Nelson et al., 2013).

Students repeatedly make unconscious choices rooted in their conceptions or private logic

(Nelson et al., 2013). An individuals’ private logic is the comatose premise for sensing,

rationalizing, and functioning as they do (Oberst & Stewart, 2003). For example, a student


conviction about them self may be “I am not important because I am suspended all the time,” or

about someone else, “My math teacher does not like me,” or about the world, “The world is not a

secure place” (Nelson et al., 2013). Youth are not cognizant of making these conviction that is

focalized on belonging and sense of importance, yet these convictions affect their conduct

(Nelson et al., 2013). As youth sense they are safe, belong, and are important they prosper

(Nelson et al., 2013). Students evolve into individuals with traits and skills educators yearn for

them to possess (Nelson et al., 2013). As youth sense they do not belong and feel irrelevant, they

use survival mannerisms (Nelson et al., 2013). Survival mannerisms generally noted as

misconduct are grounded in faulty notions on how to seek belonging and relevancy (Nelson et

al., 2013).

The movements youth make in life are all purposeful and they never expend their

movements unless they attain what they desire (Dreikurs et al., 1998). There exist two

approaches of action, in which individuals socially move: the useful and useless (Dreikurs et al.,

1998). Useful conduct is mannerism that is used for communal living. The individual interest

them self with others and contributes elation and contentment to others and them self. Useless

conduct is mannerism that used for the self. The individual distant them self from others and are

only interested in their own ascent and eminence. The wholesome youth maneuvers toward

communal acknowledgement by their affair with the prosperity of their associations, kinship, or

academic institution and by useful actions. The maladaptive youth that shows misconduct

relinquishes their conviction that they can obtain belonging and significance and abominably

conceives they can obtain acknowledgement by use of misbehavior through ensuing mistaken

goals of behavior (Dreikurs et al., 1998). Per Dreikurs, discouraged youth seek importance

through using the four mistaken goals of behavior: Attention, Power, Revenge, and Inadequacy


(as cited in Mosak & Maniacci, 1999). Prior to the use of an intervention, educators must

identify the goal the youth seeks through their misconduct (Oberst & Stewart, 2003).

Determining a child’s belief and mistaken goal can be difficult at times due to children using the

same behavior to obtain one of the goals of misbehavior. Mosak and Maniacci (1999)

highlighted that there are three methods to identifying these goals: Recognizing the situation

when youth act out, examining the situation when effort is made to change the behavior, and

adults assessing their own emotional state when the misbehavior is taking place. An educator

gauging their own emotions is the best method for them to infer the intended goal of the child

(Oberst & Stewart, 2003).

Mistaken Goals of a Discouraged Child

Goal of Attention

The youth seeks relevance by using charisma, endearment, or inordinate attention

(Dreikurs et al., 1998). For instance, a common circumstance is that of student generating

clamor during the English teacher’s lesson or pestering another student sitting across from them.

Staff continually feel irritated and irked by the student’s mannerism (Oberst & Stewart, 2003).

Ostensibly, the student senses recognition when individuals provide them with engrossment.

This is due to the dilemma of attaining attention by completing a task that is highly regarded by

the adult for angst of being spurned, they search for various attention (Oberst & Stewart, 2003).

The child believes that “I belong when I am noticed.” Common educator responses to this

behavior are ‘silence please,’ ‘quit bugging others,’ or ‘stop complaining’ and from this the

student has achieved their goal and takes an intermission (Oberst & Stewart, 2003). As promptly

as the educator proceeds with instruction or gives interest to other students, the student

perpetually proceeds with their misconduct, quite possibly escalating its ferocity. For


reformative action, it is suggested that educators vacate the student’s circumference of behaviors,

be oblivious to the malfeasance, or provide acknowledgment whenever the student displays

appropriate behavior (Oberst & Stewart, 2003).

Goal of Power

Youth that are motivated by power or dominance must not be disclosed to tension for it

creates a power challenge (Dreikurs et al., 1998). For example, a common circumstance is a

student disregarding the directions given by the instructor, defiance, or behaving the way the

instructor does not regard. Educators commonly feel offended, challenged, incensed, and

compelled to enforce their will upon the student to sustain control and obedience (Oberst &

Stewart, 2003). The child that desires preeminence is further discouraged than one who desires

attention. The student atones for the internal feeling of inferiority by exhibiting that they

important and ensues their own will (Oberst & Stewart, 2003). Further, attempting to decrease

the child’s condescension inflates their hidden feelings of inferiority and aridity (Dreikurs et al.,

1998). The underlying belief of the child is that “I belong when I am in control.” Within the

struggle for power, if the child is victorious the educator feels subjugated and if the educator is

victorious the child feels overcome, disgraced, and indignant (Oberst & Stewart, 2003). The

child may delay the battle for a moment but will continue battling to regain his or her self-

confidence. The deep the battle ensues, the possibility the child might use enhanced sparring

tactics to be victorious at any cost, resulting in them desiring to obtain the goal of revenge

(Oberst & Stewart, 2003). The amdednatory methods suggested are to withhold from battling,

maintain being compassionate and amiable, aiding rather than preaching, averting retribution and

employing natural and logical ramifications, and redirect the youth’s adverse drive toward

efficacious tasks (Oberst & Stewart, 2003).


Goal of Revenge

Youth that sense individuals are iniquitous toward them, indifferent to their emotions, and

harm them become impelled to take vengeance (Dreikurs et al., 1998). For example, a common

circumstance is a student striking another student after being disciplined, a student ripping up a

failed assignment and tossing it at the teacher due to feelings of unjust grading or damaging their

desk by writing all over it. This type of youth believes that “I do not belong, so I should hurt

others.” The child is substantially inferior due to a plethora of experiences where they have had

to endure embarrassment of discipline (Oberst & Stewart, 2003). Educators commonly feel

somber, marred, and replete with animosity toward this type of student. Further, the response of

educators is to employ more harsh consequences, draws in other educators to oppose this student,

and typically gives up on any effort to aid the student in changing their conduct. Moreover,

astringent disciplinary practices increase the child sense of inferiority (Oberst & Stewart, 2003).

These types of students are strenuous to assist, and it takes a substantial amount of time for

change. The emendatory approaches proposed are for educators to not seek retribution, do not

become dismayed, and endeavor to give the youth mutual respect despite reprisal (Dreikurs et

al., 1998). These youth require consistent encouragement from peers, educators, and parents

(Oberst & Stewart, 2003). If they are not given necessary support, they may relinquish efforts

toward progression and retract into repudiation (Oberst & Stewart, 2003).

Goal of Inadequacy

A child that feels deficient is one who has put forth great effort to obtain relevance by

way of attention, power, or revenge, but has failed and becomes extremely disheartened that they

abjure (Dreikurs et al., 1998). For instance, consider a student that a teacher has encouraged

numerous times and tried to help, but they continually ask to be left alone, isolating themselves


away. Most often, these youth have concluded they are incapable from their early childhood

experiences of unsuccessful pursuits at attention, they instantly move toward inadequacy

(Dreikurs et al., 1998; Oberst & Stewart, 2003). The child becomes so discouraged from their

failed endeavors of belonging and significance, they believe they are not valuable. The

underlying belief behind their conduct is that “I do not belong, because I am not superb.” These

children disengage from opportunities which may confront their self-confidence, resulting in

minimal effort put forth to contribute to constructive associations (Oberst & Stewart, 2003).

Additionally, they ostensibly pursue disappointment academically or socially (Oberst & Stewart,

2003). Typical responses of educators are to totally give up, do for the student what the student

can do for them self, or excessively support (Nelson et al., 2013). Proposed amendatory methods

for educators are to show empathy, outright recognition, and believe wholeheartedly in the

youth’s potentiality (Oberst & Stewart, 2003). To truly believe in changing a student’s life

means provide steady encouragement.

Encouragement

Just as a flower needs soil and water, youth need a sense of belonging and significance.

Children cannot evolve and flourish and attain a feeling of belonging without constant

encouragement (Dreikurs & Soltz, 1990). The development of youth is predicated on their

societal associations. From breakfast with their parents to passing the principal in the hallway to

greeting the cooks in the lunch line to shooting hoops with their friends in physical education

class, one can notice that children put forth efforts of predilection toward others and not

themselves (Ansbacher & Ansbacher, 1964). Encouragement communicates that the adult

reveres and has faith in the child, despite their imperfections and misdeeds (Dreikurs et al.,


1998). Dinkmeyer and Dreikurs emphasized a few ways parents and educators can encourage a

child by:

(a) Giving importance to the youth at their present developmental level.

(b) Displaying that one believes in the youth and fosters belief in themselves.

(c) Believe in the youth’s capabilities and grow their self-assurance.

(d) Acknowledge positive experiences and efforts contributed.

(e) Identify and fixate on what youth do well. (as cited in Dreikurs et al., 1998)

Being encouraging also shows children that their behavior is independent of who they are as a

person and discloses that they are valuable. In the knowledge of misbehaving children, adults

fixate on the wrongdoings of the child (Dreikurs et al., 1998). Conversely, encouragement

repositions this fixation toward fostering the courage to be imperfect and instilling belief. If

there is no belief then it is futile to encourage someone else and establish social contribution

(Oberst & Stewart, 2003).

Conclusion

The infiltration of zero tolerance policies into public education has negatively affected

African American students. Literature over the past forty years has displayed proof that students

of color are disparately suspended and expelled in astronomical numbers, which has facilitated

youth to be perceived as fiscal assets and channeled toward correctional institutionalization.

School counselors have an important role to impede discriminatory disciplinary practices

through advocating to administration for applicable alternatives such as trauma-sensitive

schooling and educating staff on the framework of misbehavior and how to manage misconduct.

Using an Adlerian viewpoint, educators may transform cognitively from posing the question

“What is wrong with this student?” to “What happen to this student?” Further, peering from an


Adlerian lens, one can recognize that disciplinary use of suspension and expulsion extremely

discourages African American students. Furthermore, schools must become a place that fosters

an atmosphere of belonging for all and encourages, inspires, and builds the necessary tools for

children to accomplish their endeavors. Adler stated “An educator’s most important task, one

might almost say his holy duty, is to see to it that no child is discouraged at school, and that a

child who enters school already discouraged regains his self-confidence through his school and

his teacher. This goes hand in hand with the vocation of the educator, for education is possible

only with children who look hopefully and joyfully upon the future” (as cited in Ansbacher &

Ansbacher, 1964, p.399).


References

American School Counselor Association. (2015). The school counselor and cultural diversity.

Retrieved from

https://www.schoolcounselor.org/asca/media/asca/PositionStatements/PS_CulturalDiversi

ty.pdf

Ansbacher, L. H., & Ansbacher, R. R. (Eds.). (1964). The Individual Psychology of Alfred Adler:

A systematic presentation in selections from his writings. New York, NY: Harper & Row,

Publishers, Inc.

Bottiani, J. H., Bradshaw, C. P., & Mendelson, T. (2017). A multilevel examination of racial

disparities in high school discipline: Black and white adolescents' perceived equity,

school belonging, and adjustment problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(4),

532-545.

Bryan, J., Day-Vines, N. L., Griffin, D., & Moore-Thomas, C. (2012). The disproportionality

Dilemma: Patterns of teacher referrals to school counselors for disruptive behavior.

Journal of Counseling and Development, 90, 177-190.

Cavanaugh, B. (2016). Trauma-informed classrooms and schools. Beyond Behavior, 25(2), 41-

46.

Craig, S. E. (2017). Trauma-sensitive schools for the adolescent years: Promoting resiliency and

healing, grades 6-12. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Crosby, S. D. (2015). An ecological perspective on emerging trauma-informed teaching

practices. Children & Schools, 34(4), 223-230. doi:10.1093/cs/cdv027

Deihl, L. M. (2013). Children and trauma: How schools can help with healing. Brown University

Child & Adolescent Behavior Letter, 29(11), 1-7.


Stock. (2018, June 18). Retrieved from Dictionary.com:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/stock?s=t

Dreikurs, R., & Soltz, V. (1990). Children: The challenge: The classical work on improving

parent-child relationsh, intelligent, humane, and eminently practical. New York, NY:

Plume.

Dreikurs, R., Grunwald, B. B., & Pepper, F. C. (1998). Maintaining sanity in the classroom:

Classroom management techniques (2nd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis.

Griffith, J., & Powers, R. L. (2007). The lexicon of Adlerian psychology: 106 terms associated

with the Individual Psychology of Alfred Adler. Port Townsend, WA: Adlerian

Psychology Associates.

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.

doi:10.1002/pits.21838

Heitzeg, N. (2009). Education or incarceration: Zero tolerance policies and the school to prison

pipeline. Forum on Public Policy, 2009(2), 1-21. Retrieved from

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ870076.pdf

Krezmien, M. P., Leone, P. E., Zablocki, M. S., & Wells, C. S. (2010). Juvenile court referrals

and the public schools: Nature and extent of the practice in five states. Journal of

Contemporary Criminal Justice, 26(3), 273-293. doi:10.1177/1043986210368642

Mallett, C. A. (2016). The school-to-prison pipeline: From school punishment to rehabilitative

inclusion. Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 60(4), 296-304.

doi:10.1080/1045988X.2016.1144554


Monahan, K. C., VanDerhei, S., Bechtold, J., & Cauffman, E. (2014). From the school yard to

the squad car: School discpline, truancy, and arrest. Journal of Youth & Adolescence,

43(7), 1110-1122. doi:10.1007/s10964-014-0103-1

Mosak, H., & Maniacci, M. (1999). A primer of Adlerian Psychology: The analytic-behavorial-

cognitive psychology of Alfred Adler. New York, NY: Routledge.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2017). Indicators of school crime and saftey: 2016.

Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2017/2017064.pdf

Nealy-Oparah, S., & Scruggs-Hussein, T. C. (2018). Trauma-informed leadership in schools:

From the inside-out: The foundation of being a trauma-informed leader is

transformational "inside out" work that heals adult trauma and develops social emotional

intelligence. How can we teach what we do not embody? Leadership, 47(3), 12-16.

Nelson, J., Lott, L., & Glenn, H. S. (2013). Positive discipline in the classrom: Developing

mutual respect, cooperation, and responsibility in the class room (4th ed.). New York,

NY: Three Rivers Press.

Nicholson-Crotty, S., Birchmeier, Z., & Valentine, D. (2009). Exploring the impact of school

discipline on racial disproportion in the juvenile justice system. Social Science Quaterly,

90(4), 1003-1018. doi:10. 1111/j. 1540-6237 .2009.00674.x

Noltemeyer, A. L., Ward, R. M., & Mcloughlin, C. (2015). Relationship between school

suspension and student outcomes: A meta analysis. School Psychology Review, 44(2),

224-240.

Oberst, E. U., & Stewart, E. A. (2003). Adlerian psychotherapy: An advanced approach to

Individual Psychology. New York, NY: Routledge.


Simmons, L. (2017). The prison school: Educational inequality and school discipline in the age

of mass incarceratio. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.

Skiba, R. J., Eckes, S. E., & Brown, K. (2009). African American disproportionality in school

discipline: The divide between best evidence and legal remedy. New York Law School

Law Review, 54(3), 1071-1112.

Skiba, R. J., Horner, R. H., Chung, C.-G., Rausch, K. M., May, S. L., & Tobin, T. (2011). Race is

not nuetral: A national investigation of African American and Latino disproportionality in

school discipline. School Psychology Review, 40(1), 85-107.

Sullivan, A. L., Klingbeil, D. A., & Van Norman, E. R. (2013). Beyond behavior: Multilevel

analysis of the influence of sociodemographics and school characteristics on students'

risk of suspension. School Psychology Review, 42(1), 99-114.

Teske, S. C. (2011). A study of zero tolerance policies in schools: A multi-integrated systems

approach to improve outcomes for adolescents. Journal of Child and Adolescent

Psychiatric Nursing, 24(2), 88-97. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6171.2011.00273.x

Thompson, J. (2016). Eliminating zero tolerance policies in schools: Miami-Dade County Public

School's approach. Brigham Young University Education & Law, 2016(2), 325-349.

Retrieved from

https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1390&context=elj

Vega, D., Moore, J. L., & Miranda, A. H. (2015). In their own words: Perceived barriers to

achievment by African American and Latino high school students. American Secondary

Education, 43(3), 36-58.

Wiest-Stevenson, C., & Lee, C. (2016). Trauma-informed schools. Journal of Evidence-Informed

Social Work, 13(5), 498-503. doi:10.1080/23761407.2016.1166855


Wilson, H. (2014). Turning off the school-to-prison pipeline. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 23,

49-53.

the racial disparity of zero tolerance: shackles of the ... willis mp 2018.pdf · underlying...

Documents