Are in-school suspension programs accomplishing what they should? No, say the authors, who conducted a study of 10 "successful" ISS programs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Corbett, Adele H. "Is Your ISS Program Meeting Its Goals? Take a Closer Look." NASSP Bulletin, November 1981.
2.
Garibaldi, Antoine M.In-School Alternatives to Suspension: Report to theNational Institute of Education. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Education, 1978.
3.
_. " In-School Alternatives to Suspension: Trendy Educational Innovations." The Urban Review, Fall 1979.
4.
Kittle, H.A., and Meares, H.O. "In-House Suspension." NASSP Bulletin, February 1976.
5.
Lordon, John F. "Establishing a Climate for School Discipline: The Total Perspective ." NASSP Bulletin, April 1983.
6.
Mendez, Roy, and Sanders, Stanley. "An Examination of In-School Suspension: Panacea or Pandora's Box?" NASSP Bulletin, January 1981.
7.
Mizell, M. Hayes. "Designing and Implementing Effective In-School Alternatives to Suspension ." In In-School Alternatives to Suspension, edited by A. Garibaldi.Washington, D.C.: NIE, 1978.
8.
Pare, John A. "Alternative Learning Centers: Another Option for Discipline Programs ." NASSP Bulletin, April 1983.
9.
Short, Paula M., and Noblit, George W. "A Study of In-School Suspension Programs in North Carolina Public Schools." Study conducted for the North Carolina Governor'sCrime Commission, 1983.
10.
Wayson, William W., and Pinnell, Gay S. "Creating a Living Curriculum for Teaching Self-Discipline." In Helping Teachers Manage Classrooms, edited by P. Duke.Arlington, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1982.
11.
Williams, Junious.In-School Alternatives to Suspension: Why Bother?Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan, 1978 .
