Meeting the discipline challenge: Capacity-building youth-adult leadership

  • Marc BrasofEmail author


Because misbehavior in schools is often instigated by a confluence of organizational features, the purpose of this research was to understand what Youth Court reveals about the causes of in-school conflicts and to what extent its processes help to address them. This multi-site qualitative case study collected data in the form of observations, documents, semi-structured and focus group interviews in order to explore Youth Court processes and outcomes. Double-loop learning was used to describe the extent and quality of dialogue and interventions. The research questions were: Does Youth Court facilitate double-loop learning? What contributing variables influencing student misbehavior does this discourse reveal? What is the impact of this discourse on school policies and practices? Youth Court surfaces vital information about students, teachers, classrooms, and school-wide policy necessary to inform the development or adaptation of discipline policies and practices; in some cases, that information became a catalyst for changes in classroom and school-wide policies and practices. Youth Court helped to address individual instances of misbehavior with interventions that were restorative rather than punitive. And yet, the greater benefits of Youth Court, namely improvements to a school’s culture and climate, were not necessarily fully realized because Youth Court activity and other school processes and structures are not formally linked. Further research using linkage theory would help to unpack why successes in Youth Court did and did not spread to other areas of school.


Empirical paper Double-loop learning Student voice Discipline Capacity-building 



  1. American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force. (2008). Are zero tolerance policies effective in the schools?: An evidentiary review and recommendations. American Psychologist, 63(9), 852–862. Scholar
  2. Argyris, C. (1991). Teaching smart people how to learn. Harvard Business Review, 69(3), 99–109.Google Scholar
  3. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  4. Balfanz, R., Byrnes, V., & Fox, J. (2015). Sent home and put off track: The antecedents, disproportionalities, and consequences of being suspended in the 9th grade. In D. J. Losen (Ed.), Closing the school discipline gap: Equitable remedies for excessive exclusion (pp. 17–30). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  5. Brasof, M. (2015). Student voice and school governance: Distributing leadership to youth and adults. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brasof, M. (2018). Using linkage theory to address the student voice organizational improvement paradox. Journal of Ethical Educational Leadership, March(1), 44–65.Google Scholar
  7. 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(2), 177–190. Scholar
  8. Butts, J., & Buck, J. (2000). Teen courts: A focus on research (Juvenile Justice Bulletin). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Retrieved from
  9. Camino, L. (2000). Youth-adult partnerships: Entering new territory in community work and research. Applied Developmental Science, 4(1), 11–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cervone, B., & The Forum For Youth Investment. (2002). Taking democracy in hand: Youth action for educational change in the san francisco bay area. Providence, RI: What Kids Can Do.Google Scholar
  11. Coburn, C. E. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving behind numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cook-Sather, A. (2002). Authorizing students’ perspectives: Toward trust, dialogue, and change in education. Educational Researcher, 31(4), 3–14. Retrieved from
  13. Cook-Sather, A. (2009). Translation: An alternative framework for conceptualizing an supporting school reform efforts. Educational Theory, 59(2), 217–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cushman, K. (2005). Sent to the principal: Students talk about making high schools better. Providence, RI: Next Generation Press.Google Scholar
  15. Czerniawski, G., & Kidd, W. (2011). The student voice handbook: Bridging the academic/practitioner divide (pp. 89–96). Bingley, WA: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  16. Fenning, P., PIgott, T., Engler, E., Brashaw, K., Gamboney, E., Grunewalk, S., Haque, T., Flannery, K.B., & Kato, M. (2013). A mixed methods approach examining disproportionality in school discipline. Unpublished manuscript Loyola University Chicago and University of Oregon. Retrieved from:
  17. Fielding, M. (2001). Students as radical agents of change. Journal of Educational Change, 2, 123–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fine, M. (1991). Framing dropouts: Notes on the politics of an urban high school. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  19. Fronius, T., Persson, H., Hurley, N., & Petrosino, A. (2016). Restorative justice in U.S. schools: A research review. WestEd Justice & Prevention Research Center: Retrieved from the Wested website:
  20. Gase, L., Kuo, T., Lai, E., & Stoll, M. (2016). Ponce, N. The impact of two los angeles county teen courts on youth recidivism: Comparing two informal probation programs, 12(1), 105–126.Google Scholar
  21. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Pub.Google Scholar
  22. Goodman, P. S. (2000). Missing organizational linkages: Tools for cross-level research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Hirschinger-Blank, N., Simmons, L., Volz, G., Thomspons, R., Finely, L., & Cleary, J. (2009). Urban school district: Lessons learned form youth court volunteers. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 60(2), 31–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ierley, A., & Claassen-Wilson, D. (2003). Making things right: restorative justice for school communities. In T. Jones & R. Compton (Eds.), Kids working it out: Stories and strategies for making peace in our schools (pp. 199–209). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  25. Irby, D., & Clough, C. (2014). Consistency rules: A critical exploration of a universal principal of school discipline. Pedagogy, Culture and Society. Scholar
  26. Kazdin, A. E. (2000). Behavior modification in applied settings (6th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  27. Kenworthy, J. (2011). ‘We’re the ones who are going to live here’: Children’s voices in the regeneration of their local area. In G. Czerniawski & W. Kidd (Eds.), The student voice handbook: Bridging the academic/practitioner divide (pp. 89–96). Bingley, WA: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  28. Latimer, J., Dowden, C., & Muise, D. (2005). The effectiveness of restorative justice practices: A meta-analysis. The Prison Journal, 85(2), 127–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lee, V. E., & Burkham, D. T. (2001). School organization and dropping out. In Dropouts in America: How severe is the problem? What do we know about intervention and prevention? January 13, Harvard Graduate School of Education, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  30. Losen, D., Hodson, C., Keith, M., II, Morrison, K., & Belway, S. (2015). Are we closing the school discipline gap? (Publication). Retrieved August 16, 2016, from The Center for Civil Rights Remedies website:
  31. Maxwell, J. (2005). Qualitative research design: an interactive approach (2nd ed., Vol. 42). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  32. McGregor, J. (2005). Development and inquiry programme: Students as researchers. Bedfordshire: National College for School Leadership.Google Scholar
  33. Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research: A case study application in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  34. Mitchell, C., & Sackney, L. (2011). Profound improvement: Building learning-community capacity on living-systems principles (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mitra, D. (2001). Opening the floodgates: Giving students a voice in school reform. Forum, 43(2), 91–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mitra, D. (2003). Student voice in school reform: reframing student-teacher relationships. McGill Journal of Education, 38(2), 289–304.Google Scholar
  37. Mitra, D. (2004). The significance of students: can increasing “student voice” in schools lead to gains in youth development. Teacher College Record, 106(4), 651–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mitra, D., & Gross, S. (2009). Increasing student voice in high school reform: building partnerships, improving outcomes. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(4), 522–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Morris, E. W., & Perry, B. L. (2016). The punishment gap: School suspension and racial disparities in achievement. Social Problems, 63, 68–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pekrul, S., & Levin, B. (2007). Building student voice for school improvement. In D. Thiessen & A. Cook-Sather (Eds.), International handbook of student experience in elementary and secondary school (pp. 711–726). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Povitsky, W. T. (2005). Teen court: Does it reduce recidivism? Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Maryland, College Park, MD. Retrieved from
  42. Rudduck, J. (2002). The 2002 sera lecture: The transformative potential of consulting young people about teaching, learning, and schooling. Scottish Educational Review, 34(2), 123–137.Google Scholar
  43. Rudduck, J., & Demetriou, H. (2003). Student perspectives and teacher practices: The transformational potential. McGill Journal of Education, 38(2), 274–288.Google Scholar
  44. Rudduck, J., & McIntyre, D. (2007). Improving learning through consulting pupils. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Senge, P. (1994). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  46. Senge, P. (2003). Taking personal change seriously: the impact of “organizational learning” on management practice. The Academy of Management Executive (19932005), 17(2), 47–50. Retrieved from
  47. Servoss, T. J. (2014). School security and student misbehavior: A multi-level examination. Youth and Society. Scholar
  48. Sherman, R. (2002). Building young people’s public lives: One foundation’s strategy. New Direction For Youth Development, 96(Winter), 65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Simon, H. (1991). Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 125–134. Retrieved from
  50. Skiba, R., Arredondo, M., & Rausch, M. (2014a). New and developing research on disparities in discipline (pp. 1–12). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.Google Scholar
  51. Skiba, R., Chung, C. G., Trachok, M., Baker, T. L., Sheya, A., & Hughes, R. L. (2014b). Parsing disciplinary disproportionality: Contributions of infraction, student, and school characteristics to out-of-school suspension and expulsion. American Educational Research Journal, 51(4), 640–670. Scholar
  52. Skiba, R., & Peterson, R. (2003). Teaching the school curriculum: School discipline as instruction. Preventing School Failure, 47(2), 66–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Smith, R. (1985). Freedom and discipline. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  54. Spaulding, A. M. (1995). A qualitative case study of teacher-student micropolitical interaction: The strategies, goals, and consequences of student resistance. Paper presented at Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  55. Spillane, J., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. (2004). Towards a theory of leadership practice: A distributed Perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1), 3–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Steinberg, M. P., Allensworth, E., & Johnson, D. W. (2015). What conditions support safety in urban schools? The influence of school organizational practices on student and teacher reports of safety in Chicago. In D. J. Losen (Ed.), Closing the school discipline gap: Equitable remedies for excessive exclusion. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  57. Thomson, P., & Holdsworth, R. (2003). Theorizing change in the educational ‘field’: re-readings of ‘student participation’ projects. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 6(4), 371–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. West, P. (1994). The concept of the learning organization. Journal of European Industrial Training, 18(1), 15–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wilson, J. (1981). Discipline and moral education: A survey of public opinion and understanding. Windsor, Berks: The NFER-Nelson.Google Scholar
  60. Yin, R. (2008). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  61. Zeldin, S. (2004). Youth as agents of adult and community development: Mapping the processes and outcomes of youth engaged in organizational governance. Applied Developmental Science, 8(2), 75–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zeldin, S., McDaniel, A. K., Topitzes, D., & Calvert, M. (2000). Youth in decision-making: A study on the impacts of youth and adults and organizations. (Department of Human Development and Family Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison). Retrieved from

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Arcadia UniversityGlensideUSA

Personalised recommendations