The research on alternatives to exclusionary discipline is substantial and consistent. Approaches that keep students in school, address underlying behavior through support rather than punishment, and build school-wide climate show better outcomes across every measure — safety, academic achievement, and equity.
This page summarizes the evidence base. The other pages in this section go deeper on each approach.
What the Research Shows
The American Psychological Association’s 2008 Zero Tolerance Task Force review — still the most comprehensive analysis of the evidence — found that zero-tolerance policies fail on their own terms. They do not deter misbehavior, do not improve school safety, and produce significant collateral harm by pushing students out of school and into the justice system.
Subsequent research has reinforced this. A 2023 Learning Policy Institute study of large-scale restorative practices implementation found significant reductions in suspension rates and improvements in school climate without increases in school safety incidents. A 2025 IES REL Northwest review found consistent evidence for restorative and trauma-informed approaches across diverse school settings.
Washington’s own data tells the same story: districts that have moved toward alternatives to suspension have maintained safe schools while dramatically reducing discipline disparities.
The Continuum of Alternatives
Effective alternatives to exclusionary discipline work at multiple levels simultaneously — they are not single interventions but systems of support. Washington’s OSPI frames this as a continuum:
Universal (Tier 1): School-wide positive behavioral supports, restorative community-building, trauma-informed staff practices, and clear, consistently applied expectations. These serve all students and build the foundation for a positive climate.
Targeted (Tier 2): Small-group supports for students showing early signs of struggle — social-emotional learning groups, check-in/check-out systems, mentoring, and restorative circles before conflict escalates.
Intensive (Tier 3): Individualized plans for students with the highest needs — wraparound supports, functional behavioral assessments, crisis intervention, and community partnerships. This tier is where the most at-risk students are most often failed by systems that default to removal instead.
What Washington Law Requires
Washington’s 2016 and 2023 discipline rule updates push districts toward alternatives by constraining when exclusionary discipline can be used. Key requirements:
RCW 28A.600.410 requires districts to consider alternatives to suspension before imposing it. WAC 392-400 requires that discipline be proportionate to the behavior, that less-restrictive alternatives be considered first, and that educational services continue for students under long-term suspension or expulsion.
These are not aspirational — they are legal requirements. Districts that skip directly to suspension without considering alternatives may be in violation of state law.
See Washington Discipline Law and Discipline Rules for the full statutory and regulatory framework.
Why Alternatives Must Be Equity-Centered
Alternatives to exclusionary discipline can reduce overall suspension rates while leaving disparities intact — or even widen them — if they are not implemented with equity as an explicit goal. Restorative practices offered only to some students, or trauma-informed training that does not address racial bias, can become cover for continued disproportionality.
Effective implementation requires districts to disaggregate outcomes data by race, disability, and other student groups from the start, set explicit equity targets, and adjust practices when disparities persist.