De’Onna Nixson, Associate Member, Immigration and Human Rights Law Review
I. Introduction
Classrooms should be safe spaces for children to learn and grow intellectually, socially, and emotionally. Ideally, a classroom is a place where children feel supported, comfortable, and inspired, and where schools help children flourish and open doors to opportunity. Too often, however, a classroom does not feel this way for all students. When a frustrated six-year-old ends up in handcuffs, or when a giggling group of middle school girls are subjected to a strip search, these practices starkly contradict the ideals of safety and support that schools are supposed to provide.[1]
Many children face challenges within the school system, whether academic, social, emotional, safety, or structural, and these challenges should not be minimized or overlooked. Within this broader landscape, this blog argues that discriminatory school discipline practices targeting Black students violate their human right to equal access to education, even when those practices lack provable discriminatory intent, and that these harms are largely unrecognized under United States domestic law. The discrimination many Black students face, and its lasting impact, reveals how schools fall short of providing the nondiscriminatory learning environment international human rights standards require. These shortcomings are visible in school disciplinary practices, where policies and responses to student behavior often reinforce racial inequities.
II. Background
School discipline can shape a child’s experiences in and outside of the classroom.[2] Although schools are supposed to educate and protect all students, disciplinary policies and practices can often operate in ways that unevenly burden Black children, reflecting patterns of racial bias and structural inequality.[3]
A. Racial Inequality in Educational Discipline
Implicit bias plays a major role in shaping how Black children are perceived in schools and contributes to racial disparities Black children face within the school system.[4] Disparities begin as early as preschool, where Black children are suspended at higher rates despite representing a small percentage of overall enrollment.[5] In a study conducted by the Yale Child Study Center, teachers anticipated misbehavior from Black children more than their white peers, scrutinized their actions more closely, and ultimately imposed harsher punishments.[6] These early patterns of biased perception set the stage for how disciplinary policies, such as zero-tolerance approaches and exclusionary discipline, disproportionately affect Black students.[7]
Zero-tolerance policies are rigid disciplinary rules that require automatic punishment without consideration of a child’s developmental stage or the broader context of the behavior.[8] Originally intended for serious safety threats, schools now apply zero-tolerance practices to minor misbehaviors, classroom disruptions, and subjective claims of defiance.[9] When implicit bias causes Black students to be subjectively perceived as more defiant or aggressive, zero-tolerance policies are more frequently enforced against them, resulting in higher rates of exclusionary discipline.[10]
Exclusionary discipline includes classroom removal, suspension, or relocation to alternative schools.[11] During the 2022-2023 school year, a study of schools in Ohio found that Black male students were over four times more likely to be suspended or expelled than their white peers, and Black female students were six times more likely to face suspension or expulsion than their white peers.[12] These intense punitive measures interrupt learning, increase disengagement, and contribute to long-term educational harm.[13]
Together, these practices fuel what scholars describe as the “school-to-prison pipeline,” a systemic pattern in which punitive school environments push marginalized students out of schools and into the juvenile and criminal justice systems.[14] Repeated suspensions, expulsions, and the presence of police in schools normalize punishment rather than providing educational or developmental support.[15] As Black children are disciplined more harshly and more frequently, they are more likely to fall behind academically or drop out from school altogether, creating a pathway from classroom exclusion to criminalization.[16]
This pattern is illustrated by a widely reported 2019 incident involving a six-year-old Black girl who acted out in her first-grade class due to a medical condition.[17] After being sent to the school office, a staff member grabbed her wrists, prompting the young girl to kick in response.[18] Despite her age and condition, authorities arrested, fingerprinted, and charged her with battery.[19] Although this case may feel extreme, it reflects a broader pattern of Black students being punished more harshly and more often than their white peers.[20] As one study concluded, “Regardless of the behavior that African American youth engage in, that behavior is viewed by educators as more worthy of harsh school discipline.”[21]
The absence of explicit discriminatory intent does not equate to the absence of discrimination.[22] Yet current United States domestic legal standard fails to address these forms of systemic bias. International human rights frameworks, by contrast, provide an alternative approach.[23]
B. International Human Rights Frameworks
The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) is a human rights treaty governing racial equality.[24] The United States signed ICERD in 1966 and ratified it in 1994, thereby accepting binding obligations under the treaty.[25] ICERD requires parties to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee the equal enjoyment of human rights without racial discrimination.[26] More specifically, Article 5(v) of ICERD ensures individuals receive equal enjoyment of the right to education and training. [27]
In addition to its binding obligations under ICERD, the United States has signed the Convention of the Rights of the Child (CRC), signaling an intent to align with the treaty’s child-centered standards.[28] However, the United States remains the only member of the United Nations that has not ratified the CRC.[29] The CRC is an international treaty designed to protect children’s rights and to ensure that all children benefit from its protections without discrimination of any kind.[30] Because the United States has not ratified the CRC, its provisions are not directly enforceable in United States courts.[31]
III. Discussion
International human rights standards help reveal where the United States falls short in addressing racial discrimination in schools.[32] By overlooking the impact of racial disparities in schools and relying on the narrow reach of domestic doctrine, existing legal frameworks leave many Black children without meaningful protection.[33] This discussion highlights those shortcomings and examines how international human rights frameworks can guide stronger protections for Black children.
A. The United States’ Binding Racial Justice Obligations
Despite its binding obligations under ICERD, the United States continues to acknowledge the persistence of racial discrimination while maintaining legal standards that inadequately account for systemic discrimination or implicit bias.[34] When the United States signed ICERD, President Johnson’s administration acknowledged that the country “has not always measured up to its constitutional heritage of equality for all,” but that it was “on the march” toward adherence.[35] Decades later, in 2000, the United States again recognized that subtle forms of racial discrimination persisted, even as overt racism became less prevalent.[36]
In 2022, the United Nations reviewed the United States’ tenth to twelfth periodic reports that detail the United States efforts to implement ICERD.[37] These periodic reports, which State parties are required to submit, describe how the reporting State’s domestic laws and policies comply with treaty obligations.[38] In its concluding observations, the Committee expressed concern that the United States still lacked specific legislation implementing ICERD and that its obligations under the treaty remained largely absent from domestic policy.[39] The Committee recommended that the United States explicitly prohibit racial discrimination in all its forms and adopt a national plan to combat systemic racism and structural discrimination.[40]
With respect to education, the Committee recognized initiatives such as the White House Initiative on Advancing Educational Equity for Black Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans.[41] However, it emphasized that significant racial disparities persist.[42] In particular, the Committee highlighted the harsh and disproportionate disciplinary measures imposed on racial minority students, as well as the continued use of practices that funnel children into the school-to-prison pipeline.[43] These ongoing inequities directly conflict with the United States’ obligations under ICERD, including its duty to promptly eliminate racial discrimination and ensure that all students can fully enjoy their right to education.[44]
Although certain areas of U.S. law recognize disparate-impact discrimination, the Committee has noted that the scope of such recognition remains narrow. Forms of discrimination such as indirect discrimination often fall outside the reach of courts.[45] As a result, many of the harms produced by systemic racism remain legally unremedied, and their consequences fall most heavily on those least equipped to advocate for themselves.[46] Discrimination in any form can be especially harmful to children’s development, especially within educational settings. Accordingly, children should be entitled to heightened protections that ensure racial discrimination has no place in shaping their educational experiences.[47]
B. Child-Centered Standards the United States Should Adopt
Additionally, the CRC articulates standards that, if reflected in United States policies and practices, could meaningfully address the racial discrimination Black children experience in schools.[48] For example, Article 2 of the CRC requires members of the treaty to protect children from all forms of discrimination.[49] This provision is deliberately broad and is not limited to instances of intentional or overt discrimination.[50] Rather, it encompasses discriminatory outcomes that arise from implicit bias, stereotypes, and institutional practices, such as the disproportionate use of exclusionary discipline, harsher consequences, and differential treatment rooted in biased perceptions of behavior.[51] Article 2 would require schools and state actors to confront and remedy racial disparities that disproportionately harm Black children.[52]
Article 28 further ensures that States will, “take measures to encourage regular attendance at schools and the reduction of drop-out rates.”[53] This obligation reflects a commitment to keeping children in educational environments and supporting their continued engagement with learning.[54] Exclusionary discipline practices and zero-tolerance policies that disproportionately remove Black students from classrooms undermine this goal.[55] Research shows that out-of-school suspensions foster negative associations with school, increase disengagement, and raise the likelihood of dropping out.[56] Under CRC standards, policies that frequently exclude children from classrooms would be incompatible with children’s right to education.[57]
Together, ICERD’s prohibition on racial discrimination and CRC’s child-centered protections provide a framework capable of addressing the harms Black children face in schools.[58]
C. Domestic Standard
Despite these international frameworks, U.S. constitutional doctrine continues to impose significant limits on remedies for racial discrimination. The Constitution provides limited protection against discriminatory outcomes unless plaintiffs can prove explicit discriminatory intent.[59] In Washington v. Davis, the Supreme Court held that disparate impact alone does not violate the Constitution absent evidence of purposeful discrimination.[60] This intent requirement creates a substantial barrier to relief and makes it exceedingly difficult to challenge racially discriminatory practices that operate through structural or systemic mechanisms.[61]
Not all racial discrimination manifests as overt, explicit racism.[62] Instead, it often appears through implicit bias, subjective interpretation of behavior, discretionary decision-making, and disciplinary practices.[63] Yet under current domestic doctrine, these indirect forms of discrimination are often not actionable, even when they result in profound educational and developmental harms, including the disproportionate exclusion of Black students from learning environments.[64]
D. Consequences of Noncompliance
The consequences of failing to comply with ICERD obligations and disregarding CRC principles are tangible and deeply harmful. One illustrative example is a lawsuit filed by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and Morrison & Foerster against Binghamton City School District. The complaint alleged that racial bias caused school officials to interpret ordinary behavior by twelve-year-old Black and Latina girls as suspicious, prompting extreme investigative measures.[65]
According to the complaint, a principal and assistant principal noticed four twelve-year-old girls leaving the cafeteria after lunch and ordered them to go to the nurse’s office without explanation.[66] Without contacting their parents, the school nurse conducted a strip search and sobriety test on the girls.[67]
In one case the nurse directed, “the girl to remove her clothing down to her underwear and touching the girl inside of her bra,” and commented on her breasts saying that they were “unusually large for her age.”[68] The nurse also described the girls as loud, disrespectful, and having attitudes, common stereotypes associated with Black and Latina girls.[69] Additionally, the assistant principal claimed that she feared the twelve-year-old girls and was afraid to be left alone with them.[70] Meanwhile, the searches on the girls did not reveal evidence of any wrongdoing or contraband.[71] The principal eventually contacted their parents and said that the girls were sent to the nurse’s office because he thought they were “hyper” and “giddy,” but did not even inform the parents that their children were subjected to a sobriety check or strip search.[72] Moreover, as a result of the incident, the girls missed substantial instructional time.[73] They felt uncomfortable returning to the school, and contrary to their mothers’ requests that they be transferred to a different middle school in the district, they were reassigned to an alternative school typically reserved for students with serious disciplinary violations.[74]
To support their discrimination claims, the plaintiffs submitted studies documenting racially disparate treatment within the school district, as well as research showing how stereotypes about Black and Latina girls lead to their adultification and result in them receiving less support.[75] They used this evidence to draw a direct connection between these findings and the administrators’ comments and actions.[76] Despite this evidence, the court dismissed the plaintiffs’ Equal Protection and Title VI claims, concluding that there was insufficient evidence of intentional discrimination.[77]
This case demonstrates how difficult, if not impossible, it can be for students to receive legal recognition for racial discrimination that is not overt.[78] Even when the treatment is invasive, stigmatizing, and racially motivated, and with studies showing how the administrators’ actions can be linked to racial stereotyping, domestic courts require evidence of intentional racial discrimination.[79] Under standards more consistent with ICERD, however, such outcomes might be evaluated differently. ICERD requires States to prohibit all forms of discrimination and to take affirmative steps to eliminate practices that produce unequal outcomes in education.[80] Incorporating these obligations into domestic law, alongside the child-centered protections envisioned by the CRC, would allow schools to be held accountable for discriminatory effects and systemic patterns, not only explicit racial animus.[81] In other words, these forms of discrimination could finally be recognized, challenged, and addressed.
The discriminatory practices described here are not isolated to a single district, incident, or student.[82] While these practices may vary in form, they share a common feature: they disproportionately burden Black children.[83] Too often, the indirect discrimination Black students experience as a result of implicit bias and stereotyping falls outside the scope of harm that United States law is willing to recognize.[84]
E. Barriers to Reform and Paths Forward
Opponents of reform frequently argue that racial disparities in school discipline reflect differences in student behavior, asserting that Black children “behave worse” than their white peers.[85] But this argument echoes a long history of racial pseudoscience and stereotyping.[86] Others contend that these disparities are attributable solely to class rather than race.[87] While class and race may intersect, this argument obscures the independent role that racial bias plays across socioeconomic lines.[88] Such misconceptions about racial disparities serve as barriers to reform by allowing policymakers to dismiss racialized dynamics that demand structural change.[89]
The evidence of harm is extensive.[90] Testimony exists.[91] Studies exist.[92] Yet legal remedies remain limited because domestic doctrine appear to prioritize intent over impact.[93] Although the United States ratified ICERD in 1994 and signed the CRC in 1995, meaningful implementation has lagged.[94] In its 2022 review, ICERD Committee urged the United States to adopt “appropriate measures to address racial discrimination in the administration of student discipline,” including school-based arrests and referrals to the juvenile and the criminal justice systems for minor non-violent conduct.[95]
While the federal government has failed to fully meet these obligations under ICERD, state legislators need not wait to initiate reform.[96] California’s Senate Bill 274, for example, prohibits suspensions for minor “willful defiance” infractions in recognition of these disproportionate racial impact of such disciplinary practices on Black and Indigenous students.[97] Other states could follow suit by banning zero-tolerance policies, curbing exclusionary discipline for minor conduct, and mandating cultural-responsiveness training for educators.
If American education is going to move toward a system in which all children feel protected and supported, the legal frameworks governing schools must evolve. Using ICERD and CRC standards as guiding reference points could mitigate the influence of racial discrimination and implicit bias within schools.
IV. Conclusion
Black children deserve the full benefit of educational environments that encourage their growth, supports their identity, and protects their dignity. As the research, examples, and case law discussed above demonstrate, discrimination often arises through biased interpretation, perception, and discretionary judgment rather than explicit racial rules. Aligning domestic policy with the principles embodied in ICERD and the CRC, through legislation, administrative guidance, or school district policy, offers path toward recognizing and addressing the discrimination that continues to shape educational experiences for Black children.
[1] Six-year-old Child Arrested at Orlando School, Equal Just. Initiative (Sep. 24, 2019), https://eji.org/news/six-year-old-child-arrested-orlando-school/ [https://perma.cc/SDL3-YPQT]; Complaint at 2, I.S. et al. v. Binghamton City School District et al., 2d Cir. (N.D.N.Y 2020) (No. 3:2019cv00513).
[2] See generally, Eisa Al-Shamma, Anna Basallaje, & Chris Bridges et al., Breaking the Chains 2: The Preschool-to-Prison Pipeline Epidemic, Equal Just. Soc’y, https://equaljusticesociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Breaking-The-Chains-2-The-Preschool-To-Prison-Pipeline-Epidemic-PDF.pdf [https://perma.cc/L9BV-VAVH] (last visited Nov. 19, 2025).
[3] Id.
[4] Paige Duggins-Clay, Makiah Lyons, & Tionna Ryan, Confronting Hair Discrimination in Schools – A Call to Honor Black History by Protecting Student Rights, Intercultural Dev. Rsch. Ass’n (Feb. 2025), https://www.idra.org/resource-center/confronting-hair-discrimination-in-schools-a-call-to-honor-black-history-by-protecting-student-rights/ [https://perma.cc/YC7E-67Q5]; Bill Hathaway, Implicit bias may help explain high preschool expulsion rates for black children, Yale Sch. Med. (Sep. 16, 2025), https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/implicit-bias-may-help-explain-high-preschool-expulsion-rates-for-black-children/ [https://perma.cc/GZH3-SXJG].
[5] Al-Shamma et al., supra note 2, at 2-3
[6] Hathaway, supra note 4; Tracy DeStazio, ‘I’m watching you’ behavior produces racial disparities in school discipline, Notre Dame News, Univ. of Notre Dame (Feb. 12, 2024), https://news.nd.edu/news/im-watching-you-behavior-produces-racial-disparities-in-school-discipline/ [https://perma.cc/R6RM-EGRU].
[7] See generally, Al-Shamma et al, supra note 2.
[8] Id. at 6.
[9] Id. at 6.
[10] Id. at 6-12.
[11] Id. at 10-12.
[12] Kim Eckhart & Katherine Ungar, 2024 State of School Discipline in Ohio, Children’s Def. Fund (Mar. 2024), https://www.childrensdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/2024-State-of-School-Discipline-in-Ohio.pdf [https://perma.cc/7QLP-JGJY].
[13] Id.
[14] See generally, Al-Shamma et al., supra note 2.
[15] Id. at 7-13.
[16] Id. at 3-4, 15.
[17] Six-Year-Old Child Arrested at Orlando School, Equal Just. Initiative (Sep. 24, 2019), https://eji.org/news/six-year-old-child-arrested-orlando-school/ [https://perma.cc/SDL3-YPQT].
[18] Id.
[19] Id.
[20] Lea Winerman, For Black students, unfairly harsh discipline can lead to lower grades, Am. Psych. Ass’n, (Oct. 7, 2021), https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2021/10/black-students-harsh-discipline [https://perma.cc/VG5E-PA5H]; Sean Darling-Hammond & Eric Ho, Black students are punished more often, U.C. Berkeley Sch. of Pub. Health (Nov. 25, 2024), https://publichealth.berkeley.edu/articles/spotlight/research/black-students-are-punished-more-often [https://perma.cc/5W6E-EDH2].
[21] Winerman, supra note 20.
[22] See generally, Al-Shamma et al., supra note 2.
[23] G.A. Res. 2106 (XX), U.N. Doc. A/RES/2106(XX) (Dec. 21, 1965) [hereinafter ICERD].
[24] ICERD, supra note 23.
[25] Id.
[26] Id.
[27] Id. art. 5.
[28] UNICEF, Frequently Asked Questions on the Convention on the Rights of the Child, https://www.unicef.org/child-rights-convention/frequently-asked-questions [https://perma.cc/XYR8-U7N2] (last visited Nov. 19, 2025).
[29] Arianna Braga, How do US states measure up to children’s rights?, Humanium (Nov. 8, 2022), https://www.humanium.org/en/how-do-us-states-measure-up-to-childrens-rights/ [https://perma.cc/5ECV-GM7F].
[30] UNICEF, supra note 28.
[31] Braga, supra note 29.
[32] Id.
[33] Darling-Hammond & Eric Ho, supra note 20; Anjana Malhotra, Ian M. Kysel, & G. Alex Sinha et al., Racial Discrimination in the United States, Hum. Rts. Watch (Aug. 8, 2022), https://www.hrw.org/report/2022/08/08/racial-discrimination-united-states/human-rights-watch/aclu-joint-submission [https://perma.cc/R5DJ-X962].
[34] Malhotra et al., supra note 33.; Comm. on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Concluding Observations on the Combined Tenth to Twelfth Periodic Reports of the United States of America, U.N. Doc. CERD/C/USA/CO/10-12 (2022) [hereinafter Concluding Observations].
[35] Id.
[36] Id.
[37] Id.
[38] U.N. H.R. Off. of the High Comm’r, H.R. Comm., Reporting Procedure, (May 15, 2020), https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/HRIndicators/MetadataReportingCompliance.pdf [https://perma.cc/A74L-DJC8].
[39] Concluding Observations, supra note 34.
[40] Id.
[41] Id.
[42] Id.
[43] Id.
[44] Id.
[45] Id.
[46] Id.; Nicole Scialabba, How Implicit Bias Impacts Our Children in Education, Am. Bar Ass’n (Oct. 2, 2017), https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/resources/newsletters/childrens-rights/how-implicit-bias-impacts-our-children-education/ [https://perma.cc/4Q4F-GT9Q].
[47] Scialabba, supra note 46.
[48] Id.
[49] Convention on the Rights of the Child art. 2, Nov. 20, 1989, 1577 U.N.T.S. 3 [hereinafter CRC].
[50] UNCRC Article 2: No discrimination, Save the Child., https://www.savethechildren.org.au/about-us/save-the-childrens-charity-work/uncrc-article-2-no-discrimination [https://perma.cc/UH9P-8YSY] (last visited Jan. 17, 2026).
[51] Id.; see generally, CRC, supra note 49; Scialabba, supra note 46.
[52] CRC, supra note 49, at art. 2.
[53] Id. art. 28.
[54] Id.
[55] Emily Peterson, Racial Inequality in Public School Discipline for Black Students in the United States, Ballard Brief (Fall 2021), https://ballardbrief.byu.edu/issue-briefs/racial-inequality-in-public-school-discipline-for-black-students-in-the-united-states [https://perma.cc/DEJ5-VP8H].
[56] Id.
[57] CRC, supra note 49.
[58] Id.; Concluding Observations, supra note 34.
[59] U.S. 229 (1976).
[60] Id.; Scialabba, supra note 46.
[61] Intent Standard, Equal Just. Soc’y, https://equaljusticesociety.org/law/intentdoctrine/ [https://perma.cc/BJ3R-7VF7] (last visited Jan. 17, 2026).
[62] Scialabba, supra note 46.
[63] Id.; see generally, Al-Shamma et al., supra note 2; see generally, Complaint, supra note 1.
[64] 426 U.S. 229 at 239-246; Complaint, supra note 1.
[65] Complaint, supra note 1.
[66] Id. at 2.
[67] Id. at 9.
[68] Id. at 2, 10.
[69] Id. at 4.
[70] Id. at 32.
[71] Id. at 2.
[72] Id. at 3.
[73] Id. at 3.
[74] Id. at 3.
[75] Id. at 22, 25.
[76] Id. at 31-32.
[77] KSLN wins high-profile civil rights case defending school district’s search, Kenney Shelton Liptak Nowak (Sep. 10, 2025), https://www.kslnlaw.com/post/ksln-wins-high-profile-civil-rights-case-defending-school-district-s-search [https://perma.cc/7TN3-NYRU].
[78] Erica L. Green, Mark Walker, & Eliza Shapiro, A Battle for the Souls of Black Girls’, N.Y. Times (Oct. 14, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/01/us/politics/black-girls-school-discipline.html [https://perma.cc/7QYE-D634].
[79] Id.
[80] Concluding Observations, supra note 34.
[81] Concluding Observations, supra note 34; CRC, supra note 49.
[82] Green, supra note 78.
[83] Kathleen H. Krause, Charles Bell, & Bajha Jordan et al., Report of Unfair Discipline at School and Associations with Health Risk Behaviors and Experiences, CDC (Oct. 10, 2024), https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/73/su/su7304a8.htm [https://perma.cc/N2A7-FW9F].
[84] Mawule A. Sevon, Schooling While Black: Analyzing the Racial School Discipline Crisis for Behavior Analyst, NIH (Apr. 11, 2022), https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9744995/ [https://perma.cc/57CB-C8DV].
[85] Jason A. Okonofua & Jennifer L. Eberhardt, Two Strikes: Race and the Disciplining of Young Students, 26 Sage J. (Apr. 8, 2015), https://edens.berkeley.edu/PDF/2strikes.pdf [https://perma.cc/VH96-BXJK].
[86] Id.
[87] Michael J. Petrilli, Let’s talk about discipline and disparate impact (again), Thomas B. Fordham Instit. (May 14, 2025), https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/commentary/lets-talk-about-discipline-and-disparate-impact-again [https://perma.cc/UXV2-PZWK].
[88] See generally, Jonathan P. Feingold, “All (Poor) Lives Matter”: How Class-Not-Race Logic Reinscribes Race and Class Privilege, U. Chi. L. Rev. (2020).
[89] Glenn Singleton, Racial Equity in Schools: Why Ignoring the Truth Is Educational Malpractice, Courageous Conversation (Sep. 18, 2025) https://courageousconversation.com/racial-equity-in-schools-ignoring-the-truth-educational-malpractice/ [https://perma.cc/3FPX-Z9RP]; James Bridgeforth, Eliminating Racial Disproportionality in School Discipline, USC Race and Equity Ctr., https://race.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/6-Eliminating-Racial-Disproportionality.pdf [https://perma.cc/R88F-6QAQ].
[90] Krause et al., supra note 83.
[91] Complaint, supra note 1.
[92] Krause et al., supra note 83.
[93] 426 U.S. 229 at 239-246.
[94] Malhotra et al., supra note 33; Convention on the Rights of the Child art. 2, Nov. 20, 1989, 1577 U.N.T.S. 3.
[95] Concluding Observations, supra note 34.
[96] S.B. 274, 136th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. § 3 (Cal. 2025).
[97] Id.
