EFFICIENCY AND CONTROVERSIES OF DETENTION ROOMS IN SCHOOLS: AN ANALYSIS OF THE PROS AND CONS

Abstract

In the context of contemporary challenges within educational systems, analysing the use of detention rooms is crucial to understanding their impact on students, teachers, and the school community. This study explores the pros and cons of detention rooms, highlighting their advantages, such as reducing disruptive behaviours, preventing total exclusion of students, and promoting respect for rules. It also addresses significant drawbacks, including negative psychological effects, inefficiency in behavior modification, and disproportionate application to disadvantaged groups. An ethical analysis based on principles such as autonomy, non-maleficence, justice, and beneficence reveals multiple challenges, ranging from social stigmatization of students to perpetuation ofracial and socio-economic inequalities. The study underscores the needfor adopting more inclusive and restorative educational approaches that promote students' holistic well-being and development. The findings provide a robust foundation for educational reforms aimed at balancing discipline with support, ultimately contributing to afair and student-centred school environment.

Headnote

ABSTRACT: In the context of contemporary challenges within educational systems, analysing the use of detention rooms is crucial to understanding their impact on students, teachers, and the school community. This study explores the pros and cons of detention rooms, highlighting their advantages, such as reducing disruptive behaviours, preventing total exclusion of students, and promoting respect for rules. It also addresses significant drawbacks, including negative psychological effects, inefficiency in behavior modification, and disproportionate application to disadvantaged groups. An ethical analysis based on principles such as autonomy, non-maleficence, justice, and beneficence reveals multiple challenges, ranging from social stigmatization of students to perpetuation ofracial and socio-economic inequalities. The study underscores the needfor adopting more inclusive and restorative educational approaches that promote students' holistic well-being and development. The findings provide a robust foundation for educational reforms aimed at balancing discipline with support, ultimately contributing to afair and student-centred school environment.

KEYWORDS: detention room, behavioral management, discipline, school policy, isolation room, alternative discipline methods

INTRODUCTION

In the current context of education, in which we face increasing diversity, varied individual needs and complex behavioral challenges, the analysis of the use of detention rooms becomes an essential necessity. This study, which explores the pros and cons of these spaces, is important from several perspectives, each of which has a profound impact on the school community and educational policies.

Detention rooms are frequently used as a disciplinary measure in schools around the world. However, there is a lack of consensus on their effectiveness in achieving the goals of discipline and improving student behavior. This study provides an opportunity to assess whether these spaces succeed in reducing disruptive behaviours and creating an educational environment conducive to learning. By exploring pros such as their benefits in maintaining order in the classroom and protecting peers, as well as cons, such as ineffectiveness in changing behavior and negative psychological impact, the study provides a complex and balanced basis for understanding.

Another important aspect of this study is its analysis of equity in the application of school subjects. Research shows that detention rooms are often disproportionately used for students from disadvantaged ethnic and socio-economic minorities, accentuating existing inequalities. This study is essential to identify and correct discriminatory practices, thus contributing to the creation of a fairer education system. In a society that values equal opportunities, it is crucial to ensure that every student receives the same treatment and equal opportunities for development.

Political and administrative decisions in the field of education must be based on evidence and rigorous analysis. This study makes a significant contribution by highlighting the positive and negative impact of detention rooms, thus providing a guide for the implementation of more effective and humane measures. Well-informed educational policies can replace punitive measures with restorative approaches and behavioral support programs that better respond to students' needs.

Students' mental well-being is a fundamental component of educational and personal success. The analysis of this study helps identify how detention rooms affect students' mental health, often generating feelings of shame, isolation, and anxiety. By exploring alternatives to detention rooms, such as psychological interventions or mentoring programs, this study contributes to promoting an educational environment that supports the holistic development of students.

The way schools approach discipline has a direct impact on their relationship with families and the community. Decisions perceived as unfair or discriminatory can erode parents' and students' trust in educational institutions. The study of the importance of detention rooms also analyzes this aspect, providing a valuable perspective for strengthening the relationships between the school and the community. By proposing fair and inclusive practices, the study can help to create a climate of trust and cooperation. A study by Nicoara & all analyzes the perceptions of Romanian teachers on the use of detention rooms in schools, highlighting their impact on discipline and teacher-student relationships.1

In a rapidly changing world with an increasingly diverse school population, education systems need to be flexible and adaptable. This study helps to reassess traditional discipline measures, such as detention rooms, in light of new research and educational needs. Replacing punitive measures with student-centred approaches can support better preparedness for future challenges.

Byexamining the pros and cons, the analysis provides a solid foundation for educational reforms that promote inclusion, equity, and well-being for all those involved in the educational process. Therefore, the importance of this study lies in its ability to contribute to the creation of a better and more inclusive educational environment, adapted to the needs of students and current social challenges.

METHODOLOGIES

The main objective of this systematic review is to identify, describe and evaluate the efficiency and ethical implications of the use of detention rooms in schools. The study aims to synthesize the existing literature on the benefits and disadvantages of these disciplinary spaces, focusing on their impact on student behavior, psychological well-being, and fairness in the application of sanctions. A comprehensive search was conducted in databases such as Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and Google Scholar. Search terms included: "detention rooms," "school discipline,"

The inclusion criteria were: (1) Peer-reviewed articles and studies, published between 2000 and 2023; (2) Studies addressing the use of detention rooms or similar discipline strategies in schools; (3) Articles written in English; (4) Qualitative and quantitative studies, including randomised controlled trials (RCTs), longitudinal studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

The exclusion criteria were: (1) Studies that do not specifically address detention rooms or school-based internal suspension strategies; (2) Articles that are not written in English.

Being a systematic review, this study did not involve direct contact with human participants, so ethical approval was not required. However, ethical standards have been adhered to by fair and unbiased reporting of data and by giving appropriate credit to the original authors through appropriate citations. The study also applied ethical principles such as autonomy, non-maleficence, justice, and beneficence to analyze the implications of detention rooms in a comprehensive way.

RESULTS

This chapter summarizes the main findings of the analyzed studies, providing a detailed perspective on the use of detention rooms in schools. The results reflect the impact of these spaces on students' behavior, their psychological well-being, fairness in the application of sanctions and relationships between students and teachers.

In order to facilitate a clear and balanced understanding, the conclusions are presented in two major categories: pros, which highlight the benefits of using detention rooms, and cons, which highlight limitations and potential negative effects. This structure aims to provide an informed basis for the evaluation of these practices and to support the identification of more inclusive and effective educational solutions.

The introduction of detention rooms in schools has been a controversial topic, but these spaces can have significant benefits in managing student behavior when used appropriately. In the following, we will explore each of the four pro arguments, supporting them with examples and evidence from the literature.

1. Detention rooms are designed to create a space where students who disrupt the educational process can be temporarily separated to allow the rest of the class to continue learning. This approach is based on the idea that eliminating disruptive behaviours from the classroom helps maintain a focused and productive learning environment2. In this context, detention rooms can be seen as an effective crisis management tooi. For example, in schools in the United Kingdom, the use of detention rooms reduced the number of classroom incidents, as teachers were able to focus on teaching without frequent interruptions3. These spaces also provide an opportunity for students to reflect on their behavior before returning to the classroom. However, critics suggest that to be effective, detention rooms must include educational and counselling programs. If they are used exclusively as a punitive space, their impact can be limited, and students can return to the classroom without changing their behavior4. Therefore, an integrative approach, combining temporary isolation with educational support, is essential for success.

2. Unlike suspension or complete exclusion from school, detention rooms allow students to remain in the school environment. This is important because complete exclusion can have significant negative consequences, such as missing lessons and social marginalization5. The complete exclusion of students for disruptive behaviours has proven to be ineffective in many cases, contributing to decreased academie performance and increased risk of dropping out of school6. Instead, detention rooms can act as an intermediate solution that keeps students engaged in education, even if they are temporarily not present in the classroom. For example, in schools in the United States, the implementation of detention rooms as an alternative to suspension has shown a reduction in absenteeism and an improvement in class attendance7. By keeping students on school grounds, staff can intervene to address the underlying issues that led to problematic behavior, either through counselling or educational activities that encourage self-reflection.

3. Disruptive behaviours can have a significant impact on the classroom's learning environment, reducing the quality of teaching and causing stress among peers8. The separation of students that disrupts the educational process contributes to creating a safer and more productive environment for the rest of the students. For example, a study conducted in Canadian schools showed that temporarily removing students with disruptive behaviors from the classroom led to a significant improvement in their peers' concentration levels9. Moreover, this practice gives teachers the opportunity to focus on the educational needs of the majority without being distracted by individual incidents. However, it is essential that this separation is managed with empathy and attention. If students perceive detention halls as an extreme punishment, it can lead to feelings of alienation, which in turn can increase disruptive behaviours in the long run10.That is why these spaces must be designed to support students, not just to isolate them.

4. Detention rooms can be an important element of a well-structured discipline system. When used correctly, they signal to students that the school has clear rules and consequences for violating them. This helps build a culture of respect for rules and authority11. An outstanding example is the implementation of positive intervention strategies, such as Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS), which use detention rooms as part of a broader behavioral management system. PBIS focuses on encouraging positive behaviours through rewards and using corrective interventions, such as detention rooms, only when absolutely necessary12. Studies have shown that schools that have implemented PBIS have seen a significant decrease in disciplinary incidents and an improvement in the school climate. On the other hand, it is essential for students to understand the reasons behind the rules and consequences. Studies have shown that students' perception of fairness towards disciplinary measures significantly influences their level of compliance13. If detention rooms are perceived as punitive and unfair, they can have the opposite effect, generating defiance and opposition to authority.

Detention rooms, while they may have advantages in managing disraptive behaviours, are also associated with numerous criticisms and challenges that raise questions about their long-term effectiveness. In the following, we will explore the five arguments against the use of detention rooms, supporting each point with empirical evidence and examples from the literature.

1. One of the strongest arguments against the use of detention rooms is their negative impact on students' mental health. These spaces can amplify feelings of alienation, anxiety, and stigma, contributing to the development of long-term emotional problemsu. Students who are frequently isolated in detention rooms may perceive this process as negative labelling. Studies show that students who feel rejected or marginalized become more prone to depression and anxiety15. For example, in American schools, African American and Latino students frequently reported feelings of exclusion and lack of support, being sent to detention rooms more often than their white peers16. This practice can accentuate inequalities and create a hostile school environment. Instead of helping students understand and change their behavior, detention rooms can intensify the sense of belonging, affecting students' relationship with the school and community.

2. Another argument against detention rooms is their lack of effectiveness in changing disraptive behaviors. Studies suggest that isolating students without educational or emotional support does not contribute to long-term behavioural improvement17. For example,18 analysis showed that detention rooms, when used exclusively as punitive measures, have a limited effect on reducing recidivism. Students tend to revert to their previous behaviours because they are not given real opportunities to learn from their mistakes or develop skills that allow them to handle conflict situations in the future. In addition, the lack of an educational or restorative component in these classrooms turns them into mere "punishment chambers," leading to the loss of their potential to positively influence student behavior19.

3. A problematic aspect of detention rooms is their disproportionate use on certain groups of students, especially those from disadvantaged ethnic and socio-economic minorities. Studies have shown that students from disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely to be sent to detention rooms, even for minor behaviours20. For example, in schools in the United States, African American and Latino students are disproportionately penalized, which highlights a systemic problem of racial discrimination21. This perpetuates educational and social inequalities, contributing to a sense of distrust towards educational institutions. Instead of promoting inclusion, detention rooms can accentuate social divisions and negatively affect students' perceptions of fairness and equity in school22.

4. Another major disadvantage of detention rooms is that they are often purely punitive and do not provide students with educational or support opportunities. This not only prevents students from continuing their learning process, but also makes them perceive the time spent in these classrooms as meaningless23. Studies have shown that students who spend time in detention rooms miss out on valuable hours of education, which contributes to a decrease in their academie performance24. For example, in schools across Canada, many students reported that time spent in detention rooms was a "waste of time," with no constructive activities or support for their specific problems25.

5. Detention rooms can also have a negative impact on the school climate. They can create an environment perceived as authoritarian and punitive, which affects relationships between students and teachers. This atmosphere of "punishment" can reduce students' commitment to school

and encourage opposition to authority 26 . One example is the implementation of "zero tolerance policies" in many schools, where detention rooms are used as part of a broader system of harsh punishments. These policies have been criticized for encouraging a punitive environment, in which students feel controlled rather than supported27. Instead of encouraging positive behaviours, detention rooms can lead to increased tensions and deteriorating relationships in the school community.

The use of detention rooms in schools raises numerous ethical issues, including social exclusion, racial discrepancies, the impact on students' rights, and the lack of an effective educational approach. These issues undermine the fundamental principles of educational equity and justice.

A major aspect of the ethical debate is the social exclusion generated by detention rooms. These spaces often contribute to racial segregation, disproportionately affecting students from ethnic minorities, especially African Americans and Latinos. Research has shown that these classrooms function in some cases as "internal racial colonies," segregating students of color and perpetuating existing inequities in the education system28. This segregation violates the ethical principles of equality and inclusion, suggesting that students are often punished more based on institutional bias than their actual behavior.

Another critical point is that detention rooms do not provide meaningful educational support. Instead of being a space for mediation or personal development, they often become places of punishment, without activities to support behavior change. Students are often left to fill out repetitive forms or sit without useful activity, leading to a significant loss of educational time29. This model raises ethical issues related to the purpose of education and supporting the full development of students.

3. The disciplinary practice associated with detention rooms is not uniformly applied, disproportionately affecting students from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds and ethnic minorities. They are sent to detention rooms more often, even for minor behaviors such as being late for classes or using inappropriate language30. This structural discrimination undermines the idea of educational justice, pointing to a punitive system that fails to treat all students fairly.

4. Students who spend time in detention rooms frequently report feelings of isolation, shame, and frustration. The experience often has negative psychological effects, such as decreased self-esteem and increased feelings of alienation from the school community31. Ethically, this practice runs counter to the school's goal of supporting students' mental well-being and social development.

Discussions

The results of this systematic review highlight the complexity of using detention rooms in schools, indicating both their potential benefits and the significant challenges they pose. Discussions about these disciplinary spaces are centered on their effectiveness in achieving educational goals and the associated ethical implications.

The pros highlight the role of detention rooms in reducing disruptive behaviours and maintaining a safe learning environment. These spaces provide a temporary solution for isolating problematic behaviours, allowing teachers to focus on teaching32. Also, by preventing complete exclusion from the school environment, detention rooms can provide a valuable alternative to external suspensions, reducing the risk of social marginalization33. Another study by Nicoara & all explores parents' attitudes and perceptions regarding the introduction of detention rooms in schools in Romania, assessing the initial impact and available disciplinary alternatives34.

However, in order to be effective, their use needs to be integrated into a wider educational framework. Positive examples, such as the implementation of PBIS (Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports) strategies, demonstrate that detention rooms can help improve student behavior if accompanied by positive interventions and educational support35.

On the other hand, the arguments against highlight several ethical limitations and risks. First, the negative psychological impact of detention rooms is well documented. The feelings of isolation, stigma, and anxiety experienced by students run counter to the educational goal of supporting emotional well-being and social development36.

Second, the inefficiency of these spaces in changing behavior in the long term is a major problem. Without educational interventions or personalized support, students tend to return to their problematic behaviours, emphasizing the need to integrate educational and restorative measures37

Third, the disproportionate use of detention rooms on disadvantaged racial and socio-economic minorities raises serious questions about educational equity and justice. These discriminatory practices not only undermine equality of opportunity, but also reduce students' trust in school systems38.

The analysis through the prism of ethical principles - autonomy, non-maleficence, justice and beneficence - offers a clear perspective on moral challenges. The limitation of students' autonomy, the perpetuation of inequalities and the lack of effective educational support run counter to the fundamental values of education39. These implications underline the need for fundamental reforms in the way detention rooms are implemented and used.

In order to overcome the current limitations, it is essential to adopt restorative approaches that replace punitive measures. These approaches, such as conflict mediation and behavioural support, can help develop a more inclusive and equitable school community. Also, transforming detention rooms into educational spaces, where students can learn conflict management strategies and social skills, is a viable solution.

The study on the efficiency and controversy of detention rooms in schools has several limitations that influence the interpretation and applicability of its conclusions. Among the main limitations of the study are:

There is a lack of consensus among the analyzed literature regarding the efficiency of detention rooms. Many studies offer conflicting conclusions, making it difficult to draw a clear line regarding the positive or negative impact on students' behavior and psychological well-being.

The study is based on an analysis of the literature available in major databases, which may lead to a limitation by excluding less accessible works or studies published in languages other than English. This limitation may introducé a bias in the selection of data, thus affecting the generality of the conclusions.

Most of the studies cited come from the context of Western countries (United States, United Kingdom, Canada). This makes the results difficult to generalize to other cultures or educational systems that have different discipline policies or distinct cultural values regarding education and punishment.

Another important limitation of the study is the lack of conclusive longitudinal data on the efficiency of long-term detention rooms. Many of the studies analysed do not provide information on the lasting effects on student behaviour, which makes it difficult to assess these disciplinary interventions in the long term.

Being a systematic analysis, this study did not involve direct contact with students, teachers or parents. The lack of primary data from these directly involved participants can limit the understanding of the subjective context of the lived experiences of those affected by detention policies.

Conclusions on the impact of detention rooms on students' psychological well-being and behaviour are generalised based on various studies, but the specific context of each school, the resources available and the approach of the teaching staff can influence the real effectiveness of these measures. This limits the direct applicability of the findings to various school contexts without further adaptations.

These limitations underscore the need for more detailed research, including other cultural perspectives, involving the direct participation of those affected, and further investigating the long-term impact of detention rooms, in order to provide a complete and balanced picture of this educational practice.

CONCLUSION

Detention rooms are a potentially useful tooi in managing student behavior, having the ability to provide a safe and controlled space to address disruptive behaviours, prevent complete exclusion from the school environment and contribute to maintaining an educational climate conducive to learning. However, the effectiveness of these spaces is closely linked to their integration into a broader system of educational and behavioral support, which promotes not only discipline, but also the holistic development of students.

An exclusively punitive approach has proven insufficiënt to produce lasting changes in student behaviour. Instead, the use of detention rooms should be accompanied by complementary strategies, such as psychological counselling, educational activities focused on the development of social skills and personalised interventions. Not only do they facilitate students' understanding of mistakes, but they also contribute to building essential skills for managing future conflict situations40.

On the other hand, although detention rooms offer quick and tangible solutions for maintaining discipline, they come with a number of significant disadvantages. These include the negative impact on students' emotional well-being, ineffectiveness in long-term behavior change, disproportionate application to certain categories of students, lack of adequate educational support, and deterioration of the school climate. Thus, the use of these spaces raises ethical and pragmatic questions related to fairness, efficiency and equity in education.

In order to overcome these limitations, it is imperative that schools adopt a holistic and inclusive approach that incorporates educational and restorative practices. Instead of focusing on punitive measures, schools should invest in programs that support students' personal and social development, reducing the risk of recidivism and promoting a harmonious integration into the school community. This paradigm shift could lead to a more equitable educational environment, centered on the needs of each student and their growth potential.

Furthermore, the ethical issues associated with the use of detention rooms - such as social segregation, racial discrimination and the absence of an effective educational approach - underline the need for fundamental reforms in the disciplinary management of students. These reforms must focus on inclusion, equity and individualised support, ensuring that every student has access to a learning environment that respects their rights, supports their autonomy and promotes their emotional well-being.

In conclusion, detention rooms can have a legitimate role in schools, but only if they are used as part of an integrated and well-designed strategy. The future of education depends on the ability of institutions to reconcile discipline with support, authority with empathy, and tradition with innovation, in order to create a truly student-centered education system.

References

REFERENCES:

Bartlett, N.A., & Ellis, T.F., (2021), Physical restraint, seclusion, and time-out rooms in Canadian schools: Analysis of a policy patchwork. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy.

Hallam, S., (2007), Evaluation of behavioural management in schools: A review of the Behaviour Improvement Programme. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 12(3), 106-112.

Howard, J., (2016), Rethinking traditional behaviour management to better support complex trauma-surviving students. The International Journal on School Disaffection, 12(2), 25-44.

Ijaz, S. Nobles, J., & Mamluk, L., (2024), Disciplinary behaviour management strategies in schools and their impact on student psychosocial outcomes: A systematic review. NIHR Open Research.

London, R. & Ingram, D., (2018), Social isolation in middle school. School Community Journal, 28(1), 107-125.

McCann, S., (2017), Detention is not the answer. Northwestern College, Iowa.

Nicoara, R.D. & all, (2024), Parents' perception and attitude on the introduction of the detention room in romanian schools: an initial impact assessment and disciplinary alternative, Euromentor journal: studies about education Volume XV, No. 4/December

https://euromentor.ucdc.ro/Euromentor%20_December_2024.pdf

Nicoara, R.D. & all, (2024), Evaluating the impact of detention rooms: Romanian teachers' views on discipline and relationships, Euromentor Journal: studies about education Volume XV, No. 4/December, https://euromentor.ucdc.ro/Euromentor%20_December_2024.pdf

Way, S.M., (2011), School discipline and disruptive classroom behavior: The moderating effects of student perceptions. The Sociological Quarterly, 52(3), 346-375.

Wiley, K.E., Townsend, C, Trujillo, M. & Anyon, Y., (2022), Deep punishment and internal colony: A critical analysis of in-school suspension rooms. The Urban Review.

Footnote

1 R.D. Nicoara & all, Evaluating the impact ofdetention rooms: Romanian teachers' views on discipline and relationships, Euromentor Journal: studies about education Volume XV, No. 4/December 2024.

2 S. Ijaz, J Nobles & L. Mamluk, Disciplinary behaviour management strategies in schools and their impact on student psychosocial outcomes: A systematic review. NIHR Open Research, 2024

3 S. Hallam, Evaluation of behavioural management in schools: A review of the Behaviour Improvement Programme. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 12(3),2007, 106-112.

4 S. McCann, Detention is not the answer. Northwestern College, Iowa., 2017

5 A.N. Bartlett & T.F. Ellis, Physical restraint, seclusion, and time-out rooms in Canadian schools: Analysis ofa policy patchwork. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 2021

6 S.M. Way, School discipline and disruptive classroom behavior: The moderating effects of student perceptions. The Sociological Quarterly, 52(3),2011, 346-375.

7 K.E. Wiley, C. Townsend, M. Trujillo & Y. Anyon, Deep punishment and internal colony: A critical analysis of in-school suspension rooms. The Urban Review, 2022.

8 R. London & D. Ingram, Social isolation in middle school. School Community Journal, 28(1),2018,107-125.

9 A.N. Bartlett & T.F. Ellis, Physical restraint, seclusion, and time-out rooms in Canadian schools: Analysis ofa policy patchwork. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 2021

10 S.M. Way, School discipline and disruptive classroom behavior: The moderating effects of student perceptions. The Sociological Quarterly, 52(3),2011, 346-375.

11 J. Howard, Rethinking traditional behaviour management to better support complex trauma-surviving students. The International Journal on School Disaffection, 12(2),2016, 25-44.

12 S. McCann, Detention is not the answer, Northwestern College, Iowa, 2017

13 S.M. Way, School discipline and disruptive classroom behavior: The moderating effects of student perceptions. The Sociological Quarterly, 52(3),2011, 346-375.

14 S. Ijaz, J Nobles & L. Mamluk, Disciplinary behaviour management strategies in schools and their impact on student psychosocial outcomes: A systematic review. NIHR Open Research, 2024

15 R. London & D. Ingram, Social isolation in middle school. School Community Journal, 28(1),2018,107-125.

16 K.E. Wiley, C. Townsend, M. Trujillo, & Y. Anyon, Deep punishment and internal colony: A critical analysis of in-school suspension rooms. The Urban Review, 2022.

17 S.M. Way, School discipline and disruptive classroom behavior: The moderating effects of student perceptions. The Sociological Quarterly, 52(3),2011, 346-375.

18 J. Howard, Rethinking traditional behaviour management to better support complex trauma-surviving students. The International Journal on School Disaffection, 12(2),2016, 25-44

19 S. Ijaz, J. Nobles & L. Mamluk, Disciplinary behaviour management strategies in schools and their impact on student psychosocial outcomes: A systematic review. NIHR Open Research, 2024.

20 A.N. Bartlett & T. F. Ellis, Physical restraint, seclusion, and time-out rooms in Canadian schools: Analysis ofa policy patchwork. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 2021.

21 K.E. Wiley, C. Townsend, M. Trujillo, & Y. Anyon, op. cit.

22 S.M. Way, op. cit.

23 S. Ijaz, J Nobles, & L. Mamluk, op. cit.

24 S. Hallam, op.c it.

25 A.N. Bartlett & T.F. Ellis, op. cit.

26S.M.Way, op.cü.

27 K.E. Wiley, C. Townsend, M. Trujillo, & Y. Anyon, op. cit.

28 A.N. Bartlett & T.F. Ellis, op. cit.

29 S. Ijaz, J. Nobles & L. Mamluk, op. cit.

30 K.E. Wiley, C. Townsend, M. Trujillo, & Y. Anyon, op. cit.

31 R. London & D. Ingram, op.cit.

32 S. Ijaz, J. Nobles & L. Mamluk, op.cit.

33 A.N. Bartlett & T.F. Ellis, op.cit

34 R.D. Nicoara & all, Parents' perception and attitude on the introduction of the detention room in romanian schools: an initial impact assessment and disciplinary alternatives, Euromentor Journal: studies about education, Volume XV, No. 4/December 2024

35 S. McCann, op.cit.

36 R. London & D.Ingram, op.cit.

37 S.M. Way, op.cit.

38 A.N. Bartlett & T.F. Ellis, op.cü.

39 S. Ijaz, J Nobles & L. Mamluk, op.cü.

40 S. Ijaz, J. Nobles & L. Mamluk, op.cit.