Addressing Disproportionality in School Discipline Through
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ADDRESSING DISPROPORTIONALITY IN SCHOOL DISCIPLINE THROUGH ALTERNATIVES TO EXCLUSIONARY DISCIPLINE PRACTICES By Kevin M. Higley Bachelor of Science – Secondary Education Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania 1997 Master of Arts – Educational Technology Lesley University 2002 Master of Arts – Educational Leadership Walden University 2008 A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy – Curriculum & Instruction Department of Teaching & Learning College of Education The Graduate College University of Nevada, Las Vegas December 2020 Dissertation Approval The Graduate College The University of Nevada, Las Vegas November 30, 2020 This dissertation prepared by Kevin M. Higley entitled Addressing Disproportionality in School Discipline Through Alternatives to Exclusionary Discipline Practices is approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy – Curriculum & Instruction Department of Teaching & Learning Christine Clark, Ed.D. Kathryn Hausbeck Korgan, Ph.D. Examination Committee Chair Graduate College Dean Norma Marrun, Ph.D. Examination Committee Member Steven Bickmore, Ph.D. Examination Committee Member Lisa Bendixen, Ph.D. Graduate College Faculty Representative ii Abstract Tasked with ensuring that school environments are safe and orderly, school administrators spend an increasingly inordinate amount of time and energy on managing student discipline. Often, when students commit egregious behaviors or violate school policy, schools resort to out-of- school disciplinary consequences, i.e. suspension, expulsion, or alternative educational placements, in attempts to reduce problem behaviors from recurring. Historically though, these exclusionary discipline practices have led to the unfair treatment of some students, (e.g., Black/African American students, male students, and/or students with disabilities). This disproportionate practice is often cited as the genesis for the school-to-prison pipeline phenomenon. From a behaviorist perspective, exclusionary discipline practices are practically ineffective in reshaping the behaviors of students with challenging behavioral concerns or reducing recidivate behaviors, long-term, especially if the function of the behavior isn’t addressed; some may even be inappropriate for simple behavioral compliance, especially from students with behavioral skill deficits. Moreover, evidence points out that there are a large number of exclusionary discipline consequences administered for less egregious offenses, (i.e., incidents that may not have warranted a punitive consequence in the first place), further adding to disproportionate data, nationwide. Consequently, schools are now tasked with exploring alternatives to exclusionary discipline practices through the implementation of proactive/preventative systems in an effort to prevent undesirable student behaviors, address these behavioral skill deficits, decrease the rate of OSS discipline consequences, eliminate disproportionate discipline practices, and interrupt the school-to-prison pipeline phenomenon. iii Acknowledgements I would like to thank the following, without whom I would not have been able to complete this research study, and without whom I would not have made it through this degree: my doctoral committee, Drs. Bendixen, Bickmore, and Marrun, but especially Dr. Clark, for their unending support in this never-ending paper; Drs. Barton, Begay, Malich, and Smith for their non-judgmental support throughout the writing process; my friends and family, especially my mom, who constantly questioned my end date, which pushed me to finish, eventually; my colleagues and study participants, who were thankfully eager to assist, and with whom I would not have made it to this point without their participation; my haters, who doubted me, yet motivated me; Dr. Malich, for being a wealth of knowledge and insight and always believing in me; and, Dr. Clark; for never ceasing to cheerlead, despite my procrastinating tendencies, and especially for being the type of therapist I needed, even when I didn’t realize that’s what I needed at the time. A special thank you to my husband for sacrificing all of these years, supporting my efforts, listening to my woes, and patiently waiting for me to finish. Your support throughout this process has been the reason I have kept going and the reason I didn’t quit practically every other day while writing this paper. Lastly, I want to acknowledge my own efforts. This dissertation has been challenging, to say the least, and I have gone through a lot to get to this stage. I am acknowledging those efforts and giving myself grace for my own accomplishments. This is ultimately your doing; great job! iv Dedication I dedicate this study to all of the victims of disproportionate disciplinary practices whose lives have been forever (negatively) impacted by the inadequacies and inabilities of schools to change their exclusionary discipline practices. I also want to recognize all of those in the educational field that work tirelessly towards changing those outcomes by striving to implement proactive/preventative approaches to student discipline and do all that they can to interrupt the school-to-prison pipeline phenomenon. The following qualitative study should lend more insight to existing quantitative studies by demonstrating how schools continuously grapple with exclusionary discipline decisions while simultaneously attempting to eliminate disproportionality overall. This study is dedicated to that eradication. v Table of Contents Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... iii Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................... iv Dedication ................................................................................................................................... v List of Tables ............................................................................................................................ vii List of Figures ......................................................................................................................... viii Chapter One: Introduction to the Study ...................................................................................... 1 Chapter Two: Review of the Literature .................................................................................... 31 Chapter Three: Research Design and Methodology ................................................................ 51 Chapter Four: Results from the Study ...................................................................................... 74 Chapter Five: Findings of the Study ....................................................................................... 108 Appendices ............................................................................................................................. 120 References .............................................................................................................................. 398 Curriculum Vitae .................................................................................................................... 406 vi List of Tables Table 1: Study Participant Time Commitment ............................................................................ 59 Table 2: Study Timeline ............................................................................................................... 65 Table 3: Potential Participants’ Assigned Numeric Identifiers and Pseudonyms ........................ 69 Table 4: Summary of Study District Demographics .................................................................... 75 Table 5: Summary of Study District Disproportionality .............................................................. 78 Table 6: Potential Study Participants, By Level .......................................................................... 80 Table 7: Summary of Study Participants’ Disproportionality, by School ................................... 81 Table 8: Participants’ Demographics, By Race, Gender, Administrative Role ........................... 84 Table 9: Phase 3 Interviews, Suggested Causes and Possible Solutions ..................................... 87 Table 10: Phase 3 Interviews, Emergent Themes, by Causation/by Level .................................. 89 Table 11: Phase 3 Interviews, Emergent Themes, by Possible Solution/by Level ...................... 90 vii List of Figures Figure 1: Participants’ Responses to Phase 3 Interview Question #1 ........................................... 91 Figure 2: Participants’ Responses to Phase 3 Interview Question #2 ........................................... 92 Figure 3: Participants’ Responses to Phase 3 Interview Question #3 ........................................... 93 Figure 4: Participants’ Responses to Phase 3 Interview Question #4 ........................................... 94 Figure 5: Participants’ Responses to Phase 3 Interview Question #5 ........................................... 95 Figure 6: Participants’ Responses to Phase 3 Interview Question #6 ........................................... 96 Figure 7: Participants’ Responses to Phase 3 Interview Question #7 ........................................... 97 Figure 8: Participants’ Responses to Phase 3 Interview Question #8 ........................................... 99 Figure 9: