Applying an Equity-Minded Change Framework to School Discipline Reform

Purpose: Reform efforts to end the school-to-prison pipeline by reducing exclusionary and punitive practices have spread across the country in recent years. However, their impact has been decidedly mixed. It is therefore time for school social work researchers to take stock of how these reforms are conceptualized and designed. Historically, reforms have emphasized discrete changes to discipline policies and protocols. Yet equity-minded reform theory suggests that focusing on these technical changes may overlook the normative and political dimensions within which technical aspects are embedded. That said, the manifestation of technical, normative, and political dimensions in school discipline reform has not yet been established empirically. This paper takes a first step towards this end by considering whether these dimensions are evident in the approaches to successful discipline reform taken by building-level practitioners from a large urban district.

Methods: This qualitative, phenomenological study involved semi-structured interviews and focus groups on the topic of school discipline with a purposive sample of 198 educators and support staff from 33 public schools with low suspension rates. The majority of our sample was White, female, and had worked in education for an average of 12 years. They represented a diverse range of schools in terms of grade levels, governance structures, and vulnerable student populations. After transcribing the interviews and focus groups verbatim, we then applied a priori codes from equity-minded reform theory to examine the technical, normative, and political dimensions of school discipline reform in this district. Technical dimensions included structures, strategies, and knowledge. Normative dimensions referred to beliefs, attitudes, and values held by stakeholders’ and decision-makers. Political dimensions were related to power and resource stratification.

Findings: Technical approaches were evident in participants’ use of professional development to expand knowledge of new school-wide curricula and programs, modified schedules for relationship building, and discretionary funds to increase support staff. Participants illustrated normative dimensions in their beliefs about conflict prevention rather than punishment, the importance of relationships and personal growth, and the need to acknowledge the root causes of racial disparities. Finally, political dimensions included: school leaders use of power to reinforce their expectations for handling conflict in classrooms; and, personnel processes used to intentionally hire and let go of staff depending on their alignment with desired technical strategies or normative attitudes.

The equity-minded school change framework also helped illuminate interrelationships between the three dimensions. For example, the technical conditions made available by school leaders’ allocation of time, money and staff was supported by a normative emphasis on learning, relationships, prevention, and racial equity. These dimensions were further complemented by school leaders’ reinforcement of shared responsibility for conflict prevention and resolution through political pressure and hiring/firing.

Implications: Our findings suggest that unidimensional reform models that emphasize technical changes may not be successful if they overlook the normative and political aspects of school improvement efforts. This theoretical extension therefore provides a more holistic conceptualization than currently used in many reform efforts, contributes to earlier lines of scholarship, and opens up new avenues of future inquiry.