2017
DOI: 10.14507/epaa.25.3141
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Influence over school discipline policy: Variation across levels of governance, school contexts, and time

Abstract: Little research explores the relative influence of various stakeholders on school discipline policy. Using data from the SASS and ordered logistic regression, this study explores such influence while assessing variation across schools types and changes over time. Principals consistently rate themselves and teachers as the most influential stakeholders over setting school discipline policy. The proportion of racial minorities in a school predicts greater influence from higher levels of governance while charter … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

1
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 44 publications
(61 reference statements)
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A district could codify “restorative practices” as a response option without providing any training, supports, or incentives for school leaders and staff to actually use the approach. To the extent that school principals and teachers are generally viewed as having the greatest influence over discipline policy (Curran, 2017), autonomy at the school and classroom level means that such local actors, or street-level bureaucrats, will have much influence on the way that the state reform is translated from district policy to ground-level implementation (Lipsky, 1980). Given that individual tiers include a mix of both punitive and more supportive responses, educators could vary in the application of exclusionary or punitive responses even when responding from the same tier.…”
Section: Limitationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A district could codify “restorative practices” as a response option without providing any training, supports, or incentives for school leaders and staff to actually use the approach. To the extent that school principals and teachers are generally viewed as having the greatest influence over discipline policy (Curran, 2017), autonomy at the school and classroom level means that such local actors, or street-level bureaucrats, will have much influence on the way that the state reform is translated from district policy to ground-level implementation (Lipsky, 1980). Given that individual tiers include a mix of both punitive and more supportive responses, educators could vary in the application of exclusionary or punitive responses even when responding from the same tier.…”
Section: Limitationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Principal prevention mindsets also predicted less exclusionary discipline in real-world contexts.Roughly 2.7 million K-12 students received at least one out-of-school suspension during the 2017-2018 academic year (U.S. Department of Education, 2018). This number is especially alarming given that suspensions and expulsions are associated with decreased academic achievement and increased likelihood of dropping out of school, outcomes highlighted in recent policy reform and research (Okonofua et al, 2020).School policies and their implementation are driven by the mindsets of principals (Curran, 2017). As arbitrators of school policy, principals determine how and when discipline policy is administered.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As arbitrators of school policy, principals determine how and when discipline policy is administered. Principals, teachers, and researchers alike indicate that principals have more influence over discipline policy compared to other school policies (e.g., staffing, curriculum; Curran, 2017; Ni et al, 2018). Principal leadership styles and propensity for utilizing different discipline options have consequential effects on the academic and life outcomes of the student body (Grissom et al, 2013; Sorensen et al, 2021).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation