View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Title I Middle School Administrators' Beliefs and Choices about Using Corporal Punishment and Exclusionary Discipline

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Title I Middle School Administrators' Beliefs and Choices about Using Corporal Punishment and Exclusionary Discipline
Language: English
Authors: Kennedy, Brianna L., Murphy, Amy S., Jordan, Adam
Source: American Journal of Education. Feb 2017 123(2):243-280.
Availability: University of Chicago Press. Journals Division, P.O. Box 37005, Chicago, IL 60637. Tel: 877-705-1878; Tel: 773-753-3347; Fax: 877-705-1879; Fax: 773-753-0811; e-mail: subscriptions@press.uchicago.edu; Web site: http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/journals/journal/aje.html
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 38
Publication Date: 2017
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Middle Schools
Secondary Education
Junior High Schools
Descriptors: Middle School Students, Grounded Theory, At Risk Students, Disadvantaged Youth, Interviews, Administrator Attitudes, Administrator Characteristics, Background, Experience, Discipline Policy, Punishment
Geographic Terms: Florida
DOI: 10.1086/689929
ISSN: 0195-6744
Abstract: This grounded theory study of how Title I middle school administrators determine students' punishments was developed using interviews with 27 Florida administrators from schools allowing corporal punishment. Administrators' choices were shaped by their upbringings, their experiences as parents, their job requirements, the expectations of students' parents, and fears of reprisal. They expressed simultaneous desires to develop the child while deterring future misbehavior. They described the outcomes of their decision making as emotional work that entailed contradictions and compromises. To encourage positive preventive and responsive school discipline practices, policies must address administrators' misconceptions about ineffective practices by providing both pressure and support for change.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2017
Accession Number: EJ1129305
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGGgxm64XAzwo0UUCJxxrSSAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDByT7gGYGw1w9NEgPQIBEICBm1q3qlbxKXKVERajeo5dQEPnas8TOl1hwiFeCRJPY_dXh_nWVddhUN2T5B3F4DTig1PAozHrHxq43wTFvMYlBK5H7ZWyehuEnWTNxYJzpnxCacJp1qQ90oCxW5G_1WCE0R23FwsQYwbVXBisTyE7clXRD5sM96FdBDzp-dIEf_fNh7WXTb7LTGDpVuk23dqrliHidpyEca8K30sq
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0120930748;jrd01feb.17;2018Oct25.08:57;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0120930748-1">Title I Middle School Administrators' Beliefs and Choices about Using Corporal Punishment and Exclusionary Discipline. </title> <p>This grounded theory study of how Title I middle school administrators determine students' punishments was developed using interviews with 27 Florida administrators from schools allowing corporal punishment. Administrators' choices were shaped by their upbringings, their experiences as parents, their job requirements, the expectations of students' parents, and fears of reprisal. They expressed simultaneous desires to develop the child while deterring future misbehavior. They described the outcomes of their decision making as emotional work that entailed contradictions and compromises. To encourage positive preventive and responsive school discipline practices, policies must address administrators' misconceptions about ineffective practices by providing both pressure and support for change.</p> <p>With the increase in scope of zero-tolerance policies across the nation, school discipline has become a focus of national attention (Casella [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref1">15</reflink>]; Gregory et al. [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref2">39</reflink>]; USDOE [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref3">86</reflink>]). In addition to a growing awareness of the negative impacts of out-of-school suspensions (OSSs) and other exclusionary strategies (Fabelo et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref4">26</reflink>]; Losen and Martinez [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref5">58</reflink>]), we see renewed interest in banning the use of corporal punishment (CP) in schools. As noted in Vagins and McKinney's ([<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref6">88</reflink>]) webinar on the topic, CP has reentered discussions of punitive disciplinary practices. Although CP use is declining, it remains legal in 19 states, where more than 125,000 students per year get paddled for breaking school rules (Broussard et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref7">11</reflink>]; Gagnon et al. [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref8">36</reflink>]; USDOE [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref9">87</reflink>]). Although the use of CP is isolated to particular geographical regions, support for its use exists within the same national context as the excessive use of suspensions, expulsions, and youth adjudication.</p> <p>Although research has documented the negative effects of CP, suspension, and expulsion in schools (American Academy of Pediatrics [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref10">4</reflink>]; American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref11">5</reflink>]; Zamani and Farmer [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref12">93</reflink>]), federal laws do not regulate these punishments, and educators persist in using them. Even in states that have banned CP, excessive rates of suspension and expulsion remain. A recent survey of 500 school superintendents found that 92% identified negative consequences of school suspension, but only 50% indicated that reducing OSS was an important goal (AASA, School Superintendents Association and Children's Defense Fund [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref13">2</reflink>]). Consequently, we argue for the need to understand educators' underlying beliefs that support these punitive responses and to focus on the use of CP as a clear manifestation of these beliefs. We also seek to contextualize these beliefs by inquiring into administrators' perceptions of other factors that influence their decisions and the outcomes they identify that may reinforce their beliefs and practices. Specifically, we ask: How do administrators in Title I middle schools describe their choices of student punishments? What role do they say their beliefs have in those choices? What other factors do they name as influencing their decisions? What outcomes do they identify as resulting from their choices?</p> <hd id="AN0120930748-2">The Contested Purpose of Education in School Discipline</hd> <p>Administrators make daily decisions in contested philosophical and political territory, adding complexity to a role that demands keen attention to students' and teachers' individual needs in an often resource-poor organizational context. This contested territory has historical roots in conflicting purposes of education that inform stakeholders' expectations for certain educator responses to indiscipline (Noguera [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref14">66</reflink>]). In her historical case study of school discipline in Los Angeles, Kafka ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref15">47</reflink>]) traces the debate regarding the purposes of American education back to antebellum arguments about the role of school discipline. Proponents of one position held that school discipline should rely heavily on punishment and that the ultimate goal of punishment was students' unquestioning subordination. According to this argument, citizens' obedience to those upholding law and order, including teachers, ultimately benefitted society (even if laws were unjust) because without order, society could not progress. Proponents of this position believed that severe punishment of deviants ultimately benefitted not only society as a whole but also the person who received the punishment. A different perspective, held by Horace Mann and others, advocated for disciplinary structures that promoted intrinsic motivation through pleasurable educational experiences and emotional attachment to educators (Kaestle [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref16">46</reflink>]).</p> <p>Kafka ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref17">47</reflink>]) traces these opposing positions through the Progressive Era, which she describes as being shaped by three views about the purpose of education: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref18">1</reflink>) teaching students obedience and submission to authority, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref19">2</reflink>) preparing students for future democratic participation, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref20">3</reflink>) developing social and emotional skills that support self-motivation and self-discipline. Significantly, all three perspectives shared the common belief that educators had the responsibility for disciplining students in a way that supported these goals. In other words, the teaching of discipline was a core part of what it meant to educate a student. Educators had significant autonomy to act in loco parentis to accomplish these social goals (Hofstadter [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref21">43</reflink>]; Tyack [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref22">85</reflink>]).</p> <p>Educators' roles changed as Progressive Era reforms emphasized bureaucratization and efficiency (Hofstadter [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref23">43</reflink>]; Kafka [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref24">47</reflink>]). Kafka ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref25">47</reflink>]) identifies educators' changing roles as increasingly focused solely on teaching academic content. At this time, national rhetoric about the United States's diminishing military prowess and superiority in science and engineering met discourse about increasing unruliness, particularly of urban students. Taken together, these discourses motivated an increased desire of educators to have centralized discipline policies that could exonerate them from the responsibility of focusing on unruly student behavior, protect them from what were being cast as unsafe schools, and enable them to focus on the singular goal of teaching content.</p> <p>Kafka ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref26">47</reflink>]) notes that the first district-level discipline policies were adopted in the 1950s—a significant step in shifting the responsibility for determining disciplinary consequences from individual teachers and administrators to district-level bureaucracies. Whereas educators previously had significant autonomy to act in loco parentis and to determine responses to individual children based on individual needs and local contexts, these policies codified particular punishments for particular actions, a move that garnered support both from educators who did not want to deal with unruly behaviors and from communities that believed educators' responses to individual students were imposed in racially biased ways. The debate about the use of CP existed within the debates about the purpose of student discipline and educators' proper role in it (Cuban [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref27">20</reflink>]; Tyack [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref28">85</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0120930748-3">The Use of Corporal Punishment in Schools</hd> <p>The AACAP ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref29">1</reflink>]) defines school-based CP as "a discipline method in which a supervising adult deliberately inflicts pain upon a youth in response to the youth's unacceptable behavior" (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref30">1</reflink>). Usage varies by school district, but the enactment of CP in schools primarily consists of an adult striking an offending student with a paddle made of wood or fiberglass. Arguments both for and against the use of CP in schools reflect the debates regarding the purposes of education that Kafka ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref31">47</reflink>]) traces back to the early 1800s in the United States.</p> <p>CP has an explicit connection to conservative Protestantism and the belief that imparting subservience, even through physical pain, is in the ultimate interest of a "wayward" person (Dupper and Dingus [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref32">25</reflink>]; Kafka [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref33">47</reflink>]). Dupper and Dingus ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref34">25</reflink>]) trace the implementation of CP in schools to the eighteenth century, when schools were first seen as being in loco parentis and charged with students' moral welfare. It was then that the first laws regarding CP in schools were documented and that CP was seen as a primary way for adults to shape children according to biblical mandates. This perspective supported the use of CP in schools in 49 states—with the exception of New Jersey, which banned the practice in 1867—until the 1970s, when the public became aware of the documented detrimental effects of child maltreatment and when the Supreme Court began to distinguish students' rights at school as distinct from those they have as children at home.</p> <p>The legitimacy of CP as a form of school discipline has been rejected by more than a dozen national organizations because of research documenting its negative impacts on children (see Gagnon et al. [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref35">36</reflink>]), and 31 states and 100 nations have banned its use (Gundersen National Child Protection Training Center [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref36">40</reflink>]). Nevertheless, states and school districts primarily in rural areas in the midwestern and southern United States still allow it (Broussard et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref37">11</reflink>]). Persistent support of practices shown to be detrimental to children reflects the important role that beliefs play in both policy and practice (Smith [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref38">80</reflink>]). In the case of CP, religious beliefs and personal anecdotes about its effectiveness may motivate support for the practice even when supporters are aware of research documenting its negative effects on recipients (Robinson et al. [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref39">72</reflink>]; Smith [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref40">80</reflink>]). Supporters may adhere to the belief that students should be subservient to authority and that if they are not, "sparing the rod" would result in "spoiling the child," a belief similar to that of early proponents of CP use in schools. Religious and moral conviction may hold sway beyond any scientific evidence because, from this perspective, faith may be prioritized over science (Dupper and Dingus [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref41">25</reflink>]).</p> <p>Robinson and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref42">72</reflink>]), for example, conducted experiments in graduate classes with preservice teachers in a state allowing CP to measure how attitudes about CP use were affected by exposure to research documenting its negative effects. Although such exposure had a statistically significant impact on reducing participants' inclination to use CP as parents or educators, 78% of participants in the experimental group indicated that the intervention did not change their intent to use CP. Exposure to research may shift the practices of some educators; however, findings from previous studies indicate that knowledge of the ineffectiveness of CP is insufficient to make broad change (Robinson et al. [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref43">72</reflink>]; Smith [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref44">80</reflink>]), highlighting the importance of understanding the role of administrator beliefs in determining disciplinary consequences.</p> <hd id="AN0120930748-4">The Role of Educators' Beliefs in Punitive Discipline</hd> <p>Just as teachers' philosophical beliefs shape their decisions regarding student discipline (Vitaro et al. [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref45">90</reflink>]), so do those of school administrators (Mukuria [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref46">64</reflink>]; Smith and Hains [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref47">79</reflink>]), and their implicit and explicit beliefs lead to differential treatment of students (Collins [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref48">18</reflink>]; Okonofua and Eberhardt [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref49">69</reflink>]; Vavrus and Cole [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref50">89</reflink>]). Several studies have established how educators and students co-construct conflicts and consequences, meaning that punitive discipline results not from students' innate characteristics or behaviors but rather from interactions between students and educators that reflect the beliefs and perceptions of each (Collins [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref51">18</reflink>]; Vavrus and Cole [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref52">89</reflink>]). Using a discourse analysis of interviews with students and teachers and observations in two classrooms in one urban high school over one semester, Vavrus and Cole ([<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref53">89</reflink>]) described "disciplinary moments" between students and teachers that resulted in student suspension. They showed that these moments occurred when teachers felt they were losing control of the class and targeted the removal of outspoken female students of color who did not feel they had done anything wrong.</p> <p>Similarly, in her discourse analysis of a</p> <p>grade writing lesson, Collins ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref54">18</reflink>]) demonstrated how one African American boy was positioned as "bad" through classroom interactions and how he shifted from eager participant to resistant agitator during the lesson. The teacher targeted this student when trying to regain classroom control and subsequently removed him from the group when he missed the teacher's cues. Collins posited that the teacher's decision to discipline the student in response to his missing her cues likely resulted in part from the teacher's culturally biased expectations for student behavior. The students' beliefs and actions contribute to these interactions, but the teacher has the power to enforce disciplinary consequences. The exchanges between students and teachers in both studies suggest that cultural differences between students and teachers contribute to the disciplinary sanctioning of culturally marginalized students, whom teachers are more likely to discipline more harshly, particularly if the students have been disciplined before (Ferguson [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref55">29</reflink>]; Okonofua and Eberhardt [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref56">69</reflink>]). Research shows that once such students are suspended, they are more likely than their peers to be suspended again (Balfanz et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref57">8</reflink>]; Skiba et al. [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref58">76</reflink>]), potentially placing them in the small group of students who are repeatedly disciplined (Fabelo et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref59">26</reflink>]).</p> <p>These persistently disciplined students report that educators continually presume their guilt and exclude them from the learning environment, even when the students have not acted differently than their peers (Kennedy-Lewis and Murphy [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref60">50</reflink>]; Murphy et al. [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref61">65</reflink>]). After conducting a review of the literature regarding the disproportionate use of exclusionary discipline with students of color, Fenning and Rose ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref62">28</reflink>]) attributed teachers' punitive responses to their beliefs about those students. Rather than perceiving behaviors as reflecting particular cultural cues, teachers perceive disrespect, which accounts for the well-documented disproportionate assignment of office referrals to students of color for "willful defiance" or "disrespect" (Dupper and Bosch [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref63">24</reflink>]; Fenning and Rose [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref64">28</reflink>]; Losen and Skiba [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref65">59</reflink>]; Skiba et al. [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref66">78</reflink>]). The discipline gap between these and white students extends beyond the use of office referrals to administrators' uses of OSS and CP (Ferguson [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref67">29</reflink>]; McFadden et al. [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref68">60</reflink>]; Mendez and Knoff [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref69">61</reflink>]; Northington [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref70">68</reflink>]; Shaw and Braden [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref71">74</reflink>]). In their study of all suspensions given at 142 schools in one southeastern district during the 1996–97 school year, Mendez and Knoff ([<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref72">61</reflink>]) found that both male and female black students were suspended at higher rates than white students. Ferguson ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref73">29</reflink>]) reported that in one state that sanctioned the use of CP, black students were five times more likely than white students to be hit by an adult at school. More recent studies suggest that disproportionate use of CP and OSS persists along the lines of race and social class, disadvantaging not only students of color but also those living in poverty, thus implicating the role of educators' beliefs and biases about the behaviors of students belonging to these groups (Northington [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref74">68</reflink>]; USDOE [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref75">86</reflink>]).</p> <p>Despite centralized discipline policies, teachers and administrators maintain enough autonomy in the discipline process to inequitably apply disciplinary consequences. The discipline gaps between white students and students of color and students living in poverty suggest that educators' freedom to act in loco parentis to address the individual moral needs of each student is also a vehicle for the enactment of educators' implicit and explicit beliefs and biases (Kafka [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref76">47</reflink>]). Existing studies have demonstrated the connection between administrators' beliefs and their uses of exclusionary discipline (Moorehead and Nediger [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref77">62</reflink>]; Skiba and Edl [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref78">77</reflink>]). Moorehead and Nediger ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref79">62</reflink>]) examined the decision making of four principals selected for having reputations as effective leaders. Using a theoretical model that accounted for administrators' principles and values, the authors found that these factors tightly shaped administrators' actions during the school day, including how they approached discipline and students at risk of dropping out. Skiba and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref80">76</reflink>]) also found a relationship between principals' attitudes about discipline and their decision making. Using hierarchical linear modeling, the authors examined the roles of student behavior, student demographics, and school characteristics in explaining disproportionate uses of suspension and expulsion in one state during the 2007–8 school year. Using the Disciplinary Practices Survey to measure principal beliefs at the school level across 365 schools, they found that these beliefs clustered in two groups: principals who favored prevention and those who favored school exclusion. In schools with principals who favored prevention, students were significantly less likely to receive OSS or expulsion.</p> <p>Just as Skiba and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref81">76</reflink>]) used two categories to describe administrator beliefs regarding discipline, other scholars have sought to characterize these beliefs. Smith and Hains ([<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref82">79</reflink>]) adapted an existing teacher-behavior continuum to describe administrators' philosophies regarding their roles in student discipline in relation to the roles of teachers. They described three positions: interventionist (handles all school discipline), interactionalist (works with teachers to handle discipline), and noninterventionist (expects teachers to handle discipline). The authors then used this model to understand administrators' discipline facilitation in a pilot case study of five principals in one southern state. They found that administrators' positions varied along the continuum and that interpretation of discipline codes and policies reflected their positions on the continuum. Interventionist administrators adhered closely to school policy, and noninterventionist administrators adapted policies according to circumstances.</p> <p>Similarly adopting a continuum to describe administrators' perspectives, Short and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref83">75</reflink>]) argued that principals are most effective in an interactionalist or noninterventionist role. However, instead of categorizing principals according to their stances toward teachers with regard to handing discipline, they adopted terms used by Willower ([<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref84">92</reflink>]) in his review of studies examining educators' pupil-control orientations. According to Willower, "custodial" educators define many behaviors as problematic and respond to them using punitive consequences, whereas "humanitarian" educators see fewer behaviors as problematic and promote the teaching of skills. Hix ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref85">42</reflink>]) used this typology in her study of administrators' responses to students' challenging behaviors over the course of their careers from 1966 to 1996 in one midwestern state, documenting shifts among all 10 participants from using primarily custodial interventions to using humanitarian ones. Hix's findings suggest that administrators' beliefs and practices may shift as they gain experience and in response to external factors such as the banning of CP in that state.</p> <p>A handful of studies with small sample sizes have also examined how administrators' beliefs might be reflected in disciplinary decisions. Lorie and Lee ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref86">56</reflink>]) interviewed six administrators from different secondary schools in one midwestern region and found that they shared several strategies in responding to students who were referred to the office. First, they attempted to establish the facts about what happened. Second, they followed school procedures to assign a progressively punitive consequence, although they varied in how strictly they followed these procedures. Third, most of the administrators sought to promote insight in the students so that they could avoid further trouble. Finally, two administrators described the need for emotional detachment. The authors indicated preliminary themes connecting administrators' practices (e.g., promoting insight) to their beliefs about children (e.g., that maladaptive behavior reflects children's needs for skill development). Also using a small sample of four administrators, Mukuria ([<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref87">64</reflink>]) discussed the attributes common to "low suspending" versus "high suspending" principals in urban middle schools. He stated that low-suspending principals used flexibility in applying the school discipline policies and also had a commitment to African American education and success. These studies offer some preliminary insights into how administrators' beliefs about students, equity, and the purpose of education shape their decisions when disciplining students. The present study furthers this research by directly asking administrators to describe how their beliefs and the consequences available to them shape their responses to challenging behaviors.</p> <hd id="AN0120930748-5">Method</hd> <p>We used constructivist grounded theory to understand how administrators in CP-allowing districts in one state made decisions about assigning disciplinary consequences, particularly focusing on the use of CP (Charmaz [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref88">16</reflink>]; Kezar [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref89">51</reflink>]). Based on our literature review, we anticipated that administrators would express tensions between the demands to act in loco parentis while being objective and adherence to centralized discipline policies. Informed by Lipsky's ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref90">55</reflink>]) explanation of how "street-level bureaucrats" negotiate having an ambiguous role, idealized outcomes, and insufficient resources, we also hypothesized that participants experienced dissonance in this work. However, we did not rely heavily on a theoretical lens to guide our methodological decisions. Instead, by positioning our work within an interpretivist paradigm, we sought to uncover the feelings, emotions, and thought processes behind administrators' approaches to student behavior by allowing their words to drive the analysis (Charmaz [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref91">16</reflink>]). We wanted our participants' perspectives and descriptions to emerge and guide theory development (Bryant and Charmaz [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref92">12</reflink>]). We used the language and concepts identified in our literature review as we engaged in open coding, as described later, but we did not allow our interpretations to be limited by existing conceptualizations (Thornberg [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref93">84</reflink>]). When participants' responses did not readily reflect concepts existing in the reviewed literature, we created original codes for them.</p> <p>Although we took a constructionist epistemological position, we relied heavily on the methodological steps outlined by Glaser and Strauss ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref94">37</reflink>]) and Strauss and Corbin ([<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref95">82</reflink>]). Bryant and Charmaz ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref96">12</reflink>]) explain that, although these original grounded theory texts have identifiable positivist strands, they are nevertheless consonant with current epistemological and paradigmatic repositioning of grounded theory as constructivist. In Strauss and Corbin's ([<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref97">82</reflink>]) description of grounded theory, they suggest that three main components be used to conceptualize a grounded theory: context, action/interaction, and consequences (which we call <emph>outcomes</emph> to prevent confusion with school-based disciplinary consequences). We used this conceptualization in data collection, analysis, and reporting to describe the context in which administrators made disciplinary decisions, their decision-making processes, and their perceptions of the impacts those decisions had on them and on students. Iterative data collection and analysis allowed us to saturate themes (Charmaz [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref98">16</reflink>]; Glaser and Strauss [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref99">37</reflink>]; Strauss and Corbin [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref100">82</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0120930748-6">Participants, Data Collection, and Analysis</hd> <p>The study targets the use of CP in Florida, a state with documented excessive punitive discipline practices (Florida State Conference NAACP, Advancement Project, and NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref101">33</reflink>]; Losen et al. [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref102">57</reflink>]; Smith and Harper [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref103">81</reflink>]) and where 28 of 74 school districts reported using CP during the 2011–12 school year (FLDOE [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref104">32</reflink>]; Gagnon et al. [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref105">36</reflink>]). We contacted each district that included at least one Title I school containing seventh and eighth grades and recruited them for participation, obtaining consent from district-level administrators in 19 districts to contact school-level administrators for recruitment. We targeted at least one administrator from each Title I school who worked directly with students whose behaviors challenged adults and who made decisions about how to respond to these behaviors. Of these, 27 administrators, including principals and assistant principals, from 25 schools agreed to participate. These schools were all located in rural areas, and 22 had majority white student populations ranging from 262 to 1,188 students, with a median school size of 613 students. Data were collected through iterative collection and analysis cycles using semistructured telephone interviews lasting 60–90 minutes. Original sample protocol questions included, "Do you think different children require different discipline approaches?" and "How do you decide which approach to use with which students?" (see the appendix). Digital recordings of interviews were transcribed verbatim and prepared for analysis.</p> <p>We used HyperRESEARCH software and Wikispaces to conduct open, axial, and selective coding to construct themes, with developments at each step informing continued data collection (Strauss and Corbin [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref106">82</reflink>]). Each member of the research team first conducted open coding individually, using concepts and constructs shaped by the review of literature. We then compared our codes and agreed on a common code list. Our articulation and definition of the code "discipline as deterrence," for example, reflects the work reviewed earlier that positions administrators' perspectives about discipline in categories or on continuums such as that articulated by Willower ([<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref107">92</reflink>]), ranging from "custodial" to "humanitarian." Throughout data collection, we documented the evolution of our understanding of each code using collective memos on Wikispaces and revised our coding to selectively address areas of emerging themes that required saturation (see table 1). After completing approximately two-thirds of our interviews, we used memos and diagrams to identify axial relationships between codes, emerging themes, and rival explanations (see Kennedy-Lewis [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref108">49</reflink>]). We then modified our data collection by revising our interview protocol to target codes and themes that continued to need development (see the appendix). To saturate our descriptions of the relationships between codes and to establish themes, we modified our data analysis plan by reading transcripts across codes for each participant rather than across participants for each code.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 1. Code Book</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tr><td valign="bottom">Code</td><td valign="bottom">Definition</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Administrator definitions of their rolesa</td><td valign="top">Code for how administrators describe their roles (e.g., as in loco parentis, as disciplinarians). Code for how their views of their roles impact the decisions they make about discipline.</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Alternative school</td><td valign="top">Code every piece of information about alternative schools.</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Background_administratorsb</td><td valign="top">Code anything that does not have to do with administrators' upbringing (e.g., teacher preparation programs). Code any specific explanations of how background influences current decision making.</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Beliefs about rules</td><td valign="top">Code beliefs about rules. Code explicit references and inferences of how these beliefs shape decision making.</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Choosing ISSc</td><td valign="top">Code when ISS is chosen or justified.</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Choosing OSSc</td><td valign="top">Code when OSS is chosen or justified.</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Choosing punishment</td><td valign="top">Code when CP is used and how it is viewed by both administrators and parents. Code explanations for how a particular time period is assigned to detentions, ISS, and OSS. Subset of discipline procedures.</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Choosing CPc</td><td valign="top">Code when CP is chosen or justified.</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Communication with parentsc</td><td valign="top">Code descriptions of how parent communication shapes discipline decisions.</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">CP_student responsec</td><td valign="top">Code descriptions of students' responses to CP being chosen or used.</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Detention</td><td valign="top">Code mentions of detentions held at times other than lunch.</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Discipline as deterrence</td><td valign="top">Code descriptions of what makes kids want to avoid a particular punishment. Code descriptions of punishment that does not work.</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Discipline as opportunity</td><td valign="top">Code mentions of any interactions between admins and students during discipline procedures that do not have to do with the assignment of punishment.</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Discipline procedures</td><td valign="top">Record steps taken as they are described by each participant. Code explanations of how admins choose local strategies (e.g., behavior charts) versus institutionalized ones (e.g., OSS). Code explanations of when discipline policies that are outlined in the student code of conduct are and are not followed precisely. Code descriptions of what administrators wish they had or could use as part of their discipline procedures (maybe make different code for this just to make it easier).</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Emotional worka</td><td valign="top">Code any mention of emotions; the need to maintain objectivity when it is difficult to do so.</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Expectations for behavior</td><td valign="top">Code any expectations that reflect anything beyond compliance, but collect quotes that reflect how administrators talk about expectations for compliance.</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Family background_adminc</td><td valign="top" /></tr><tr><td valign="top">Focus on relationships_during discipline</td><td valign="top">Code mentions of using discipline events to get to know kids better or to solve root causes of problems (not just to deter misbehavior).</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Focus on relationships_prevention</td><td valign="top">Code a focus on relationships as prevention.</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Getting the whole story</td><td valign="top">Code mentions of getting more information from students. Code mentions of using that information in a particular way.</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Local strategies_consequences</td><td valign="top">Record the local strategies used at every school.</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Middle school developmentc</td><td valign="top">Code references to early adolescence or descriptions of issues typical of middle school.</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">OSS_student responsesc</td><td valign="top">Code descriptions of students' responses to OSS being chosen or used.</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Outside factors</td><td valign="top">Code mentions of factors outside of school besides family and infrastructure that impact student behavior and school discipline.</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Personal opinions and feelings</td><td valign="top">Code descriptions of admins' feelings about punishments, specifically looking for evidence that feelings either support or oppose school's system.</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Referrals</td><td valign="top">Code descriptions of how referrals work. Code descriptions of how admins feel about referrals.</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Role of family</td><td valign="top">Code descriptions of: <p> • How important family is in school discipline</p><p> • Successful parenting</p><p> • School's communication with parents</p><p> • How communication with parents plays a role in prevention and punishment</p></td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Role of infrastructure</td><td valign="top">Code mentions of how infrastructure either enables or prevents discipline strategies from being used. Examples include mentions of how these issues affect discipline: <p> • Staffing</p><p> • Space</p><p> • Money</p><p> • Time</p><p> • Presence of alternative school or other programs</p><p> • Access to counseling services (or other services)</p></td></tr><tr><td valign="top">School culture</td><td valign="top">Code descriptions of what should be handled in classroom and what should be handled in office. Code mentions of fidelity and agreement on approaches to prevention and discipline. Code descriptions of how different admins impact how discipline is done at the school.</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Severity of punishment</td><td valign="top">Code anything that helps us understand how administrators think about the differing severity of different punishments.</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Student development</td><td valign="top">Code anything administrators say about student development.</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Student responses to punishment</td><td valign="top">Code any mention of how students respond to any punishment.</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Teacher responsibilities</td><td valign="top">Code mentions of how teachers should handle prevention and discipline.</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Uneasy compromisea</td><td valign="top">Code for the tension between discipline as deterrence and discipline as opportunity. Code for the tension between building relationships and instilling fear.</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>11 Unless otherwise indicated, items are the original codes agreed on by all coders after an initial round of open coding.</item> </ulist> <p>1 A code used for selective coding after initial themes were identified.</p> <p>1 A code that emerged during axial coding.</p> <p>1 A code that did not saturate or was consolidated with other codes.</p> <hd id="AN0120930748-7">Trustworthiness and Limitations</hd> <p>Two researchers on this project taught at the middle school level and had knowledge about teaching and learning, particularly concerning marginalized students. Our school-based experiences helped us understand the language administrators were using and the complexities involved in teaching all students effectively in an age of increased high-stakes testing and accountability, implementation of new standards, challenged budgets, and other external demands on schools. We relied on these experiences to help us interpret the information given by our participants (Polkinghorne [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref109">70</reflink>]; Schwandt [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref110">73</reflink>]), but we also documented these interpretations and our consequent analytical decisions in an audit trail maintained on Wikispaces (Lincoln and Guba [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref111">54</reflink>]). In addition, we engaged in member checking by sending transcripts to participants for review prior to analysis (Lincoln and Guba [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref112">54</reflink>]). A primary limitation of the study is the sample available for interview. We contacted every district and school that met the parameters for data collection, but many declined participation. We also note the nearly all-white student populations of our participating schools. We acknowledge that our resulting grounded theory is based only on the views of administrators who chose to participate and have cautious confidence in the resulting theory that has been "verified through the process of saturation" (Morse [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref113">63</reflink>], 243). Because of the geographical bounding of this sample and the omission of confirmatory observation data, we recognize that these findings are better described as a local, descriptive theory than as an explanatory, grand one (Kezar [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref114">51</reflink>]). Nevertheless, the grounded-theory findings of this study offer insights into administrators' disciplinary decision making and highlight the role of administrative discretion in doling out discipline.</p> <hd id="AN0120930748-8">Findings</hd> <p>Administrators operated within defined parameters at the federal, state, district, and school levels when determining disciplinary consequences, illustrating the centralization of mandating these consequences (Kafka [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref115">47</reflink>]). When students committed zero-tolerance offenses, for instance, administrators were compelled to issue certain punishments. In most cases, however, these centralized policies granted administrators a range of options from which to choose when responding to students' challenging behaviors, including locally created consequences such as work detail and the more broadly institutionalized punishments tracked by the federal Department of Education, which include CP, in-school suspension (ISS), OSS, expulsion, and assignment to alternative placements. As originally reported by Gagnon et al. ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref116">36</reflink>]), CP consisted of giving one to four "licks" to a child after explaining to the child what was about to occur. In districts that allowed CP, it was up to each school's principal to determine whether CP would be used in that school. When schools allowed CP, administrators often felt pressured to use it even if they disagreed with it. In these instances, CP was not used as a tool believed to contribute to children's moral development but rather as a punitive response that some administrators, as bureaucratic enforcers of school- or district-level policies, felt required to use. In our sample, 16 administrators philosophically agreed with and used CP, 4 did not believe that it was the right way to discipline children but used it because their job required them to, 1 did not believe in its use and did not use it even though other administrators at the school did, 4 worked in schools where it was not allowed, and 2 did not state their positions.</p> <p>Many administrators linked their beliefs about behavior and discipline to how they were raised, and a few noted that teaching experiences, personal growth, and other professional experiences shaped their beliefs. Administrators saw themselves as rule followers, which was particularly evident in how they described the process of assigning punishments using a countywide matrix that was "legally defensible." Administrators varied in their beliefs about the propriety and effectiveness of different types of punishments, but they tended to agree that following rules was beneficial for everyone and for the school environment. Some acknowledged that not all children came to school understanding the school's expectations and that the school needed to teach them. Others linked environmental factors such as feeling safe, loved, and respected to students' abilities to meet the school's behavioral expectations. Some explicitly stated that challenging adults was a typical part of development for adolescents and that making mistakes was normal. Even in those cases, however, administrators expected children to learn and follow rules and still punished students according to the local discipline plan. Administrators most often attributed their ultimate decisions for consequences to their own experiences from childhood or as parents and to their concerns about keeping their jobs, satisfying the demands of students' parents, and avoiding lawsuits. Handling student discipline and determining consequences caused administrators to negotiate contradictions between their beliefs and practices and to make compromises that they were not always comfortable making and that required emotional labor (see fig. 1).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1. Graphic representation of grounded theory findings. AP = assistant principal.</p> <hd id="AN0120930748-9">How Administrators Chose Consequences for Students' Behavioral Infractions</hd> <p>When students got in trouble and came to the office, administrators saw it as their job to teach students that all actions have consequences, yet administrators' approaches to this lesson seemed contradictory at times. In many schools, educators worked diligently to implement proactive efforts to promote both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and to prevent challenging student behavior. Administrators stated that these efforts aimed to promote positive relationships between educators and students and to help students develop prosocial habits. Conversely, when describing reactive punishments, administrators discussed the need to find consequences miserable enough to deter kids from repeating undesirable behaviors. We found that these simultaneous desires reflected the philosophical perspectives of educators in the early 1800s who promoted the use of punitive discipline in children's moral development (Kafka [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref117">47</reflink>]). Administrators did not identify a conflict between punishment and development but instead viewed punishment to be in the service of educating students and maintaining order at the school.</p> <hd id="AN0120930748-10">The roles of deterrence and development</hd> <p>Administrators often described trying to figure out what works for each student and using that as a guideline for making decisions about punishment. Typically, administrators assessed that a punishment worked if it deterred the behavior from happening again. Administrators typically started with the least severe punishment that they deemed the behavior warranted and then moved through increasingly severe penalties if the child's behavior did not change. They seemed to consider local strategies to be the least severe and always considered OSS to be the most severe punishment short of expulsion. One administrator explained, "The progression of severity in the consequences we have and the things we use such as adding detention time at break, loss of privileges, disciplinary assignments, parent conferences, CP, ISS, OSS—all of those things and that progression and stepping it up each time, it does work." Almost all administrators described successful consequences as those that students were afraid of. The assessment of successful punishment as that which incited fear reflected a belief that discipline should serve as a deterrent to undesirable behavior. Reflecting this position, one administrator stated, "I would want to make [the punishment] as memorable as I could for them not to want to go back."</p> <p>Administrators used punishments to prevent future misbehavior, but they also sometimes saw the disciplining of students as an opportunity to identify the root causes of student behaviors. One administrator described that he used the discipline event as an opportunity to "get inside a student," to try to understand what the problem was and how to address it. Another administrator stated, "Got to listen to 'em. That's the only way. If all you're doing is you're getting a referral and then [assigning a consequence], you're really missing the boat, and you're really going to end up spending more time than you are if you would just take five minutes and listen."</p> <p>Other administrators emphasized the importance of communicating with the child and helping the child to understand how not to make future mistakes. One administrator talked about using role-play to help students understand their part in discipline incidents and to empower them to make different choices in the future. Another administrator described the relationship between punishment and learning from one's mistakes by saying that after administering CP, "Sometimes there's tears ... the child sits down, gathers themselves, and—and we talk [about] how not to get in this situation again. How could we handle that situation differently? How could we have stopped this from happening? We teach kids how to drive, we teach kids how to do math, but what do we do when kids misbehave? We punish. Well we've also got to teach proper behavior and let them know that they had other choices."</p> <p>For this administrator, the act of punishment created the opportunity for him to counsel students, showing his self-defined role as being responsible for students' moral development and acting in loco parentis to that end.</p> <hd id="AN0120930748-11">How the conflicting goals of deterrence and development coexisted in practice</hd> <p>As we developed themes through iterative data collection and analysis in the study, we began to ask participants directly about how prevention, relationship building, and punishment worked together in practice. We continued to grapple with our own perspectives that instilling fear by promoting deterrence would destroy rather than build relationships. These administrators did not see it that way. One administrator's response reflected how many of our participants explained this: "Paddling is not fun. Disciplinary assignments are also a punitive measure. There has to be at some point. If you talk to them and try to drive the point home and it doesn't work, there has to be punishment. ... If every time I sped, a patrolmen just talked to me ... I'm not going to stop speeding. ... If you've given a warning and after the first warning they are back in there soon, they need some communication, but I will also add something as a deterrent as well."</p> <p>In this example, the consequence occurred, but the focus was on future prevention and student development. This administrator continued, "Both opportunity and deterrent are necessary. ... [Students] have to feel like you care about them in order to change behavior. ... If they feel like there's that connection, that trust is there, they're going to be more likely to govern their behavior ... [because] they don't want to disappoint you."</p> <p>Another administrator gave an additional example of how discipline, deterrence, and development were related in his practice:</p> <p>[We] work harder toward building those relationships and not tolerating ... bad behavior. We want them to know that there are consequences, and I've seen kids in this office and said, "Look ... what you've done is totally unacceptable, and we're going to go as far as we have to go to get you engaged in school, or get you somewhere where you can be more successful. Can you tell me what that is?" And I've had them break down and tell me, "My daddy got locked up last night." ... [When] you find that thing going on in a kid's life, I think you can do some things with him.</p> <p>As demonstrated in these two examples, administrators saw a connection between an amount of fear that served not only as a deterrent but also as a foundation for trust that could motivate positive student behavior. That trust composed one part of the foundation of the relationship between administrator and student that enabled the administrator to counsel the child, show love and care, and promote healthy development. Administrators frequently expressed that that same fear was present in their own upbringing and that enacting behaviors such as CP that promote fear of authority are expected in the geographical region where they worked. They did not see fear and deterrence as forces that shut down relationships.</p> <hd id="AN0120930748-12">When Beliefs Do Not Yield a Clear Response: Tensions in Disciplinary Decision Making</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0120930748-13">Containing contradictions: Consistency versus individualization</hd> <p>Participants did not express discontent with how deterrence and development coexisted in practice, and they felt basically successful in decision making, but we noted that they frequently described multiple tensions in their discipline decisions. The vast majority of participants described struggling with the tension between consistency and individualization. Administrators claimed to follow centralized guidelines determined by the student code of conduct or district discipline matrix even when they exercised autonomy in the applications of those codes. The existence of guidelines provided an easy and widely accepted way to justify their choices even though the choices they actually made did not always align with the guidelines. Many administrators felt uncomfortable with the rigidity of the code and thus made compromises based on numerous factors. Some talked about these compromises as conscious decisions, but others' descriptions indicated that they were not aware of contradictions. Regardless of administrators' awareness of the tensions inherent in this dichotomy between consistency and individualization, the tensions shaped the consequences students received.</p> <p>Administrators' descriptions of their discipline procedures sometimes included strict adherence to discipline policies and other times included loose adherence. Those who tried to adhere strictly to the policies said they did so because they did not want to face legal repercussions if parents asked why one child received a different consequence than another child. This reason seemed more pervasive than the rationale given by other administrators, that they needed to be consistent so that students knew what would happen if they behaved in particular ways. More often, though, administrators simultaneously held both positions: they needed to adhere to the code of conduct while choosing a punishment they deemed to be most appropriate in each case. As one administrator noted, this required them to "be really creative" in how they followed the code of conduct. One administrator verbalized this conflict in almost apologetic terms: "I guess I can't help but be a little subjective ... it's different if you've built a relationship with the kid versus not having built one. They're easier to approach and almost easier to reprimand. I really don't believe it's human nature to be objective."</p> <p>Even when administrators said they followed the code of conduct to determine consequences, there was always some subjectivity in determining how to classify the offense and how to choose from the range of consequences listed in the code. They considered the child's past behavioral record and the child's maturity. One participant described considering how upset the victim was about the incident before deciding how to code the offense, which was a significant act because the code assigned to the offense determined the consequence prescribed by the code of conduct and how the incident would be permanently reflected on the student's record. Another administrator explained that he considered the student's attendance, grades, and previous referrals; interviewed those involved; and then consulted the student code of conduct. Ultimately, he made "certain decisions as to how [the behavior is] going to be coded based on all of that background research." Faced with a similar scenario, another administrator described how colleagues did not see eye to eye on what constituted a fight: "There are some fights that are going to be five days out of school ... and then there's tussles, and that's the big joke when it comes to altercations in middle school is that fights will get you [OSS]; a tussle will get you [ISS]. And that's a very fine line. ... I've sat in meetings with other administrators and literally spent two hours talking about what a fight is because some people think [in] a fight, [combatants] have to be prone, and for other people it doesn't require that." Ultimately, these subjective judgments determined how offenses were both coded and punished.</p> <p>Even when administrators relied on the district code of conduct to determine consequences, the choices varied, as in the case of being able to choose from 5 to 10 days of OSS. When deciding between punishments for the same type of misbehavior, administrators often spoke about options that they saw as equally severe even though their perceptions of severity varied. One administrator explained that, for example, CP could replace three days of ISS. Instead of going to ISS, the students reported to him to get paddled each of those three days. But another administrator explained, "[CP] can be used to substitute one lick for one day of [ISS] or one day of OSS. It is used by our discretion. If I think you'll learn more or remember it more if I take a paddle to you, then I'll take a paddle to you."</p> <p>Subjective judgments also came into play when administrators reconciled how to consider students' extenuating circumstances while following the steps in the code of conduct. One administrator described the connection between the two: "We walk a fine line of when to be understanding and try to give a little bit of leniency, and then when to ... you know, to just keep the code of conduct, letter-of-the-law kind of thing." To illustrate this conundrum, he recounted that he had just received a referral the previous day for a student who was "disrespectful to teachers ... throwing temper tantrums and acting out in class." He knew, however, that the student's mother had just been arrested the previous weekend and that a story about her had been on the front page of the local paper. The administrator struggled with understanding that the student's behavior likely stemmed from the student's "huge embarrassment" and "devastation" while also believing that he was obligated to punish the student for disrespect. Administrators struggled to balance honoring individual students' needs with maintaining consistency because, as one noted, "you gotta have a heart" when working with students. Perceptions of students' home lives often led administrators to choose school-based consequences rather than OSS. One administrator explained that when deciding between CP and OSS, "Sometimes it's best for that child to be here just to take the paddling instead of sending them back to a single-wide trailer that's got seven people living in it." Such decisions required administrators to know students' lives well enough to discern what they thought was the best course of action for each student.</p> <hd id="AN0120930748-14">Uneasy compromises</hd> <p>Administrators also experienced tensions when they compromised by assigning punishments they did not believe in. Administrators, for example, frequently described their feelings about OSS by using the phrase "gives them a vacation." Nevertheless, all of them assigned OSS despite their feelings that it was ineffective at deterring behavior because, as one administrator stated, "at some point we have to hold [students] accountable." This administrator's rationale revealed several contradictions. One reason she used OSS was because "that teacher don't want them back in their classroom the next day, I can assure you," but she also explained that she did not like OSS because students need as much instruction as possible. Recognizing that students who tend to get in trouble also tend to struggle academically, she explained that teachers are paid for their students' performance and thus would prefer the students to be in class. Although she felt OSS was akin to a holiday and that students suffered from lack of instruction while they were out, she assigned it to prove a point and give teachers a break. Administrators who lacked access to local consequences felt they had to resort to CP, ISS, or OSS even if they did not believe those punishments to be effective.</p> <p>CP often raised tensions for administrators who were uneasy with its use. They consistently mentioned calling parents as part of responding to challenging behaviors and sometimes consulted with them about types of responses that might be effective with the child. In the case of using CP, administrators reported always calling parents. One administrator reported that she never used CP unless the parent requested it, such as if a parent said, "'My son ... just can't afford to be out of the classroom for one full day. Is there any way you can paddle him so he can get back into classes?' [In] a situation like that, I would paddle. Or [if] a student's had three or four referrals and we've done three or four days of ISD, he's continuing to get in trouble, [and the] parent [will] say, 'You know, that ISD business ain't working. Why don't you tear his backside up see if that gets his attention?'" Whereas parents' expectations for administrators to use this consequence seemed to be a primary motivator for its use, administrators did not seem to feel like they needed to justify the uses of other punishments in the same way.</p> <p>Parents' expectations for educators to use CP sometimes put administrators in an awkward position in which their personal beliefs, professional beliefs, and community expectations came into conflict. One administrator explained, "I only use CP if a parent requests it. I never suggest CP ... I don't want to be another person in that child's life that has abused them. So we do use CP." He went on to share, "Like I had it used on me several times growing up and I think it worked just fine. ... Either it does the trick or it adds fuel to the fire." CP could also make educators vulnerable to lawsuits. Although it was legal in their schools and encouraged by their communities, administrators feared that "there's always room for errors" and that students' responses to CP might lead to them getting hurt. One participant described this scenario: "You've got a kid that's, number one, scared of the initial contact. He's trying to look at the board and you're saying, 'No, you need to look forward.' They're trying to shift, you know." The unpredictable nature of students' responses caused him concern. He continued, "There's always room for errors to take place. And that error could leave a mark and get your butt in trouble later." Another administrator recognized that CP should not be used as a consequence for violent behavior but then qualified this position: "Not that CP is violence, but if a student punched another in the face, we're not going to paddle him in response." Although some administrators continued to use CP due to school and community pressures, they did so with hesitation and an awareness that they could face a future lawsuit, that they could affect a child who was already being hit at home, and that CP was not an appropriate response for all offenses. Ultimately, though, as one administrator explained, she did it "because, you know, it's what I signed up to do."</p> <hd id="AN0120930748-15">Emotional work</hd> <p>Many administrators discussed their experiences of both pride and disappointment regarding student outcomes, revealing their investment in relationships with students. One administrator told this story to highlight the point:</p> <p>Well, you know, there was a child about three years ago that was two years academically delayed ... all the teachers [said], "Look, we need to get rid of this kid, we need to send him to an alternative place." ... I'm not sure why, but there was just something that didn't sit right with me. So I would start bringing this child into my office and talking to him ... and once I got to know this child ... [I] find out the problem was this child was pretty much raising himself. He would come home and become the primary caregiver to six brothers and sisters ... but it was just that by ... giving the child some added attention ... [now] he's made up one year that he was behind and is trying to make up the second year where he can graduate with his regular class ... and I still talk to him, I still see him quite frequently.</p> <p>Administrators believed educators' relationships with students were paramount in stemming students' misbehavior but lamented that, too often, the overwhelming duties of their job prevented these relationships from being as deep or far reaching as they would have liked. As one participant explained, "It's hard to [maintain relationships] 'cause you have a lot of kids and, you know, you're trying to juggle all this stuff going on."</p> <p>Investing time and energy into helping students who needed extra support exacted an emotional toll on administrators. One expressed his sense of internal conflict about being too easy on a student who had been sent to his office. He stated that he could not make coming to the office feel like "the greatest thing in the world for them ... They can't just open up the candy vault whenever they get in trouble. So you got to try to see them other times and build that relationship without rewarding them for bad behavior." It could be taxing for administrators to strike a balance between being both friendly and stern figures for students. This stress was revealed in the metaphors administrators used to describe their roles. One administrator said he is at once judge, jury, and executioner because "you're supposed to have fairness and accuracy without passion or prejudice." Two other administrators described their role as akin to a parent's in that they love children while guiding them and providing boundaries, which allowed them to balance giving severe consequences with thinking about what else they could do to help kids. These educators embodied the role of acting in loco parentis even in districts with centralized discipline policies.</p> <p>Nevertheless, for a few students, the relationships were not enough to make the difference. Administrators felt guilty and disappointed when the hours they had invested in helping a student did not seem to effect change. One administrator explained that such situations "put me in a position where I feel like I am ineffective if I cannot help someone, that I have been ineffective and I have failed at my job." The emotional dimension of administrators' work resulted from the containment of contradictions and failures of a system in which administrators had to balance supportive and punitive approaches to student behavior and negotiate tensions between parental and bureaucratic orientations.</p> <hd id="AN0120930748-16">Punitive Discipline and the Role of the Discipline Matrix</hd> <p>All administrators in this study made decisions about students' disciplinary consequences within a broader national climate of punitive school discipline, in which disciplinary consequences are cast not as part of educators' roles acting in loco parentis and serving children's moral development but rather as assertions of educators' roles in maintaining safety and order in schools. Kafka ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref118">47</reflink>]) traces the historical narrowing of the teacher's role from an autonomous developer of children's social, emotional, moral, and intellectual needs to just a teacher of academic content as a result of the Cold War, Sputnik, and the publication of <emph>A Nation at Risk.</emph> Contemporary policies regarding accountability measures that evaluate teachers according to their students' achievement scores, as required by Race to the Top, have further narrowed the conception of the educator's role as getting students to perform well on high-stakes standardized tests. Within this context, teachers have little time or energy to devote to students who distract them and other students from the pursuit of academic achievement. The need to make schools safe and free of distracting indiscipline support the existence of deterrence-based centralized discipline policies.</p> <p>The emphasis on deterrence through increasingly punitive responses has been heightened through rhetoric surrounding the War on Drugs starting in the 1970s and institutionalized in federal education law through the Gun Free Schools Act of 1994 and its subsequent reauthorizations (Blumenson and Nilsen [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref119">10</reflink>]; Casella [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref120">15</reflink>]). Kennedy-Lewis ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref121">48</reflink>]) frames federal and state discipline policies as reflecting the competing national discourses of safety and equity. The discourse of safety asserts that using harsh consequences even for minor infractions will ultimately lead children and schools to be safer. However, this discourse competes with the discourse of equity, which asserts that public institutions should promote the development of human potential equally in all constituents with the goal of increasing democratic participation (see Kennedy-Lewis [[<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref122">48</reflink>]] for a more thorough treatment of these discourses). These competing discourses echo the historic debate about the purpose of schools (Kafka [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref123">47</reflink>]) and come to bear on administrators' decision making during discipline events.</p> <p>The punitive nature of the vast majority of consequences available to administrators and listed in district matrices (Lorie and Lee [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref124">56</reflink>]) reflects that the discourse of safety currently dominates the US school discipline landscape and shapes administrators' responses to students. The recent release of the USDOE's ([<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref125">86</reflink>]) <emph>Guiding Principles</emph> document, which outlines the need for more constructive and less punitive discipline policies, may mark a shift in the national discourse on school discipline from safety to equity. However, in the daily lives of school administrators, the discourse of safety is likely to continue to hold sway well into the future.</p> <p>The discourse of safety has led to the development of discipline matrices that require primarily punitive responses to students' challenging behaviors. Administrators in districts that allow CP see it as one viable option among others, including ISS and OSS. CP has been widely condemned and is outlawed in 31 states because of clear evidence that CP harms children (Dupper and Dingus [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref126">25</reflink>]). It is not uncommon when discussing this study with colleagues to hear a response of surprise that CP is still sanctioned by any state at all. However, these administrators' perspectives about CP make sense in three ways that put the onus on the educational community to make broad-scale changes in school discipline.</p> <hd id="AN0120930748-17">Why These Educators Use Ineffective Practices</hd> <p>While research has shown the detrimental effects of CP and public opinion has shifted away from supporting its use in many geographical regions, research has also shown the detrimental effects of classroom exclusion, missed instruction, and OSS (USDOE [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref127">86</reflink>]). Nevertheless, we continue to accept the use of these practices in nearly every school district in the country. To counter the negative and punitive effects of zero-tolerance policies and practices, the school discipline literature promotes culturally responsive positive behavior intervention and supports (Jones et al. [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref128">45</reflink>]), restorative justice practices (Bazemore and Schiff [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref129">9</reflink>]), and social-emotional learning (CASEL [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref130">14</reflink>]) as effective programs. However, research and policy have thus far proven insufficient in turning the tide toward well-implemented positive disciplinary responses in practice in most districts.</p> <p>In its report on the detrimental effects of zero-tolerance policies, the American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref131">5</reflink>]) noted the importance of examining barriers to the diffusion and implementation of research-based practices proven effective in both clinical settings and schools. Many administrators in this study believed that CP worked in helping them accomplish the goals of attending to students' moral development while ensuring order. Burkhardt and Schoenfeld ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref132">13</reflink>]) argue that educational research lacks influence in policy making and in educator practice because of underdeveloped models linking research and practice. They discuss a number of barriers involved in effectively connecting research and practice, but their discussion of the need for "consensus building and public dissemination of well-substantiated results" (<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref133">10</reflink>) most relates to the need to persuade administrators and other stakeholders that CP is harmful despite communities' cultural and moral support of it (Dupper and Dingus [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref134">25</reflink>]).</p> <p>There also exists a need to build consensus on the negative effects of all punitive and exclusionary discipline, which speaks to a required shift in the national discourse toward equity. Arguably, such a shift will most effectively occur with top-down regulations restricting the uses not only of CP but also of ISS, OSS, and other exclusionary practices (Dupper and Dingus [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref135">25</reflink>]; Losen and Martinez [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref136">58</reflink>]). However, such regulations will be insufficient in changing beliefs and practices if implemented without attention to the challenges occurring in daily practice (Darling-Hammond [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref137">21</reflink>]; Fullan [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref138">35</reflink>]). School administrators face the triple challenge of negotiating cultural orientations toward punitive discipline, needing logistically feasible and legally defensible consequences for students' challenging behaviors when prevention strategies prove insufficient, and lacking training and infrastructural support to successfully implement alternatives to current rigid and punitive discipline matrices.</p> <hd id="AN0120930748-18">The Perfect Storm of High-Stakes Accountability, Punitive Discipline, and Educators' Commitme...</hd> <p>CP was touted by many administrators who supported the practice as the one consequence at their disposal that kept students in class. In many of these schools, common alternatives such as detention were impossible because of infrastructural limitations, so CP allowed them to be consistent with the district discipline matrix and also maximize students' classroom time. Rather than assigning consequences in accordance with a single set of beliefs, these administrators balanced the needs to both deter disruptive behavior and to develop students' characters and skills. Unlike previous studies examining the role of administrators' beliefs in assigning disciplinary consequences (see Skiba et al. [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref139">76</reflink>]; Smith and Haines [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref140">79</reflink>]), administrators in this study did not fall easily into categories of those who emphasize deterrence and those who emphasize development. As in those studies, we found that different perspectives were present and shaping administrators' decisions. Notably, in this study, these different perspectives resided within, rather than among, individuals (see fig. 1).</p> <p>Administrators' subscriptions to deterrence as a desirable motivation for enforcing punitive discipline derived both from a parental sense of wanting to properly train children and from the bureaucratic nature of their roles and the need to protect themselves from legal action by adhering to the discipline matrix (Lipsky [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref141">55</reflink>]). As bureaucrats, they also experienced pressure to meet increasing federal and state demands on schools to increase test scores (Greene et al. [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref142">38</reflink>]). Florida's schools receive letter grades each year based on high-stakes test performance, with current guidelines requiring schools to make adequate yearly progress in reading and math achievement among all student groups and to have at least 25% of students score satisfactorily in reading on the annual state achievement test to avoid decreased rankings (FLDOE [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref143">31</reflink>]). School grades are tied to funding and sanctions, with schools ranked as A receiving cash rewards and schools ranked as F two or more times in a 4-year period being required to provide student transfers to other schools and facing possible restructuring (FLDOE [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref144">30</reflink>]). More than half of the schools in this study had most recently received a grade of C or lower, and only four received an A.</p> <p>This grading system began in 1999 as part of Florida's A+ Plan for Education, passed under Jeb Bush's governorship, and paved the way for similar accountability measures to be written into President George W. Bush's federal legislation No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in 2001. Federal reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (i.e., NCLB) is overdue, and the Obama administration has recently suggested a limit on the amount of time spent testing students (Associated Press [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref145">7</reflink>]). Nevertheless, states continue to hold districts accountable for test scores, and districts across the nation continue to strive to meet accountability goals.</p> <p>Pressure to meet accountability targets has been linked to administrators' exclusionary discipline strategies (Advancement Project [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref146">3</reflink>]). Because students demonstrating challenging behaviors often face learning difficulties, accountability measures have the unintended consequence of incentivizing the removal of these students (e.g., see Taylor [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref147">83</reflink>]). Administrators in this study did not speak about the need to exclude low-performing students during discipline events but rather discussed their commitments to student learning and their desires to see students grow as individuals. They described the need to develop relationships with students and spoke proudly of their efforts to support students who struggled by helping them to succeed at the school. The clashing of their roles as bureaucrats and as educators reflected conflicting goals of preserving the institution and developing the individual (Irby and Clough [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref148">44</reflink>]; Lipsky [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref149">55</reflink>]). These findings highlight the need to shape interventions aimed at changing administrators' practices within the complexity of the contradictory positions and pressures that each individual faces.</p> <hd id="AN0120930748-19">The Promise and Limitations of Educator Autonomy</hd> <p>Third, these educators consistently described an orientation toward acting in loco parentis and using their autonomy in applying the discipline matrices to do so. They justified the use of CP as doing what students' parents wanted or what their own parents did to them. They viewed CP as a way to enforce adult control, but the ultimate goal of that enforcement was described as the well-being of the child rather than the exercise of control to promote an orderly or safe learning environment. CP was used as a means toward students' moral development, as was the development of positive educator-student relationships; little conflict existed between these practices in the minds of educators. Although CP exists in these districts within a cultural milieu where physical discipline is accepted and expected, educators' dispositions toward supporting children's holistic development could provide a necessary foundation for the implementation of research-based practices that better meet that goal. Policies that decentralize disciplinary decisions and support educators' acting in loco parentis could promote educators' uses of empathy in choosing more humane prevention and intervention strategies and consequences. Unlike the teachers and administrators described in Kafka's ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref150">47</reflink>]) case study who enthusiastically ceded their autonomy to decide on disciplinary consequences to solely focus on academic content, educators in this study valued their autonomy and considered discipline to be part of their jobs. Although they sometimes mentioned the pursuit of consistency in assigning consequences to avoid lawsuits, most often they described their autonomous application of discipline matrices as enabling them to act in a parental role.</p> <p>However, decentralizing disciplinary decisions could also further exacerbate the existing inequities in educators' disciplinary decisions. We note that all of the schools in our sample were in rural, primarily white communities where educators had often known students' families for generations and where there was a shared understanding of behavior and discipline deemed appropriate and mutual trust between educators and parents to promote and enforce those expectations. Studies of CP in more diverse and urban districts have documented its disproportionate use with students of color (Ferguson [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref151">29</reflink>]; Northington [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref152">68</reflink>]). The flexibility educators in this study described having when they chose consequences from discipline matrices allows for educators' implicit and explicit biases to affect their responses even when they believe they are being objective (Lewis and Diamond [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref153">53</reflink>]; Okonofua and Eberhardt [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref154">69</reflink>]; Skiba et al. [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref155">78</reflink>]). We hypothesize that educators in more diverse and urban settings where fewer trusting relationships exist between families and schools are less likely to empathize with students' experiences or to share parents' interpretations of appropriate behavior and discipline (Anyon et al. [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref156">6</reflink>]). As Kafka ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref157">47</reflink>]) noted in her account of the development of centralized discipline policies, parents in urban areas supported these policies because of their potential to limit educator bias in disciplinary responses.</p> <p>Evidence of the growing discipline gap between white students and students of color substantiates parents' concerns (Anyon et al. [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref158">6</reflink>]; Wallace et al. [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref159">91</reflink>]). Although zero-tolerance policies should ensure that the same behaviors receive the same consequences regardless of student race (American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref160">5</reflink>]), the discipline gap suggests that the autonomy educators have maintained under these centralized policies has not been equitably applied. Whereas flexibility in discipline matrices in some districts in our sample supported educators' acing in loco parentis, the same flexibility in other districts supports a racially biased enactment of the discourse of safety focused on control and punishment (Devine [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref161">23</reflink>]; Kupchik [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref162">52</reflink>]; Nolan [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref163">67</reflink>]).</p> <p>In educational contexts focused on control and deterrence, teachers and administrators too frequently place educators' authority to use disciplinary moments as opportunities to educate in the hands of police or school resource officers. Even though CP is banned in many of these contexts, students are not safe from physical punishment. As journalist Ta-Nehisi Coates ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref164">17</reflink>]) reminds us in his letter to his teenage son regarding being black in America, "the police departments of your country have been endowed with the authority to destroy your body" (<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref165">9</reflink>). The discourse of safety bears on black bodies inequitably. The public has repeatedly witnessed the abuses that institutional agents have propagated against young black bodies, with the most recent egregious example of sheriff's deputy Ben Fields overturning a black student in a desk and ejecting her onto the floor in full view of all of her classmates, her teacher, and a school administrator (Fausset and Southall [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref166">27</reflink>]). Her offense was having a cell phone and refusing to leave the classroom after being asked to give up the phone. In such instances, battle lines have been drawn between adults who enforce order and students who challenge them. Under these circumstances, adults no longer act in loco parentis, and their power should be checked not only by stricter, enforceable policies but also by positive, relational school cultures in which empathy trumps confrontation and resistance. A shift in educators' beliefs about student behavior, the purpose of education, and their roles as educators could ensure beneficent uses of educator autonomy.</p> <hd id="AN0120930748-20">Next Steps toward Relational Disciplinary Approaches</hd> <p>Findings from this study suggest that a two-pronged approach providing both pressure and support for change (Fullan [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref167">34</reflink>]) might dissuade educators from using harmful practices and encourage them to replace these practices with more positive ones. This approach would include policy overhauls banning punitive practices and supporting job-embedded professional development (JEPD) to teach educators new approaches that could work in their contexts (Croft et al. [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref168">19</reflink>]). Policies banning damaging practices provide pressure for change (see Hix [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref169">42</reflink>]). Such policies are necessary but not sufficient for educators to choose a different approach to discipline. Bans on CP already exist in 31 states, and bans on OSS for subjectively defined offenses are gaining traction, such as in the case of California's 2014 law banning OSS for willful defiance for students in kindergarten through third grade. However, without sufficient positive alternatives, educators are likely to replace one ineffective harmful practice with another, particularly if their underlying beliefs and biases are not addressed (Broussard et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref170">11</reflink>]; Smith [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref171">80</reflink>]).</p> <p>Educators in this study determined the effectiveness of discipline practices based on a behavioristic framework that sought deterrents powerful enough to extinguish challenging behaviors (Smith and Hains [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref172">79</reflink>]). These opinions about "what works," as one participant said, reflect a deep-seated culturally and experientially informed belief that curbing misbehavior is a primary goal of school discipline and that using undesirable practices is worth it if the misbehavior stops (Robinson et al. [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref173">72</reflink>]). To change these beliefs, educators need experiences that bring these beliefs to their awareness and allow them to see humanistic perspectives that promote equity and the restoration of relationships (Smith and Hains [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref174">79</reflink>]). Such alternatives should push beyond theoretical ideas and give educators practical, usable alternatives that allow them to negotiate the demands of their contexts.</p> <p>JEPD has the potential to challenge educators' negative beliefs by offering opportunities for educators to use positive alternatives (Guskey [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref175">41</reflink>]). JEPD fosters a collaborative learning environment in which educators learn and experiment with new approaches in their actual contexts (Croft et al. [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref176">19</reflink>]; Putnam and Borko [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref177">71</reflink>]). This job-embedded approach facilitates the transfer of new ideas to practice, giving educators experiences of success that reinforce new beliefs and serve as motivation to continue to implement these new practices (Desimone [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref178">22</reflink>]; Putnam and Borko [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref179">71</reflink>]). For the administrators in this study, effective JEPD might include the use of teen courts or restorative practices to accomplish administrators' goals of deterring challenging behavior through empathy and relationship building, thereby expanding these administrators' notions of what works (Bazemore and Schiff [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref180">9</reflink>]).</p> <p>Future research should examine and evaluate how administrators' beliefs and practices change from punitive to responsive orientations with a particular focus on the relationship between pressure and support in motivating these changes. Future studies should also target the impact of belief change on discipline disparities, inquiring into the types of pressure and support necessary to eliminate educators' disproportionate coding and punishing of indiscipline among students of color and those from low-income backgrounds. Although this study did not focus on the roles of race, class, and gender in shaping disciplinary outcomes, the power of local cultural expectations for using CP in child-rearing reflects the role rural poverty plays in these students' school experiences. Providing a more supportive learning environment for all students requires shifts in educators' beliefs and practices toward safe and positive discipline strategies.</p> <hd id="AN0120930748-21">Appendix</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0120930748-22">Interview Protocol</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1. What are your beliefs about how children should behave in school?</item> <p></p> <item> a. What factors in your life have shaped those beliefs? Could you give me an example?</item> <p></p> <item> b. Why do you think some children do not behave in those ways sometimes? Example?</item> <p></p> <item> c. What factors need to be in place in order for children to meet the school's behavioral expectations? Example?</item> <p></p> <item> 2. What is this school's approach to preventing challenging behavior?</item> <p></p> <item> a. Do you think that most of the educators here use the same prevention strategies? Example?</item> <p></p> <item> b To what degree do the prevention strategies used here match your personal beliefs about how to prevent challenging behavior?</item> <p></p> <item> c. Do you think different children require different approaches? Explain.</item> <p></p> <item> <bold> i </bold> <bold>Is it more important to be consistent or to address the individual situation?</bold> </item> <p></p> <item> <bold> ii </bold> <bold>How do you balance consistency with handling discipline on a case-to-case basis?</bold> </item> <p></p> <item> iii <emph>What role does understanding the causes for challenging behaviors play in assigning consequences?</emph></item> <p></p> <item> d. Do you use PBIS? How exactly do you use it? What is the relationship between PBIS and discipline consequences?</item> <p></p> <item> e <emph>What impacts have you seen as a result of your prevention strategies?</emph></item> <p></p> <item> 3 What happens at this school when children do not meet the schools' behavioral expectations? At the classroom level? At the administrative level?</item> <p></p> <item> a <emph>In your opinion, which behaviors should be handled in the classroom and which should be handled by you?</emph></item> <p></p> <item> b <emph>When is it appropriate for teachers to write office referrals?</emph></item> <p></p> <item> c <emph>To what degree do the teachers at your school use them effectively?</emph></item> <p></p> <item> d <emph>How do you deal with teachers who give the most referrals? Are there things that you emphasize and require schoolwide?</emph></item> <p></p> <item> e <emph>What happens when a child receives a referral? Could you walk me through a recent example?</emph></item> <p></p> <item> f <emph>How do referrals get coded and how do those codes shape the consequences you choose?</emph></item> <p></p> <item> g <emph>What impacts do referrals have on children's educational futures? [How] does knowing that shape the way your school deals with giving referrals?</emph></item> <p></p> <item> 4. What sorts of behavioral issues do you have to deal with as an administrator at this school?</item> <p></p> <item> a How is your role similar to and different from that of other administrators?</item> <p></p> <item> <bold> b </bold> <bold>Referrals: What role do referrals play? Walk us through what happens when you get a referral.</bold> </item> <p></p> <item> c. What options are available to you in responding to misbehavior? (What are the roles of in-school suspension, out-of-school suspension [and corporal punishment] in your practice?</item> <p></p> <item> i. What are your thoughts and feelings about each of these strategies? Which is most effective? Least effective? Examples?</item> <p></p> <item> ii. How do you decide which approach to use with which students? Example?</item> <p></p> <item> iii <emph>Do your feelings come into play when you discipline students?</emph></item> <p></p> <item> iv. How do students typically respond to these different approaches? How do you feel about that?</item> <p></p> <item> v. Are there other approaches you wish you could use? Explain.</item> <p></p> <item> d <emph>Can you describe how discipline practices at this school have been different under different leadership and/or with different faculty? [If not applicable, ask about another school where participant has worked.]</emph></item> <p></p> <item> 5. To what degree do you believe that the school's responses to challenging behaviors are effective?</item> <p></p> <item> a. Could you describe your experiences with a student with whom you felt your behavioral approach was especially effective?</item> <p></p> <item> i What was that student like? How often did you interact? Under what circumstances?</item> <p></p> <item> ii Why do you think your approach worked?</item> <p></p> <item> <bold> iii </bold> <bold>Was that student ever [suspended in school; suspended out of school; corporally punished]? How many times? (for each method)</bold> </item> <p></p> <item> <bold> iv </bold> <bold>Tell me about how these different forms of discipline impact the child. What happened after each consequence? Please describe one specific example.</bold> </item> <p></p> <item> <bold> v </bold> <bold>What was the most important factor in your success with that child? Explain.</bold> </item> <p></p> <item> b. Could you describe your experiences with a student with whom you felt your behavioral approach was ineffective?</item> <p></p> <item> i What was that student like? How often did you interact? Under what circumstances?</item> <p></p> <item> ii Why do you think your approach did not work?</item> <p></p> <item> <bold> iii </bold> <bold>Was that student ever [suspended in school; suspended out of school; corporally punished]? How many times? (for each method)</bold> </item> <p></p> <item> <bold> iv </bold> <bold>Tell me about how these different forms of discipline impact the child. What happened after each consequence? Please describe one specific example.</bold> </item> <p></p> <item> <bold> v </bold> <bold>What do you believe would have been necessary for you to succeed with that child? Explain.</bold> </item> <p></p> <item> 6. Is there anything that would help you and/or your school improve your approaches to challenging behavior as well as the outcomes of those approaches?</item> <p></p> <item> 7 If you could tell policymakers anything about school discipline, what would it be?</item> <p></p> <item> 8 Any other thoughts?</item> <p></p> <item> 9. <emph>Is there anything that would help you and/or your school improve your approaches to challenging behavior as well as the outcomes of those approaches?</emph></item> </ulist> <p>Note.—Regular font indicates original protocol. Boldface indicates questions added after approximately one-third of the interviews were completed and open coding was conducted. Italics indicate questions that were added to target selective coding and theme development. Strike-throughs indicate questions that were not asked during this final stage of data collection.</p> <ref id="AN0120930748-23"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref18" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Brianna L. Kennedy is an associate professor in the School of Teaching and Learning at the University of Florida. Her research focuses on the marginalization of underserved students, particularly in the subfield of school discipline studies and in the areas of culturally responsive classroom management, the discipline gap, and the school-to-prison pipeline. Her additional research interests include education reform, educating early adolescents, alternative education, and qualitative research methodologies. Amy S. Murphy is a clinical assistant professor in the Department of Educational Theory and Practice at the University of Georgia. Her work focuses on middle grades education, culturally relevant classroom management, and teacher preparation. Adam Jordan is a PhD student in the Educational Technology program at the University of Florida. Currently, his research interest is assistive technologies for students with disabilities and their experiences using these technologies.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref13" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> This study was supported by funding from the Southern Poverty Law Center.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0120930748-24"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> AACAP (American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry). 1988. "Corporal Punishment in Schools." Washington, DC: AACAP.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> AASA, School Superintendents Association and Children's Defense Fund. 2014. "School Discipline in the Eyes of School Superintendents." Alexandria, VA: AASA, School Superintendents Association and Children's Defense Fund.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref20" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Advancement Project. 2010. "Test, Punish, and Push Out: How 'Zero Tolerance' and High-Stakes Testing Funnel Youth into the School-to-Prison Pipeline." Washington, DC: Advancement Project.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref10" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> American Academy of Pediatrics. 2013. "Out-of-School Suspension and Expulsion." Pediatrics. doi:10.1542/peds.2012-3932.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref11" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force. 2008. "Are Zero Tolerance Policies Effective in Schools? An Evidentiary Review and Recommendations." American Psychologist 63 (9): 852–62.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref156" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Anyon, Yolanda, Jeffrey M. Jenson, Inna Altschul, Jordan Farrar, Jeanette McQueen, Eldridge Greer, Barbara Downing, and John Simmons. 2014. "The Persistent Effect of Race and the Promise of Alternatives to Suspension in School Discipline Outcomes." Children and Youth Services Review 44:379–86.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref145" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Associated Press. 2015. "Obama Encouraging Limits on Standardized Student Tests." Education Week, October 26.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref57" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Balfanz, Robert, Vaughan Byrnes, and Joanna Fox. 2013. "Sent Home and Put Off-Track: The Antecedents, Disproportionalities, and Consequences of Being Suspended in the Ninth Grade." Paper presented at the Closing the School Discipline Gap: Research to Practice conference, Washington, DC, January.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref129" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bazemore, Gordon, and Mara Schiff. 2012. "'No Time to Talk': A Cautiously Optimistic Tale of Restorative Justice and Related Approaches to School Discipline." In Contemporary Issues in Criminological Theory and Research, ed. Richard Rosenfeld, Kenna Quinet, and Crystal A. Garcia. Belmont, CA: Cengage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Blumenson, Eric, and Eva S. Nilsen. 2002. "How to Construct an Underclass, or How the War on Drugs Became a War on Education." Journal of Gender, Race, and Justice 6 (1): 61–109.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Broussard, Jessie, Twyla Williams-Damond, Mary Broussard, Richard Fossey, and Robert Slater. 2013. "Corporal Punishment in Southern Schools: Good News, Bad News, and News That's Pretty Ugly." Teachers College Record, August 16, <ulink href="http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=17221">http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=17221</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bryant, Anthony, and Kathy Charmaz. 2007. "Grounded Theory in Historical Perspective: An Epistemological Account." In The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory, ed. Antony Bryant and Kathy Charmaz. Los Angeles: Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burkhardt, Hugh, and Alan H. Schoenfeld. 2003. "Improving Educational Research: Toward a More Useful, More Influential, and Better-Funded Enterprise." Educational Researcher 32 (9): 3–14.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> CASEL (Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning). 2003. Safe and Sound. Chicago: CASEL.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Casella, Ronnie. 2003. "Zero Tolerance Policies in Schools: Rationale, Consequences, and Alternatives." Teachers College Record 105 (5): 872–92.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Charmaz, Kathy. 2009. "Shifting the Grounds: Constructivist Grounded Theory Methods." In Developing Grounded Theory: The Second Generation, ed. Janice M. Morse, Phyllis Noerager Stern, Juliet Corbin, Barbara Bowers, Kathy Charmaz, and Adele E. Clarke. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coates, Ta-Nehisi. 2015. Between the World and Me. New York: Spiegel & Grau.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Collins, Kathleen M. 2011. "Discursive Positioning in a</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>Grade Writing Lesson: The Making of a 'Bad, Bad Boy.'" Urban Education 46 (4): 741–85.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Croft, Andrew, Jane G. Coggshall, Megan Dolan, Elizabeth Powers, and Joellen Killion. 2010. Job-Embedded Professional Development: What It Is, Who Is Responsible, and How to Get It Done Well. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cuban, Larry. 1993. How Teachers Taught: Constancy and Change in American Classrooms 1890–1990, 2nd ed. New York: Teachers College Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Darling-Hammond, Linda. 2005. "Policy and Change: Getting Beyond Bureaucracy." In Extending Educational Change: International Handbook of Educational Change, ed. Andy Hargreaves. Dordrecht: Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Desimone, Laura M. 2009. "Improving Impact Studies of Teachers' Professional Development: Toward Better Conceptualizations and Measures." Educational Researcher 38 (3): 181–99.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Devine, John. 1997. Maximum Security: The Culture of Violence in Inner-City Schools. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dupper, David R., and Lois Bosch. 1996. "Reasons for School Suspensions: An Examination of Data from One School District and Recommendations for Reducing Suspensions." Journal for a Just and Caring Education 2 (2): 140–50.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dupper, David R., and Amy E. M. Dingus. 2008. "Corporal Punishment in U.S. Public Schools: A Continuing Challenge for Social Workers." Children and Schools 30 (4): 243–50.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fabelo, Tony, Michael D. Thompson, Martha Plotkin, Dottie Carmichael, Miner P. Marchbanks, and Eric A. Booth. 2011. Breaking Schools' Rules. New York: Justice Center.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fausset, Richard, and Ashley Southall. 2015. "Videos Show Officer Flipping and Dragging Student, Bringing Inquiry." New York Times, October 27.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fenning, Pamela, and Jennifer Rose. 2007. "Overrepresentation of African American Students in Exclusionary Discipline: The Role of School Policy." Urban Education 42 (6): 536–59.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ferguson, Ann A. 2000. Bad Boys: Public Schools and the Making of Black Masculinity. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> FLDOE (Florida Department of Education). 2012. "Florida's Path to Success." Tallahassee: FLDOE, <ulink href="http://www.floridapathtosuccess.org">http://www.floridapathtosuccess.org</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> FLDOE (Florida Department of Education). 2013a. "Florida School Grades: School Grades for Elementary, Middle, and Elementary/Middle Combination Schools." Tallahassee: FLDOE, <ulink href="http://schoolgrades.fldoe.org/pdf/1213/SchoolGradesPressPacket.pdf">http://schoolgrades.fldoe.org/pdf/1213/SchoolGradesPressPacket.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> FLDOE (Florida Department of Education). 2013b. "Trends in Discipline and the Decline in the Use of Corporal Punishment, 2011–12." Tallahassee: FLDOE, <ulink href="http://www.wuft.org/news/files/2014/04/discipline1112.pdf">http://www.wuft.org/news/files/2014/04/discipline1112.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Florida State Conference NAACP, Advancement Project, and NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund. 2006. "Arresting Development: Addressing the School Discipline Crisis in Florida." Tallahassee: Florida State Conference NAACP, Advancement Project, and NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fullan, Michael. 1993. Change Forces: Probing the Depths of Educational Reform. Levittown, PA: Falmer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fullan, Michael. 2007. The New Meaning of Educational Change. 4th ed. New York: Teachers College Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gagnon, Joseph C., Brianna L. Kennedy-Lewis, and Sungur Gurel. 2014. Corporal Punishment in Florida Schools: Trends in Reactive, Punitive, and Ineffective Approaches to Youth Behavior. Montgomery, AL: Southern Poverty Law Center.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glaser, Barney G., and Anselm L. Strauss. (1967) 2006. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine Transaction.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Greene, Jay P., Marcus A. Winters, and Greg Forster. 2004. "Testing High-Stakes Tests: Can We Believe the Results of Accountability Tests?" Teachers College Record 106 (6): 1124–44.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gregory, Anne, Russell Skiba, and Pedro Noguera. 2010. "The Achievement Gap and the Discipline Gap: Two Sides of the Same Coin." Educational Researcher 39 (1): 59–68.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gundersen National Child Protection Training Center. 2015. "Eight Things We Know." <ulink href="http://www.gundersenhealth.org/ncptc/center-for-effective-discipline/discipline-at-school/eight-things">http://www.gundersenhealth.org/ncptc/center-for-effective-discipline/discipline-at-school/eight-things</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guskey, Thomas. 2002. "Professional Development and Teacher Change." Teachers and Teaching 8 (3/4): 381–91.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hix, Linda S. 2000. "An Oral History of School Problematic Behavior Interventions by Elementary and Middle Level Principals; 1966–1996." PhD diss., University of Nebraska.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hofstadter, Richard. 1955. The Age of Reform. New York: Vintage Books.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Irby, Decoteau, and Cindy Clough. 2014. "Consistency Rules: A Critical Exploration of a Universally Accepted Principle of School Discipline." Pedagogy, Culture, and Society 23 (2): 153–73. doi:10.1080/14681366.2014.932300.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jones, Cathy, Liz Caravaca, Susan Cizek, Robert H. Horner, and Claudia G. Vincent. 2006. "Culturally Responsive Schoolwide Positive Behavior Support: A Case Study in One School with a High Proportion of Native American Students." Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners 9 (1): 108–19.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaestle, Carl F. 1983. Pillars of the Republic: Common Schools and American Society, 1780–1860. New York: Hall & Wang.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kafka, Judith. 2011. The History of "Zero Tolerance" in American Public Schools. London: Palgrave Macmillan.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kennedy-Lewis, Brianna L. 2014a. "Using Critical Policy Analysis to Examine Competing Discourses in Zero Tolerance Legislation: Do We Really Want to Leave No Child Behind?" Journal of Education Policy 29 (2): 165–94.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kennedy-Lewis, Brianna L. 2014b. "Using Diagrams to Make Meaning in Grounded Theory Data Collection and Analysis." In SAGE Cases in Methodology, ed. Patrick Brindle, <ulink href="http://srmo.sagepub.com/cases">http://srmo.sagepub.com/cases</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kennedy-Lewis, Brianna L., and Amy S. Murphy. 2016. "Listening to 'Frequent Flyers': What Persistently Disciplined Students Have to Say about Being Labeled as 'Bad.'" Teachers College Record 118 (1): 1–40.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kezar, Adrianna. 2006. "To Use or Not to Use Theory: Is That the Question?" In Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, vol. 22, ed. John C. Smart. Dordrecht: Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kupchik, Aaron. 2012. Homeroom Security: School Discipline in an Age of Fear. New York: New York University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lewis, Amanda E., and John B. Diamond. 2015. Despite the Best Intentions: How Racial Inequality Thrives in Good Schools. New York: Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lincoln, Yvonna S., and Egon G. Guba. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lipsky, Michael. 1969. Toward a Theory of Street-Level Bureaucracy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, New York.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lorie, Sandra D. B., and David Lee. 2007. "Administrator Beliefs about Students Referred for Classroom Disruption: A Pilot Investigation." Learning Disabilities 14 (4): 255–64.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Losen, Daniel, Cheri Hodson, Michael A. Keith II, Katrina Morrison, and Shakti Belway. 2015. Are We Closing the School Discipline Gap? Los Angeles: Center for Civil Rights Remedies.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Losen, Daniel, and Tia E. Martinez. 2013. Out of School and Off Track: The Overuse of Suspensions in American Middle and High Schools. Los Angeles: Center for Civil Rights Remedies.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Losen, Daniel, and Russell Skiba. 2010. Suspended Education: Urban Middle Schools in Crisis. Montgomery, AL: Southern Poverty Law Center.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McFadden, Anna C., George E. Marsh, Barrie J. Price, and Yunhan Hwang. 1992. "A Study of Race and Gender Bias in the Punishment of Handicapped School Children." Urban Review 24 (4): 239–51.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mendez, Linda R., and Howard M. Knoff. 2003. "Who Gets Suspended from School and Why: A Demographic Analysis of Schools and Disciplinary Infractions in a Large School District." Education and Treatment of Children 26 (1): 30–52.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moorehead, Roslyn, and William Nediger. 1991. "The Impact of Values on a Principal's Daily Activities." Journal of Educational Administration 29 (2): 5–24.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morse, Janice M. 2007. "Sampling in Grounded Theory." In The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory, ed. A. Bryant and K. Charmaz. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mukuria, Gathogo. 2002. "Disciplinary Challenges: How Do Principals Address This Dilemma?" Urban Education 37 (3): 432–52.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Murphy, Amy S., Melanie A. Acosta, and Brianna L. Kennedy-Lewis. 2013. "'I'm Not Running Around with My Pants Sagging, So How Am I Not Acting Like a Lady?': Intersections of Race and Gender in the Experiences of Female Middle School Troublemakers." Urban Review 45 (5): 586–610.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Noguera, Pedro. 1995. "Preventing and Producing Violence: A Critical Analysis of Responses to School Violence." Harvard Educational Review 65 (2): 189–213.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nolan, Kathleen. 2011. Police in the Hallways: Discipline in an Urban High School. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Northington, Cynthia. 2007. "The Corporal Punishment of Minorities in the Public Schools." Multicultural Perspectives 9 (3): 57–59.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Okonofua, Jason A., and Jennifer L. Eberhardt. 2015. "Two Strikes: Race and the Disciplining of Young Students." Psychological Science. Advance online publication, April 8, doi:10.1177/0956797615570365.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Polkinghorne, Donald. 2004. Practice and the Human Sciences. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Putnam, Ralph T., and Hilda Borko. 2000. "What Do New Views of Knowledge and Thinking Have to Say about Research on Teacher Learning?" Educational Researcher 29 (1): 4–15.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robinson, Daniel H., Daniel C. Funk, Alicia Beth, and Angela M. Bush. 2005. "Changing Beliefs about Corporal Punishment: Increasing Knowledge about Ineffectiveness to Build More Consistent Moral and Informational Beliefs." Journal of Behavioral Education 14 (2): 117–39.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schwandt, Thomas A. 1994. "Constructivist Interpretivist Approaches to Human Inquiry." In Handbook of Qualitative Research, ed. Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln. London: Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shaw, Steven R., and Jeffrey P. Braden. 1990. "Race and Gender Bias in the Administration of Corporal Punishment." School Psychology Review 19 (3): 378–83.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Short, Paula M., Rick J. Short, and Charlie Blanton. 1994. Rethinking Student Discipline: Alternatives That Work. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Skiba, Russell J., Choong-Geun Chung, Megan Trachok, Timberly L. Baker, Adam Sheya, and Robin L. Hughes. 2014. "Parsing Disciplinary Disproportionality: Contributions of Infraction, Student, and School Characteristics to Out-of-School Suspension and Expulsion." American Educational Research Journal 51 (4): 640–70.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Skiba, Russell J., and Heather Edl. 2004. The Disciplinary Practices Survey: How Do Indiana's Principals Feel about Discipline. Bloomington, IN: Center for Evaluation and Education Policy.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Skiba, Russell J., Reece L. Peterson, and Tara Williams. 1997. "Office Referrals and Suspension: Disciplinary Intervention in Middle Schools." Education and Treatment of Children 20:295–315.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, Brittany N., and Bryan J. Hains. 2012. "Examining Administrators' Disciplinary Philosophies: A Conceptual Model." Education Administration Quarterly 48 (3): 548–67.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, Christopher E. 1996. "The Use of Research in Local Policy Making: A Case Study of Corporal Punishment in Public Education." Educational Policy 10 (4): 502–17.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, Edward J., and Shaun R. Harper. 2015. Disproportionate Impact of K–12 School Suspension and Expulsion on Black Students in Southern States. Philadelphia: Center for the Study of Race and Equity in Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Strauss, Anselm L., and Juliet M. Corbin. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor, Kate. 2015. "Charter School's 'Got to Go' List Singled Out Difficult Students." New York Times, October 30.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thornberg, Robert. 2012. "Informed Grounded Theory." Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 56 (3): 243–59.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tyack, David. 1974. The One Best System: A History of American Urban Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> USDOE (US Department of Education). 2014. Guiding Principles: A Resource Guide for Improving School Climate and Discipline. Washington, DC: USDOE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> USDOE (US Department of Education). 2016. "2011–12 State and National Estimations." <ulink href="http://ocrdata.ed.gov/StateNationalEstimations/Estimations%5f2011%5f12">http://ocrdata.ed.gov/StateNationalEstimations/Estimations%5f2011%5f12</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vagins, Deborah J., and Natalie J. McKinney. 2013. "Moving Away from Corporal Punishment in Schools." Education Week webinar, December 18, <ulink href="http://www.edweek.org/media/131218-corporalpunishment.pdf">http://www.edweek.org/media/131218-corporalpunishment.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vavrus, Frances, and KimMarie Cole. 2002. "'I Didn't Do Nothin": The Discursive Construction of School Suspension." Urban Review 34 (2): 87–111.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vitaro, Frank, Richard E. Tremblay, and Claude Gagnon. 1995. "Teacher Ratings of Children's Behaviors and Teachers' Management Styles: A Research Note." Journal of Child Psychiatry 36 (5): 887–98.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wallace, John M., Sara Goodkind, Cynthia M. Wallace, and Jerald G. Bachman. 2008. "Racial, Ethic, and Gender Differences in School Discipline Among U.S. High School Students: 1991–2005." Negro Educational Review Journal 59 (1–2): 47–62.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Willower, Donald J. 1975. "Some Comments on Inquiries on School and Pupil Control." Teachers College Record 77 (2): 221–30.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zamani, Nahal, and Alice Farmer. 2009. "Corporal Punishment in U.S. Public Schools: Prevalent, Abusive, and Ineffective." Teachers College Record.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Brianna L. Kennedy; Amy S. Murphy and Adam Jordan</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib93" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib92" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref108"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref119"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref121"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref128"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref130"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref132"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref137"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref138"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref142"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref143"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref144"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref147"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref148"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref153"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib91" firstref="ref159"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref161"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref162"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref163"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref164"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref166"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref167"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref168"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl82" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref175"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl83" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref177"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl84" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref178"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1129305
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Title I Middle School Administrators' Beliefs and Choices about Using Corporal Punishment and Exclusionary Discipline
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kennedy%2C+Brianna+L%2E%22">Kennedy, Brianna L.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Murphy%2C+Amy+S%2E%22">Murphy, Amy S.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jordan%2C+Adam%22">Jordan, Adam</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22American+Journal+of+Education%22"><i>American Journal of Education</i></searchLink>. Feb 2017 123(2):243-280.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: University of Chicago Press. Journals Division, P.O. Box 37005, Chicago, IL 60637. Tel: 877-705-1878; Tel: 773-753-3347; Fax: 877-705-1879; Fax: 773-753-0811; e-mail: subscriptions@press.uchicago.edu; Web site: http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/journals/journal/aje.html
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 38
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2017
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Middle+Schools%22">Middle Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Junior+High+Schools%22">Junior High Schools</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Middle+School+Students%22">Middle School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grounded+Theory%22">Grounded Theory</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22At+Risk+Students%22">At Risk Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Disadvantaged+Youth%22">Disadvantaged Youth</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interviews%22">Interviews</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Administrator+Attitudes%22">Administrator Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Administrator+Characteristics%22">Administrator Characteristics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Background%22">Background</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Experience%22">Experience</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Discipline+Policy%22">Discipline Policy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Punishment%22">Punishment</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Florida%22">Florida</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1086/689929
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0195-6744
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This grounded theory study of how Title I middle school administrators determine students' punishments was developed using interviews with 27 Florida administrators from schools allowing corporal punishment. Administrators' choices were shaped by their upbringings, their experiences as parents, their job requirements, the expectations of students' parents, and fears of reprisal. They expressed simultaneous desires to develop the child while deterring future misbehavior. They described the outcomes of their decision making as emotional work that entailed contradictions and compromises. To encourage positive preventive and responsive school discipline practices, policies must address administrators' misconceptions about ineffective practices by providing both pressure and support for change.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2017
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1129305
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1129305
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1086/689929
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 38
        StartPage: 243
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Middle School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grounded Theory
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: At Risk Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Disadvantaged Youth
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interviews
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Administrator Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Administrator Characteristics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Background
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Experience
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Discipline Policy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Punishment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Florida
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Title I Middle School Administrators' Beliefs and Choices about Using Corporal Punishment and Exclusionary Discipline
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kennedy, Brianna L.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Murphy, Amy S.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jordan, Adam
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 02
              Type: published
              Y: 2017
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0195-6744
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 123
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: American Journal of Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1