«Behavioral Dissonance and Contested Classroom Spaces: Teachers’ and Students’ Negotiations of Classroom Disciplinary Moments by Rebecca Neal A ...»
journals focusing on the education of African Americans included the Journal of Negro Education, Negro Educational Review, and the Journal of African American Males in Education.
Table 1 Review of School Discipline Literature by Journal Field
Three journals were categorized as general education journals and included Equity and Excellence in Education, Peabody Journal of Education, and American Journal of Education. Journals focused on urban issues included The Urban Review and Urban Education. Five journals were categorized as psychological, which focused on mental functions or social behavior: Journal of School Psychology, Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, Journal of Community Psychology, Psychology in the Schools, and Journal of Educational Psychology. Three journals were categorized as focusing on issues specifically relevant to special education: Journal of Special Education, Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, and Education & Treatment of Children. Two journals were categorized as other: Criminology and Children & Schools (see Appendix B for a complete list of journals by type).
There were only a handful of journals between 2000 and 2010 that published more than one empirical article on discipline that also included racially disaggregated data for African American or Hispanic students. These journals were: Sociological Perspectives (n = 2), Journal of Negro Education (n = 2), Urban Review (n = 2), and Psychology in the Schools (n = 2). Across journal categories, when comparing publications by focus area, the majority of studies (n = 6) were published in psychology journals such as Journal of School Psychology, Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, Journal of Community Psychology, Psychology in the Schools, and Journal of Educational Psychology. The average number of publications across the 11 years for articles published in psychology outlets was 0.5 publications a year. This also represents 23% of the total numbers of discipline articles published during 2000 to 2010 included within this review. Overall, during the 11-year period an average of 2.3 studies a year was published that focused on discipline and included racially disaggregated data for African American or Hispanic students.
Foci of Discipline Inequities Research Categories in which the discipline studies were organized included: (a) perceptions (what people think about school discipline and impressions of students, teachers, or school administrators); (b) profiles, institutional and individual demographics or characteristics (what students are involved in school discipline and which schools are more likely to have stricter disciple); and (c) school disciplinary sanction patterns (when infractions occur, types of infractions, and which student are being issued referrals; see Table 2).
Table 2 Focus of Discipline Inequity Research Studies by Year
Articles that focused on perceptions included studies that obtained, analyzed, or documented the insights of administrators, teachers and students regarding various aspects of school discipline such as zero tolerance implementation, student perception of fairness, or teachers’ perceptions of students’ movement, style of speech and behavior.
These were placed in a category called perceptions. Results of studies in this category revealed that school staff tended to view students from a deficit perspective and over emphasize the execution of discipline policies by issuing harsh punishments to students.
A small number of studies investigated student perception of fairness of which students felt teachers unfairly issued school disciplinary sanctions to them. This category is discussed in greater detail within the explanations section of the chapter.
Studies focused on teacher or student characteristics were placed in the category called profiles (i.e., demographics - age, race, socioeconomic status, educational history, behavioral history, and gender). Studies that reported institutional demographics (e.g., percentage of student population receiving free and reduced lunch, percentage of student population that was minority, or location of school in a high crime neighborhood) were also included in this category. This grouping included studies that examined the influence of personal characteristics and life experiences on behavior and individual decisionmaking. An example of a study represented in this category included studies that investigated whether or not students from certain backgrounds (e.g., low income or racial minority) were more inclined to demonstrate disruptive behaviors. Another example of a study included in this category was Payne and Welch’s (2010) investigation of a school’s use of exclusionary disciplinary measures. Results of this category suggested that schools with a higher minority student population or a higher percentage of students receiving free and reduced lunch, tended to respond more punitively to student behaviors. The results of this category are also discussed later in greater detail within the explanations section of the chapter.
The school disciplinary sanction patterns category included studies that examined possible causes of discipline referrals, suspension and expulsion rates, conveyed patterns of discipline referrals, or percentages of specific student groups represented in behavioral offenses. Studies in this group aimed to answer questions such as (a) what grade level are office referrals most likely to occur; (b) what are the most common offenses for office referrals, suspensions, and expulsions; or (c) which students are being issued office referral and being suspended or expelled from school? Results of this category revealed that there are different types of disciplinary sanctions such as corporal punishment, expulsion (expulsion under zero-tolerance, expulsion with educational services, expulsion without educational services), in-school suspension, out of school suspension, seclusion or restraint, referral to law enforcement, and school-related arrest (Losen, 2011). Other forms of school discipline included sending students to an administrator’s office, detention such as staying after school, or Saturday school. In a few cases, restitutive disciplinary responses (student being required to restore or repay the school or another student damages) or community service were noted (Payne & Welch, 2010). It was shown that greater attention was given to studying disciplinary sanctions that occur in grades 6th, 7th and 8th. Additional results of this category are discussed in detail later in greater within the explanations section of the chapter.
The study foci were proportionally distributed; however, most of the articles focused on perceptions that comprised 38% (n = 10) of the studies. Studies that focused on school disciplinary sanction patterns made up 31% (n = 8), and studies that focused on individual and institutional profiles included 31% of discipline studies published between 2000 and 2010 that reported racially disaggregated data (see Appendix C for a complete list of articles categorized by thematic foci).
The study foci varied some throughout the 11- year period covered in this literature review. Twelve studies were published between 2000 and 2005 that met the criteria for this review of which a significant portion of studies (75% or n = 9) examined the profiles (i.e., individual characteristics of teachers, students and schools) and the perceptions of teachers, students, and school administrators. Studies in these two categories also tended to be deficit oriented and often attributed the problem of misbehavior to individuals or to a factor of some personal circumstance. During this time period, the least amount of attention (25%) was given to school discipline sanction patterns (n = 3).
For the second half of the time period covered in this literature review (i.e., 2006scholars studying discipline focused their attention more evenly on investigating perceptions, disciplinary sanction patterns (e.g., disciplinary sanction trends) and profiles (e.g., characteristics and demographics) of schools, students, and teachers. The focus of studies shifted and over two-thirds of the articles examined perceptions (n = 5, 36%) and disciplinary patterns (n = 5, 36%). Still very close in number, four studies (29%) studied institutional and individual demographics. The largest growth across foci over the years was the disciplinary sanction patterns category increasing from 25% to 36% between the first and second half of the decade. This change and increase in attention to who is being issued behavioral referrals could be attributed to the disproportionate representation of students of color in school disciplinary sanctions increasing over the years.
Design methodology. The majority of empirical studies that focused on school discipline inequities employed quantitative research methodologies. Less than 20% of studies were qualitative in nature. Of the empirical articles included in this review (N = 26), 81% (n = 21) of the studies employed quantitative methodologies, 15% (n = 4) were of a qualitative design, and one study (4%) incorporated a mixed methodology design.
Table 3 shows the selected studies by design methodology and year of publication.
Table 3 Research Studies on Discipline Inequities by Methodology
The frequency of publication by research design was fairly consistent over the 11years with the fewest publications (n = 0) occurring during 2000-2001. The average publication in the past 11 years on the topic of discipline inequities with a particular focus on Latino and African American male students was 2.3 publications a year. Also, only studies with a quantitative design methodology were published after 2005. In other words, no empirical qualitative or mixed methodologies studies that examined discipline inequities and reported racially disaggregated data that included African American or Hispanic students has been published since 2006 (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Frequency of discipline inequity studies by year and research methods.
In general, a few more articles (n = 14) were published during the second half of the time period (i.e., 2006 to 2010). Nearly just as many article (n = 12) were published during the first half of the time period (i.e., 2000 to 2005). There was a spike in publications from zero to seven between 2000 to 2001 and 2002 to 2003, then a slight dip (n = 5) during 2004 to 2005 and again another dip during 2006 to 2007, where only three studies were published that reported discipline data disaggregated by ethnicity; however, since 2006 there has been a gradual increase of publications that focused on discipline with six articles being published in the year 2010 alone.
Data analysis procedures. The data analysis procedures were based on the research methods used. Three types of analysis were utilized by scholars when studying school discipline inequities: qualitative data analysis procedures, quantitative data analysis procedures, and studies that incorporated both qualitative and quantitative data analysis procedures were identified as mixed methodologies analysis.
Qualitative data analysis procedures and data sources. A very small percentage of studies (15%) were qualitative (n = 4). Data sources for qualitative studies included various combinations of interviews (i.e., structured interviews, semi structured, individual or small group), observations (i.e., participant or randomized), videos, and field notes. The authors in one study (Vavrus & Cole, 2002) did not clearly report their analysis procedures and another study (Morris, 2005) did not report any method of analysis. The remaining two qualitative studies used various forms of analysis such as cross case analyses and thematic analyses.
Quantitative data analysis procedures. The majority of quantitative studies used multiple data analysis procedures with the most common being descriptive statistical analyses (see Table 4) Regression was also widely utilized and included bivariate, ordinary, logistic, and hierarchical regression research methods. Analysis of variance (e.g., one-way ANOVA, factorial ANOVA, and MANCOVA), correlation, and chi-square were also highly employed.
Quantitative Data Analysis Procedures by Year and Author Study Quantitative Data Analysis Procedures Atkins et al.(2002) Factor analysis, independent T-test, MANCOVA, orthogonal (varimax) rotation, post hoc with Bonferroni, univariate analysis Skiba et al. (2002) Calculated effect sizes, chi square, descriptive statistics, discriminant function analysis, factorial ANOVA Mendez & Knoff (2003) Descriptive statistics Neal et al. (2003) Coefficient alphas, descriptive statistics, factorial ANOVA Nichols (2004) Correlation, descriptive statistics, risk ratio Eamon & Altshuler (2004) Descriptive statistics, hierarchical regression Eitle & Eitle (2004) Multiple regression, risk ratio Krezmien et al. (2006) Chi-square, descriptive statistics, logistic regression Arcia (2007a) Chi-square, descriptive statistics Arcia (2007b) Correlation, descriptive statistics, simple regression Hinojosa (2008) Descriptive statistics, one-way ANOVA, reliability analysis, logistic regression Gregory & Weinstein (2008) Chi-square, coefficient alpha, correlation, descriptive statistics, hierarchical linear modeling, t-test Kupchik & Ellis (2008) Analysis of variance, multiple regression, ordinary least square regression, post hoc with Bonferroni Wallace et al. (2008) Logistic regression Thomas et al (2009) Correlation, descriptive statistics, hierarchical regression Bradshaw et al. (2010) Bivariate regression, hierarchical linear modeling, logistical regression Gregory & Thompson (2010) Coefficient alpha, descriptive statistics, hierarchical linear modeling Lewis et al. (2010) Descriptive statistics Payne & Welch (2010) Chi-square, descriptive statistics, factor analysis (varimax method), SEM (structural equations modeling), reliability Rocque (2010) Descriptive statistics, logistic regression, point-biserial correlation Welch & Payne (2010) Descriptive statistics, ordinary least square regression Mixed methodologies data analysis procedures. One study (Mendez et al.,
2002) employed both qualitative and quantitative methodologies; however, Mendez et al.
(2002) were unclear regarding their qualitative data analysis procedures. The quantitative data analysis procedures were better described and included Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient, semi partial correlations, and multiple regression.