Exclusionary Discipline: A Review of Literature in the Last 5 Years - Essay Sample

Introduction

While the review primarily focuses on the studies published in the last five years, some earlier articles and reports will also be used to provide historical context. The first section of the literature review, the background of the problem, uses these earlier studies to show the evolution of exclusionary discipline and the changes in the perception of key stakeholders. Other than the findings of previous studies, the research methodologies used to evaluate exclusionary discipline and the perception are also discussed in this chapter.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Background of the ProblemThe role of schools can be broadly categorized into; promoting the learner's intellectual development and socializing learners to be responsible members of the society (Pike, 2017). Administrators and educators have been traditionally tasked with the responsibility of ensuring that the students have a conducive environment for learners to achieve these objectives. The administrators and educators have the power to employ mitigating factors that address undesirable processes and behavior that inhibit the attainment of the desired learner outcomes (Wolf & Kupchik, 2017). Historically, the administrators and educators have worked within and been supported by a legal and federal mandate. The emphasis on 'zero-tolerance' in schools has been associated with the increased application of exclusionary discipline as the preferred form of learner behavior management (Curran, 2016; Thompson, 2016; Valdebenito, 2019).

The scholarly interest in exclusionary discipline has spiked in the last four decades as researchers seek to determine its impact on learner outcomes following its increased preference in the 1980s (Mallett, 2016). The federal drug policy of the 1980s and the externalities such as substance abuse and violence associated with the drug epidemic of the period led to a push for zero-tolerance policies in schools (Hitchcock et al., 2017). While different local and state governments across the country created some form of policy aligned with zero-tolerance, the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994 (GFSA) set forth the most significant legislative push to exclusionary discipline in schools (Mallett, 2016). Signed by President Bill Clinton, this policy encouraged and incentivized states to create zero-tolerance laws that had a mandatory one-year expulsion for students who were guilty of bringing weapons to school (Thompson, 2016).

Other than facing criticism for the lack of due process and enforcement inconsistency between states, school districts, and schools the policy was blamed for triggering the implementation of zero-tolerance policies for misbehaviors other than the carrying of weapons (Vincent et al., 2016). Truancy, disruptive behavior, and disobedience are some of the misbehaviors that are currently being punished using exclusionary discipline (Skiba et al., 2018). The exclusionary discipline alternatives have also been criticized for being punitive rather than preventive (Vincent et al., 2016; State et al., 2019).

The federal and state policies that have encouraged exclusionary discipline have been complemented with the school policies created and enforced by administrators, teachers, counselors, and other educators have directly influenced the use of this disciplining approach as they have direct contact with the learners (Fissel, Wilcox & Tillyer, 2018). The Obama-era school discipline reforms are some of the recent signs that a legislative approach is being adopted to address the issues associated with exclusionary discipline. The push to roll back on laws and practices that have encouraged exclusionary discipline is motivated by the need to have discipline strategies that address the racial disparities associated with zero-tolerance strategies (U.S Department of Education, 2014). The recommendations made by the policymakers are increasingly geared towards creating "strategies to reduce misbehavior and maintain a safe learning environment, including conflict resolution, restorative practices, counseling, and structured systems of positive interventions" (U.S Department of Education, 2014, para.2).

In the backdrop of the trend identified above, there is a concern from the standpoint of education stakeholders on exclusionary discipline. According to Kennedy, Murphy, and Jordan (2017), administrators and teachers continued to overly rely on exclusionary discipline methods despite the existence of evidence of adverse outcomes, disparities across groups, and availability of effective alternatives. This emphasizes the need for understanding the perception of primary education stakeholders (teachers, administrators, and counselors) on the effectiveness of exclusionary discipline and its alternatives.

Identification of the GapThe literature on the impact of exclusionary discipline on academic and behavior change is expansive. Current evidence suggests that the excessive reliance on exclusionary discipline leads to poor academic outcomes as evaluated by academic performance, grade retention, and school dropout rates (Freeman et al., 2016; Huang, Eklund & Cornell, 2017). The effectiveness of exclusionary discipline in promoting positive behavior change is also inconclusive with some studies finding this approach counterproductive (Kennedy et al., 2017; Larson et al., 2018).

The studies on exclusionary discipline have largely focused on the methods of implementation (Wiley et al., 2018; Peguero et al., 2018) and its outcomes (Thomas, 2017; Varela et al., 2018). The economic, academic, and behavioral impact of exclusionary discipline are some of the areas that have been explored in past and current literature. However, the role of teachers, administrators, and counselors in influencing the disciplinary approaches used in a school setting has been largely ignored (Anyon, Zhang & Hazel, 2016; Rahimi & Karkami, 2015). The gap that needs to be addressed in the student discipline field is the need to identify the perception of key education stakeholders on the viability and application of exclusionary discipline approaches and the available alternatives (Kennedy, Murphy & Jordan, 2017; Wiley et al., 2018). This insight is essential in improving the knowledge of discipline approaches and finding a balance that promotes behavior change while simultaneously avoiding adverse outcomes on the students.

The impact of exclusionary discipline across different demographics is one of the areas that has provided consistent and reliable findings. The issue of disparity in the administration and impact of exclusionary discipline among racial and sexual minorities remains one of the key areas of research. African Americans, individuals with disabilities, and members of the LGBT community have been identified as groups that are disproportionately affected by exclusionary discipline (Varela et al., 2018; Curran, 2016; Skiba et al., 2018). These factors indicate that overreliance on exclusionary discipline to manage student behavior is a trend that needs to be addressed through alternative approaches (Anyon, Zhang & Hazel, 2016; Curran, 2016; Perry & Morris, 2014).

The potential value of discipline alternatives is the other area of research that has been in current literature (Pike, 2017; Green et al., 2018; Hitchcock et al., 2017). The potential value of relational alternatives, restorative practices, and positive behavioral support interventions has been explored in these studies (Vincent et al., 2016; Vincent et al., 2015; Gregory, Skiba & Mediratta, 2017). Researchers have found that these alternatives are not only crucial in behavior change but also effective in addressing concerns associated with exclusionary discipline such as disproportionate experiences and poor academic outcomes (Vincent et al., 2016; Gregory et al., 2017).

Despite the overwhelming evidence on the implementation, outcomes, and alternatives of exclusionary discipline, the role of primary education stakeholders in the application of exclusionary discipline, or its alternatives, has traditionally been overlooked. According to Gregory et al. (2016), there is inadequate literature on the level and nature of the influence of teachers and administrators on the use of exclusionary discipline in schools. The ability to understand the perception of teachers, administrators and counselors offer an opportunity for creating an ecosystem where the primary stakeholders appropriately use the diverse discipline alternatives at their disposal rather than being overly reliant on exclusionary discipline. The proposed topic is based on the need to understand the perspective of key stakeholders (administrators, teachers, and counselors) on exclusionary and other alternative discipline approaches.

Theoretical Foundations The theories that provide the foundation for the study are the crime deterrence theory and the procedural justice theory. These two theories are used to understand the perceptions of administrators, teachers, and counselors towards exclusionary discipline and its alternatives. The two theories are used to provide a context for understanding the justifications provided by teachers, administrators, or counselors for the preference towards exclusionary discipline or the relational or restorative alternatives. The disciplining theory a stakeholder subscribes to influences whether they prefer exclusionary discipline or its less punitive alternatives.

As a theory based on the principle of zero-tolerance, the crime deterrence theory emphasizes the use of punishments to influence student behavior (Curry, 2016). The crime deterrence theory holds that punishment and the fear of punishment will deter the offenders and the observers who might have been enticed to deviate in the future from misbehaving (Pickett & Roche, 2016). The teachers who subscribe to this theory are likely to use office referrals rather than use restorative or relational alternatives. The administrators subscribe to the crime deterrence theory are likely to use suspensions or expulsions for the students referred by teachers.

The procedural justice theory is based on the need to promote justice through recognizing, understanding, and appreciating the viewpoints of others (Wolf & Kupchik, 2017). The need to develop relationships is an essential part of creating the trust and fairness associated with procedural justice (Tornblom & Vermunt, 2016). The teachers, administrators, and counselors who subscribe to the procedural justice theory are likely to seek discipline alternatives that focus on building relationships with the students and using restorative rather than punitive measures to manage student behavior.

According to Steinberg and Lacoe (2017), the tendency of teachers to use exclusionary discipline is dependent on their belief in the effectiveness of this approach in behavior improvement and other ext...