Using a Critical Policy Analysis to Reveal Competing Ideologies in Zero Tolerance Legislation: Do We Really Want to Leave No Child Behind?

• In Event: School Discipline “Matters”: Exploring the Education and Policy Contexts

Abstract

The title of the 2001 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, “No Child Left Behind" (NCLB), appeals to a belief that the institution of public education should serve all students. However, NCLB also includes zero tolerance legislation that, in effect, excludes some students from school for up to one year if they commit certain offenses. NCLB leaves it up to individual states to sort out this contradiction through exclusionary discipline mandates and practices, and some states have taken steps to reengage excluded students through alternative education programs. This study analyzes the zero tolerance policies of the fifty U.S. States in order to reveal conflicting ideologies in school discipline discourse that serve to exclude, or “leave behind,” a vulnerable student population.
Education policies frequently reflect competing ideologies (Liasidou, 2010; Mosen-Lowe, Vidovich, & Chapman, 2009; Simons, Olssen, & Peters, 2009b). Carnoy and Levin (1985) explain the competing interests in education as those of capitalist reproduction and those of social democracy. This paper names the belief system that supports capitalist reproduction the “ideology of meritocracy,” based on the notion that those with power have earned it through their own merit and those without power have not worked hard enough to deserve it. Conversely, the belief system that supports social democracy, the “ideology of equity,” purports that public institutions have the task of creating a more equitable society.
This study employs critical policy analysis (CPA) methodology to examine the language used in zero tolerance policy legislation in each of the fifty states. CPA presumes that, rather than responding to problems in society, policy language actually frames problems in certain ways, and it seeks to uncover contradictions in policy texts (Simons, Olssen, & Peters, 2009a; Taylor, 2004). Zero tolerance policy legislation from each state was identified using the World Wide Web and imported into NVivo software for coding and thematic analysis according to the theoretical framework.
All states’ legislation reflects the ideology of meritocracy by presuming that certain student behaviors deserve school exclusion. Legislation in all states describes the rights of institutions in responding to student rule breaking, while few states consider the needs or rights of students who commit the acts. The goal of maintaining order in the school environment so that those who “want to learn” can learn supersedes the obligation of schools to educate all students. Nevertheless, approximately twenty percent of states discuss students’ rights to alternative education and/or continued services to meet their needs post-expulsion.
The discourse of school discipline contains the competing ideologies of meritocracy and equity. Zero tolerance policies at the state level frame exclusionary discipline as both a punishment as well as an opportunity. Provisions for reengaging students in education offer promise for alternative education programs serving excluded students (TeamChild,2009. However, the conflicting charges of these programs may hamper their effectiveness and result in pushing excluded students even further out of the education system. To help reengage students marginalized by exclusionary discipline, ideological intentions should be clarified and enacted in consistent ways.

Author

• Brianna L. Kennedy-Lewis, University of Florida