Implicit Bias and School Discipline Policy: Understanding the Role of Ambiguity, Discretion, and Accountability

• In Event: Breaking the School-to-Prison Pipeline: Policies, People, and Practices

Abstract

Objective

Written policy guiding discipline decision-making contains risk factors for implicit bias, which can increase the likelihood that school staff /SROs rely on implicit biases in discipline decisions. This paper identifies contextual risk factors for implicit bias in one large district’s written policies on exclusionary discipline. The analytic framework may be applied to policies in any school district.

Conceptual Framework

Figure 1 (see end of session proposal) outlines the relationship between psychological risk factors for relying on implicit bias, decision-making, and the disparities that shape the school-to-prison pipeline. Figure 1 also acknowledges that disparate outcomes can result from explicit bias as well as implicit bias.

Procedural justice refers to the fairness of a process by which a decision is reached (Hollander-Blumoff & Tyler, 2011). Bias may inform behaviors, and can be explicit (conscious) or implicit (unconscious). Implicit bias may undermine procedural justice through two mechanisms: differential selection and differential processing. Differential selection is the selection of one group to be punished and another not to be, despite similar underlying behavior. Differential processing is the imposition of differential, harsher punishments on one group versus another group with similar behavior, after they have been identified as misbehaving (Piquero, 2008). Implicit bias is likeliest to influence selection and processing decisions when a decision maker has discretion within an ambiguous context. Accountability has the potential to reduce biased decisions.

Methods and Data

The data consisted of policies from a large Southern district. We identified district policies that govern out-of-school suspension, expulsion, or student referral to law enforcement, and coded the policies for text that granted discretion to choose either exclusionary discipline or a lesser punishment. We also identified ambiguous language pertaining to definitions of misbehavior and/or directives about how to respond to misbehavior. To code for accountability, we identified text that mandated specific procedures that could prevent biased decisions, or that provided for review of decisions.

Results

The analysis identified elements in district policies that combined discretion about whether to impose exclusionary discipline with ambiguous definitions and directives. In most of these instances, accountability measures were weak or absent. These policies create conditions for biased decision-making.

Significance

Identifying policies that pose risks of biased decision making will guide subsequent analysis of administrative data to determine the extent of bias in actual discipline practices. The coding strategy can serve as a model for other districts’ efforts to identify and reduce the risk of implicit bias in discipline decisions.

Authors

• Robin Nicole Johnson-Ahorlu, University of California - Los Angeles

• Kathryn A. McDermott, University of Massachusetts - Amherst

• Summer Robins, University of California - Los Angeles

• Nina Crane, University of California - Los Angeles

• Phillip Atiba Goff, John Jay College of Criminal Justice