The Racialization of School Discipline Policy

• In Event: Critical Educational Policy Analysis: Attending to Equitable Power Analysis in Scholar-Practitioner Knowledge Co-Creation

Abstract

Objectives: The first study demonstrates the convergence of critical theory and methods and a purpose to interrogate school laws and procedures. Co-presenter #1, a former principal, applies critical race theoretical framework (CRT) and critical discourse methodology to analyze a school discipline policy and identifies how language reinforces the systematic criminalization of racialized youth.
Theoretical Framework: CRT is commonly used to “examine and challenge ways that race and racism implicitly and explicitly impact social structures, practices, and discourses” (Yosso, 2005, p. 70). Tate (1997) explained, “a central part of the critical race critique is to examine ever-changing conceptions of justice. Thus, scholars interested in educational equity should benefit from the critical race theory literature” (p. 235). Critical race theory provides the space for researchers to challenge school policies and practices as well as the overt and covert implications of that policy (Decuir & Dixson, 2004, p.30). For example, CRT has been used to identify how the language of policy is far from neutral and can be used to further reinforce racist practices in schools. Crenshaw (1988) argued that “the liberal perspective of “the civil rights crusade, as a long, slow, but always upward pull” is flawed because it fails to understand the limits of the current legal paradigms to serve as catalysts for social change” (p. 1334). Despite incremental progress in school-level policies, language may still be racially discriminatory.
Methods and Data: This study uses a critical discourse analysis (CDA) to analyze a set of school discipline policies adopted by a school board in a small school district in central Ohio. According to Van Dijk (1994), what makes an approach critical is the special focus on inequality, power, as legitimized or challenged by text or talk, (p. 435). CDA examines how social relationships are reproduced and challenged through language and illuminates expectations and assumptions that communicate implicit power structures (Van Dijk, 2015; Fairclough, 1992). In turn, contributing to critical approaches to educational policy studies.
Findings: The findings of this CPA identify how the concept of whiteness as property, denial of personhood, and a pathology of criminalization are perpetuated through standards conveyed as color-blind and neutral. I interpreted three themes within the policy documents- whiteness as property, denial of personhood, and pathology of criminalization. The whiteness as property theme was seen in value-neutral policy language such as demanding students respond to “reasonable requests.” The denial of personhood theme showed up in coded language surrounding how “behavior endangers” school safety. Finally, criminalization comes up in the policy documents references to the school’s “cooperation” with the criminal (in)justice system.
Significance: The results of this study calls for critical policy analyses that determine whether equity-oriented policy language meets their forwarded aims. This would better situate justice-oriented educational policy actors in pursuing equity in their localized contexts.

Author

• Racquel L. Armstrong, Arizona State University