Behavior Elicits a Different Reaction: Comparing the Framing Processes of an Instructional and a Discipline Policy

• In Event: A Cross-Institutional Examination of Discipline Policy Implementation Processes in K–12 Schools

Abstract

Purpose
Since 2010, school districts in California have been tasked with both implementing the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and lowering suspension rates. To aid in lowering suspension rates, many school districts have adopted Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) policies—a policy that discourages punitive practices and encourages educators to work with students to understand the root causes of behaviors (Sugai & Horner, 2009). Education research has documented a good deal about instructional reforms (e.g., Coburn, 2003; Datnow, 2002; Spillane, Reiser, Reimer, 2002) but far less about discipline reforms. This study adds to the fields’ knowledge of policy implementation by comparing how district leadership in a single Californian school district began implementation of both CCSS and PBIS. This comparison surfaces critical similarities and differences in implementation processes, building better theory and knowledge for practice. We asked: How did the Elmwood school district leaders facilitate and frame the process of policy implementation for CCSS and PBIS policies, respectively?



Theoretical framework
We are guided by scholarship on framing theory (Campbell, 2002; Benford & Snow, 2000), which considers how leaders communicate policy choices to implementors. Framing theory helps to illuminate how district leaders invest teachers, administrators, and staff in a new policy (Park, Daly, & Guerra, 2013). We also draw on Schneider and Ingram’s (1993) theory of social construction of target populations, which asserts that groups are given particular identities through public rhetoric and that these socially constructed identities influence policies associated with these groups. The theory helps to elucidate how throughout the framing process teachers and students are constructed in often distinct and meaningful ways.

Methods
We designed an embedded cross-case study (Yin, 1994), in which the implementation of each policy, CCSS and PBIS, was treated as a separate case. During four site visits, the research team conducted interviews with district leaders and school-based staff (n=46), focus groups (n=1), and observations (n=3). We used multiple cycles of coding, aspects of the constant comparative method (Boeije, 2002; Glaser & Strauss, 1967) and data displays (Miles & Huberman, 1994) to analyze and develop our findings.

Findings
Our findings suggest that district leaders’ worries of labeling teachers “racist” led to an unclear PBIS framing process, a fear that district leaders did not have with CCSS. District leaders framed teacher development as the priority for CCSS implementation. Teachers were involved in a curriculum adoption process and given ample support in implementing the curriculum through coaches. Conversely, although district leaders believed teachers needed to change their behaviors under PBIS, district leaders did not publicly identify teachers as the target of the policy. The majority of teachers in our sample viewed students as the target for the policy and did not acknowledge that the policy called for changes in teacher practice.

Significance
This study illuminates that district leaders may view discipline policy as fundamentally different than instructional policy, suggesting important differences in the early implementation process and conditions shaping that process. These findings offer lessons for researchers, policymakers, and practitioners seeking to implement discipline policies.

Authors

• Eupha Jeanne Daramola, University of Southern California

• Taylor N. Allbright, California State Polytechnic University - Pomona

• Julie A. Marsh, University of Southern California