Students’ and Parents’ Perceptions of Disciplinary Policy: Does Symbolic Representation Matter?

Abstract

This article examines the effects of symbolic representation and strict disciplinary policy on how students and their parents perceive school discipline. We use data from the 2011-2012 New York City School Survey, combined with data on disciplinary actions from the Office of Civil Rights. Our results suggest that strict disciplinary actions send negative messages to students and their parents about school discipline. We find that as more strict disciplinary actions are administered within a school, students are less likely to perceive discipline as fair or legitimate. The negative effects of disciplinary actions, however, tend to be smaller in schools for which there is a closer racial match between students and teachers and, consequently, a greater likelihood of symbolic representation. We also find that passive representation influences parents’ attitudes toward school discipline in their children’s schools.

Keywords

representative bureaucracy symbolic representation school discipline

A significant amount of research in the literature on representative bureaucracy has explored how passive representation, the extent to which a bureaucracy matches the general population on attributes such as race or gender, may lead to active representation, which occurs when public officials formulate and implement policies that benefit the interests of represented groups (Keiser, Wilkins, Meier, & Holland, 2002; Meier, 1993; Selden, 1997). Scholars, however, have also begun to increasingly explore how passive representation may lead to more beneficial outcomes for clients through the process of symbolic representation. Symbolic representation refers to a cognitive process in which clients perceive the actions of individuals in authority positions that are more like themselves more favorably or as more fair and legitimate (Gade & Wilkins, 2013). Thus, citizens may benefit from representation even in the absence of any change in bureaucratic behavior.

Scholars in the representative bureaucracy literature have discussed a number of conditions under which active representation is more likely to occur. We know little, however, about the conditions that influence the occurrence of symbolic representation. In this research, we are interested in the role that symbolic representation may play in altering individuals’ perceptions of the legitimacy of a bureaucratic outcome. Drawing on previous research in the area of procedural justice and social psychology, we argue that individuals will pay more attention to the presence of passive representation, and will therefore be more likely to engage in symbolic representation when bureaucratic outcomes are more unfavorable. We base this argument on previous research that has shown that individuals are more likely to pay attention to procedural justice, or the fairness in the assignment of outcomes, when unfavorable outcomes occur (Brockner, 2015; Folger & Cropanzano, 1998).

Researchers have shown that representation may influence how fairly or legitimately citizens perceive government services, such as policing, through the process of symbolic representation (Theobald & Haider-Markel, 2009). When bureaucratic outcomes are unfavorable, we expect that citizens will be more likely to consider whether the bureaucrats administering the outcome share similar personal characteristics, such as race and gender. When these characteristics are shared between clients and bureaucrats, symbolic representation may occur, and as a result, individuals may feel that these outcomes are more fairly administered. This may happen because these shared attributes between citizens and bureaucrats may build a higher level of trust, and citizens may be less likely to believe that bureaucrats are engaged in prejudice or inequitable behavior (Gay, 2002). We especially see this relationship between symbolic representation and the favorability of outcomes as occurring when focusing on more coercive policies, as we do in this study, as issues of fairness and legitimacy are likely to be particularly significant and less favorable outcomes may be easier to identify.

We examine the role of symbolic representation in the area of school discipline. Over the past few decades, schools have increasingly enacted “get tough” punitive forms of student discipline, such as expulsions and out-of-school suspensions (OSS), which increasingly remove students from the school’s environment (Adelman, 1996; Dwyer, 1997; Dwyer, Osher, & Hoffman, 2000; Garnes & Menlove, 2003; Skiba, 2014). These types of disciplinary actions are more strict than other disciplinary actions, such as in-school suspensions, that allow students to remain within a classroom environment (Gregory, 1996). Evidence, however, of the benefits of this more strict approach to student discipline has been mixed. On one hand, tough disciplinary practices send a message to students that disciplinary incidents will not be tolerated (Casella, 2003; Ewing, 2000). On the other hand, the use of unfavorable disciplinary actions may lead students and their parents to question whether the implementation of discipline is unduly harsh, unfair, or illegitimate (Giroux, 2001; Sheets, 1996).

The racial environment may play an important role as students shape their perceptions of the fairness of school discipline. Research has consistently shown that minority students are more likely to be expelled or suspended from school than are White students (e.g., Browne, Losen, & Wald, 2001; Eitle & Eitle, 2004; Leone et al., 2003; Skiba, Michael, Nardo, & Peterson, 2000). Some research suggests that this disparity may occur in part because White teachers may assess the behavior of non-White students differently and that they may be influenced by racial stereotypes and personal fears when perceiving misbehavior by minority students (Blair, 2001; Ferguson, 2000; Skiba et al., 2011; Skiba, Michael, Nardo, & Peterson, 2002). Evidence of these types of behaviors or concern over these potential patterns of behavior may increasingly sensitize students and parents to the issue of legitimacy when considering the assignment of disciplinary actions within their school. We expect that the concerns that students and their parents may have about the unjust actions of school staff may be particularly salient, when more unfavorable disciplinary actions are assigned to students.

In our research, we examine the attitudes of students, as well as their parents, who help to co-produce their children’s schooling, toward school discipline. Thus, we emphasize to a greater extent than in some previous research how symbolic representation may influence the likelihood of the co-production of services. We also explore the relationship between representation and attitudes at the organizational level, differing from previous studies that have examined these relationships within dyads, such as between a citizen stopped by the police and the associated police officer (e.g., Theobald & Haider-Markel, 2009). We argue that students, regardless of whether they have been punished, and their parents will be aware of how other students are treated within their school and that they will be more likely to assess the fairness of these disciplinary actions, particularly when more unfavorable outcomes occur. Previous research has shown that students are often aware of differences in disciplinary assignments and, in these cases, question whether these disciplinary actions have been assigned fairly (Brantlinger, 1991). How fairly strict disciplinary actions are assigned in schools may also be important to students, as it may influence the likelihood that they will also face similarly unfavorable outcomes if in the future they commit a disciplinary infraction. Thus, we suggest that symbolic representation may have more expansive effects than considered in some previous research.

We begin by considering past research on representative bureaucracy and the connection between symbolic representation and perceptions of policy fairness. We then turn to consider school discipline and how students’ and parents’ perceptions of policy fairness may be conditional on the level of passive representation among teachers and administrators. We then test our expectations empirically. We rely on data from the Office of Civil Rights, the New York City Department of Education (NYC DOE), New York State Report Cards, and the New York City 2011-2012 Student and Parent Surveys. We consider the implications of our findings in the article’s conclusion.

The Benefits of Symbolic Representation for Students and Parents

Research on representative bureaucracy argues that the demographic match between public officials and the general population can provide various policy benefits for citizens. When there is a close match, shared values, attitudes, and beliefs should increase the likelihood of beneficial policy outcomes, particularly if bureaucrats act to produce policies that benefit diverse groups (Bradbury & Kellough, 2008; Park, 2014; Selden, 1997). Researchers have shown that active representation may lead to overall gains in performance for diverse organizations. For instance, Meier, Wrinkle, and Polinard (1999) found in their research of Texas school districts that White students also benefited from larger numbers of minority teachers, achieving higher levels of performance (see also Pitts, 2005). Evidence of this passive representation to active representation transition has been found in a number of policy areas, including teen pregnancy prevention (e.g., Atkins & Wilkins, 2013) and law enforcement (e.g., Meier & Nicholson-Crotty, 2006).

Passive representation has also been found to have another type of benefit for citizens that is symbolic in nature and which may be present regardless of whether or not active representation occurs. This benefit of passive representation, referred to as symbolic representation, provides personal advantages (e.g., favorable attitudes and beliefs) to citizens, particularly historically marginalized ones, based on the value of a group being represented in government. Although early scholars were concerned about the role of symbolic representation (Krislov, 1974; Levitan, 1946; Mosher, 1986; Pitkin, 1967), it has only recently become more prevalent in current research (see, for example, Riccucci, Van Ryzin, & Lavena, 2014; Theobald & Haider-Markel, 2009). Greater descriptive representation in government may improve not only citizens’ attitudes toward government but also their perceptions of their groups’ places in society (e.g., Bradbury & Kellough, 2010). Gade and Wilkins (2013), for instance, argued that the presence of certain public officials in an organization (e.g., Veterans) affects how Veteran clients perceive the level of service received from the agency. The authors found that Veterans were more likely to perceive Veteran counselors as caring, respectful, and responsive.

Symbolic representation has been argued to occur through a cognitive process that does not rely on the “purposeful actions taken by the representatives other than holding a government office or position” (Theobald & Haider-Markel, 2009, p. 410). One mediating mechanism of passive representation with symbolic benefits occurs by building trust between citizens and bureaucrats and instilling a belief that representatives are concerned about the same issues as certain disadvantaged groups (Gay, 2002; Mansbridge, 1999). Minority groups may perceive representatives as less likely to engage in racial prejudice or inequitable behavior. Greater trust should also increase perceptions of governmental legitimacy and the willingness of citizens to cooperate with an agency’s policies (Hibbing & Theiss-Morse, 2001; Hurwitz & Peffley, 2005). For instance, Epp, Maynard-Moody, and Haider-Markel (2014) argued that African Americans often question the legitimacy of investigatory stops by police, and as a result, they experience lower levels of trust in the police and are often less willing to cooperate with them.

We expect that passive representation is likely to influence service recipients’ attitudes toward fairness and legitimacy, particularly when bureaucratic outcomes are more negative. Research on distributive and procedural justice has shown that individuals tend to react negatively in the face of unfavorable outcomes (Colquitt et al., 2013). The findings from this research also suggest that people who face unfavorable outcomes are more likely to question the fairness of procedures used to produce these outcomes. If these procedures do not seem fair, then they are likely to have more negative reactions than if the procedures were fair (Brockner, 2015; Folger & Cropanzano, 1998). For example, Sunshine and Tyler (2003) have shown that individuals are more likely to tolerate “intrusive police tactics” if they believe that the police are treating them fairly. Examining 332 police encounters with suspects, who are also likely to view these encounters with the police unfavorably, Dai, Frank, and Sun (2011) found that individuals’ reactions toward the police depended on whether they perceived the behavior of police officers as fair or just. Particularly, their findings suggest that police demeanor and consideration of citizen voice tend to reduce noncompliance and disrespect of the police.

Previous research in the area of procedural justice has also demonstrated that individuals may question the fairness of procedures when the outcomes other individuals experience are unfavorable and may also have negative attitudes toward those outcomes when procedures appear unfair.¹ For instance, Brockner et al. (1994) found that layoff survivors tend to develop negative reactions toward their organization, particularly when they perceive layoffs as unfair or unjust.² These collective perceptions of the fairness of others’ experiences can be influenced by personal observations or by information gained through the media or through interpersonal conversations (Ambrose, Harland, & Kulik, 1991; Folger, Rosenfeld, Grove, & Corkran, 1979; Steil, 1983). In their experimental research, van den Bos and Lind (2001) also found that individuals were influenced by how others were treated—as they conclude “(t)he studies show that, at least under some conditions, the treatment of others is as potent a consideration in justice judgments as is one’s own treatment” (p. 1324). Overall, the mediating effect of passive representation on individuals’ perceptions of unfavorable outcomes appears to occur in the area of coercive policies, as well as in other environments—such as the workplace.

Researchers in the representation literature have explored symbolic representation in the area of coercive policies most closely when examining service recipients’ attitudes toward the police, an area in which procedural justice plays a significant role (Epp et al., 2014; Tyler, 2006). Theobald and Haider-Markel (2009), focusing on police–citizen dyads, found that symbolic representation among police influenced the extent to which citizens viewed police behavior as legitimate and proper. It is interesting to note that these authors found larger effects of representation when considering more unfavorable and intrusive actions by police, such as personal searches, compared with more routine actions, such as traffic stops. They, however, only briefly note these findings in their research. One recent study by Riccucci and colleagues (2014) used experimental methods to examine whether symbolic representation in the area of policing provides benefits to not only to a target group but also to citizens generally. They showed that more female police officers in a domestic violence agency within a hypothetical city, Middletown, increased the participants’ perceptions of fairness, among both men and women, of the agency’s handling of domestic violence cases (see also Riccucci, Van Ryzin, & Li, 2016). Thus, their research suggests that representation may influence how members of the general public, and not just service recipients, may view a law enforcement agency. In short, findings from these recent studies provide support for our arguments about the potential link between more unfavorable outcomes and the occurrence of symbolic representation, as well as the idea that symbolic representation may have more expansive effects than suggested in some previous research.

Some research has already explored how representation may influence parents’ and students’ attitudes toward schools (Marschall & Ruhil, 2007; Shah, 2009). Conner (2016) found evidence of the difficulty of establishing trust and compliance between school officials and their clients when they lacked a shared group identity and shared individual attributes. Shah (2009) found in her work that Latino parents are more likely to be involved in their children’s school when their teachers and the local school board are symbolically representative. She argues that representation appears to provide a more welcoming invitation from the school to parents to participate in school-related activities, serving as an “important bridge” between the local school culture and the respective culture of the students and their families (Bump, 2005; Shah, 2009). Some research suggests that symbolic representation may also signal to students a welcoming educational environment, which may lead to more positive attitudes and additional educational efforts that may particularly favor minority students (Meier & Stewart, 1991; Powers & Thompson, 1994). We expect that symbolic representation should in turn influence whether students and their parents perceive school authority as legitimate and, consequently, also the extent to which the implementation of more unfavorable disciplinary measures is seen as fair or unfair.

School Discipline

Throughout the 1990s, schools established zero-tolerance and deterrence-based discipline strategies. These increasingly more punitive discipline practices involve suspensions or expulsions of students for minor rule violations, a low threshold for punishment, automatic suspensions for severe violations, and referral to the court systems (Kaufman et al., 2001; Kellman, Prinz, & Sheley, 2000; Leland, 2001; Sheley, 2000; Wallace, Goodkind, Wallace, & Bachman, 2008). The use of such policies often sends harsh messages to students about how they are viewed by school officials, and they frequently remove students from the school environment. Previous research has shown that students may feel excluded or denigrated when subject to OSS or expulsions (Gershoff, 2002; Owen, 2005). These policies may displace more rehabilitative policies, such as in-school suspensions, which are less disruptive to students and are more likely to keep students from falling behind in their academic studies (Adams, 1992; Shah, 2009; Short, Short, & Blanton, 1994). Students, in these cases, may receive some type of therapy or counseling that addresses why they are engaged in misbehavior (J. Green & Barnes, 1993; Lawrence & Olvey, 1994; Short et al., 1994).

The adoption of these no-tolerance discipline policies may have had disproportionately negative effects on minority students. Much evidence reveals that minority students, and African American students in particular, receive more strict disciplinary actions at higher rates when compared with White students (Kaufman et al., 2001; U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, & U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, 2014). Reports of these disproportionate effects are also evident among the mainstream media (Brown, 2016; Dominus, 2016; A. Green, 2015). Research has shown that these disproportionate assignments occur even after controlling for the socio-economic status of students and their levels of misbehavior (Bradshaw, Mitchell, & Leaf, 2010; Skiba et al., 2011; Wallace et al., 2008). As mentioned previously, racial perceptions by school staff are likely to play a role in explaining this disparity. Previous research suggests that school staff may sometimes misinterpret or misclassify behavior because of racial stereotypes, leading teachers to be more likely to identify behaviors as disruptive and cause for discipline referral (Goff, Steele, & Davies, 2008; Skiba, Michael, Nardo, & Peterson, 2002; Vavrus & Cole, 2002). Some research suggests that teachers may also recognize they have more subjective views of student behavior for minority students (Gregory & Mosely, 2004). Recent research by Skiba and colleagues (2011) concluded that the disproportionate use of more strict disciplinary measures among minority students is most likely explained in part by the interpersonal interactions between students and school staff. One way, the authors suggest, that policy makers should work to improve the fairness of student discipline is by building responsive school cultures that actively define and teach understandings of appropriate behavior.

Students are not unaware of these discrepancies among racial groups in the assignment of disciplinary actions. Research has shown that students generally perceive racial discrimination in school discipline and that minority students may be particularly likely to perceive discriminatory practices as intentional or deliberate (e.g., Arum, 2003; Ruck & Wortley, 2002; Sheets, 1996). Interviews with students also suggest that students see racial and class differences in the assignment of disciplinary actions. For instance, previous research by Brantlinger (1991) found that “[b]oth low- and high- income adolescents agreed that low-income students were unfairly targeted by disciplinary sanctions” (Skiba et al., 2002, p. 319). As a result, scholars have begun to more closely examine some of the unintended effects of school disciplinary practices. Similar to the conclusions drawn by researchers in the area of policing (Epp et al., 2014; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003), education scholars have found that students are less likely to cooperate with school authorities in the future when they view the implementation of disciplinary actions as illegitimate or unfair (Way, 2011).

In this research, we examine whether students and parents perceive the use of different types of disciplinary actions within their school as fairer or more legitimate. We expect that the use of more strict disciplinary actions that remove students from the school’s environment will convey more negative messages to both students and their parents than the use of less severe disciplinary actions. We base this expectation on previous research from the area of distributive justice that shows that individuals develop negative attitudes when they are faced with negative outcomes (Colquitt et al., 2013). We also draw on previous research from the education literature that finds that students may feel excluded or denigrated when subject to OSS or expulsions (DeRidder, 1991; Owen, 2005).

Hypothesis 1a: Students will have more negative attitudes toward discipline when more strict disciplinary practices are used in schools.

Hypothesis 1b: Parents will have more negative attitudes toward discipline when more strict disciplinary practices are used in schools.

We also expect that the presence of passive representation within schools will affect students’ and parents’ attitudes toward discipline. Greater representation should increase their trust in school staff and perceptions of fairness, particularly when unfavorable disciplinary actions are more prevalent in schools. We follow previous research on procedural justice (see Brockner, 2015, for a review) that argues that individuals will be more likely to consider legitimacy of a process when more unfavorable outcomes occur. Thus, we expect that symbolic representation will play a more important role when more unfavorable disciplinary actions are used within a school in contrast to a school which favors less strict procedures. We expect these effects to occur among students who received unfavorable punishments, as well as among other students in the school and among the students’ parents. As we have discussed, research has shown that individuals are sensitive to the procedures in place governing the distribution of outcomes to other individuals (van den Bos & Lind, 2001). We argue that students and their parents are likely to learn about the use of unfavorable disciplinary actions through observation, interpersonal communication, and media released by the school.

Hypothesis 2a: When more strict disciplinary actions are used, students in the school will have less negative attitudes toward discipline when their schools have higher levels of passive representation.

Hypothesis 2b: When more strict disciplinary actions are used, parents will have less negative attitudes toward discipline when their children’s schools have higher levels of passive representation.

We emphasize that we are exploring the influence of representation not only on students but also parents, as they are often asked to help co-produce with schools more positive educational outcomes. In addition, previous research has shown that parents’ attitudes and behaviors have been found to be conditional on the educational environment (e.g., Huntsinger & Jose, 2009; Lewis & Forman, 2002; Turney & Kao, 2009). Thus, we expect that they should also be conditional on the level of passive representation present within schools.

Data

We use data from the 2011-2012 New York City School Survey (NYCSS). This survey was administered during February 2012. The NYCSS collects information on students’, parents’, and teachers’ attitudes on a broad range of topics, including school discipline, student–teacher relationships, parent–teacher relationships, and other aspects of the school environment. The survey gathers information from parents and teachers in all public schools and collects information from students in Grades 6 to 12.³

We exclude in our analyses data from those schools that provide specific vocational and behavioral support for students. Thus, from the NYCSS, we rely on data from a total of 1,660 schools and 895 junior high and high schools. According to the NYC DOE, during the 2011-2012 school year, 476,567 parents, 428,327 students, and 62,115 teachers completed the NYCSS. The response rate to the survey for students was 82%, and the response rate for parents was 53%. We combine the NYCSS data at the school level with data from the U.S. Department of Education’s Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC). The CRDC includes detailed information on the types of disciplinary actions assigned to students in each public school in the United States for the school year 2011-2012. We also use school-level data from the NYC DOE and the New York State Report Cards that provide information about student demographic and socio-economic characteristics, teacher experience, and educational attainment, in addition to student misbehavior.

Table 1 provides summary statistics for our sample. We can see that NYC public schools rely heavily on less punitive disciplinary actions such as in-school suspensions and single OSS in response to student misbehavior. In Figure 1, we report the distribution of different types of disciplinary actions for both NYC schools and the CRDC full sample of all public schools. While in-school suspensions comprise more than 66% of total disciplinary actions used in NYC, they represent only 25.9% of disciplinary actions in the CRDC’s full sample. In contrast, single OSS represent 19.6% of all disciplinary actions in NYC compared with 42.1% in the CRDC sample. Thus, administrators in New York City allocate less severe disciplinary actions than the administrators in the average U.S. public school.⁴ After excluding missing values on all of the variables included in the analysis, we rely in our analyses on data from 801 schools when analyzing students’ attitudes toward schools discipline and from 1,262 schools when examining parents’ attitudes.

Table 1.

Summary Statistics for NYC Public Schools.

	Observation	M	SD
Disciplinary actions (%)
Single out-of-school suspensions	1,332	19.61	19.27
Multiple out-of-school suspensions	1,332	3.55	7.65
In-school suspensions	1,332	66.54	25.33
Expulsions	1,332	0.35	1.92
Referrals	1,332	9.95	11.06
Total disciplinary actions	1,480	29.80	40.21
School-level characteristics
Teacher representation index	1,492	59.29	27.35
Total enrollment	1,501	64.53	53.21
High school (%)	1,501	31.25	46.37
English language learners (%)	1,501	14.35	15.34
Economically disadvantaged students (%)	1,500	68.18	22.71
Black students (%)	1,501	33.16	28.27
Hispanic students (%)	1,486	42.09	25.89
School Violence Index	1,494	0.47	0.49
Teachers with <3 years of experience (%)	1,501	9.05	10.64
Teachers with master’s degree (%)	1,501	44.64	15.95
Turnover rate of teachers (%)	1,436	16.85	10.96
Teacher discretion	1,646	83.36	14.91
Student attitudes (%)
Discipline is fair	895	25.03	12.69
Teachers treat students with respect	895	30.82	13.61
Parent attitudes (%)
School discipline is fairly implemented	1,660	42.37	13.2
Feel welcome in school	1,660	54.33	13.09

Note. NYC = New York City.

Figure 1.

Percentages of disciplinary actions.

Dependent Variables

Student and parent attitudes

We use several variables as indicators of students’ and parents’ attitudes toward discipline in their school. First, we use dependent variables that directly gauge whether students and parents feel that disciplinary actions are administered legitimately. We measure students’ perceptions of policy fairness as the percentage of students who answer “strongly agree” to the question asking whether “discipline in my school is fair.” For parents, we use a dependent variable based on the percentage of parents who strongly agree with the question asking whether “discipline is enforced fairly at my child’s school.”⁵

In addition, we measure the effects of discipline on other attitudes among students and parents that capture how they feel about their relationship with teachers and staff within the school. In the case of students, we examine whether students believe that teachers respect students in their school. Thus, we use as an additional dependent variable the percentage of students who strongly agree that “teachers in my school treat students with respect.” In the case of parents, we examine whether parents strongly agree with “I feel welcome in my child’s school.”

Independent Variables

Strict disciplinary actions

We examine the effects of strict disciplinary actions on student/parent attitudes toward school discipline. We expect that the increased use of more strict disciplinary actions should be associated with more negative attitudes among students and parents toward school discipline. More strict disciplinary actions may send negative messages to students and their parents, and, therefore, increase the likelihood that they will perceive the implementation of school discipline as unfair or illegitimate. We use three measures of strict disciplinary actions: multiple OSS, expulsions, and referrals to law enforcement. Each indicator is measured as a percentage of total disciplinary actions used by a school.

Teacher representation

We are also interested in examining whether student/parent attitudes toward school discipline depend not only on the types of disciplinary actions that are used but also on the extent to which teachers represent students according to their race. We base our expectation of the level of symbolic representation within schools on the level of racial representation of students by teachers. To measure teacher representation, we constructed a representation index that indicates the extent to which teachers represent the ethnic make-up of students in a given school, using the following formula (see Roch, Pitts, & Navarro, 2010):

R_{t} = (1 - \sqrt{{(H_{s} - H_{t})}^{2} + {(W_{s} - W_{t})}^{2} + {(B_{s} - B_{t})}^{2} + {(A_{s} - A_{t})}^{2} + {(O_{s} - O_{t})}^{2}}) \times 100,

where H_s = proportion of Hispanic students in the school; H_t = proportion of Hispanic teachers; W_s = proportion of White students; W_t = proportion of White teachers; B_s = proportion of African American students; B_t = proportion of African American teachers; A_s = proportion of Asian students; A_t = proportion of Asian teachers; O_s = proportion of other students; and O_t = proportion of other teachers.

In general, the representation index reflects the difference in the proportion of the teachers and students that are White, African American, Hispanic, Asian, and of other race. That difference is then inverted (and multiplied by 100) such that lower numbers indicate less representation and higher number indicate greater representation. The index, therefore, may fall under zero for schools with lower levels of teacher representation. The teacher representation index in the NYC sample ranges from −41.5 to 99.8, with an average value of 59.3 and a standard deviation of 27.35. Representative bureaucracy researchers have created a variety of methods for measuring representation, but this approach permits us to use a single measure to examine the extent to which an organization’s teachers are representative of all ethnic groups (see Pitts, 2005). Thus, this aggregate measure provides a way of determining whether representation within diverse organizations leads to overall gains in organizational performance (Pitts, 2005, 2007; Roch et al., 2010).⁶

Interaction between teacher representation and disciplinary actions

We also expect that teacher representation will moderate the relationship between the type of disciplinary actions used within a school and student/parent views on school discipline. That is, students and parents in more representative schools are expected to perceive the legitimacy of strict disciplinary actions differently, based on teacher representation. Therefore, we expect the negative effects of strict disciplinary actions to be smaller in schools with higher levels of teacher representation. To examine this effect, we include three interaction terms between teacher representation and our three measures of more punitive disciplinary policies: multiple OSS, expulsions, and referrals.

Other school-level controls

We control for several school-level characteristics. First, we control for school-level student demographic and socio-economic characteristics such as total enrollment, total number of disciplinary actions, percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, percentage of Black students, percentage of Hispanic students, and percentage of English language learners. Second, we control for teachers’ characteristics. In particular, we include the percentage of teachers with a master’s degree, the turnover rate of teachers, and percentage of teachers with less than 3 years of experience. In addition, we include a measure of teacher discretion to control for differences across schools in degree of autonomy among teachers.⁷ Third, to account for student misbehavior, we use the School Violence Index (SVI) which is constructed by the New York State Education Department (NYSED). The SVI index is a weighted index of disciplinary incidents in a school. To calculate the SVI for each school, the NYSED divides disciplinary incidents into different types. Then, each type of these incidents is assigned a weight, depending on its seriousness. The number of incidents in each type is multiplied by its weight. The SVI is, then, constructed using the weighted sum of these incidents divided by total enrollment in a school.

Method

We estimate two groups of models of students’ and parents’ attitudes toward school discipline,⁸ using ordinary least squares (OLS) regression.⁹ Because schools in a particular borough within NYC are expected to share common organizational and socio-economic characteristics, we cluster the standard errors by borough. Our base model for students and parents is identified as follows:

\begin{matrix} D i s c i p l i n e i s f a i r_{i} = β_{0} + β_{1} o u t o f s c h o o l s u s p e n s i o n s_{i} + β_{2} e x p u l s i o n s_{i} \\ + β_{3} r e f e r r a l s_{i} + β_{4} t e a c h e r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n_{i} + β_{5} X_{i} + ε_{i}, \end{matrix}

where i indexes school; $D i s c i p l i n e i s f a i r$ is the percentage of students/parents who strongly agree that school discipline is implemented fairly; $o u t o f s c h o o l s u s p e n s i o n s$ is the percentage of multiple OSS of the total number of disciplinary actions; $e x p u l s i o n s$ is the percentage of expulsions; referrals is the percentage of referrals; teacher representation is an index that measures racial representation; and X is a vector that includes other school-level controls.

Results

Does Symbolic Representation Increase the Legitimacy of School Discipline for Students?

We begin our analysis by examining the relationship between strict disciplinary actions, symbolic representation, and students’ perceptions of school discipline. We first examine the influence of these factors on whether students believe that discipline is fairly administered in their school (Models 1 and 2). In Model 1, we see that as more expulsions are administered within a school, students are less likely to perceive discipline as fairly administered (p < .01). A 1 percentage point increase in expulsions reduces the percentage of students who think that discipline is fair by 0.32 percentage points.¹⁰ Neither the rate of multiple OSS nor the rate of referrals significantly influences students’ attitudes.¹¹ We also find that the coefficient for teacher representation is negative; however, it is not statistically significant. Note that among our control variables, we see that attitudes are more negative among students in high schools, schools with higher percentage of Black students, with more serious student infractions,¹² and in schools with higher turnover rates and lower levels of teacher discretion.

Table 2.

Coefficient Estimates From OLS Regression of Student Attitudes on Disciplinary Actions.

	Discipline is fair		Teachers treat students with respect
Variables	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)
Expulsion	−0.3215***	−0.6799**	−0.2131*	−0.1909
	(0.1195)	(0.3384)	(0.1112)	(0.4383)
Multiple OSS	−0.0253	−0.3427**	−0.0685	−0.4196***
	(0.0604)	(0.1573)	(0.0544)	(0.1610)
Referral	0.0240	−0.0634	0.0260	−0.0427
	(0.0411)	(0.1010)	(0.0399)	(0.0989)
Teacher Representation	−0.0041	−0.0437	−0.0087	−0.0441
	(0.0169)	(0.0296)	(0.0172)	(0.0309)
OSS × Representation		0.0048**		0.0054**
		(0.0023)		(0.0023)
Expulsion × Representation		0.0051		−0.0004
		(0.0049)		(0.0060)
Referral × Representation		0.0015		0.0012
		(0.0015)		(0.0014)
Total Enrollment	0.0026	0.0020	−0.0164**	−0.0173***
	(0.0069)	(0.0068)	(0.0065)	(0.0065)
High school	−5.3063***	−5.2371***	−7.5076***	−7.4445***
	(1.0089)	(1.0081)	(0.9591)	(0.9665)
Total disciplinary actions	−0.0487***	−0.0485***	−0.0437***	−0.0435***
	(0.0097)	(0.0097)	(0.0103)	(0.0102)
English language learners	0.1307***	0.1308***	0.2007***	0.1995***
	(0.0272)	(0.0271)	(0.0278)	(0.0276)
Economically disadvantaged students	0.0130	0.0050	0.0020	−0.0049
	(0.0307)	(0.0308)	(0.0352)	(0.0352)
Black students (%)	−0.0694***	−0.0751***	−0.1247***	−0.1315***
	(0.0240)	(0.0243)	(0.0256)	(0.0257)
Hispanic students (%)	−0.0657**	−0.0640**	−0.0758**	−0.0746**
	(0.0284)	(0.0282)	(0.0305)	(0.0302)
School Violence Index	−4.4831***	−4.3503***	−4.2385***	−4.0961***
	(0.8784)	(0.8897)	(0.8749)	(0.8887)
Teachers with <3 years of experience (%)	0.0537	0.0530	0.0777*	0.0775*
	(0.0450)	(0.0454)	(0.0460)	(0.0464)
Teachers with master’s degree (%)	0.0067	0.0062	−0.0263	−0.0251
	(0.0361)	(0.0363)	(0.0370)	(0.0369)
Turnover rate of teachers	−0.0205	−0.0196	−0.0240	−0.0237
	(0.0447)	(0.0451)	(0.0437)	(0.0436)
Teacher discretion	0.1209***	0.1201***	0.1254***	0.1249***
	(0.0297)	(0.0296)	(0.0295)	(0.0295)
Constant	24.1045***	27.1934***	35.3514***	38.1004***
	(4.5305)	(4.9217)	(4.6426)	(5.1153)
Observations	801	801	801	801
R ²	.2443	.2492	.3548	.3591

Note. Robust standard errors in parentheses. OLS = ordinary least squares; OSS = out-of-school suspensions.

p < .1. **p < .05. ***p < .01.

In Model 2, we not only estimate a similar model but also include an interaction term between teacher representation and each of our measures of more strict disciplinary actions. An increased use of expulsions continues to reduce perceptions of policy fairness; however, the three coefficients on the interaction terms are all positive, suggesting that teacher representation reduces the negative effects of strict disciplinary actions on students’ views of how fairly discipline is administered within their school. This is especially the case for the assignment of multiple OSS, which is significant at the p < .05 level. In Figure 2, we illustrate the effect of the interaction term between teacher representation and multiple OSS on students’ perceptions of school discipline. The figure shows the effect of the percentage of disciplinary actions that are OSS on three groups of schools with different levels of teacher representation, which range from −40 to 60 points measured by the teacher representation index, holding other variable at their sample values. The vertical axis represents the predicted positive attitudes toward disciplinary policy (i.e., the predicted percentage of students who strongly agree that school discipline is fairly administered in their school) whereas the horizontal axis represents the percentage of OSS. We can see that at lower levels of teacher representation, the rate of multiple OSS has a large negative influence on students’ perceptions of school discipline. As teacher representation increases, however, students’ perceptions of discipline become more positive. For example, in schools where teacher representation is very low (representation index = −40) and where OSS represent 10% of total disciplinary actions, about 21% of students strongly agree that school discipline is fair. However, as teacher representation increases from −40 to 60, on the representation index, support for school discipline among students rises by 2.8 percentage points, from 21% to about 24%. Our results also show that the effect of representation is larger among schools that are more likely to assign more multiple OSS. The effect of teacher representation within these schools is substantive, especially with respect to its magnitude. For instance, in schools where OSS represent 30% of total disciplinary actions, increasing teacher representation from −40 to 60, on the representation index, will raise support for school discipline from 10.1% to 22.8%. That is an increase of 225.5% in support for school discipline.

Figure 2.

Conditional marginal effects of teacher representation on the percentage of students strongly agreeing that “discipline in my school is fair.”

We next turn to consider the relationship between the use of strict disciplinary actions and whether students believe that the teachers in their schools treat them with respect (Models 3 and 4). In Model 3, we find that, out of our three measures of disciplinary actions, only expulsions has a significant effect on whether students believe that teachers treat them with respect. A 1 percentage point increase in expulsions reduces the percentage of students who believe that teachers in their school treat them with respect by 0.21 percentage points. As in Model 1, we also find no significant influence of teacher representation on students’ attitudes. In Model 4, we again include interaction terms between the different types of disciplinary actions and teacher representation. We find again that multiple OSS has a large negative effect on students’ attitudes toward teachers (p < .05). A 1 percentage point increase in the rate of multiple OSS reduces the percentage of students who believe that teachers treat students with respect by .42 percentage points, when the value of teacher representation is 0. We find that the interaction term between teacher representation and the use of multiple OSS also is significant, showing that teacher representation moderates the relationship between disciplinary actions and students attitudes toward teachers. The mediating effect of teacher representation on the relationship between multiple OSS and attitudes toward teachers is illustrated in Figure 3. As shown, the rate of multiple OSS has a large negative impact on students’ attitudes toward teachers at lower levels of teacher representation. However, as teacher representation increases, students’ attitudes toward teachers become more positive. For example, in schools where OSS represent 30% of total disciplinary actions, positive attitudes toward teachers increases from 13.8% to 27.2% as representation level rises from −40 to 60. The overall pattern of results is similar to that for Model 2, which we illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Conditional marginal effects of teacher representation on the percentage of students strongly agreeing that “teachers treat students with respect.”

Does Symbolic Representation Increase the Legitimacy of School Discipline for Parents?

In Models 1 and 2 in Table 3, we examine the effect of strict disciplinary actions on parents’ perceptions of whether they believe that school discipline is implemented fairly in their children’s schools. In Models 3 and 4, we introduce an additional measure of parent satisfaction: the percentage of parents who strongly agree that they feel welcome at their child’s school. The structure of our models closely reflects that of Models 1 to 4,¹³ where we first examine the direct influence of punitive disciplinary actions and teacher representation on parents’ attitudes (Models 1 and 3) and then examine the interaction between teacher representation and the use of these disciplinary actions (Models 2 and 4).¹⁴ Across all of our models, we find that the percentage of multiple OSS used in schools decreases the percentage of parents who believe that discipline is fairly administered or that they feel welcome in their children’s schools. This effect is significant in three of our four models. For example, in Model 3, we find that a 1 percentage point increase in disciplinary actions that are multiple OSS decreases the percentage of parents who feel welcome in their child’s school by 0.085 percentage points.

Table 3.

Coefficient Estimates From OLS Regression of Parent Attitudes on Disciplinary Actions.

	Discipline is fair		I feel welcome in school
Variables	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)
Expulsion	0.1998	−0.7562	−0.0094	−0.2472
	(0.1999)	(0.4989)	(0.1960)	(0.5711)
Multiple OSS	−0.0639	−0.1774**	−0.0854*	−0.1737**
	(0.0452)	(0.0758)	(0.0450)	(0.0827)
Referral	−0.0424	−0.1105	−0.0333	−0.1220*
	(0.0288)	(0.0724)	(0.0263)	(0.0627)
Teacher representation	−0.0073	−0.0267*	−0.0007	−0.0190
	(0.0119)	(0.0148)	(0.0116)	(0.0149)
OSS × Representation		0.0019		0.0015
		(0.0015)		(0.0014)
Expulsion × Representation		0.0137**		0.0033
		(0.0066)		(0.0077)
Referral × Representation		0.0011		0.0014
		(0.0011)		(0.0009)
Total enrollment	−0.0029***	−0.0029***	−0.0041***	−0.0042***
	(0.0007)	(0.0007)	(0.0008)	(0.0008)
High school	−3.9609***	−3.8485***	−3.2201***	−3.0961***
	(0.9358)	(0.9370)	(0.9430)	(0.9469)
Total disciplinary actions	−0.0510***	−0.0505***	−0.0517***	−0.0516***
	(0.0113)	(0.0113)	(0.0116)	(0.0116)
English language learners	−0.0103	−0.0105	−0.0204	−0.0218
	(0.0285)	(0.0283)	(0.0259)	(0.0260)
Economically disadvantaged students	−0.0291	−0.0324	−0.1092***	−0.1115***
	(0.0235)	(0.0237)	(0.0247)	(0.0249)
Black students (%)	0.0208	0.0193	0.0484***	0.0465**
	(0.0180)	(0.0182)	(0.0184)	(0.0185)
Hispanic students (%)	0.0868***	0.0875***	0.0705***	0.0713***
	(0.0198)	(0.0198)	(0.0207)	(0.0207)
School Violence Index	−3.3826***	−3.3878***	−2.5259***	−2.5317***
	(0.7935)	(0.7925)	(0.7397)	(0.7388)
Teachers with <3 years of experience (%)	0.0650	0.0636	0.0381	0.0382
	(0.0458)	(0.0458)	(0.0433)	(0.0434)
Teachers with master’s degree (%)	−0.0253	−0.0286	−0.0747***	−0.0766***
	(0.0268)	(0.0267)	(0.0260)	(0.0260)
Turnover rate of teachers	−0.1061***	−0.1040***	−0.0680*	−0.0678*
	(0.0394)	(0.0394)	(0.0401)	(0.0399)
Teacher discretion	0.1514***	0.1521***	0.1678***	0.1683***
	(0.0226)	(0.0225)	(0.0223)	(0.0222)
Constant	35.4351***	36.9328***	53.1871***	54.5444***
	(3.3390)	(3.4395)	(3.2469)	(3.3536)
Observations	1,262	1,262	1,262	1,262
R ²	.2356	.2393	.2624	.2645

Note. Robust standard errors in parentheses. OLS = ordinary least squares; OSS = out-of-school suspensions.

p < .1. **p < .05. ***p < .01.

When we turn to examine the interaction terms between the different types of disciplinary actions and teacher representation, we find that most of these terms have the expected signs but are not statistically significant, except for the interaction term between teacher representation and expulsions in Model 2 (p < .05). Figure 4 displays the effect of the interaction term between teacher representation and the percentage of disciplinary actions that are expulsions on parents’ perceptions of school discipline, holding other variables at their actual sample values. We see a pattern of results that is similar to that which we report for students when examining the use of multiple OSS. We see that representation tends to reduce the negative effects of harsh disciplinary actions on parents’ perceptions of whether discipline is fairly administered in their children’s schools. We also find that the effect of teacher representation tends to be more substantive in schools with higher rates of expulsions. For instance, in schools where expulsions represent 10% of all disciplinary actions, support for school discipline among parents increases by more than 140% (from 27.9% to 41.6%) as teacher representation rises from −40 to 60, on the representation index.

Figure 4.

Conditional marginal effects of teacher representation on the percentage of parents strongly agreeing that “discipline is enforced fairly at my child’s school.”

Fair or Unfair? How Students Perceive Strict Disciplinary Actions Varies Across Schools

Through this work, we extend previous research on symbolic representation to the school discipline context. Examining the influence of these disciplinary actions on students’ attitudes, we find that when more unfavorable disciplinary actions are used more often within a school, students are more likely to question the legitimacy of these actions. Students, however, appear to trust teachers more and are more likely to view their actions as legitimate when they passively represent the students in their school. Thus, our findings suggest that symbolic representation may occur, leading students to view the administration of more strict punishments, such as multiple out-of-schools suspensions, as more fair and legitimate when they are assigned by teachers in racially representative environments.¹⁵

We also are able to show how representation not only influences students’ perceptions of the fairness and legitimacy of bureaucratic behavior but also how it influences the perceptions of parents. Thus, we suggest that researchers should take a more expansive view when examining the potential role of symbolic representation than is often seen in much previous research. We find that parents are more likely to believe that expulsions are fairly administered in their children’s schools when there are higher levels of passive representation in schools.

Our findings also support our central argument that symbolic representation is more likely to influence individuals’ attitudes toward legitimacy and fairness when outcomes are unfavorable. In our research, we argue that expulsions and OSS are particularly unfavorable for students and that in these cases students, and their parents, are most likely to question the legitimacy of these procedures. We identify these policies as unfavorable, because of a growing stream of research that identifies the ill-consequences that they may have for students. Previous research has shown that students receiving expulsions and OSS develop negative feelings, such as of exclusion, and a number of studies have documented how these types of disciplinary actions are likely to have the most significant long-term negative impacts on student behavior and educational attainment (DeRidder, 1991).

Our findings suggest that the implementation of more strict disciplinary actions in less representative environments may have particularly negative consequences for students. In particular, when there are more unfavorable disciplinary outcomes and students are within less representative environments, students may be more likely to consider school discipline as unfair or illegitimate. Previous research has demonstrated that these types of attitudes may have negative consequences for the educational environment. For instance, when students perceive disciplinary actions as unfair or unjust, previous research indicates that they may be likely to engage in higher levels of future misbehavior (Way, 2011; see also Tyler, 1990). An increasingly negative school culture may result, which may also negatively influence other outcomes, such as student achievement (MacNeil, Prater, & Busch, 2009). In addition, previous research has shown that parents who perceive the school environment as unwelcoming or unfair may be less likely to attend school activities and to act to co-produce more positive educational outcomes for their children (Shah, 2009).

We examine these relationships at the school level, and we see this as an appropriate level at which to examine these research issues. Previous research has shown that students generally are aware of discrepancies among racial groups in the assignment of disciplinary actions (Arum, 2003; Ruck & Wortley, 2002; Sheets, 1996). Even if the news media and academic research show that Black students are the most likely to be unfairly targeted by more punitive actions (U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, & U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, 2014), we expect that White and other minority students will also be sensitive to the allocation of discipline and issues regarding representation and will develop attitudes that are influenced by how all students are treated within their school. While in some cases students and their parents may favor the suspension or expulsion of a student that they view as troublesome, we focus on the average perceptions of students and parents in the school over the course of the entire school year.

We recognize that it is difficult, however, for us to assess through our research whether symbolic representation is clearly at work or whether there is in fact active representation working in tandem with symbolic representation. In our research, we control for the types of disciplinary actions assigned by school staff, which may be influenced through active representation as teachers assign less punitive actions to like students for similar disciplinary infractions (Roch et al., 2010). We also account for the types of infractions that occur within the school as well as the level of discretion available to teachers, as this is a prerequisite for active representation. It is possible, however, that teachers still are perhaps more supportive or direct more rehabilitative efforts at students of like races or for those that they choose to play a minority representative role, and we are unable to distinguish among these different behaviors (or better capture whether there is a lack of these behaviors) in our work.

We also recognize the limitations of our dataset. We rely on cross-sectional data to examine the effects of symbolic representation on students’ and parents’ perceptions of school discipline. Although we control for a wide range of school characteristics, we still cannot rule out the possibility of unobserved differences across schools that may affect the relationship between symbolic representation and attitudes toward school discipline. Therefore, future research using longitudinal data would help to corroborate our results.

To some extent, given the high degree of racial salience within public education and increasing calls for more inclusive and diverse faculties, we have chosen an easy case in which to explore the relationship between client attitudes and symbolic representation among bureaucrats. Regardless, however, we believe that school discipline remains an important area in which to examine these relationships. Our findings support those of previous researchers that have investigated whether symbolic representation influences the public’s attitudes toward the behavior of the police (Riccucci et al., 2014; Theobald & Haider-Markel, 2009). Our research also suggests that policy makers may wish to consider the key role that representation may play in schools that allocate more unfavorable types of disciplinary actions. In these environments, it is likely that students and parents will assess the legitimacy of the assignment of these actions, paying attention to the degree of representation among school staff, which we have considered in this research, as well as other factors such as the transparency of rules underlying school discipline.¹⁶ Thus, in these cases, it becomes particularly important to ensure a fair and legitimate process. We suggest that one element of that process may be to have a school staff that represents the school’s students.

We believe that scholars should in future research continue to examine these relationships within the area of school discipline. Students’ experiences at these young ages may help to cement beliefs that may influence attitudes and behaviors in future contexts. Also, more immediately, absent legitimacy in school authority, the actions of teachers may fail to improve student outcomes, particularly related to school discipline, as well as in other areas such as academic performance. Thus, researchers should continue to seek to determine what factors most significantly influence students’ and parents’ perceptions of the levels of legitimacy and fairness within their school. Our research also presents a new way for scholars of representative bureaucracy to view the relationship between symbolic representation, legitimacy, and the favorability of outcomes. Other scholars should continue to investigate this relationship within other contexts and also with individual-level data. We encourage future researchers to explore these issues and to continue to untangle the roles of active and symbolic representation in school discipline and other research areas.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Christine H. Roch is an associate professor of public management and policy at Georgia State University. Her research interests include education policy, representative bureaucracy, and state and local governance.

Mahmoud A. A. Elsayed is a PhD student in the Andrew Young School of Policy Studies at Georgia State University. His research interests include program evaluation, economics of education, education finance, and public economics.

Jason Edwards is a recent graduate of the doctoral program in Public Policy from Georgia State University. His research interests include education policy, social contexts, local politics and the policy process.

References

Adams

A. T.

(1992). Public high schools: The use of rehabilitative and punitive forms of discipline: A final report. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Adelman

H. S.

(1996). Restructuring education support services and integrating community resources: Beyond the full service school model. School Psychology Review, 25, 431-445.

Ambrose

M. L.

Harland

L. K.

Kulik

C. T.

(1991). Influence of social comparisons on perceptions of organizational fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 239-246.

Arum

(2003). Judging school discipline: The crisis of moral authority. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Atkins

D. N.

Wilkins

V. M.

(2013). Going beyond reading, writing, and arithmetic: The effects of teacher representation on teen pregnancy rates. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23, 771-790.

Blair

(2001). Why pick on me? School exclusion and Black youth. Stoke-on-Trent, UK: Trentham Books.

Bradbury

M. D.

Kellough

J. E.

(2008). Representative bureaucracy: Exploring the potential for active representation in local government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18, 697-714.

Bradbury

M. D.

Kellough

J. E.

(2010). Representative bureaucracy: Assessing the evidence on active representation. American Review of Public Administration, 41, 157-167.

Bradshaw

C. P.

Mitchell

M. M.

Leaf

P. J.

(2010). Examining the effects of schoolwide positive behavioral interventions and supports on student outcomes results from a randomized controlled effectiveness trial in elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12, 133-148.

10.

Brantlinger

(1991). Social class distinctions in adolescents’ reports of problems and punishment in school. Behavioral Disorders, 17, 36-46.

11.

Brockner

(2015). The process matters: Engaging and equipping people for success. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

12.

Brockner

Konovsky

Cooper-Schneider

Folger

Martin

Bies

R. J.

(1994). The interactive effects of procedural justice and outcome negativity on the victims and survivors of job loss. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 397-409.

13.

Brown

(2016, June 7). New federal egors data show persistent racial gaps in discipline, access to advanced coursework. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/new-federal-civil-rights-data-show-persistent-racial-gaps-in-discipline-access-to-advanced-coursework/2016/06/06/e95a4386-2bf2-11e6-9b37-42985f6a265c_story.html

14.

Browne

J. A.

Losen

D. J.

Wald

(2001). Zero tolerance: Unfair, with little recourse. New Directions for Youth Development, 2001(92), 73-99.

15.

Bryk

A. S.

(2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

16.

Bump

(2005). From temporary picking to permanent plucking: Hispanic newcomers, integration, and change in the Shenandoah Valley. In Gozdziak

E. M.

Martin

S. F.

(Eds.), Beyond the gateway: Immigrants in a changing America (pp. 137-176). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

17.

Casella

(2003). Zero tolerance policy in schools: Rationale, consequences, and alternatives. Teachers College Record, 105, 872-892.

18.

Charbonneau

É.

Van Ryzin

G. G

. (2012). Performance measures and parental satisfaction with New York City schools. American Review of Public Administration, 42, 54-65.

19.

Colquitt

J. A.

Scott

B. A.

Rodell

J. B.

Long

D. M.

Zapata

C. P.

Conlon

D. E.

Wesson

M. J.

(2013). Justice at the millennium, a decade later: A meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect-based perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 199-236. doi:10.1037/a0031757

20.

Conner

T. W.

(2016). Representation and collaboration: Exploring the role of shared identity in the collaborative process. Public Administration Review, 76, 288-301.

21.

Dai

M. Y.

Frank

Sun

(2011). Procedural justice during police-citizen encounters: The effects of process-based policing on citizen compliance and demeanor. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 159-168.

22.

DeRidder

L. M.

(1991). How suspension and expulsion contribute to dropping out. Education Digest, 56(6), 44-47.

23.

Dominus

(2016, September 7). An effective but exhausting alternative to high-school suspensions. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/11/magazine/an-effective-ut-exhausting-alternative-to-high-school-suspensions.html?_r=1

24.

Dwyer

(1997). Discipline and costs dominate IDEA hearings. National Association of Schools Psychologists Communique, 25(6), 12.

25.

Dwyer

Osher

Hoffman

(2000). Creating responsive schools: Contextualizing early warning, timely response. Exceptional Children, 66, 347-365.

26.

Eitle

(2004). Inequality, segregation, and the overrepresentation of African Americans in-school suspensions. Sociological Perspectives, 47, 269-287.

27.

Epp

C. R.

Maynard-Moody

Haider-Markel

D. P.

(2014). Pulled over: How police stops define race and citizenship. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

28.

Ewing

(2000, January/February). Sensible zero tolerance protects students. Harvard Education Letter, 11.

29.

Favero

Meier

K. J.

(2013). Evaluating urban public schools: Parents, teachers, and state assessments. Public Administration Review, 73, 401-412.

30.

Ferguson

A. A.

(2000). Bad boys: Public schools in the making of black masculinity. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

31.

Folger

Cropanzano

(1998). Organizational justice and human resource management. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

32.

Folger

Rosenfeld

Grove

Corkran

(1979). Effects of “voice” and peer opinions on responses to inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2253-2261.

33.

Gade

D. M.

Wilkins

V. M.

(2013). Where did you serve? Veteran identity, representative bureaucracy, and vocational rehabilitation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23, 267-288.

34.

Garnes

Menlove

(2003, March 20-22). School-wide discipline practices: A look at the effectiveness of common practices. Rural Survival: Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the American Council on Rural Special Education (ACRES), Salt Lake City, UT.

35.

Gay

(2002). Spirals of trust? The effect of descriptive representation on the relationship between citizens and their government. American Journal of Political Science, 46, 717-732.

36.

Gershoff

E. T.

(2002). Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviors and experiences: A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 539-579.

37.

Giroux

H. A.

(2001). Pedagogy of the depressed: Beyond the new politics of cynicism. College Literature, 3, 1-32.

38.

Goff

P. A.

Steele

C. M.

Davies

P. G.

(2008). The space between us: Stereotype threat and distance in interracial contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 91-107.

39.

Green

(2015, August 26). When schools are forced to practice race-based discipline. The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/08/teachers-say-no-disparate-impact-discipline/402144/

40.

Green

Barnes

(1993). Discipline in secondary schools: How administrators deal with student misconduct (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 357-507). Muncie, IN: Ball State University.

41.

Gregory

Mosely

P. M.

(2004). The discipline gap: Teachers’ views on the over-representation of African American students in the discipline system. Equity & Excellence in Education, 37(1), 18-30.

42.

Gregory

J. F.

(1996). The crime of punishment: Racial and gender disparities in the use of corporal punishment in the U.S. Public Schools. Journal of Negro Education, 64, 454-462.

43.

Hibbing

J. R.

Theiss-Morse

(2001). What is it about government that Americans dislike? Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

44.

Huntsinger

C. S.

Jose

P. E.

(2009). Parental involvement in children’s schooling: Different meanings in different cultures. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 24, 398-410.

45.

Hurwitz

Peffley

(2005). Explaining the great racial divide: Perceptions of fairness in the US criminal justice system. Journal of Politics, 67, 762-783.

46.

Kaufman

Chen

Choy

S. P.

Peter

Ruddy

S. A.

Miller

A. K.

. . . Rand

M. R.

(2001). Indicators of school crime and safety (NCES 2002-113/NCJ-190075). Washington, DC: U.S. Departments of Education and Justice.

47.

Keiser

L. R.

Wilkins

V. M.

Meier

K. J.

Holland

C. A.

(2002). Lipstick and logarithms: Gender, institutional context, and representative bureaucracy. American Political Science Review, 96, 553-564.

48.

Kellman

S. G.

Prinz

Sheley

J. F.

(2000). Preventing school violence. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

49.

Kirk

Sampson

(2011). Crime and the production of safe schools. In Greg

Richard

(Eds.), Whither opportunity: Rising inequality, schools, and children’s life changes (pp. 397-418). New York, NY: Russell Sage.

50.

Krislov

(1974). Representative bureaucracy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

51.

Lawrence

P. A.

Olvey

S. K.

(1994). Discipline: A skill not a punishment. American School Board Journal, 181, 3-32.

52.

Leland

(2001, April 8). Zero tolerance changes life at school. The New York Times, p. ST1.

53.

Leone

P. E.

Christle

C. A.

Nelson

C. M.

Skiba

Frey

Jolivette

(2003). School failure, race, and disability: Promoting positive outcomes, decreasing vulnerability for involvement with the juvenile delinquency system. College Park, MD: EDJJ: The National Center on Education, Disability, and Juvenile Justice.

54.

Levitan

D. M.

(1946). The responsibility of administrative officials in a democratic society. Political Science Quarterly, 61, 562-598.

55.

Lewis

A. E.

Forman

T. A.

(2002). Contestation or collaboration? A comparative study of home–school relations. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 33(1), 60-89.

56.

MacNeil

Prater

Busch

(2009). The effects of school culture and climate on student achievement. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 12, 73-84.

57.

Mansbridge

(1999). Should blacks represent blacks and women represent women? A contingent “yes.” The Journal of politics, 61, 628-657.

58.

Marschall

M. J.

Ruhil

A. V. S.

(2007). Substantive symbols: The attitudinal dimension of black political incorporation in local government. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 17-33.

59.

Meier

K. J.

(1993). Representative bureaucracy: A theoretical and empirical exposition. In Perry

J. L.

(Ed.), Research in public administration (pp. 1-35). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

60.

Meier

K. J.

Nicholson-Crotty

(2006). Gender, representative bureaucracy, and law enforcement: The case of sexual assault. Public Administration Review, 66, 850-860.

61.

Meier

K. J.

Stewart

(1991). The politics of Hispanic education. New York: State University of New York Press.

62.

Meier

K. J.

Wrinkle

R. D.

Polinard

J. L.

(1999). Representative bureaucracy and distributional equity: Addressing the hard question. Journal of Politics, 61, 1025-1039.

63.

Mosher

(1986). Democracy and the public service (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

64.

Owen

S. S.

(2005). The relationship between social capital and corporal punishment in schools: A theoretical inquiry. Youth & Society, 37, 85-112.

65.

Papke

L. E.

Wooldridge

J. M.

(1996). Econometric methods for fractional response variables with an application to 401 (K) plan participation rates. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 6, 619-632.

66.

Park

(2014). The politics of redistribution in local governments: The effect of gender representation on welfare spending in California counties. Journal of Public Policy, 34, 269-301.

67.

Pitkin

(1967). The concept of representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.

68.

Pitts

D. W.

(2005). Diversity, representation, and performance: Evidence about ethnicity in public organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15, 334-349.

69.

Pitts

D. W.

(2007). Representative bureaucracy, ethnicity and public schools—Examining the link between representation and performance. Administration & Society, 39, 497-526.

70.

Powers

K. J.

Thompson

(1994). Managing coprovision: Using expectancy theory to overcome the free-rider problem. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 4, 179-196.

71.

Riccucci

N. M.

Van Ryzin

G. C.

Lavena

C. F.

(2014). Representative bureaucracy in policing: Does it increase perceived legitimacy? Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 24, 537-551.

72.

Riccucci

N. M.

Van Ryzin

G. G.

(2016). Representative bureaucracy and the willingness to coproduce: An experimental study. Public Administration Review, 76, 121-130.

73.

Roch

C. H.

Pitts

D. W.

Navarro

(2010). Representative bureaucracy and policy tools: Ethnicity, student discipline, and representation in public schools. Administration & Society, 42, 38-65.

74.

Rocha

R. R.

Hawes

D. P.

(2009). Racial diversity, Representative bureaucracy, and Equity in multiracial school districts. Social Science Quarterly, 2, 326-344.

75.

Ruck

M. D.

Wortley

(2002). Racial and ethnic minority high school students’ perceptions of school disciplinary practices: A look at some Canadian findings. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31, 185-195.

76.

Selden

S. C.

(1997). The promise of representative bureaucracy: Diversity and responsiveness in a government agency. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

77.

Shah

(2009). Racing toward representation: A hurdle model of Latino incorporation. American Politics Research, 38, 84-109.

78.

Sheets

R. H.

(1996). Urban classroom conflict: Student-teacher perception: Ethnic integrity, solidarity, and resistance. Urban Review, 28, 165-183.

79.

Sheley

J. F.

(2000). Controlling violence: What schools are doing? In Kellam

S. G.

Prinz

Sheley

J. F.

(Eds.), Preventing school violence: Plenary papers of the 1999 conference on criminal justice research and evaluation—Enhancing policy and practice through research (Vol. 2, pp. 37-57). Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs.

80.

Short

P. M.

Short

R. J.

Blanton

(1994). Rethinking student discipline: Alternatives that work. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

81.

Skarlicki

D. P.

Kulik

C. T.

(2004). Third-party reactions to employee (mis)treatment: A justice perspective (An Annual Series of Analytical Essays and Critical Reviews). Research in Organizational Behavior, 26, 183-229. doi:10.1016/S0191-3085(04)26005-1

82.

Skiba

R. J.

(2014). The failure of zero tolerance. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Problems: Reclaiming Children and Youth, 22(4), 27-33.

83.

Skiba

R. J.

Horner

R. H.

Chung

C. G.

Karega Rausch

May

S. L.

Tobin

(2011). Race is not neutral: A national investigation of African American and Latino disproportionality in school discipline. School Psychology Review, 40(1), 85.

84.

Skiba

R. J.

Michael

Nardo

Peterson

(2000). The color of discipline: Sources of racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment. Bloomington: Indiana University, Indiana Education Policy Center.

85.

Skiba

R. J.

Michael

R. S.

Nardo

A. C.

Peterson

R. L.

(2002). The color of discipline: Sources of racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment. The Urban Review, 34, 317-342.

86.

Steil

J. M.

(1983). The response to injustice: Effects of varying levels of social support and position of advantage or disadvantage. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 239-253.

87.

Sunshine

Tyler

T. R.

(2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law & Society Review, 37, 513-548.

88.

Theobald

N. A.

Haider-Markel

D. P.

(2009). Race, bureaucracy, and symbolic representation: Interactions between citizens and police. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, 409-426.

89.

Turney

Kao

(2009). Barriers to school involvement: Are immigrant parents disadvantaged? The Journal of Educational Research, 102, 257-271.

90.

Tyler

T. R.

(1990). The social psychology of authority: Why do people obey an order to harm others? Law & Society Review, 4, 1089-1102.

91.

Tyler

T. R.

(2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

92.

Tyler

T. R.

Wakslak

C. J.

(2004). Profiling and police legitimacy: Procedural justice, attributions of motive, and acceptance of police authority. Criminology, 42, 253-282.

93.

U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, & U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (2014, January). Dear colleague letter on the nondiscriminatory administration of school discipline. Retrieved from www2.ed.gov/ocr/letters/colleague-201104.pdf

94.

van den Bos

Lind

. (2001). The psychology of own versus others’ treatment: Self oriented and other-oriented effects on perceptions of procedural justice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1324-1333.

95.

Vavrus

Cole

(2002). “I didn’t do nothin’”: The discursive construction of school suspension. The Urban Review, 34(2), 87-111.

96.

Wallace

J. M.

Jr. Goodkind

Wallace

C. M.

Bachman

J. G.

(2008). Racial, ethnic, and gender differences in school discipline among US high school students: 1991–2005. The Negro Educational Review, 59, 47-62.

97.

Way

S. M.

(2011). School discipline and disruptive classroom behavior: The moderating effects of student perceptions. The Sociological Quarterly, 52, 346-375.

98.

Wooldridge

J. M.

(2002). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.