The present study examined how public school administrators negotiate discipline policies that are intended to protect the common good and the educational rights of students with disabilities. We investigated the political nature of these decisions and the strategies used in reaching them through interviews with administrators in 9 public high schools in New York State. Administrators were aware of a tension between individual rights and the common good when resolving discipline issues. The degree of tension was affected by a variety of factors including the way in which discipline hearings were conducted and the availability of resources. Finally, we found that administrators rely heavily on negotiating skills and processes as they implement policies that sometimes reflect competing democratic values.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AppleM.BeaneJ. (1995). Democratic schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
2.
AyersW.DohrnB.AyersR. (2001). Zero tolerance: Resisting the drive for punishment in our schools. New York: The New Press.
3.
BlackS. (1999). Locked out: Why suspension and expulsion should be your court of last resort. American School Board Journal, 186, 34–37.
4.
BogdanR. C.BiklenS. K. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
5.
BoyleP. (2004). School boards and public values. American School Board Journal, June, 22–27.
6.
BrantlingerE.JimenezR.KlingerJ.PugachM.RichardsonV. (2005). Qualitative studies in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 195–207.
7.
Civil Rights Project. (2000, June 15–16). Opportunities suspended: The devastating consequences of zero tolerance and school discipline policies. Report from the National Summit on Zero Tolerance, Washington, DC.
8.
DoyleL. H. (2002). Leadership and inclusion: Reculturing for reform. International Journal of Educational Reform, 11 (1), 38–62.
9.
DoyleL. H. (2003). Democratic leadership and students with disabilities: Discordant conversations but not incompatible. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 6 (2), 137–160.
10.
DrizinS. (2001). Arturo's case. In AyersW.DohrnB.AyersR. (Eds.), Zero tolerance: Resisting the drive for punishment in our schools (pp. 31–41). New York: New Press.
11.
DunnL. M. (1968). Special education for the mildly retarded—Is much of it justifiable?. Exceptional Children, 35, 5–22.
12.
EtscheidtS. (2006). Seeking an interim alternative education placement for dangerous or disruptive students with disabilities: Four burdens for the school district to meet. American Secondary Education, 34 (2), 67–84.
13.
General Accounting Office. (2003). Special education: Clearer guidance would enhance implementation of federal disciplinary provisions (GAO-03-550). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
14.
GerberM. M. (1996). Reforming special education: “Beyond inclusion.” In ChristensenC.RizviF. (Eds.), Disability and the dilemmas of education and justice (pp. 156–174). Philadelphia: Open University Press.
15.
GutmanA. (1987). Democratic education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
16.
HenigJ. (1996). The danger of market rhetoric. In LoweR.MinerB. (Eds.), Selling out our schools (pp. 8–11). Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools Institute.
17.
IdolL. (2006). Toward the inclusion of special education students in general education. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 77–94.
KaufmanP.ChenX.CheryS. P.PeterK.RuddyS. A.MillerA. K. (2001). Indicators of school crime and safety, 2000 (NCES Report 2001017, January 2000, Appendix A, pp. 133–134). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
20.
Ladson-BillingsG. (2001). America still eats her young. In AyersW.DohrnB.AyersR. (Eds.), Zero tolerance: Resisting the drive for punishment in our schools (pp. 77–85). New York: The New Press.
21.
MacMillanD. L.HendrickI. G. (1993). Evolution and legacies. In GoodladJ. L.LovittT. C. (Eds.), Integrating general and special education (pp. 23–48). New York: Merrill.
22.
MartinJ.MarshallL. H.SaleP. (2004). A 3-year study of middle, junior high, and high school IEP meetings. Exceptional Children, 70, 285–297.
23.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
SaffordP. L.SaffordE. J. (1998). Visions of the special class. Remedial and Special Education, 19, 229–238.
30.
SalisburyC. (2006). Principals' perspectives on inclusive elementary schools. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 31 (1), 70–82.
31.
SalisburyC.McGregorG. (2002). The administrative climate and context of inclusive elementary schools. Exceptional Children, 69, 259–274.
32.
SemmelM. I.GerberM. M.MacMillanD. L. (1994). Twenty-five years after Dunn's article: A legacy of policy analysis research in special education. Journal of Special Education, 27, 481–495.
33.
SkibaR. J. (2002). Special education and school discipline: A precarious balance. Behavioral Disorders, 27, 81–97.
34.
SkibaR. J.MichaelR. S.NardoA. C.PetersonR. L. (2002). The color of discipline: Sources of racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment. Urban Review, 34, 317–342.
35.
SkibaR. J.PetersonR. L. (1999). The dark side of zero tolerance: Can punishment lead to safe schools. Phi Delta Kappa, 80, 372–382.
36.
SkibaR. J.PetersonR. L. (2000). School discipline at a crossroads: From zero tolerance to early response. Exceptional Children, 53, 335–347.
37.
SkrticT. (2005). A political economy of learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 149–155.
38.
SugaiG.HornerR. (2002). The evolution of discipline practices: School-wide positive behavior supports. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 24, 23–50.
