Implicit bias, or stereotypes and attitudes that may or may not reflect known positions, has been implicated in teachers’ disciplinary interactions with students; however not all of the differences in discipline severity by race are accounted for by teachers. School administrators have received little attention concerning implicit bias, although they are involved in the decision-making process that determines disciplinary outcomes.
Purpose
The present study sought to explore the influence of school principals’ and assistant principals’ implicit biases on the severity of discipline experienced by students of different races (evaluated using perceived racial stereotypicality).
Participants
Pennsylvania schools with at least 10 reported incidences of exclusionary discipline and 10–90% students of Color were invited to participate in this study, with a resulting sample of 43 administrators representing 22 schools nested in 7 school districts, accounting for 3,898 unique student behavioral incidents.
Research Design
This study employed a non-experimental, cross-sectional quantitative design using both collected and extent datasets.
Data Collection and Analysis
Student behavioral data and resulting outcomes were collected from schools using extant, student-blinded datasets and coded for analysis. Data on administrators’ implicit bias and demographics was collected via a short survey and online completion of the Implicit Association Test for Race. The data was analyzed separately for objective and subjective discipline decision-types, using hierarchical linear modeling.
Findings
The study yielded three major findings: (a) School administrators held pro-White implicit biases, (b) Administrators’ implicit bias accounted for differences in discipline severity by student race only for subjective discipline decision-types, and (c) Student race accounted for some of the differences in objective discipline decisions.
Conclusions/Recommendations
Implicit-bias remediation efforts in schools should be extended to school administrators involved in discipline decisions, and school policies must be evaluated for bias. Research should extend this study to increase sample size and district inclusion so that district-level differences are examined and evaluated for policy-level biases.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BellD. (1987). And we are not saved: The elusive quest for racial justice. New York, NY: Basic Books.
2.
BertrandM.ChughD., & MullainathanS. (2005). New approaches to discrimination: Implicit discrimination. AEA Papers and Proceedings, 952, 94—98.
3.
BlakeJ. J.SmithD. M.MarchbanksM. P.SeibertA. L.WoodS. M., & KimE. S. (2016). Does student-teacher racial/ethnic match impact Black students’ discipline risk? A test of the cultural synchrony hypothesis. In SkibaR. J.MedirattaK., & RauschM. K. (Eds.), Inequality in school discipline (pp. 79—98). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan US.
4.
BurgessD. J. (2010). Are providers more likely to contribute to healthcare disparities under high levels of cognitive load? How features of the healthcare setting may lead to biases in medical decision making. Medical Decision Making, 302, 246—257.
5.
BurgessD. J.BeachM. C., & SahaS. (2017). Mindfulness practice: A promising approach to reducing the effects of clinician implicit bias on patients. Patient Education and Counseling, 1002, 372—376.
6.
CostenbaderV., & MarksonS. (1998). School suspension: A study with secondary school students. Journal of School Psychology, 361, 59—82.
7.
DasguptaN., & AsgariS. (2004). Seeing is believing: Exposure to countersterotypic women leaders and its effect on the malleability of automatic gender stereotyping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 405, 642—658.
8.
DavisR.Infante-GreenA.PadilloR.SpringL., & ClarkP. (2017, May). Leadership/ research panel II. Panel presented at the Technical Assistance Center on Disproportionality Summer Institute, New York, NY.
9.
DelgadoR., & StefancicJ. (2017). Critical Race Theory: An introduction (3rd ed.). New York, NY: NYU Press.
10.
DevineP. G.ForscherP. S.AustinA. J., & CoxW. T. (2012). Long-term reduction in implicit race bias: A prejudice habit-breaking intervention. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 486, 1267—1278.
11.
FenningP., & RoseJ. (2007). Overrepresentation of African American students in exclusionary discipline. Urban Education, 426, 536—559.
GirvinE. J.GionC.McIntoshK., & SmolkowskiK. (2016). The relative contribution of subjective office referrals to racial disproportionality in school discipline. School Psychology Quarterly, 323, 392—404.
14.
GreenwaldA. G.NosekB. A., & BanajiM. R. (2003). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 852, 197.
15.
GulloG. L.CapatostoK., & StaatsC. (2019). Implicit bias in schools: A practitioner's guide. New York, NY: Routledge.
16.
Jacoby-SenghorD. S.SinclairS., & SheltonJ. N. (2016). A lesson in bias: The relationship between implicit racial bias and performance in pedagogical contexts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 63, 50—55.
17.
JostJ. T.RudmanL. A.BlairI. V.CarneyD. R.DasguptaN.GlaserJ., & HardinC. D. (2009). The existence of implicit bias is beyond reasonable doubt: A refutation of ideological and methodological objections. Research in Organizational Behavior, 29, 39—69.
18.
KahnK. B.GoffP. A., & GlaserJ. (2016). Research and training to mitigate the effects of implicit stereotypes and masculinity threat on authority figures’ interactions with adolescents and non-Whites. In SkibaR. J.MedirattaK., & RauschM. K. (Eds.), Inequality in school discipline: Research and practice to reduce disparities (pp. 189—205). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan US.
19.
KangJ., & LaneK. (2010). Seeing through colorblindness: Implicit bias and the law. UCLA Law Review, 58, 465—520.
20.
KreftI. (1996). Are multilevel techniques necessary? An overview, including simulation studies. Los Angeles, CA: California State University.
Ladson-BillingsG., & TateW. F. (1995). Toward a Critical Race Theory of education. Teachers College Record, 971, 47—68.
23.
LaiC.MariniM.LehrS. A.CerrutiC.ShinJ. E. L.Joy-GabaJ. A., & NosekB. A. (2014). Reducing implicit racial preferences: I. A comparative investigation of 17 interventions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1434, 1765—1785.
24.
LazarevicL. B. (2012). Relations between implicit and explicit measures of personality-prospects of Implicit Association Test (IAT) in assessment of basic personality traits (Doctoral dissertation). University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia. Retrieved from NaRDuS: National Repository of Dissertations in Serbia: http://nardus.mpn.gov.rs/bitstream/handle/123456789/3210/Disertacija.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
LuekeA., & GibsonB. L. (2015). Mindfulness meditation reduces implicit age and race bias: The role of reduced automaticity of responding. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 63, 284—291.
MaddoxK. B. (2004). Perspective on racial phenotypicality bias. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 84, 383—401.
29.
McCrayC. R.BeachumF. D., & YawnC. D. (2015). Stop suspending and start educating: Our future hangs in the balance. Journal of School Leadership, 252, 345—367.
30.
McIntoshK.GirvanE. J.HornerR., & SmolkowskiK. (2014). Education not incarceration: A conceptual model for reducing racial and ethnic disproportionality in school discipline. Journal of Applied Research on Children: Informing Policy for Children at Risk, 5(2), Article 4.
NosekB. A.GreenwaldA. G., & BanajiM. R. (2005). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: II. Method variables and construct validity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 312, 166—180.
33.
NosekB. A.GreenwaldA. G., & BanajiM. R. (2007). The Implicit Association Test at age 7: A methodological and conceptual review. In BarghJ. A. (Ed.), Automatic processes in social thinking and behavior (pp. 265—292). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
34.
NosekB. A.HawkinsC. B., & FrazierR. S. (2011). Implicit social cognition: From measures to mechanisms. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 154, 152—159.
35.
NosekB. A., & SmythF. L. (2007). A multitrait-multimethod validation of the Implicit Association Test: Implicit and explicit attitudes are related by distinct constructs. Experimental Psychology, 541, 14—29.
36.
OkonofuaJ. A., & EberhardtJ. L. (2015). Two strikes: Race and the disciplining of young students. Psychological Science, 265, 617—624.
37.
PerryB. L., & MorrisE. W. (2014). Suspending progress: Collateral consequences of exclusionary punishment in public schools. American Sociological Review, 1—21.
38.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S.CheongY. F., & CongdonR. (2011). HLM 7 for Windows [Computer software]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
39.
ReiseS. P., & DuanN. (2003). Multilevel modeling: Methodological advances, issues, and applications. New York, NY: Routledge.
SchnabelK.AsendorpfJ. B., & GreenwaldA. G. (2008). Using implicit association tests for the assessment of implicit personality self-concept. In BoyleG. J.MatthewsG., & SaklofskeD. H. (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Personality Theory and Assessment (Vol. 2, pp. 508—528). New York, NY: Sage. Retrieved from https://faculty.washington.edu/agg/pdf/Schnabel%20&%20al.Hbk_2008.proofs.pdf
42.
SimsonD. (2014). Exclusion, punishment, racism, and our schools: A critical race theory perspective on school discipline. UCLA Law Review, 623, 506—565.
43.
SingerJ. (1998). Using SAS PROC MIXED to fit multilevel models, hierarchical models, and individual growth models. Journal of Education and Behavioral Statistics, 244, 323—355.
44.
SkibaR. J.ArredondoM., & WilliamsN. T. (2014). More than a metaphor: The contribution of exclusionary discipline to a school-to-prison pipeline. Equity and Excellence in Education, 474, 546—564.
45.
SmolkowskiK.GirvanE. J.McIntoshK.NeseK., & HornerR. (2017). Vulnerable decision points for disproportionate office discipline referrals: Comparisons of discipline for African American and White elementary school students. Behavioral Disorders, 414, 178—195.
46.
SnijdersT. A. B., & BoskerR. J. (1993). Standard errors and sample sizes for two-level research. Journal of Educational Statistics, 183, 237—259.
47.
SnijdersT. A. B., & BoskerR. J. (2012). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling (2nd ed.). London, U.K.: Sage.
48.
StoetG. (2010). PsyToolkit: A software package for programming psychological experiments using Linux. Behavior Research Methods, 424, 1096—1104.
49.
TetlockP. E., & MitchellG. (2009). Implicit bias and accountability systems: What must organizations do to prevent discrimination?Research in Organizational Behavior, 29, 3—38.
Van den BerghL.DenessenE.HornstraL.VoetenM., & HollandR. W. (2010). The implicit prejudiced attitudes of teachers: Relations to teacher expectations and the ethnic achievement gap. American Educational Research Journal, 472, 497—527.
53.
WaltonG. M. (2014). The new science of wise psychological interventions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 231, 73—82.
54.
WarikooN.SinclairS.FeiJ., & Jacoby-SenghorD. (2016). Examining racial bias in education: A new approach. Educational Researcher, 459, 508—514.
XuF. K.LofaroN.NosekB. A., & GreenwaldA. G. (2018). Race IAT 2002–2017 [Dataset]. Retrieved from Open Science Framework site: https://osf.io/52qxl/
57.
YusufA. R.IrvineA., & BellJ. (2016). Reducing racial disparities in school discipline: Structured decision-making in the classroom. In SkibaR. J.MedirattaK., & RauschM. K. (Eds.), Inequality in school discipline (pp. 99—114). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan US.
