Against the backdrop of the debate around exclusionary discipline practices, this case study asks readers to consider how leaders must balance autonomy with concerns about accountability and equity. In this case, a traditional public school principal in search of more autonomy accepts a principalship at a charter school, but as she attempts to change the school’s approach to student discipline, she discovers she may not have as much autonomy as she anticipated. This case can be used to help students unpack issues of autonomy for school leaders and grapple with the controversy surrounding exclusionary discipline.
ArsenD.PlankD.SykesG. (1999). School choice policies in Michigan: The rules matter. East Lansing: School Choice and Educational Change, Michigan State University.
2.
BarghausK. M.BoeE. E. (2011). From policy to practice: Implementation of the legislative objectives of charter schools. American Journal of Education, 118, 57-86.
3.
BerendsM. (2015). Sociology and school choice: What we know after two decades of charter schools. Annual Review of Sociology, 41, 159-180.
4.
Bulkley,K. E.WohlstetterP. (Eds.). (2004). Taking account of charter schools: What’s happened and what’s next?New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
5.
FinniganK. S. (2007). Charter school autonomy: The mismatch between theory and practice. Educational Policy, 21, 503-526.
6.
GawlikM. A. (2008). Breaking loose: Principal autonomy in charter and public schools. Educational Policy, 22, 783-804.
7.
GawlikM. A. (2012). Moving beyond the rhetoric: Charter school reform and accountability. The Journal of Educational Research, 105, 210-219.
8.
GolannJ. W. (2015). The paradox of success at a no-excuses school. Sociology of Education, 88, 103-119.
9.
GolannJ. W.TorresA. C. (2018). Do “No-Excuses” Disciplinary Practices Promote Success?Journal of Urban Affairs, 1-17.
10.
GregoryA.SkibaR. J.NogueraP. A. (2010). The achievement gap and the discipline gap: Two sides of the same coin?Educational Researcher, 39, 59-68.
11.
HuertaL. A. (2009). Institutional v. technical environments: Reconciling the goals of decentralization in an evolving charter school organization. Peabody Journal of Education, 84, 244-261.
LubienskiC. (2003). Innovation in education markets: Theory and evidence on the impact of competition and choice in charter schools. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 395-443.
14.
MavrogordatoM.GoldringE.SmrekarC. (2017). Charter school principals’ autonomy in the context of state accountability. In GawlikM. A.BickmoreD. L. (Eds.), Unexplored conditions of charter school principals: An examination of the issues and challenges for leaders (pp. 1-22). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
15.
PerryB. L.MorrisE. W. (2014). Suspending progress: Collateral consequences of exclusionary punishment in public schools. American Sociological Review, 79, 1067-1087.
16.
SkibaR. J.ArredondoM. I.WilliamsN. T. (2014). More than a metaphor: The contribution of exclusionary discipline to a school-to-prison pipeline. Equity & Excellence in Education, 47, 546-564.
17.
SteinbergM. P.LacoeJ. (2017). What do we know about school discipline reform?Education Next, 17, 44-52.
18.
WohlstetterP.WenningR.BriggsK. L. (1995). Charter schools in the United States: The question of autonomy. Educational Policy, 9, 331-358.
