Search

Background/ContextImplicit 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.PurposeThe 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).ParticipantsPennsylvania 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 DesignThis study employed a non-experimental, cross-sectional quantitative design using both collected and extent datasets.Data Collection and AnalysisStudent 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.FindingsThe 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/RecommendationsImplicit-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.

School leaders in the United States must strive for equity in the increasingly diverse context of K-12 schools. Numerous studies link implicit bias with inequitable student access and academic and disciplinary outcomes (Gullo et al., 2019), both of which contribute to the School-to-Prison Pipeline. In addition to much work demonstrating the impact of teachers’ implicit biases on students, recent work by Gullo and Beachum (2017; 2020a) linked school leaders’ implicit biases to student disciplinary outcomes and explored this link through principals’ perspectives on the discipline decision-making process. A number of strategies can enable school leaders to reduce the impacts of leader and teacher implicit bias on students (Gullo et al., 2019). With a dual focus on individual and systemic strategies, the Justice for Bias Framework provides school leaders with tools for mitigating inequities that stem from biases in their schools. This framework centers strategies aimed at addressing biases in schools through leadership related to flexibility, relationships, and morality to create a leader-centered and school-inclusive platform for successful school equity endeavors (Beachum & Gullo, 2019; Gullo & Beachum, 2020b). This framework offers a tool for principal preparation programs and policy makers to use when designing systems that promote school equity.

Purpose: The gender gap in educational leadership is a national social justice issue. Despite efforts to increase the number of female superintendents in the US, representation remains low. This article investigates the career paths and perspectives of current and aspirant superintendents in Pennsylvania. Research Design: This mixed methods study used an electronic survey with both quantitative multiple choice items and qualitative open-response items. Findings: The gender gap persists Pennsylvania with possible perpetuation by female assistant superintendents’ disinterest in the positions. The insider path (ascending into the superintendency from inside the school district) was preferred and perceived as most optimal; however, more superintendents and assistant superintendents pursued outsider career paths (ascending into the superintendency from positions outside of the district). Aspirant superintendents considered insider paths most optimal due to interpersonal factors while superintendents based perceptions on intrapersonal factors. Outsider paths were most optimal based on applicant traits according to superintendents while assistant superintendents cited various drivers with no prominent theme. Superintendents chose insider paths due to interpersonal factors and outsider paths due to district traits. Conclusions: Similarities and differences in career planning preferences by men and women aspirant superintendents indicates an understanding by women of the insider path’s potential to overcome bias regarding women in leadership roles. As this career path is frequently not an option, women must choose not to aspire or to prepare themselves for possible gender bias in hiring when applying as outsiders.

Using data effectively is a critical skill for the modern school leaders. This case presents a school district where local interest groups are demanding changes regarding school safety and inclusion. Students have the opportunity to respond to a disciplinary equity audit and school climate survey. While interpreting and using data in a meaningful manner, students are challenged to evaluate the quality and efficacy of the presented data. The case also confronts students with race-related concerns that are often present in urban school districts. Students must exit their comfort zones in order to work as effective school leaders.

This chapter reviews the literature and provides a framework for understanding how and why implicit bias influences school discipline decisions. After introducing the intricacies of the school discipline inequity problem – especially for exclusionary discipline – situations where bias is more likely to affect disciplinary decisions are described. Research on how bias influences discipline both at the teacher and administrator levels is described before considering why such biases enter the decision-making process.