Communicated by This article is being published on an expedited basis, as part of a series of emergency publications designed to help practitioners of applied behavior analysis take immediate action to address police brutality and systemic racism. The journal would like to especially thank Alison Szarko for their insightful and expeditious reviews of this manuscript. The views and strategies suggested by the articles in this series do not represent the positions of the Association for Behavior Analysis, International or Springer Nature.Guest Editor, Denisha Gingles
Accepted 2021 Jul 13. Copyright © Crown 2021The results of the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
This study expands the current research on anti-Black racism and student discipline in schools. It examines perception, experiences, and alternatives of zero-tolerance policies in education, in relation to the call for action by Black Lives Matter at Schools. Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) students are affected at a disproportionate rate when it comes to school discipline, leading to high, inequitable incarceration rates. However, behavior analysis already has powerful tools and interventions that can stop this “school-to-prison pipeline” effect. A survey of school professionals investigated awareness of adverse outcomes from zero-tolerance policies and the use of effective, behavioral alternatives to exclusionary disciplinary practices. Results confirmed zero-tolerance policies still exist in North American schools, but that school professionals, including behavior analysts, support Black Lives Matter at School’s call to end such practices. It is important to note that participants report already having the necessary skills to combat zero-tolerance; however, many still feel uncomfortable or ill-prepared to implement interventions specifically intended to decrease anti-Black racism in schools.
Keywords: accompliceship, anti-Black racism, applied behavior analysis, education, systemic racism, zero-tolerance
The most recent deaths of unarmed Black men and women at the hands of the police have underscored an ongoing systemic problem within our society and intensified awareness and outrage of racism and racial inequality. Such events draw attention to the barriers and disparate treatment that Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) individuals face across various life domains. Inequity and racism are not new; civil rights advocates have made calls for attention and intervention for hundreds of years. Yet, the sequence of current events, including a world-wide pandemic, has disproportionately affected BIPOC both physically and economically. The events stimulated a renewed sense of duty among behavior analytic professionals to advocate and act for change. The field of behavior analysis must be more involved in understanding racism and racist behavior at the individual and societal levels, and work as members of multidisciplinary teams to create change (e.g., Matsuda et al., 2020; Mattaini & Rehfeldt, 2020). Although professionals need to act across a variety of areas, reducing systemic racism in the educational system is particularly critical. Black students receive exclusionary discipline at an inequitable rate compared to white students. Their behaviors are often punished more severely with consequences that often lead to the criminal justice system (National Association of Education, 2020). With the inequity that exists with disciplinary actions in education, it is important to come together and build “accompliceship,” a critical component in the efforts to dismantle systemic racism and promote equal rights. Accompliceship is established through continued supportive efforts, involving being “explicit,” “accountable,” and “responsible” in taking direct actions of togetherness right beside individuals facing cultural injustices (Indigenous Action, 2014, “Acts of Resignation”).
In the 2013–2014 academic year, researchers estimated 2.6 million public school students received one or more out-of-school suspensions (U.S. Department of Education, 2019). Although Black students made up only 15% of the student population, they received as many as 39.3% of all out-of-school suspensions. The situation was particularly extreme for Black males; 17.6% of Black males received out-of-school suspensions compared to 9.1% of Native American/Alaskan Native males, 6.4% of Hispanic males, and 5.0% of white males. Although rates are lower for females, the pattern was the same. Black females are much more likely to experience out-of-school suspensions (9.6%) compared to Native American/Alaskan Native females (4.3%), Hispanic females (2.6%), or white females (1.3%). These patterns begin as early as preschool and continue across the students’ academic careers (Ontario Ministry of Education [OME], 2020; Owens & McLanahan, 2020). It is interesting to note that despite the significantly higher rates of out-of-school suspension for Black students, they are less likely than their Native American/Alaskan Native, Hispanic, or white peers to carry weapons to school They are equally or less likely to have access to illegal drugs at school (de Brey et al., 2019).
In addition to out-of-school suspensions, Black students are more likely to be expelled or referred to law enforcement (Civil Rights Data Collection, 2017). Black males comprised 23% of expelled students in the 2015–2016 academic year, and Black females comprised 10%, despite each group making up just 8% of enrolled students (16% total). Similar proportions exist for referrals to law enforcement, as Black students made up 31% of students involved in law enforcement referrals or school-related arrests. Although the specific reasons for suspensions, expulsions, and law referrals/arrests may vary, many directly tie to zero-tolerance policies that affect BIPOC students disproportionally to white students (American Psychological Association [APA] Zero-Tolerance Task Force, 2008).
Zero-tolerance policies to “mandate the application of predetermined consequences, most often severe and punitive in nature, that are intended to be applied regardless of the gravity of the behavior, mitigating circumstances, or situational context” (APA Zero-Tolerance Task Force, 2008, p. 852). However, there is not a singular definition. Though some situations may warrant serious consequences due to the level of risk to the student and the community, zero-tolerance policies prevent case-by-case analysis of risk, contextual variables, or consequences that may be in the best interest of students. Such policies fail to help students improve behavior, be successful, and stay in school. According to a report by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU, 2008), zero-tolerance policies have resulted in significant increases in suspensions, expulsions, and law enforcement referrals—often for minor offenses. In interviews, law officials raised concerns that schools often use zero-tolerance policies to “push out” students they deem as challenging. Such an approach is particularly concerning for Black students, because research indicates that the application of zero-tolerance policies leads to stricter punishments for all students. Yet, those punishments are applied differently across ethnicity (ACLU, 2020). In particular, school staff more often punish the objective behaviors of white students (e.g., smoking, vandalism, using obscene language). In contrast, they more often punish behavior of Black students such as “being disrespectful,” making “excessive noise,” or “acting threatening.” School professionals’ subjective interpretation of these behaviors (Losen, et al., 2015) contributes to biased and exclusionary discipline.
Just as definitions of zero-tolerance policies vary, so do the behaviors targeted and consequences applied by school systems. These discrepancies can lead to systemic racism in the education system, because biases and prejudice affect interpretation of behavior and selection of consequences. Zero-tolerance policies are often subjectively interpreted and implemented. Research suggests such variations in use specifically contribute to anti-Black racism, defined as “policies and practices rooted in institutions such as, education, health care, and justice that mirror and reinforce beliefs, attitudes, prejudice, stereotyping and/or discrimination towards people of Black-African descent” (Benjamin, 2003, as cited by Black Health Alliance, 2018). As a result, zero-tolerance has led to disproportionate rates of injustice for Black students, causing a school-to-prison pipeline in which students, predominantly Black males, are pushed into the criminal justice system through suspensions and expulsions (Bailey, 2017, p. 155; OME, 2020). The APA Zero-Tolerance Task Force (2008) indicated that bias affected the implementation of zero-tolerance policies, as handling of disciplinary issues was contradictory across student groups. School professionals can help end the school-to-prison pipeline, however. Understanding the intersectionality of zero-tolerance and anti-Black racism is a key step toward ending systemic racism in education.
Systemic racism may be one of the primary causes of disparity in education. Systemic racism (also referred to as institutionalized racism) is a system of assigning value and allocating opportunity based on skin color with an unfair allocation of privileges assigned to different individuals and groups, such as in education (APA, 2020; Matsuda et al., 2020). It is important to note that racism need not be “purposeful” by individual school personnel, but biased responding by many, even when done inadvertently or “unconsciously,” leads to systemic effects that are catastrophic for many students and communities. One push to eradicate systemic racism comes from the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement. The BLM movement originated in 2013, aiming to eradicate systemic racism and white supremacy, and to “build local power to intervene in violence inflicted on Black communities by the state and vigilantes” (BLM, 2020). Through this work, they draw attention to how systemic racism deprives BIPOC of fundamental human rights and dignity, in areas such as education (Howard, 2016).
BLM at Schools is a national coalition organizing for racial justice in education. The group cites several demands as critical to the movement, including “hire more black teachers,” “mandate black history and ethnic studies in the K–12 curriculum,” and “fund counselors, not cops” (BLM at Schools, 2020). Their first demand, however, is to end zero-tolerance discipline. The Canadian chapter of the movement also presents 11 developing movements in education, including public apologies, creating community healing spaces for BIPOC students that have experienced anti-racism in schools, and creating Black advisory and student council committees (Black Lives Matter-Canada, 2020). These efforts are all important but ending zero-tolerance is an urgent educational crisis.
Looking to dismantle systemic barriers to education, the OME (2020) conducted a review on anti-Black racism, discord in senior leadership, and governance issues within a mid-sized school district. The study confirmed that “there has been a historical, collective absence of a call to action to stop the harmful effects of anti-Black racism and to take responsibility for the poor outcomes” of BIPOC students (OME, 2020, p. 7). This review found that 2016 employee census data indicated only 25% racialized staff, countering the student body’s demographics (OME, 2020). Also, they found existing policies and procedures designed to guide police interaction in schools were not working. There was a need for greater accountability by school administrators to inform and consult with parents when implementing progressive discipline that may trigger police intervention (OME, 2020). Further findings suggested school administrators needed more training with deescalation and restorative techniques to reduce the need for police involvement in schools (OME, 2020).
The review found little evidence that parents of BIPOC students received notifications of exclusionary classroom measures or suspensions—even for students as young as preschool age (4 years old). More significant, however, is that school personnel did not consistently record suspension data, despite Ministry standards. Likewise, the school did not consistently report data on race; in several reports, individuals recoding the reasons for suspensions simply recorded other, without further description. In short, between 2013 and 2019, the OME (2020, p. 9) found that 78% of the secondary school suspensions and approximately 40% of elementary school suspensions (n = 20) did not meet the definition communicated by the MOE for the use of other incident codes. It is noteworthy that BIPOC youth reported they were held to higher standards and different codes of conduct in comparison to white or other racialized students (OME, 2020, p. 10). It is sad that this example is not unique. A similar report produced within the State of Missouri also found that data on student discipline is not easily accessible (ACLU, 2017), but based on available data, it was clear that Black students were disciplined differently than white students, with a higher proportion of Black students experiencing exclusionary discipline or referral to law enforcement.
The evidence shows that BIPOC students are affected at a disproportionate rate when it comes to school discipline and zero-tolerance policies (Bailey, 2017; Child Trends, 2017; Gastic, 2017, Harvard Civil Rights Project & Advancement Project, 2000; Howard, 2016; Ontario Human Rights Committee, 2020; OME, 2020). Therefore, alternative approaches are needed. The field of behavior analysis is not yet doing enough to address large-scale cultural variables of racism (Matsuda et al., 2020; Mattaini & Rehfeldt, 2020; Zarcone et al., 2019). Yet, behavior analysis is ideally suited to investigate and explain the contingencies maintaining inequities in schools. Behavior analytic professionals can help to end zero-tolerance policies through the development, implementation, and support of positive, restorative interventions.
Although the field of behavior analysis can contribute to eliminating anti-Black racism in education, we know too little about the current perceptions and experiences of professionals in school settings, as related to zero-tolerance policies, racism/racial inequality, or training and experience with alternative interventions. Gathering this data may reveal if school professionals already know about, use, and are comfortable with evidence-based, behavior science alternatives to zero-tolerance policies. To date, no study has investigated the experiences of school professionals implementing behavior analytic techniques to reduce racism, in alignment with the demand of BLM at School. To gather this information, a survey study was conducted.
Purposive sampling, a nonprobability sampling procedure, was utilized to set inclusion criteria for study participation. The study invited school staff members and behavior analytic professionals, working in school settings, to participate. School staff included professionals such as teachers, registered early childhood educators, psychologists, school administrators, licensed professional counselors, health care assistants. Behavior analytic professionals included Registered Behavior Technicians® (RBT®), Board Certified Assistant Behavior Analysts® (BCaBA®), Board Certified Behavior Analysts® (BCBA®), and Board Certified Behavior Analysts-Doctoral™ (BCBA-D™). Snowball sampling increased the number of potential participants, because the recruitment information encouraged individuals to share the invitation with others (Rea & Parker, 2014). Although this distribution method does not allow for a calculation of a response rate, it is consistent with other survey research conducted and disseminated within the behavior analytic literature (e.g., Taylor et al., 2019).
A survey, developed by the authors and set up in Qualtrics was used to collect data. It included questions both explicitly developed for this study and revised from the Anti-Racism Behavior Inventory (Pieterse et al., 2016). The survey consisted of 27 questions about: (1) participant demographics, (2) willingness to build accompliceship with BLM at Schools, (3) experiences with zero-tolerance policies personally and professionally, and (4) experiences discussing and intervening against racism and racial inequities in schools. Authors distributed recruitment information containing the survey link to potential participants via emails to professional contacts and through social media platforms (e.g., Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Pinterest, LinkedIn). The recruitment information encouraged individuals receiving the emails and/or viewing the social media posts to share the study information with anyone who might be interested. Participants completing the survey could choose to enter a lottery for a $50 Gift Card.
Following the completion of the survey, data were exported from Qualtrics and imported into SPSS ® , a statistical software used for data analysis. Authors reviewed the data to ensure that the transfer was complete and accurate (e.g., no data were missing or transferred incorrectly). Analyses included descriptive statistics, for the data set as a whole and for select cases as appropriate (e.g., only for participants who reported to be behavior analysts).
A total of 111 participants completed the survey. The majority of participants were over the age of 35 (n = 78, 70.3%) and preferred use of she/her pronouns (n = 94, 84.7%). In demographics, almost two thirds of participants reported white/Caucasian (n = 72, 64.9%), and the remaining one third reported BIPOC (n = 33, 29.7%). BIPOC individuals reported a variety of ethnicities, i.e., Asian (n = 9, 8.1%), Hispanic or Latino (n = 2, 1.8%), Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (n = 1, 0.9%), or other (n = 9, 8.1%), with 18 (16.2%) reporting to be Black or African American (see Figure Figure1). 1 ). Almost all of the participants (n = 107, 96.4%) indicated that English was their first language. A majority reported to be from the United States (n = 79; 71.2%) or Canada (n = 24; 21.6%). However, other regions were also represented, including Europe (2%), the Caribbean (2%), Asia/Pacific countries (1%), and Central and South America (1%). It is important to note that 2% (n = 2) of the participants who reported that they were not aware of zero-tolerance policies also indicated that they were from Europe, indicating the possibility of nonrepresentation.
Participant’s Race/Ethnicity Summary
In terms of professionals, participants included behavior analysts (i.e., BCaBAs (n = 1, 0.9%), BCBAs (n = 53, 47.7%), and BCBA-Ds (n = 11, 9.9%)), teachers (n = 27, 9.9%), occupational therapists (n = 1; 0.9%), and other professionals (n = 18, 16.2%) including RBTs, school psychologists, and school administrators. Note that these numbers do not add up to 100%, because some participants indicated more than one professional association. Consistent with the inclusion criteria, all participants reported having at least some experience working or consulting in schools, with a large number of participants (n = 80, 72.1%) reporting more than 5 years of experience within the school setting.
To assess the willingness of participants to build accompliceship the survey included several questions about the BLM in Schools movement. Of the 111 participants that completed the survey, 77 participants (69.4%) had heard of the call to action by BLM at Schools. In regard to level of support for BLM at Schools, almost three quarters of participants either agreed (n = 16, 14.4%) or strongly agreed (n = 64, 57.7%) that they would be supportive of the movement in schools (see Figure Figure2). 2 ). On the other hand, some disagreed (n = 4, 3.6%), strongly disagreed (n = 9, 8.1%), or were uncertain of their level of support (n = 13, 11.7%).
Summary of Key Results. Note. The information shown displays participant’s responses to each question category
The next set of questions explored participants’ experience with zero-tolerance policies in their school workplaces and opinions about the effectiveness and appropriateness of such policies. The beginning of the survey included a definition of zero-tolerance to ensure respondents understood the term in relation to the questions. Eighty-six participants (77.5%) reported that they were familiar with zero-tolerance discipline policies in schools before they participated in this survey. This result closely aligns with the number of participants who reported working in schools that had adopted zero-tolerance policies (n = 83, 74.8%). Regarding participant experience with zero-tolerance discipline, 42 participants (37.8%) indicated that they had worked in at least four schools that had a zero-tolerance disciplinary policy. Of the 111 participants, more than half (n = 62, 55.8%) indicated that zero-tolerance policies did not work well in schools. The majority either disagreed (n = 30, 27%) or strongly disagreed (n = 42, 37.8%) with the idea that zero-tolerance policies make schools safer or more effective in handling disciplinary issues. In comparison, only a minority of participants agreed (n = 9, 8.1%) or strongly agreed (n = 4, 3.6%) that this would be the case. Three participants (2.7%) indicated they preferred not to answer that question.
Almost half of participants either disagreed (n = 22, 19.8%) or strongly disagreed (n = 25, 22.5%) with the idea that schools and organizations should have zero-tolerance policies for some misbehavior, whereas one third of participants agreed (n = 27, 24.3%) or strongly agreed with this idea (n = 7, 6.3%); and over one quarter were uncertain (n = 30, 27.0%). Many participants reported that schools should not implement zero-tolerance policies for any problem behavior. In contrast, others supported or felt uncertain about the use of zero-tolerance in some situations.
The following section asked about participants’ professional experiences of zero-tolerance policies for BIPOC students, and their perceptions of the effects of these policies on their own children, if applicable. Just over one quarter of participants (n = 29, 26.1%) had children who attended schools with zero-tolerance policies. Of these participants, almost one quarter indicated that zero-tolerance policies had been positive (n = 4, 13.8%) or very positive (n = 3, 10.3%) for their children, whereas an equal number had indicated that the policies had been negative (n = 4, 13.8%) or very negative (n = 3, 10.3%). Over half (n = 15, 51.7%) stated that they were uncertain what the effects may have been. It is interesting that all participants reporting zero-tolerance policies as positive or very positive for their children identified as white. Regarding professional experience and perception of zero-tolerance policies for BIPOC students, over half of participants indicated zero-tolerance policies had a somewhat negative (n = 15, 13.5%) or negative (n = 52, 46.8%) impact. Although these findings suggest that participants’ personal experience with zero-tolerance policies may not have been negative for the majority, a large proportion indicated that they have at least a somewhat negative effect on BIPOC students Tables Tables1 1 and and2 2 .
Level of Agreement with Survey Questions
