When policy and psychology meet: Mitigating the consequences of bias in schools

Abstract

Harsh exclusionary discipline predicts major negative life outcomes, including adult incarceration and unemployment. This breeds racial inequality because Black students are disproportionately at risk for this type of discipline. Can a combination of policy and psychological interventions reduce this kind of discipline and mitigate this inequality? Two preregistered experiments (N experiment1 = 246 teachers; N experiment2 = 243 teachers) used an established paradigm to systematically test integration of two and then three policy and psychological interventions to mitigate the consequences of bias (troublemaker labeling and pattern perception) on discipline (discipline severity). Results indicate that the integrated interventions can curb teachers' troublemaker labeling and pattern prediction toward Black students who misbehave in a hypothetical paradigm. In turn, integration of the three components reduced racial inequality in teachers' discipline decisions. This research informs scientific theory, public policy, and interventions.

Copyright © 2020 The Authors, some rights reserved; exclusive licensee American Association for the Advancement of Science. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CC BY).

Figures

Fig. 1. Consequences of bias on discipline decisions without or with structural and psychological approaches for lasting change.

(A) Structural sources induce implicit and explicit bias among teachers. Structural conduits (the inability to get students’ perspectives) and mindset conduits (fixed beliefs about students and relationships) allow bias to breed troublemaker labeling and pattern prediction, leading to discipline disparities and causing a negative cycle. (B) Typical interventions attempt to shift discipline outcomes by mitigating bias itself. However, because structural sources of bias are overwhelmingly powerful and mechanisms by which bias acts are not affected, discipline outcomes do not shift, and the negative cycle continues. (C) The proposed model accepts that exposure to bias can be stable and instead intervenes to shift the structures and mindsets through which bias acts. It reduces discipline disparities, which further improves structures and mindsets, creating a virtuous cycle.

Fig. 2. Experiments 1 and 2 effects on troublemaker labeling and discipline severity.

Labels are as follows: experiment 1 (Growth, student growth treatment; Tech, technology control; Journal, journaling control; Perspective, student perspective treatment) and experiment 2 (Control, journaling control, technology control, and relationship-fixed control; Treatment, student perspective, student growth, and relationship growth; Black, student named Darnell; White, student named Greg). The error bars signify 95% CIs.