PRINCIPAL SENSEMAKING IN IMPLEMENTATION: HOW PERSPECTIVES
INFLUENCE OUTCOMES
By
Hugh McElroy Potter

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Education Policy – Doctor of Philosophy
2017

ABSTRACT
PRINCIPAL SENSEMAKING IN IMPLEMENTATION: HOW PERSPECTIVES
INFLUENCE OUTCOMES
By
Hugh McElroy Potter
The increasing rate of punitive school discipline, especially for students of color,
that remove students from the classroom through suspension or expulsion are a serious
concern for educators, school leaders, and policy designers. Students who are removed
from the classroom as a result of punitive disciplinary practices lose valuable learning
time; they exhibit social deficiencies, and suffer from overall declines in academic
abilities. Due to the negative outcomes of punitive school discipline practices for the
students, the implementation of innovative practices to address the growing rate of
discipline is considerably important. This study of the implementation of Culturally
Responsive Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports (CRPBIS) in the Bald
Mountain School District provides an important lens into how principal sensemaking
effects implementation. This study also provides an important lens into how an
innovative practice can be introduced within a school system. Understanding how
principals interpret and make sense of policy introduction and implementation is critical
when thinking about how innovative practices evolve from the design stage to the
implementation stage.
An important finding of this study is the identification of principal sensemaking in
implementation. Previous literature points out that principals are important for teacher
sensemaking, but there is an existing gap in the literature that identifies how principal
sensemaking of an innovative practice or program can impact the overall implementation

process. This study closes that gap slightly by identifying certain factors the effect
principal sensemaking and how that sensemaking, as seen in this study, can alter the
overall success of implementation. Furthermore, this study highlights how program
sensemaking can affect the velocity, the completeness, and the inclusion of stakeholders
in the implementation of CRPBIS and that those outcomes of interest are in some manner
predicated on principal sensemaking.
This dissertation argues that principal sensemaking mediates implementation and
that the velocity and vigor with which a program is introduced to the school is a factor of
the individual principal’s interpretation of the program’s need and benefits. This study
analyzes how three principals in one school district interpret and act upon district policy
initiatives to introduce CRPBIS in all schools across the district. While the
implementation was designed to be similar across all schools, program variation did
occur. The variation in implementation is a product of how school leaders introduced,
interpreted, and ultimately led implementation.

Copyright by
HUGH McELROY POTTER
2017

This dissertation is dedicated to my wife, Jodi, and my two sons, Drew and Lee.
Without your love and support, none of this would be possible.

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Without the support and guidance from my family, peers, and advisors this
dissertation would not be possible. A tremendous amount of appreciation is given to
those who stood by me, those who challenged me, and to those who helped me question
the world around us.
I must first thank my family for all that they have sacrificed to make this
educational journey a reality. Jodi, Drew, and Lee, you have made it possible to survive
and advance through each year, each challenge, and each setback. Jodi, I do not know
how you did it. I am not easy to be around when stressed out and the last five years have
known few days that were not stressful. You have made all of this possible with your
compassion, patience, and confidence in my ability to succeed. There are no words to
thank you, but I will try each day to find them. Drew and Lee, you guys are so awesome.
You have never known a day without me in school of some sort or another. Despite the
challenges of night classes, library days, and conferences, you have always been there
with a smile and a hug. Thank you so much for reminding me each day why this trek is
important and necessary. To my family, knowing that you were always there to support
me was the one thing that was constant in this journey. Thank you.
To my Dad and Mom, thank you for all the support along the way. It has been a
long journey, but I have always appreciated your support and love, even when I was
incapable of saying it as graciously as possible. To Cam and Cliff, as my older siblings
you set the tone and the expectations, I hope I have risen to the challenge.

vi

To grandparents, stepparents, non-parents who are parents, and to everyone else
who helped shape the person that I am today. From getting me up Shelter rope tow to
making sure that I was in class when I was supposed to be, thank you! Your unwavering
commitment to making sure that I had every opportunity possible will never go
unforgotten.
To my cohort of Education Policy students, you are an amazing group of scholars
and friends. Thank you for always challenging me to think deeper and for being there at
the end of class to commiserate about stats, politics, and the state of education. You, as a
cohort, have helped to make the transition from the classroom to the policy world a
possibility. With that said, I must thank Brian specifically. It has been an honor to make
this journey alongside you. I know of no one more committed to the schools and the
students that we aim to make better.
To the Michigan State University College of Education family, you are all
amazing. Dr. Sedlak, thank you for believing in me, I have tried each day to make sure
your decision to include me in this cohort was the right decision. There are no words to
explain my gratitude; I hope a heartfelt thank you will suffice for now. Dr. Yun, it has
been a great journey and I thank you for pushing me, for making me work harder, and for
being my advisor. To Drs. Chudgar, Flennaugh, & Weiland, thank you for serving on my
committee. To Drs. Halverson, Arsen, Maier, and Dunbar, thank you for being present to
help ensure that I understood and was able to grow as a scholar. It is much appreciated.
At the end of this journey, and what a journey it has been, I want to thank
everyone who I may have missed. You are appreciated and thanked for everything you
do. With that said, GO GREEN!

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

xii

KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS

xiii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Bald Mountain School District
School Principals
Objective
School Discipline
CRPBIS
Research Questions
Theoretical Framework
Diagnostic and Prognostic Frames
Cognitive Frameworks
Messaging
Worldviews
Localism

1
4
5
7
11
16
18
19
20
21
21
22
23

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Sensemaking
School Leaders
Challenge to Sensemaking
Implementation
Types of Implementation Actors
Cognitive Shifts
Organizational Capacity
Systemic Change
Local Actors
Features of Implementation
Factors in Implementation
Individual Agency
Setting for Implementation
Policy Understanding
Effort in Implementation
Frames
Prognostic and Diagnostic Frames
Cognitive Frameworks
Discipline
Historical Understandings of School Discipline
Impact of School Discipline

26
27
28
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
38
39
39
41
42
43
44
45
47
49
50
51

viii

Discipline Action in Practice
Prevalence of School Discipline
Discipline Forms
Disproportional Impact
Conclusion

53
54
55
55
58

CHAPTER 3: SETTING, METHODS, AND DATA
Setting
Bald Mountain School District
Participating Schools
Gore Range District
Data
Interviews
Methods
Interviews

60
60
60
62
65
67
68
74
74

CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF DATA
Why CRPBIS?
Culturally Responsive
Implementation
School Discipline History in BMSD
Research Question #1
Principal Interpretation
District vs. Local Goals
District Level Outcomes
Addressing Inequality
Systemized Approach
School Level Outcomes
Understanding of the Students
Framing of CRPBIS
The Role of Professional Development, Training, and Oversight
Professional Development and Cultural Responsive
Co-developed CR Practices
Conclusion
Research Question #2
Focus Placed on CRPBIS
Teocalli Elementary
Bo Buck Elementary
Monument Elementary
Stakeholder Engagement
Teocalli Elementary
Bo Buck Elementary
Monument Elementary
Funding Allocated
Adoption of CRPBIS
Energetic Adoption

78
78
80
81
84
85
87
88
89
90
93
96
97
101
104
106
107
108
109
112
113
115
118
121
122
123
124
125
126
127

ix

Resistant Adoption
Compliant Adoption
Research Question #3
Principal Sensemaking
Teocalli Elementary
Monument Elementary
Bo Buck Elementary
Principal Understanding of Impact
Teocalli Elementary
Monument Elementary
Bo Buck Elementary
Principal Action
Conclusion

128
130
132
134
136
137
140
142
142
143
144
145
149

CHPATER 5: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Principal Sensemaking Mediates Implementation
Program Variation
Introduction to CRPBIS
Program Interpretation
Recommendations
Expansive Inventory
Four-Year Implementation Plan
Year Zero
Year One
Year Two
Year Three
Implementation Funding
Full Time CRPIS Facilitators
Professional Development
Addressing Preconceived Beliefs
Continuity In Approach
Conclusion

151
153
155
156
159
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
170
171
171
172
173

APPENDIX

175

WORKS CITED

190

x

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1

BMSD: Elementary School Suspensions

4

Table 1.2

National Suspensions for All Students

11

Table 1.3

National Suspensions for African American and White Males

12

Table 1.4

BMSD: Students, Suspensions, and Suspensions Per Student

13

Table 1.5

BMSD: African American and White Student Suspensions

14

Table 3.1

District and School Populations

63

Table 3.2

Interview Participants

70

Table 3.3

Coding Patterns

73

Table 4.1

School Population Demographics

111

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1

Frames: Diagnostic and Prognostic

46

Figure 4.1

Implementation Expectations of BMSD

82

xii

KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS

BMSD

Bald Mountain School District

CR

Culturally Responsive

CRPBIS

Culturally Responsive Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports

GRD

Gore Range District

PBIS

Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports

PD

Professional Development

SAP

Student Assistance Provider

xiii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
During the 2015 – 2016 academic year, the Bald Mountain School District
(BMSD), a school district that is located in an urban location in a mid-size city in
America’s Midwest, began the process to implement a new approach to school discipline
that required principals in the district to interpret the language and impact of a new
policy. This new policy originated at the district’s central offices and was introduced in
each of the school buildings by the principal. It was the task of the principals to
implement the new policy and through their action the policy came to life in the
buildings. The principals are central actors in this new policy and their interpretation of
the policy and the policy goals are influential in the successful transition from the
traditional way of addressing student misbehavior to the new approach to school
discipline envisioned by the designers of the policy.
BMSD is attempting to implement a new approach to school discipline protocols
in an attempt to address the growing concerns about the incidence and severity of
discipline within the school district. School discipline has grown to become a national
discussion in the recent years and this district is not immune to the growing commentary
that school discipline is growing at a very fast rate. There are many reasons to address the
issue of school discipline sooner than later. A significant factor within the conversations
taking place regarding school discipline is the rate of discipline for non-majority students
and the overall incidence rate of punitive discipline for these students. It has been pointed
out by Bal (2016) that “regardless of the schools they attended, non-dominant youth were
disproportionality removed from the classroom due to behavior incidents” (p. 415). The
increase in the awareness of the disproportional rates of discipline for non-majority

1

students throughout the United States has led to many school districts to examine their
own discipline protocols and procedures. As one of these schools, BMSD is in the
process of a multi-year implementation of a relatively new approach to school discipline
that marries the practices and historical successes of Positive Behavior Interventions and
Supports (PBIS) to a culturally responsive (CR) approach to improve the overall climate
and culture in schools. This innovative form of discipline policy is known as Culturally
Responsive Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (CRPBIS). According to Bal
(2015) the program of “CRPBIS strives to increase equity within PBIS by educating
practitioners and opening up decision-making and problem-solving processes to
previously excluded families” (p. 8). By including families and other stakeholders,
CRPBIS leverages the involvement, input, and contribution of stakeholders and attempts
to bring the school and the home closer to one another when implementing a program
such as CRPBIS. This new program is designed to take into account the culture of the
students and the community in the development of new approaches to school discipline at
the local (individual school buildings and classrooms) level. Ideally, CRPBIS is a system
that is a “locally situated, ground-up systemic transformational model led and owned by –
not for – local stakeholders” (Bal, 2015, p. 11). The CRPBIS system allows for
individuals external to the central district offices to have ownership of the
implementation and use local expertise to introduce CRPBIS in a way that best fits the
local need. While this dissertation will look into the implementation of CRPBIS, the
effort in this study is not to look at the effectiveness of CRPBIS in reducing disciplinary
action taken by school leaders, this study is an attempt to better understand how
principals and their interpretation of the policy influences the overall implementation of

2

policy at the local setting. Principals are in a unique position to act as gatekeepers and
advocates (or resisters) of policy that is designed at the highest levels of the school
system. It is this positionality that requires considerable investigation and this study seeks
to address how principals can influence the implementation of policy. In this case,
CRPBIS is the vehicle by which the influence of principals in the implementation of
policy is explored.
The early implementation efforts and the experiences of those directly responsible
for the implementation of CRPBIS by the BMSD are the focus of this study. This study
will investigate the first two years of a five-year plan to introduce the new program.
Interviews with implementation leaders are utilized to understand and investigate the way
that individuals, at multiple levels of the educational system, perceive the need for
CRPBIS. Interviews will also explore how the outcomes envisioned by the policy
designers at the school district’s central offices occur at the local level. The data from the
interviewees will present an opportunity to explore how objectives and goals are achieved
at the local level, especially at the elementary school level.
Elementary schools are the focus of this study because of the increasing rate of
discipline referrals at this particular level of schools within BMSD. Using frame analysis
and sensemaking, this dissertation will seek to investigate the way in which individuals
make sense of and then act upon the implementation goals and policies of an recently
introduced program. Overall, this dissertation will seek to create clarity and
understanding into how local actors act as champions and facilitators in the
implementation and what fuels that action. This dissertation seeks to better understand

3

the implementation of CRPBIS across multiple buildings and how individuals influence
the local outcomes as a result of their interpretations and actions.
Bald Mountain School District
The BMSD school district is attempting to address a significant problem, the
increasing incidence of discipline referrals within the schools. The introduction of a
culturally responsive program is designed to reduce the growing problem of school
discipline within the district through a culturally responsive approach to the climate and
culture of the school building. This proactive step is being taken to address the overall
number of referrals for violations to the student code of conduct and the increasing
incidence of discipline that, unlike other grade levels, is on the increase over time and has
considerable affects upon students at the elementary level.
Table 1.1
BMSD: Elementary School Suspensions

2010-2011
2011-2012
2012-2013
2013-2014
2014-2015

Kindergarten 1st Grade
72
118
30
27
184
137
102
226
115
223

2nd Grade
101
32
137
226
223

3rd Grade
196
88
189
267
230

4th Grade
131
437
437
539
497

Note. Data for BMSD suspensions achieved from publically available End of Year
Discipline Report, August 6th, 2015
The district is assisted in the implementation effort by a local support organization
that provides support for district schools within the same geographic region in which
BMSD is located. This organization is known as the Gore Range District (GRD). The
objective in partnering with GRD is to leverage the external specialists from GRD in a
manner that can help facilitate the smooth transition to CRPBIS with professional

4

development opportunities and individualized support at each of the district’s 27 schools.
The implementation of CRPBIS is a district priority and is a district-led initiative, but it is
the GRD support that will allow BMSD to implement the program with guidance and
professional development in an on-going manner. The intended outcomes of the
implementation are to reduce school disciplinary action, discover new pathways to help
keep students in the classroom, and increase the learning time for the students. With these
objectives in mind, the overarching goal of this program is to reduce discipline for all
students, but also to increase the cultural responsiveness of BMSD.
School Principals
Within each of the school buildings that are part of this study, there is a principal
that is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the school building. Their
responsibilities are broad and encompass many aspects of the school’s operations. Each
of these principals has an individual history that can be influential in the overall
operations of the schools and the implementation of new policies. When looking at each
of the principals, their own personal histories and experiences seem to influence the
velocity in which the policy of CRPBIS is implemented. For example, Principal
Stenmark, principal of Teocalli Elementary School, was a relatively new principal.
Principal Stenmark, as an African American male, oversaw a school in transition and
composed of a diverse (ethnically and economically) group of students. The transition of
this school included the academic focus and the behavioral expectations. As a relatively
new principal in the BMSD system, Principal Stenmark was able to introduce new policy
initiatives without the baggage of history that could slow the overall implementation of
policy. Second, as a newer principal, Principal Stenmark also was able to look at school

5

data without the influence of historical knowledge guiding action. In this example, it
important to note the Principal Stenmark was desirous of making a positive impact on the
school, but was also empowered to act as an agent of change without the entanglements
of historical policy actions.
In a second school, Bo Buck Elementary, the most senior principal of the school
district oversaw the introduction and implementation of this new policy, CRPBIS.
Principal Mahre worked along with the school team to ensure a complete understanding
of the policy through a detailed analysis of the material, meaning, and overall impact of
the new policy. As such, Principal Mahre relied on historical knowledge and experience
to guide the overall implementation of CRPBIS in the school. This reliance on historical
knowledge and experience may have slowed the velocity with which the policy was
implemented, but it did not detract from the effort to ensure that the policy, as
implemented, would meet the expectations of the district and provide the benefits of the
policy as envisioned by the policy designers.
In the third school, Monument Elementary School, the principal of the school
(who was a former teacher in BMSD) acted in a different manner. A manner that ran
askew of the main goals of the school system. In this school, the principal had been part
of a long-standing effort to introduce another program that addresses student behavior
and this involvement led to, in the words of the principal, a much similar approach but
not specifically the approach mandated by CRPBIS. Due to this, Principal Madsen acted
in a way that privileged the alternative program as opposed to CRPBIS. While this is not
the desired action from the perspective of the district, Principal Madsen believed that the
best path forward for the school was to continue that school’s trajectory in the

6

implementation and continuation of the alternative behavioral program. This was based
upon the assertion, by the principal that the best programming comes from the classrooms
and not central offices. The school building had a long-standing approach to discipline
led to the slower implementation of CRPBIS, but did not detract from the effort to
address student behavior. Overall, this particular principal did have strong feelings about
the implementation of CRPBIS, but these feelings did not take away from the effort to
improve the overall climate and culture of the school. The approach taken by the school
attempted to leverage historical practice as the method through which student behavior
was addressed.
Overall, the three principals of this study bring to the implementation effort a
wide variety of experiences and beliefs. This variety of personal backgrounds and
perspectives do have influence on the way in which the district policy was implemented
in the early years of the implementation of CRPBIS. Policy, as envisioned by the
designers, is subject to multiple perspectives and interpretations. In this study, the
perspectives and interpretations of the principals of the school district influenced the
implementation of the new behavioral policy.
Objective
The objective of this dissertation is to explore and investigate the implementation
of the CRPBIS program to address student behavior. This dissertation will examine the
implementation of the program by exploring how implementers frame the need for
CRPBIS and the individual sensemaking that occurs during implementation of CRPBIS.
An attempt will be made to comprehend how sensemaking and understanding affects
individuals’ understanding and the actions of the principals in the implementation of

7

CRPBIS. To better understand how sensemaking and frames impact implementation, I
will explore the framing and frames used by school district and local school leadership
teams in the implementation of CRPBIS within a singular school district. Semi-structured
interviews at multiple levels will be conducted to better ascertain how individuals
perceive the implementation goals and principle objectives of introducing CRPBIS to the
entirety of the school district.
CRPBIS builds upon the framework created by Positive Behavior Intervention
and Supports (PBIS), which is already in place in many schools throughout the nation,
including many schools in BMSD. PBIS is a system designed to encourage positive
behaviors through a system of rewards and frameworks that help students reach the
overall achievement of behavioral expectations within the schools. The culturally
responsive piece to this framework is relatively new and in the formative stages of
implementation in schools across the United States. A good working definition of
culturally responsive efforts is presented by Sue, Arredondo, and McDavis (1992) who
posit that culturally responsive efforts are seen as an ability to be aware of one’s own
assumptions, be able to understand the worldviews of a culturally different subgroup
within the dominant population, and the ability to develop appropriate intervention
strategies.
The implementation of CRPBIS is a result of a decision by the school district in
this study to introduce a policy that is designed to address existing overuse of punitive
disciplinary action upon students who violate the school districts’ code of conduct. Prior
to implementation of CRPBIS, violations of the code of conduct in the schools resulted in
disciplinary action that include a variety of sanctions that ranged from warnings to lunch

8

detentions, from suspensions and ultimately to expulsion. The stated intention of the
district in the implementation of CRPBIS is to introduce an approach to disciplinary
action that reduces the incidence of suspensions and expulsions for the students through
greater cultural understanding.
Prior to the implementation of CRPBIS, the school district in this study did not
actively engage with local the community (principals, teachers, and other school
stakeholders) in the design and deployment of the school district’s discipline policy.
Discipline policy, historically, was designed within the central district offices rather than
inside the schools. The school administrators, in reaction to the violations of the school
district’s umbrella code of conduct, applied the discipline policies set forth by the central
office of the school district. This separation between designers and actors in the school
discipline policy arena (both adults and students) produced a top-down approach in
discipline policy for the student population within BMSD.
Due to the traditional top-down nature of school discipline in BMSD, central
theme of this dissertation will be an investigation into the interpretation of the frames and
the sensemaking of the school officials that shape CRPBIS implementation by school
leadership teams. Goffman (1974) describes frames as a theoretical construct “that is seen
as rendering what would otherwise be a meaningless aspect of the scene into something
that is meaningful” (p. 21). Thus, it is important include the individual framing of
CRPBIS at the forefront of the study of the current implementation. Building upon the
conception that frames are used as a way in which individuals assign importance to
particular events, I will utilize Spillane’s (1996, 1999, 2000) cognitive framework in an
effort to understand the intent, purpose, and interpretation of policy goals and messaging

9

from district leadership in the implementation of a culturally responsive behavioral
management system. In addition to utilizing Spillane’s cognitive framework, I will draw
upon Coburn’s (2001, 2005) conception that individual and group sensemaking by
teachers and school leaders is vitally important to the overall success or failure for the
introduction of a new policy mandate within a school system. Through the use of
cognitive frames and the application of sensemaking, it will be possible to explore how
the individual interpretation of a district policy by school building leadership influences
and shapes the implementation of a particular policy. As McLaughlin (1987) points out,
“policy at best can enable outcomes, but in the final analysis it cannot mandate what
matters” (p. 173). As such, it is of critical importance in the investigation of the
implementation of CRPBIS to explore how individuals at the local level frame the
CRPBIS policy and then proceed to implement the objectives of the policy of school
district leadership.
Understanding how individuals, at multiple levels, perceive the need for and
potential outcomes for the implementation of a culturally responsive approach to school
discipline will help to better conceptualize how local actors implement policy in a local
school setting. The collaborative efforts by school district officials, local school leaders,
and the facilitators from GRD in this implementation are critical to the implementation of
CRPBIS and will be investigated to determine the success and challenges associated with
implementation of CRPBIS. Ultimately, this study will look into how individuals
interpret the need for culturally responsive discipline practices and the impact that a
culturally responsive approach can have in reducing school discipline referrals.

10

School Discipline
School discipline, particularly in the form of suspensions and expulsion, is on the
rise across American schools. The number of students affected by suspension or
expulsion nearly doubled from 3.7 percent of the student population in 1974 to 7.1
percent of the students in 2006 (Brownstein, 2010). Reports by the Office For Civil
Rights (2000, 2004, 2006, 2009-2010, and 2011-2012) indicate an increase in the use of
school suspensions over time. As shown in the table below, it is clear that the overall
number of suspensions, and the raw calculation of suspensions per student, is on the rise,
including an increase of over one million more incidents in a two year period from 2009
– 2010 to 2011 – 2012, over the twelve-year period that is covered by the data that is
collected provided by the Office for Civil Rights.
Table 1.2
National Suspensions for All Students

Suspensions
Student
Population
Suspensions
per student

2000
3,053,449

2004
3,279,745

2006
3,328,754

2009-2010
4,335,145

2011-2012
4,111,348

46,306,355

48,139,804

48,497,767

48,273,920

49,605,534

.066

.068

.069

.090

.083

Note. Data for this table is adapted from the National and State Estimates for each of the
above data cycles. I calculate the suspensions per student metric by dividing the total
number of suspensions by the total student count
It is also interesting to note that over the same period of time, research has shown
that school discipline has been found to affect minority students more regularly, and more
severely, than students of the non-minority population in America. Using longitudinal
data from the Office for Civil Rights, it is clear that this trend of disproportionate impact
11

is continuing for African American males for the 2011-2012 school year; showing that
African American males are subject to suspension more frequently than their White
counterparts per capita. This differential pattern of discipline is “widely documented and
a well-known reality of the U.S. public school system” (Vincent, Randall, Cartledge,
Tobin, & Swain-Bradway, 2011). The trend clearly shows that across many years, the
risk of punitive discipline for students who are not African American is clearly higher
than for those that are white.
Table 1.3
National Suspensions for African American and White Males

National Suspensions for African American Males

Suspensions
Student
Population
Suspensions
per student

2000

2004

2006

2009-2010

2011-2012

692,426

784,917

788,343

614,252

595,388

3,989,384

4,128,695

4,222,890

4,114,188

4,029,005

.175

.190

.189

.149

.148

National Suspensions for White Male
Suspensions
Student
Population
Suspensions
per student

2000

2004

2006

2009-2010

2011-2012

1,085,085

988,669

939,843

666,087

582,668

14,694,085

14,502,371

14,107,371

13,760,109

13,235,780

.074

.068

.067

.048

.044

Note. Data for this table is adapted from the National and State Estimates for each of the
above data cycles. I calculate the suspensions per student metric by dividing the total
number of suspensions by the total student count.

12

In the district to be studied, according to district published data, in opposition to
the national data, the raw number of suspensions issued to students has decreased over
the last five years (Bald Mountain School District, 2015).
Table 1.4
BMSD: Students, Suspensions, and Suspensions Per Student

2010-2011

Total number of
students
13399

Total number of
students
7178

Suspensions per
student
0.54

2011-2012

13183

6768

0.51

2012-2013

12463

6265

0.50

2013-2014

12189

5011

0.41

2014-2015

11695

4565

0.39

Note. Data for suspensions achieved through the End of Year Discipline Report, August 6th, 2015 & other
publically available data. I calculate the suspensions per student metric by dividing the total number of
suspensions by the total student count

At the same time that suspensions for all students are on the downward trend (it is
important to also note the loss of student population during the same time period, which
continued into the 2015-2016 school year to 11,155 students in the district) within this
district, the same cannot be said for African American students. For example, African
American students are being suspended, per capita, at a greater rate than White students
within the district (Lansing School District, 2015), which is more in line with the national
data trends. The chart below identifies an almost 1:1 ratio between students and

13

suspension for African American males, but considerably smaller ratios for White
students in the BMSD.
Table 1.5
BMSD: African American and White Student Suspensions

Suspensions

2010-11
3096

African American Male
2011-12
2012-13
2855
2626

2013-14
2023

2014-15
1839

Total Students

3132

2859

2631

2575

2418

Suspensions/student

.989

.998

.998

.786

.761

White Males
2010-11
925

2011-12
925

2012-13
810

2013-14
239

2014-15
636

Total Students

2207

2089

1906

1843

1674

Suspensions/student

.419

.443

.425

.130

.380

Suspensions

Note. Data for suspensions achieved through the End of Year Discipline Report, August
6th, 2015
Some scholars argue that the rise in suspension and expulsion being experienced,
nationally, by minority students in the 2000s is the by-product of a growing cultural
mismatch between the leadership in the school (e.g., teachers, disciplinary officials, and
school administration) and the students. Bal (2015) argues that, “students and families
bring complex experiences, skills, and goals to this task [education] that may or may not
fit the expectations, dispositions, and disciplined knowledge schemas they encounter in
schools” (p. 4). Noguera (1995) and Bal (2015) further argue that stereotypes of the

14

student population, in the eyes of administrators and teachers, are the product of an
unfamiliarity with the lives that students live outside the school. As such, it is important
to be cognizant of the ultimate goal and purpose for the implementation of CRPBIS in
BMSD, which is to infuse and integrate cultural awareness into the design of the school
code of conduct.
As is exhibited in the data above, in recent years within the BMSD, there is a
stark difference in the suspension rates locally for African American students when
compared to White students. The BMSD has determined that addressing the differences
in discipline between subgroup populations is a priority for the district. The manner in
which this district is choosing to address the disproportionate differences in school
discipline is through the implementation of CRPBIS. According to the school district,
“there is reason to be optimistic that this trend [decreasing suspensions] will continue
with the implementation of Culturally Responsive Positive Behavioral Intervention
Strategies” (Lansing School District, 2015).
At the national and local level, the growing incidence of suspensions and
expulsions for minority students, in particular African American students, is of
considerable concern for school districts and local communities. Studies have
documented that there are differences in the rates of suspension for African American
students when compared to Whites. One such study by Bal (2016) found that in
Wisconsin, African American students were seven times more likely to be suspended
compared to white students over a five year period, from 2006 - 2007 to 2011 – 2012
(p.414). Using data from the United States Department of Education’s Office for Civil
Rights, the national gap in suspension between African American and White students in

15

the year 2000 was eight percent higher for African Americans and in 2006 that gap was
ten percent higher compared to White students (United States Department of Education:
Office for Civil Rights, 2000, 2006). For male students, the gap in suspension for African
Americans in 2000 was eight percent higher compared to White students and in 2006 the
discipline gap had increased to ten percent (United States Department of Education:
Office for Civil Rights, 2000, 2006). The differential discipline results for African
American students in schools are of great concern for policy makers and school leaders.
This has fueled the increase in actions by school districts to address disproportional
discipline in schools, for example the implementation of CRPBIS.
CRPBIS
The evolution of CRPBIS from PBIS is rooted in the need to acknowledge the
cultural differences that exist within the schools. From teachers to students and students
to other students, the cultural diversity in schools is an ever-increasing challenge for
schools to address. Bal (2015) argues that “the CRPBIS framework lays out how (italics
in original) culture matters” in the educational sphere. CRPBIS is a system of school
level supports and protocols that relies on acknowledging the diversity of the school
building, the need for individual cultural self-awareness, the increase of cross-cultural
interactions, and the development of interventions that reflect a greater understanding of
cultural diversity (Utley, Kozleski, Smith, & Draper, 2002). Vincent et al. (2011) argue
that in-classroom discourse is a factor in the development of a culturally responsive
approach to school discipline. As Vincent et al. (2011) point out, a simple request by a
teacher for the students sit quietly and do the work assigned can introduce a social order
that is ascribed to by the school adults, but may not be representative of the students’

16

lives outside of school. Asking students to act in a way that helps the class run efficiently
may seem to be culturally neutral, but is also, “implies the intention of maintaining the
school’s institutionalized order, establishing the teacher’s authority over her students”
(Vincent et al., 2011, p. 221). This establishment of order over understanding is a primary
concern for those who are interested in how marginalization occurs and, related to this
study, how the district can address the disciplinary structure that currently exists through
the implementation of CRPBIS.
By introducing a system of behavioral management that provides educational
benefits (e.g., increasing classroom attendance, reducing office referrals, and increasing
student engagement), it is believed that CRPBIS will enable teachers and schools to build
and maintain a disciplinary system and framework that could potentially lead to the
improvement of individual achievement levels and led to classrooms with fewer
behavioral interruptions.
Any effort to combat the impact of cultural misunderstandings between the
teachers and the students requires that schools adopt new forms of interventions for
student misbehavior. A growing theory among schools and researchers is to apply the
tenets of Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) to a culturally relevant
model of intervention. CRPBIS is a program of behavioral management and professional
development that has evolved from the PBIS model to “acknowledge the presence of
culturally and linguistic different (CLD) students and the need for them to find relevant
connections among themselves and with the behavioral goal and objectives that schools
ask them to perform” (Banks & Obiakor, 2015, p. 85). CRPBIS, as an extension of the
foundation built by the PBIS program, seeks to introduce alternative methods to changing

17

student behavior. CRPBIS is designed to develop the school community’s ability to
examine and build upon the social strengths of the community to design approaches for
sustaining positive behavioral skills (Banks & Obiakor, 2015). A key aspect of CRPBIS
is the incorporation of community stakeholders in the design, structure, and objectives in
the creation and implementation of school behavioral expectations. These stakeholders
include school building leaders, school district leadership, and members of the
community. The adaptation of traditional PBIS systems to address cultural differences
between students and teachers is an important step in the attempt to reduce the disparities
in discipline for minority students. As such, it is vital to investigate the implementation of
CRPBIS to determine the influence of cultural awareness in schools as it relates to the
improvement of classroom climate and ultimately the impact of disciplinary action upon
minority populations.
Research Questions
As the development and implementation of the CRPBIS model for behavior
intervention proceeds within BMSD, there will be three central research questions that
will be investigated:
1. In what ways do stakeholders responsible for implementation frame the need
for and potential benefits of CRPBIS as a form of behavioral interventions?
a. What differences exist in the framing of CRPBIS across central office
and elementary school personnel?
b. In what ways do these individual framings change as a result of
professional development, training, and oversight in the
implementation of CRPBIS?

18

2. What variations and similarities exist in CRPBIS implementation across
elementary schools?
a. To what degree do stakeholders attribute the variations in
implementation to differences in their framing of the problem
b. To what degree do stakeholders attribute variation in the
implementation of CRPBIS to localized challenges to implementation?
3. To what degree does individual sensemaking about CRPBIS explain
implementation variation at both the central office and school levels?
The three research questions that will drive this dissertation seek to understand the
critical components of policy implementation. The first question will seek to identify and
track the changes in how individuals think about the CRPBIS program as a form of
behavioral intervention over time. In response to how individuals think about CRPBIS,
the second question will seek to explore how implementation evolves in the schools and
how stakeholder (school building leaders, district leaders, and ISD leaders) action
influences the implementation of CRPBIS. The third, and most critical aspect to this
study, question will seek to identify and make sense of the way in which various actors,
at multiple levels, make sense of and interpret the implementation of CRPBIS and then
act upon those notions in their efforts to implement CRPBIS. Understanding how
sensemaking leads to variation in implementation is of great interest.
Theoretical Framework
Understanding how frames and framing are central actors in the attempt to utilize
CRPBIS as a form of behavioral intervention will give shape to this study. The utilization

19

of the role of frames is to compartmentalize the interview data, which will enable the
appraisal of individual notions of how behavioral problems are understood. Frames will
provide a lens to understand how individuals interpret and enact the trainings and
professional development related to the implementation of CRPBIS and the potential
variation of individual frames over time. Frames, as defined by Goffman (1974) are a
system of constructs that place meaning and structure to everyday occurrences, and will
be important in the investigation of how stakeholders interpret and make sense of
CRPBIS. Goffman (1974) asserts that frames and frameworks are a form of interpretation
and allow individuals to “locate, perceive, identify, and label a seemingly infinite number
of occurrences” (p. 21) into individually significant spaces. Benford and Snow (2000)
further articulate Goffman’s (1974) conception of frames by positing that frames are a
“schemata of interpretation” (p. 614) and that frames “help to render events or
occurrences meaningful and thereby function to organize experience and guide action”
(p. 614). As such, frames, as defined by Goffman (1974) and Benford and Snow (2000)
are the pathways through which individuals make sense of events. Frames, as created by
individuals, based upon their experiences and beliefs about a particular concept, function
to create understanding for individuals. Subsequently, and building upon the basic
conception of frames, Benford and Snow (2000) identify two specific categories of
frames, diagnostic and prognostic (p. 615). Diagnostic and prognostic frames provide a
structure for framing that allows for the allocation of perceptions and understandings into
coherent buckets for further analysis.
Diagnostic and Prognostic Frames. Diagnostic frames are those that enable
problem identification and attributions of particular issues (Benford and Snow, 2000).

20

Prognostic frames are those mindsets or worldviews of individuals that allow for the “the
articulation of a proposed solution to the problem, or at least a plan of attack, and the
strategies for carrying out the plan” (Benford and Snow, 2000, p. 616). Prognostic frames
are the way in which individuals the future impact of an innovation. By leveraging these
two overarching types of frames, diagnostic and prognostic, it will be possible to
categorize the beliefs and actions of participants in the implementation of CRPBIS into
smaller frames of reference and understanding that are situated within these two larger
constructs that will be the central investigation of this dissertation.
Cognitive Frameworks. Further developing upon the concept of frames, I will
rely on the work of Spillane (1996, 1999, 2000) to develop an understanding of the
cognitive frameworks that are in place among school leaders. This will allow for the
investigation into how individuals interpret and act upon the policy goals as stated by
district leadership and allows for the investigation into the interpretation of the goals and
objectives by implementers through the worldviews and sensemaking activities (Coburn,
2001, 2005; Coburn, Toure, & Yamashita, 2009) of those responsible for the
implementation of the CRPBIS policy goals. By merging the theoretical frameworks of
program implementation and the personal action of sensemaking it will be possible to
analyze how individuals make sense of, interpret inputs, and implement the goals of
policy makers who seek to improve the behavioral environment of the classroom over
time.
Messaging. Messaging and dialogue between the BMSD and the individual
schools is considerably important. How the BMSD leadership and the support specialists
from GRD announce and support the implementation of CRPBIS within the schools is

21

important to the implementation and how school leaders understand the purpose and
importance of the introduction of CRPBIS. Spillane (1999) argues that, “language is key
in this process because it is the chief medium that policymakers have for representing
their ideas” (p. 155) to those who will be responsible for implementing the policy at the
local level. The new culturally responsive approach to classroom management and
disciplinary actions represents a cognitive shift, in comparison to traditional methods of
behavioral management, in the district. As such, the cognitive process, or working
knowledge (Coburn et al., 2009) of implementers provides clues to how the signals and
messages put forth by the district leadership are interpreted by individuals. A key factor
in this language or messaging of goals and outcomes is the manner in which the CRPBIS
policy is couched in familiar terms and approaches to classroom management that
provides a level of comfort for implementers (Spillane, 2000).
Worldviews. Second, the investigation of the implementation of CRPBIS will
provide a vantage point to identify how specific cognitive views (e.g., the definition of
culture, the interpretation of the purpose of discipline, and the impact of discipline upon
frequently suspended students) influence the implementation of CRPBIS to promote the
benefits of a culturally responsive approach to classroom management. As such, a
particular effort in this study will be to investigate the primary objectives (or overarching
agenda) of the stakeholders as viewed through individual interviews. The discrete
objectives, and the ensuing focal points for implementation, will help to identify the root
cause, intended goals, and the desired outcomes of introducing CRPBIS within the
schools. Using these cognitive interpretations as a focus of investigation will provide the
pivotal data points to understand how teachers and building leaders begin to pursue a

22

deeper understanding and interpretation of how this policy is implemented within the
school district.
The description and perception of how to effectively reduce the level of
disciplinary action in the classroom is essential to understanding how the policy goals of
the district will be implemented by those most responsible for its success, the building
leadership. The use of frames will provide the initial framework and structure for
investigation to the design, delivery, and application of CRPBIS in the schools.
Localism. Last, because the implementation of the CRPBIS policy is predicated
on the localized understanding of the discrete objectives of the district leadership,
identification of individual sensemaking patterns will assist in the investigation of how
the educational leadership of the school community use external and environmental cues
(Coburn et al., 2009) to frame the development of a CRPBIS system that provides
educational and social benefits to the students in the classrooms. Coburn et al. (2009)
argue that the act of framing a particularly vexing problem (in this case, classroom
misbehavior) by individuals helps to “render complexity meaningful” (p. 1119). By
focusing on the role of culture and cultural awareness in this implementation, this
dissertation will explore how the CRPBIS policy is understood by the implementers at
various levels to assess the alignment of objectives. As Spillane (2000) posits, “a
cognitive perspective enhances our understanding of the implementation process,
pressing us to unpack a component of the process that has remained largely implicit in
previous work” (p. 168-169). It is critical, then, in the investigation into the
implementation of a CRPBIS program to understand how local culture affects overall
implementation and fidelity to overarching goals. In doing so, this dissertation will seek

23

to provide knowledge and comprehension to patterns of thought and subsequent action in
the development of a behavioral system that honors and includes the wisdom of the local
community in the schooling experience for students.
CRPBIS is a system of supports that relies on diversity, cultural self-assessment,
cross-cultural interactions, and the development of interventions that reflect an
understanding of cultural diversity (Utley et al., 2002). By introducing a system of
behavioral management that provides educational benefits (e.g., potentially increasing
classroom attendance, possibly reducing office referrals, and perhaps increase student
engagement), it is believed that CRPBIS will enable school leaders to increase the
individual achievement levels and that classrooms will have fewer behavioral
interruptions. As such, this dissertation will seek to understand how the district
understands the policy goal of implementing a culturally responsive approach (research
question #1) to classroom management. The dissertation will also seek to understand how
variation occurs in the implementation of CRPBIS through the objectives and processes
(research question #2) by individuals in leadership positions within schools. Combined,
these two questions will help to identify and explicate the successes and challenges faced
in the development and implementation of a CRPBIS system within BMSD. The final
research question explores how the interpretations of the CRPBIS policy effect the
overall implementation of policy at the local level and how the implementation is
mediated by the interpretations of the school leaders.
The following chapters in this dissertation will explore the literature (Chapter
two) that informs a greater understanding of implementation and the challenges that are
present in the implementation process, the conception of frames and sensemaking, and

24

finally school discipline. Chapter three of this dissertation will provide insight into the
setting of the CRPBIS implementation, the data that have been collected through
interviews for this dissertation. Chapter four is where the interpretation of
implementation will be explored using the interview data to explain how school leaders
interpreted and acted upon the concepts and theories of CRPBIS. Chapter five explore the
findings related to this implementation and recommendations for future implementations
will be found. Together, these chapters will present the reader a chance to explore and
investigate the implementation experiences of one school district in their attempt to
address the pernicious growth of school discipline and how to seek remedies that produce
positive results for students in the classroom.

25

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
This literature review will explore empirical understandings about implementation
theory, frame analysis, sensemaking, and the landscape of discipline in schools. Taken
together these four factors help to establish a framework that will provide an
understanding of the complex challenges that can be experienced in implementation.
Having an understanding of the empirical knowledge regarding policy implementation
can help foster an implementation that achieves the envisioned outcomes for the
organization that is attempting to implement a new policy. Beginning with a review of
sensemaking, the literature review will look at how individual use their own experiences
and personal beliefs to filter messaging and policy goals and the implications that this has
for policy implementation. After exploring the role of sensemaking in implementation,
the literature review explores the empirical knowledge regarding implementation and the
challenges that are inherent in implementing any new policy into a large system. As part
of the implementation exploration, investigating frames and frame analysis will enable
the reader to better understand how an individual’s or group’s view or perspective can
influence the eventual outcome of a particular implementation. Last, by providing a broad
understanding of the effects of the current discipline environment in schools across
America it will be possible to envision why this implementation is vital to the school
system, and others, that are part of this study.
Overall, this literature review will help to inform the overall study and better
understand why it is important that implementation of this program be studied in finer
detail. Understanding why and how implementation occurs is critical to the overall
success of any future initiative. Knowing why a policy is being implemented and how the

26

policy objectives will be achieved is the crucial link between the envisioned program and
the actualized outcome. Overall, understanding the manner in which individuals,
especially school principals make sense of policy that is introduced will aide in the
interpretation of the implementation of the new initiative.
Sensemaking
A key process in the interpretation of the meaning of policy is the sensemaking
that takes place by those who are implementing. The process of sensemaking takes place
as individuals come into contact new ideas or initiatives and are unfamiliar with the
content and meaning of the information. Sensemaking, as Weick, Sutcliffe, and Obstfeld
(2005) argue is a way for individuals “to connect the abstract with the concrete” (p. 412).
Once a concrete understanding is established in the policy actor, sensemaking enable
implementation actors to interpret the language of policy and turn it into action. Cunliffe
and Coupland (2011) further the analysis of action and sensemaking by pointing out that
sensemaking “is an interpretive process in which we judge our experience, actions and
sense of identity in relationship to specific and generalized others” (p. 66). It is the
establishment of a relationship, or comparison of the unknown to something that is
known that completes the sensemaking cycle. An additional understanding of
sensemaking can be made between the accounts of the experiences and how those
experiences produce an understanding, “where embodied and felt experiences are integral
to creating plausible accounts of our experience” (p. 83). It is the creation of plausible
accounts that turn perceptions into realities. In this sense, sensemaking is the transmission
of interpretation into understanding.

27

School Leaders. Sensemaking, at the school leader level, can also be viewed as
the process by which school leaders facilitate the understanding for others within the
institution, sometimes directly and sometimes indirectly, but an important understanding
is that leaders are influential in how others interpret policy. As Coburn (2005) argues
“school leaders played an influential, although at times indirect, role in shaping what and
how teachers learned about these shifting policy ideas” (p. 484). The conception being
made by Coburn (2005) is that as leaders of the institution, school leaders are gatekeepers
in the overall understanding of policy, but because of this gatekeeper role, it is important
to better understand how these leaders interpret policy in their own minds. Understanding
how leaders interpret and make sense policy is predicated on the conception proposed by
Spillane, Reiser, and Gomez (2006) that “what a policy comes to mean for implementing
agents depends to a great extent on their repertoire of existing knowledge and
experience” (p. 393). It is the existing knowledge and experience of the school leader, in
this case, those foregrounds an individual’s sensemaking process and is a key aspect to
understanding how school leaders will implement an innovative program into a school
setting.
Challenge to Sensemaking. One challenge with sensemaking is the potential for
individuals to privilege their own perspectives when interpreted something new rather
than an open mind. As Spillane et al. (2006) argue “what we see is what we expect to
see” (395). Because sensemaking “involves accessing relevant structures in memories
and applying them to make sense of what is presented” (Spillane, et al., 2006, p. 398) the
individual histories of those who are tasked with interpreting the policy that is being
implemented have considerable influence on how individuals make sense of new

28

information. For example, the expected outcomes, for some individuals, can create a false
understanding of a new idea or initiative because rather than be open to new ideas the
individuals are reliant upon their own personal interpretations and histories. Spillane, et
at. (2006) further argue the impact of one’s own experience in the sensemaking process
and point out that one’s “own experiences are more heavily counted in reasoning about
debates than those of external experts” (p. 402).
Sensemaking, according to Coburn (2005), can be seen as the way in which
individuals construct and draw upon personal understandings to better understand new
information. Coburn (2005) when writing about reading instruction said that, “school
leaders drew on their knowledge of reading instruction to construct understandings of
policy ideas” (p. 495). Extrapolating from the lessons of reading instruction, and applying
it to school leaders, the argument can be made that the individuals who are responsible
for implementation are also effected by existing knowledge and experiences to
understand and create meaning of policy initiatives introduced to the school system.
This sensemaking is critically important to understanding how school leaders,
principals in particular, act as gatekeepers for new policies. Their understandings of the
policy objectives, goals, and impact of implementation are quite influential to manner in
which any new initiative is introduced. As a result of better understanding sensemaking
and its role, it is possible to better understand how implementation can be effected by
individuals at all levels, but most importantly at the school leader position.
Implementation
Implementation is the manner in which innovative practices or policies are
adopted by organizations. Implementation is believed to be a decidedly complex

29

endeavor (Fixen, Naoom, Blase, Friedman, & Wallace, 2005), it is an endeavor that is
fraught with challenges that can vex those who are responsible for full program
implementation. At the same time, implementation is as a long and tedious process that
requires patience by those implementing and the intentional inclusion of many
stakeholders to ensure that the goals of the implementation are achieved. The
implementation efforts, including the previously described sensemaking of policy
implementers can lead to collaborative decisions and experiences that, ultimately,
culminate in the realization of the goals and objectives of program design and
introduction. The fact that implementation is considered to be a process and not an
outcome (May, 2013) is the result of much research and experience. Successful
implementation is the product of many individuals working collaboratively to interpret
policy objectives and enact a new way of thinking within the educational system. There is
complexity in investigating and interpreting how implementation because implementation
and understanding sensemaking, as May (2013) points out is a “complex bundle – or
better, an ‘ensemble’ – of material and cognitive practices” (p. 2). It is this complex
bundle of practices and priorities that create the challenges for those who are responsible
for implementation.
Types of Implementation Actors. Durlak (1998) argues that, “good
implementation may be dependent on securing the participation of the most eager and
committed school administrators and teaching staff” (p. 13). Early adopters of a program
can be important in assisting others who are less excited to provide a lens for others to
understand the long-term impact and overall value in the implementation of new policy
objectives and protocols. Approaching implementation in a manner that honors the

30

concerns of those who are skeptical about the initiative being implemented and, at the
same, leverages the lofty visions of those who seek to be change agents within the
organization is a way to effectively manage the ensemble of efforts, effects, and actions.
The implementation bundle, or ensemble, is constituted and reflective of the cognitive
practices for an individual (or group of individuals) and how those individuals can aid in
the overall implementation.
Implementation can also be influenced by the actions of those who wish to derail
or ignore the implementation because of negative perspectives of the new program or
simply an allegiance to the way the existing system has traditionally operated. Meyer,
Miller, and Herman (1993) note that animosity amongst implementers can arise when
new systems appear within the school systems that run contrary to existing protocols or
programs within the school system. Outsiders, those not from the system where the
implementation is occurring, to the school system can also cause animosity towards a
new approach within the school system (Meyer et al., 1993). These outside actors can be
well meaning, but their actions can be seen as superseding the goals and intentions of
local actors and lead to distrust among local implementers.
Cognitive Shifts. Implementing innovative practices will require, for some
individuals in the implementation effort, to make a cognitive switch, or significant
change in operating behaviors, for those that are implementing a new program in the
educational system. Cognitive shifts are the transition from traditionally held notions or
understandings about a program or approach to a new perspective. Changing an
individual or group’s perception can be especially challenging for those who are tasked
with ensuring that implementation occurs as the policy designers envision. For the

31

cognitive shifts to occur and in order to ensure the successful introduction and
implementation of a new program, individuals who design and deploy the innovation and
the champions of the innovation must work cohesively throughout the process of
implementation in order to achieve the stated outcomes of the innovation or initiative. To
enable the cognitive shifts to occur require considerable collaboration, at the planning
and in the implementation stages, among the individuals at the local level who are the
champions of the innovation for effective implementation of a new program. The
collaboration among key participants and constituencies is a critical facet in the
successful negotiation between individuals and ideas. The various negotiations and
agreements that occur among participants in the implementation effort have the potential
to assuage concerns and elicit stakeholder participation in a way that can influence the
successful implementation of an innovative program.
Organizational Capacity. One of the many components of a successful
implementation endeavor is the ability of the innovative process to encourage the
development of organizational capacity as a result of an innovation being introduced to
the setting. Horner & Sugai (2005) assert that “effective implementation processes build
district capacity” (p. 83) and that this organizational capacity can foster the improvement
of operations for an organization. Implementation processes that build capacity,
according to McLaughlin (1987), depend upon to two factors, capacity and will. Capacity
refers to the ability of the organization to marshal the resources needed to implement the
innovation and the will of the individuals to see the innovation through implementation.
Having either or both the systemic capacity and individual will to implement an

32

innovative practice are seen as having contributing positive effects in the implementation
effort (McLaughlin, 1987).
The successful implementation of a new innovation or initiative requires that all
involved stakeholders in the implementation process come together to collaborate and
work to achieve the explicit goals set forth by the initiators of the new innovation or
practice. McLaughlin (1987) writes that one of the many challenges in the
implementation process is that policy makers, or those that seek to introduce and then
implement a new initiative, have difficulty managing the implementation because it is a
challenge for policy makers to mandate what matters (the explicit outcomes being
sought). Equally challenging is that it is also quite possible that what matters may be
different for those who design the policy than those that are implementing. Those who
are making sense of the policy are the street-level bureaucrats (Weatherley and Lipsky,
1977) who can act as agents of change when policy is implemented. Street level
bureaucrats “interact directly with citizens in the course of their jobs and have substantial
discretion in the execution of their work” (Weatherley & Lipsky, 1977, p. 172). It is this
discretionary work, especially those who work against the implementation of a new
initiative that can pose the greatest of challenges to policy designers. This potential
opposition between designers (policy makers) and implementers (street level bureaucrats)
can lead to stalled, or even failed, implementation (Fullan & Pomfret, 1977). As a result
of the inherent challenges that face implementation, overcoming the challenges through
planning can facilitate greater implementation over time. This includes the challenges
faced by individuals across the many strata involved in the implementation and the
challenges faced can lead to less than complete, or even successful, implementation.

33

Systemic Change. Implementation, as mentioned previously, is the attempt to
introduce change into an existing system. The size and overall scope of the change being
introduced through the innovation may be large or small. However, regardless of the size
of the innovation, the innovation may be a shock to the organizational system. Fixen et al.
(2009) argue that an institutional, or systemic, change requires that the processes
designed to initiate and assist individuals and organizations in the implementation be
purposeful and clearly defined. These processes have the potential to create new realities
(McLaughlin, 1987) for those implementing the new initiative. The new realities, and the
challenges that a new policy initiative can create, are part and parcel to a new initiative
also require significant planning and foresight by those who seek to introduce the new
initiative. As part of this planning and foresight, Adelman and Taylor (2003) articulate
the four major phases that an organization can engage in to maneuver through the
implementation process. First, according to Adelman and Taylor (2003), an organization
needs to create readiness within the organization to ensure that those who are responsible
for the implementation are in a position to effectively implement the new initiative.
Second, the initial implementation or rollout of the new program is critical to the
outcome of the program that is being introduced. Third, the way in which the
organization works to institutionalize the program through support and dialogue can be a
considerable factor in whether or not a program can have lasting effect. Last, it is
imperative for the policy makers to show continued support through ongoing evaluation
and creative renewal. These four factors, as envisioned by Adelman and Taylor (2003),
to facilitating organizational change, are essential to the success of the new program
being introduced. Among the four, it is the ability of the policy makers to help create

34

readiness through open dialogue, explicit messaging, and constant interaction amongst
those that design the innovative practice and those that implement the practice. It is the
creation of organizational readiness, through actionable data, constant analysis, and
coherent protocols that support the initial understanding of the initiative and the eventual
rollout of the program that can have the most impact on the outcome of interest.
Local Actors. When any policy is conceived of and then implemented, a key
focal point is to understand how individuals, especially at the local level where the
implementation of a new policy is happening, interact with the new policy that is being
introduced. Local implementers, those with the responsibility to enact the actual policy
being implemented are critical to the success of the initiative, interpret the initiative
through their own individual perspectives that reflect the individual’s own personal belief
regarding the need for and the manner in which the policy is implemented. These
individualized perspectives have been shaped by the previous experiences of those at the
local level and these experiences can influence the conceptual understandings of the
problem being addressed by the new policy. It is the individual at the ground level, the
street level actor, that is required to make the personal decision, based on their own
perspectives and experiences, to implement the new initiative or act as a resistor to policy
changes. Durlak (1998) argues that when a policy is implemented, it is important for
those who are primary to the implementation to be “eager and committed” (p. 13) to the
change being introduced to the school setting. The eagerness by those who are tasked
with implementing the new policy will help school leaders introduce and move a policy
change through initial adoption. Without the support of an eager staff, it is possible that
the envisioned improvements created by the policy change may not occur. Added to the

35

concept of an eager and committed staff, it is argued by Meyer et al. (1993) that the point
of view of school staff members whose day-to-day operations are affected by the changes
of an introduced policy measure should also be of primary interest. As a direct result of
including and seeking the input of those directly affected by the change in programming,
policy implementers have the opportunity to increase the personal investment, or
individual agency, in the new program. This “increased investment that school staff are
likely to feel” (Meyer, Miller, and Herman, 1993, p. 101) is essential to the successful
implementation. Throughout the implementation process, the investment of the
participants in the process of implementation is vital to the long-term success of the
program. One of the ways in which this investment and personal point-of-view can be
incorporated into the implementation process is by increasing the interaction during the
design and development of the new policy between those who design the policy and those
who are responsible for implementing and actively utilizing the new policy within the
classroom. Fullan and Pomfret (1977) argue, “there is no substitute for the primacy of
personal contact among implementers, and between implementers and planners” (p. 391).
It is through intentional personal contact that individuals at all levels of implementation
can communicate their expectations and concerns related to the policy being
implemented. From this communication, program designers and program implementers
can work through various challenges and concerns related to the implementation that is at
hand.
A second aspect of the implementation process is to include those who are
responsible in the effort to institutionalize the initiative. The institutionalization of an
initiative (Adelman & Taylor, 2003) is based upon activities and the continued effort at

36

developing protocols that serve to make the goals of the implementation an established
protocol within the school system. In order to achieve the level of institutionalization of a
new policy that produces the intended results, it is essential that the policy makers and the
actual implementers develop systemic processes that prioritize the input, reflections, and
evaluations for those who are implementing new initiative. Kitson, Harvey, and
McCormack (1998) assert that implementation requires an all-in mentality because of the
substantial change in operations due to implementation. The outcome of the all-in
mentality is that the organization is able to institutionalize the objectives, procedures, and
desired outcomes of a new policy.
Throughout the implementation process, this participation of individuals at all
levels is vital to the successful implementation of a policy. One of the reasons that
individuals, especially those who are on the frontlines of implementation, are critical to
implementation success is that these individuals are “essential to how policy unfolds”
(Honig, 2006, p. 359). From the eagerness and inclusion of committed individuals
responsible for implementation to the inclusion of the implementer’s views and
perspectives, it is possible to move forward in the implementation process with the
support of those directly involved at the ground level of implementation. As mentioned
previously, one of the most substantial effects of the role of participants in the
implementation process is the development of regular and in-depth communication, or
the feedback loop, between those who design and plan for implementation and those who
are directly are responsible for implementation that can lead to the best results.

37

Features of Implementation
There are two main groups in the implementation process that are imperative in
successfully implement a new program, facilitators and champions. Facilitators,
according to (Kitson et al., 1998) are generally individuals who are experienced in
change functions and are able to work with individuals on the front lines of change and
help to introduce new programs. Facilitators have influence on the implementation
through the “redeployment of resources and the establishment of new ones” and by the
ability to “build capacity” (Adelman & Taylor, 2003, p. 5) in the implementation process.
Kitson et al. (1998) further argue that it is necessary to have a local champion for a
program. A champion is someone who is deeply invested in the program and is an
individual that can be the liaison between the facilitators and the implementers. Adelman
and Taylor (2003) further support that conception of having local champions for the
implementation by arguing that champions are able to help in the “building a cadre of
stakeholders who are motivationally ready and able to proceed” (p. 6) and it is that role of
the champion to buoy the hopes and bolster the continued efforts of those who are
responsible for the implementation of a new program. Between the combined efforts of
the champions of the program and the facilitators, it is possible that the implementation
can find success over time. These two key cogs in the implementation system assure that
the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the implementation are attended to and sought
after. As Fixen et al. (2005) argue, “implementation is synonymous with coordinated
change of system, organization, program, and practice levels” (p. vi) and as such requires
a multifaceted approach.

38

Factors in Implementation. One of the many important inquiries that must take
place when looking into how implementation takes place is in understanding a few key
factors to implementation. I single out the four aspects to implementation that are of
importance when thinking about a successful implementation. The four key factors that
will make up this investigation: (1) individual agency, (2) the setting in which the
implementation takes place, (3) the role of conceptual understanding, and (4) the effort of
the participants. Together these four factors to implementation will help create a better
understanding of the complexity and interconnectedness of factors related to
implementation. Due to the fact that implementation is a product of many actors and
many perspectives, the complexity of implementation needs to be broken down in order
to better understand how implementation occurs. Secondly, there is considerable
interconnectedness between actors at many levels within implementation and because of
this deciphering how individuals and their settings interact it is possible to further
develop an understanding of how implementation evolves and occurs.
Individual Agency. The concept of individual agency is understood as the ability
of individuals to act on their own and to be empowered to make effective change. Dutro,
Fisk, Koch, Roop, and Wixson (2002) argue that participation in the integration and
implementation of new approaches to instruction is important to the assumption of
individual leadership in implementation. In their study of the implementation of state
mandated literacy practices in the classroom and the overall impact of collaboration,
Dutro et al. (2002) argue that the implementation process and the development of
individual agency can be greatly benefitted by the inclusion and integration of the
individuals who are responsible for implementation. This inclusion can include the

39

capacity to assist in the development of advocacy for a program and to provide leadership
amongst their peers. As Dutro et al. (2002) show, “the support of the superintendent,
positioned them [the implementers] to quickly and enthusiastically embrace the
philosophies” (p. 16) of the new state policy. Although this policy implementation was
targeted as a way to improve the literacy instructional practices of the teachers, the
overarching lesson is that by encouraging participation at the individual level, the
teachers were able to increase their own capacity to be leaders in the individual buildings
where the new policy was being introduced. The increased agency allowed for the
implementation to occur with less confusion and greater success. Furthermore, Fullan
(1996) points out that “only when greater clarity and coherence are achieved in the
minds of the majority of teachers will we have any chance of success [italics in original]”
(p. 421). What Fullan (1996) is positing here is that in order for individual agency to be
achieved at the local level, the clarity of the purpose and coherence in messaging of the
implementation will assist in the production of agency for an individual. Principals,
teachers, and other school actors will be able to achieve individual agency when the
message and purpose of the innovative practice is clear, concise, and meaningful to those
who are implementing. Fullan (1996) furthers this argument by pointing out that
“educational change is inherently, endemically, and ineluctably non-linear” (p. 421). The
challenge for policy makers is to seek clarity in the implementation process if
implementation is to have any chance at success. In the end, it is important for the policy
makers who are initiating the systemic change through implementation to address the
issue of clarity of purpose in order to achieve individual agency that will allow for those
who are at the front lines of the implementation process to implement as intended. In

40

doing so, by creating clarity, those who are at the front lines of implementation can be
empowered to implement the innovative practice that is being introduced into the
academic setting.
Setting for Implementation. Beyond simply those who are responsible for
implementation, the setting for policy implementation can be fraught with challenges that
have the potential to produce negative results in the overall course of implementation.
The setting, whether that is an individual school or an entire school district, is a factor
that affects the overall success or failure of implementation. The setting is made up of the
site of implementation as well as the culture and institutional environment where
implementation of policy takes place.
It is important to comprehend the importance of readiness for the individual sites
where implementation occurs need to be ready (Durlak, 1998) for the specific
implementation to occur. In the location where the implementation is to occur, there
needs to be a mitigating factor that enables the location or site to engage in an activity
that produces change. This can be a product of discussion amongst actors within the
system, it could be a product of data analysis, or it can be the result of community action.
Regardless of the impetus for change, the setting for the intervention is best situated
when it is receptive to the impending change. If not, the policy being implemented can be
diminished and disregarded as unnecessary or worse, an imposition to those who are
already engaged in activities related to the objective of the implementation.
In addition to the setting of the implementation, the political environment of the
setting where implementation occurs is a factor that can impact how individuals observe
the goals and mediate the objectives of policy designers in implementation. Fullan and

41

Pomfret (1977) argue that the politics of the setting can have significant impact upon the
outcome of the innovation being proposed for the site. The political setting includes the
relationships and interactions between those who are responsible for implementation and
those who introduce the policy. Bal, Kozleski, Schrader, Rodriquez, and Pelton (2014)
argue that the “histories and institutional cultures [roles, rules, and division of labor]
shape the individuals participation in school activities” (p. 333). The culture of a setting,
either open to change or closed to yet another new idea, can be mitigating factors in how
the policy is welcomed or resisted against when introduced to the setting.
The setting of the implementation has many factors that lead to success or failure,
but a key understanding within the setting is how individuals welcome or challenge the
introduction of a new policy initiative. The setting, with its inherent political and
institutional challenges can be a determining factor in how the policy is received and
ultimately implemented.
Policy Understanding. Spillane (2000) argues that there are an “array of factors
that influence implementation” (p. 145). The ability of individuals to conceptualize and
internalize the intent and meaning of a policy is of paramount interest. The understanding
of policy objectives and goals among those who are implementing the policy is critical to
the implementation. This includes the clarity of the messaging regarding the policy and
the intended outcome of the policy being implemented that filters down from those who
engineer the policy being introduced to those who are entrusted with its implementation.
Understanding the intent and objectives of a policy can either help the policy advance
within the setting or an overall lack of clarity can inhibit its implementation. Spillane
(2000) furthers this argument by positing, “implementers must figure out what a policy

42

means in order to decide whether and how to ignore, adapt, or adopt policymakers
recommendations in practice” (p. 145). The interpretation of the meaning of the policy is
premised upon the ability of those implementing the policy to discern the features of the
change desired by policymakers and is predicated on the clarity of the message. When the
policy has clear goals and explicit procedures (Spillane, Reiser, & Reimer, 2002) it is
more likely that the policy will result in the intended outcomes being sought.
Understanding what a policy is seeking to accomplish and how to achieve the specified
outcomes is a key component in the implementation process. As is argued above, it is
critical that individuals understand the goals, the process of implementation, and the
discreet outcomes sought in order to implement with success.
Effort in Implementation. With the knowledge that the implementer’s
understanding of policy goals, objectives, and the importance of the setting are influential
in implementation, a further factor in the implementation of a new policy objective is the
effort in which individuals work to introduce with fidelity the goals of the policy.
Understanding that the effort of those who implement the policy is a central feature of
how well a policy is adhered to, it is important to investigate how effort can both support
and derail a promising policy effort. Fullan and Pomfret (1977) posit that “time, personal
interaction and contacts, in-service training, and other forms of people based support” (p.
391) are what produce results. The all-inclusive effort that Fullan and Pomfret (1977)
argue for is an important factor because it seeks to establish an environment where the
efforts of participants are supported in all areas. This effort, which is vitally important to
the overall success of an implementation is necessary for success, without it the
objectives of the policy may be lost. Meyer et al. (1993) argue that any intervention or

43

innovation to existing practices needs to be supported by continual effort over time
because any “intervention for youth that is done during a limited time period cannot be
expected to compete with extremely negative environments within which youth spend
their lives” (p. 109). Effort is a factor that is necessary for implementation to occur, but
effort must be sustained over time or it has the potential to be a factor in the demise of a
policy initiative. Effort is, by its very nature, the glue that holds together any
implementation. It is the factor that is easiest to control and contribute to success; it also
has the potential to produce the greatest results when it is utilized to fulfill the objectives
of the policy as designed.
Overall, while there are many factors that can contribute to a successful
implementation of a new policy. It is the participation and individualized interpretations
of school leaders and the general understanding of the policy, and the effort engaged in
the implementation that is of the most importance. Together, these factors have an
informative role in better understanding how implementation of new policy initiative
takes place and is made possible.
Frames
A second point of interest in this dissertation will be to investigate and understand
how frames and framing are central actors in the attempt to understand the
implementation effort. Frames, as defined by Goffman (1974) act as the construct that
place meaning and structure to everyday occurrences. Frames and the act of framing are
relied upon to interpret how individuals make sense of the implementation that is
occurring within the organization. Goffman (1974) asserts that frames and frameworks
are a form of interpretation and allow individuals to “locate, perceive, identify, and label

44

a seemingly infinite number of occurrences” (p. 21) into individually significant spaces.
Benford and Snow (2000) further articulate Goffman’s (1974) articulation of frames by
positing that frames are a “schemata of interpretation” (p. 614) and that frames “help to
render events or occurrences meaningful and thereby function to organize experience and
guide action” (p. 614). As such, frames are the mental pathways through which
individuals make sense of events that occur. Frames of understanding are created by
individuals that are based upon their experiences and beliefs about a particular concept
and function to create personalized understanding for individuals. Building upon the
basic conception of frames, Benford and Snow (2000) identify two specific categories of
frames, diagnostic and prognostic (p. 615). Diagnostic frames are those that enable
problem identification and attributions of particular issues (Benford and Snow, 2000).
Prognostic and Diagnostic Frames. Prognostic frames are those mindsets or
worldviews of individuals that allow for the “the articulation of a proposed solution to the
problem, or at least a plan of attack, and the strategies for carrying out the plan” (Benford
and Snow, 2000, p. 616). Between these two overarching types of frames, diagnostic and
prognostic, it will be possible to categorize stated beliefs and actions of participants in the
implementation into smaller frames of reference and understanding that are situated
within these two larger constructs. The use of frames enables the compartmentalization of
data and establish the opportunity attribute meaning and understanding to preconceived
notions of how behavioral problems are understood, and how policy can best address the
behavioral concerns that are held by individuals in the school.

45

Figure 2.1
Frames: Diagnostic and Prognostic

Frames	
  

Diagnostic	
  

Behavioral	
  
de4inition	
  

Understanding	
  
of	
  CRPBIS	
  Role	
  

Prognostic	
  

Stakeholder	
  
responsibility	
  

Reaction	
  to	
  PD	
  
and	
  trainings	
  

CRPBIS	
  as	
  a	
  
tool	
  

Perception	
  of	
  
change	
  

Figure 2.1. This figure represents the framing tree based upon the work of Benford and
Snow (2000) and shows how subsequent frames can be created from original frames.
Within the diagnostic frame, smaller individual frames can be constructed that reference
and interpret: 1) how individuals perceive and define the behavioral problems that exist
currently in the schools and how these change over time, 2) how stakeholders (teachers,
principals, school district leadership, and county support organizational leadership) at
multiple levels of implementation understand CRPBIS within the school buildings, and 3)
how stakeholders are responsible for implementation. Secondly, prognostic framing can
also be broken into smaller units to better understand how policy initiatives can affect
school problems. Prognostic frames can be used to assess how: 1) individuals perceive
the affect of professional development and training in the implementation, 2) how
individuals perceive and imagine the impact of the policy, and 3) how individuals view
the changes as a by-product of implementation. Frames, and framing of policy goals, will
allow for an understanding of how individuals interpret the benefits and the potential
changing nature of individual frames over time.

46

Cognitive Frameworks. Further developing upon the concept of frames, Spillane
(1996, 1999, 2000) posits that to enable the development of an understanding of the
cognitive frameworks that are in place among stakeholders, implementers need to situate
the messaging and intentions of the policy goals from educational leadership at the
forefront of implementation. Furthermore it is important to investigate the interpretation
of the goals and objectives by implementers through the worldviews and sensemaking
activities (Coburn, 2001, 2005; Coburn et al., 2009) of those responsible for the
implementation of policy goals. By merging the theoretical frameworks of program
implementation and the interpersonal action of sensemaking it will be possible to analyze
how individuals make sense of, interpret inputs, and implement the overarching goals of
policy makers who seek to improve the behavioral environment of the classroom over
time. As such, the cognitive processes, or working knowledge (Coburn et al., 2009) of
implementers foregrounds the signals and messages put forth by the district leadership as
interpreted by individuals. A key factor in this language or messaging of goals and
outcomes is the manner in which the new policy is couched in familiar terms and
approaches to classroom management that provides a level of understanding about a
policy for implementers (Spillane, 2000).
Second, the success of the implementation is also predicated on identifying
specific cognitive views (e.g., the definition of culture, the interpretation of the purpose
of discipline, and the dispositions of school leaders) that school officials within the
school system rely upon to comprehend the introduction, value, and overall
implementation of the initiative. The discrete objectives, and the ensuing focal points for
implementation, will help to identify the root cause, intended goals, and the desired

47

outcomes of introducing a new policy structure within the school system. Using these
cognitive markers as points of investigation will provide the pivotal points by which
teachers and building leaders begin to pursue a deeper understanding of how this policy is
implemented within the school district. For example, if reducing the level of student
referrals for discipline is a primary goal of the implementation, the overarching
investigation into the implementation will seek to better understand how the
implementation of a new initiative can achieve the stated goals of the policy designers.
Last, because the implementation of the new policy is predicated on the localized
understanding of the discrete objectives of the district leadership, individual sensemaking
patterns will assist in the investigation of how the educational leadership of the school
community use external and environmental cues (Coburn et al., 2009) to frame the
development of the new program or policy. Coburn et al., (2009) argue that the act of
framing a particularly challenging problem by individuals helps to “render complexity
meaningful” (p. 1119). As Spillane (2000) posits, “a cognitive perspective enhances our
understanding of the implementation process, pressing us to unpack a component of the
process that has remained largely implicit in previous work” (p. 168-169). It is critical,
then, in the investigation into the implementation to understand how local culture affects
overall implementation and fidelity to overarching goals. In doing so, this dissertation
will seek to provide knowledge and comprehension to the patterns of thought and action
in the development of a behavioral system that honors and includes the wisdom of the
local community in the schooling experience for students.

48

Discipline
On any given day, in school districts across the United States, there are students
who are being disciplined for their actions in the school that violate the school’s code of
conduct and are subject to sanction for their actions. The violations to the code of conduct
range from potentially severe events, such as an assault upon another student or teacher,
to rather mundane violations, such as insubordination or disorderly conduct in the
classroom or hallways within the school. These sanctions include a multitude of possible
outcomes, from warnings and detentions and up to be suspended or even expelled from
school. It is the localized adjudication of the violations to the school’s code of conduct
that result in a variety of disciplinary actions for the students.
These disciplinary actions taken by teachers and school leaders arise in one of two
forms, punitive and non-punitive disciplinary sanctions. Non-punitive sanctions include
any forms of discipline that do not remove students from the classroom environment.
Examples of non-punitive discipline are lunch detention, after school detention, or
warnings. Punitive sanctions remove the students from the classroom through suspension
and expulsion. The use of punitive school discipline has the effect of decreasing time in
the instructional environment. In addition to this, punitive school discipline has the
capacity to lead to negative consequences such as racial segregation and social
stigmatization for those who are subjected to exclusionary discipline (Bal, 2016).
Furthermore, the effect of punitive discipline has myriad impacts upon the academic
outcomes. In the past twenty years, the number of exclusionary punishments has
increased significantly and has resulted in students missing considerable time from the
classroom (Monahan, VenDerhei, Bechtold, & Cauffman, 2014). Over this period of

49

time, the increase and effect of the increase in punitive disciplinary actions has had a
disproportionate effect upon students of color. A number of studies over the past decade
have argued that the existing use of school discipline does not prepare students, no matter
their racial background, for transition into higher grades (Dunbar Jr., 2015), that the
increased use of disciplinary sanctions increase the risk of educational failure (Arcia,
2006; Losen, 2013), and may actually lead to increased school dropouts (Gregory, Skiba,
& Noguera, 2010; Losen & Skiba, 2010; Raffele Mendez & Knoff, 2003). Although
these three outcomes of school discipline are not an exhaustive list of potential effects,
they are indicative of serious implications of the current model of school discipline.
Historical Understandings of School Discipline. In 1975, the Children’s
Defense Fund (CDF) presented the first major study of school suspensions in the United
States. According to this report, “until only a few years ago school exclusionary devices
such as suspensions were invisible. Neither the federal, state, or local governments had
any idea how many children were suspended” (p. 55). The fact of the matter is that
schools, at the time of the CDF study, were not required nor expected to report the
number of students who were excluded from the classroom. The CDF report broke
important ground into the investigation of disproportional school discipline. Within the
report, the CDF identified that African American students, in the years prior to 1975,
were suspended more than any other group and that “one of every eight black children
compared to one in every sixteen white children were suspended at least once during the
1972-1973 school year” (p. 63). The pattern of disproportionate discipline for African
American students was only beginning to become apparent to school leaders and
scholars. Further scholarship in the ensuing decades show that while exclusionary

50

discipline had been invisible, due to the lack of public information about suspension and
expulsion rates, disproportionate use of punitive school discipline had been taking place
at an alarming rate.
During the 1980s and 1990s, nothing much had changed for minority students in
the classroom. African American students were still experiencing suspensions and
expulsions at a proportionally higher rate than White students and with greater severity.
Wu, Pink, Crain, & Moles (1982) reported that the disproportionately higher rate of
exclusionary punishment for African Americans in comparison to White students was
still evident even after the CDF report. Even when adjusting for potential mitigating
factors such as overall classroom misbehavior, it was posited by Wu, et al. (1982), that
there was a clear level of disproportionality in the punishment of African American
students by schools. Following the work of Wu, et al. (1982), in a study by Garibaldi
(1992) of the New Orleans school system, it was uncovered that while African Americans
represented only 43% of the total male student population within the school system,
African American male students were disproportionately punished within the system. In
the New Orleans system, as presented by Garibaldi (1992), African American male
students represented 65% of all suspensions and 80% of the expulsions. These studies,
among others, highlighted the continuing practice of disciplinary action in schools that
meted out school punishment in an unequal manner and this led to higher rates of
suspension and expulsion for African American youth despite the knowledge that
differential patterns of discipline existed in American schools.
Impact of School Discipline: The high incidence of school discipline has an
effect of the students through what Gregory et al. (2010) refer to as the increased risk of

51

academic underperformance. The academic underperformance of students, as a byproduct
of school discipline, is considerably important and is fleshed out through a variety of
research that identifies the long-term academic impact of school discipline. Skiba and
Rausch (2004) show that higher rates of suspension are correlated with lower
achievement scores for students on standardized tests, Arcia (2006) and Beck &
Muschkin (2012) identify in their individual studies that school suspensions contribute to
the delay in reading achievement for students who had been excluded from the classroom
as a result of disciplinary action as opposed to those who remain in the classroom.
Furthermore, as Rausch and Skiba (2005) reported in a presentation of their work, there is
suggestive evidence that the “usage of suspension and expulsion is negatively related to
the academic achievement” (p. 2). Furthermore, the decision to drop out of school by
students is a serious and life-altering decision for students, but in many cases, the
decision to drop out of school is often preceded by a suspension or an expulsion at some
point in their academic career (Dupper, 2010). Students who are suspended are “three
times more likely to drop out by the tenth grade than those not suspended (Eckstrom,
Goertz, Pollack, and Rock (1986), as cited in Dupper, 2010, p. 5).
To better understand the complexity of the prevalence of disproportional
discipline in schools today, it is vital to investigate the overall numbers and effects of
school discipline upon students, the impact of the discipline tactics for the academic and
social development of the students, and the possible methods of responses available to
school administrators that seek to keep students in the classroom environment. According
to Raffele Mendez (2003), African American students are still much more likely to be
subjected to school suspensions when compared with White and Latino/a students. In a

52

2016 report by the Tennessee Department of Education, African American students were
suspended (during the 2015-2016 academic year) at a rate of 60% greater that the state
average for other students (Tennessee Department of Education, 2016). Brownstein
(2010) also shows that African American students, using data from the United States
Department of Education, are given exclusionary punishments for violations of school
rules “nearly three times the rate and expelled at three-and-a-half times the rate of White
students” (p. 26). The same trend for differential treatment of African American students
holds true in many geographical regional of the United States. For example, in the state
of Virginia, Rocque (2010) found that African American students received referrals to the
administrative offices within schools at a nine percent greater rate than White students.
African American students in Georgia were referred to the office for punishment nearly
one-and-a-half times more than White students (Jordan & Anil, 2009). Clearly race is still
a significant factor in the discipline procedures of schools in America based upon these
studies. Not only is race a factor in the prevalence of disciplinary action, but also is a
predictor in the severity of discipline actions taken by schools.
Disciplinary Action in Practice. In classrooms, students generally want more
freedom and teachers generally seek to establish a classroom environment where learning
can take place. It is at this meeting point, or moment, between these two population
groups within the school setting that creates the situation where the interpersonal friction
can lead to disciplinary action being taken by the teachers to combat the disruptions that
occur. (Vavrus & Cole, 2002) This disciplinary moment, when the actions of the students
run counter to the intended operations of the classroom, highlight the moment when the
stated rules, or norms, of the classroom are challenged. It is in this moment that the

53

teachers within the classroom are asked to interpret the actions of the students and
determine in an instant whether the environment of the classroom is being degraded and
present a need for the teachers to take action in a way that achieves the stated goals of the
teacher, school, and school district (Bowditch, 1993). As these interactions play out and
the more disruptive that these disciplinary moments become, teachers are forced to take
action to establish control and maintain the desired level of order within the classroom.
The escalation of the interaction between classroom teachers and students inside the
classroom can ultimately lead to a disciplinary referral by the classroom teacher that
requires the student to meet with the school disciplinarian. It has also been asserted that
the administration of exclusionary discipline policies are a manner in which the
administration attempts to remove misbehaving youth from the classroom and improve
the learning environment for other students (Brownstein, 2010).
Prevalence of School Discipline. More and more schools are reacting to the
misbehavior of students with more severe punitive action as opposed to corrective
measures (Dunbar Jr., 2015). The impact of the increased exclusionary disciplinary
patterns in schools had resulted in what Noguera (1995) argues is a transformation of the
schools into a prison-like facility. Noguera (1995) posits that the prevailing wisdom is
that schools are resorting to using increasing force to combat traditional student
misbehavior. As the increasing use of force to address student misbehavior has been
used, the argument has been made that schools are beginning to label student misbehavior
as criminal actions. The criminalization of students through the use of school discipline
has made “school policing the fastest growing law enforcement field” (Hirschfield, 2008,
p. 82). Brownstein (2010) presents data to show that during the 2005-2006 school year,

54

“over 100,000 students were expelled and 3,300,000 students were suspended” (p. 24)
representing a 15% increase in just four years. Furthermore, Losen (2013), using 2006
data from the United States Department of Education’s Civil Rights Data Collection,
reports that for every day that American public schools are in session there are
approximately 18,000 students suspended for at least a single day and that there are
approximately 560 expulsions per day.
Disciplinary Forms. Suspension, as defined by Raffele Mendez (2003), is the
removal of students from the classroom for a period of time that is generally no more
than ten days. Expulsion is the procedural removal from the school for a longer period of
time (Skiba & Sprague, 2008). Together these two forms of administrative authority are
utilized to exhibit the desire of the school to establish a sense of order and structure
(Losen, 2013) to the school’s operation.
However, as the volume of suspensions and expulsions grow during the school
year, or over many school years, students are exposed to the concept that in order to
preserve order in the classroom the school must resort to authoritarian models of
punishment (Skiba & Peterson, 1999). It is this desire for order and structure that has led
many scholars to investigate the frequent use of suspension and expulsion to address
student misbehavior
Disproportional Impact. School suspensions and expulsions have been on the
rise in American schools and the effects of this increase in harsh, punitive school
discipline has led to a near epidemic level of school suspensions (Skiba & Peterson,
1999). Not only have the number of suspensions and expulsions increased to
unprecedented levels, the incidence of suspensions and expulsions for minority students,

55

in particular African American students, have continued to show differences in the rates
of those suspended when compared to White students. Using data from the United States
Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, the national gap in suspension between
African American and White students in the year 2000 was eight percent higher for
African Americans and in 2006 that gap was ten percent higher compared to White
students (United States Department of Education: Office for Civil Rights, 2000, 2006).
For male students, the gap in suspension for African Americans in 2000 was eight
percent higher compared to White students and in 2006 the discipline gap had increased
to ten percent (United States Department of Education: Office for Civil Rights, 2000,
2006). The differential discipline results for African American students in schools are of
great concern for policy makers and school leaders. To better understand the complexity
of the prevalence of differential discipline in schools today, it is vital to investigate the
overall numbers and effects of school discipline upon students, the impact of the
discipline tactics for the academic and social development of the students, and the
possible methods of responses available to school administrators that keeps students in
the classroom environment rather than push the students away from schools and into the
streets.
According to Raffele Mendez (2003), African American students are still much
more likely to be subjected to school suspensions when compared with White and
Latino/a students. Brownstein (2010) follows this by showing that African American
students, using data from the United States Department of Education, are given
exclusionary punishments for violations of school rules “nearly three times the rate and
expelled at three-and-a-half times the rate of White students” (p. 26).

56

Although many studies, as seen above, have suggested the interconnectedness of
academic underperformance with school discipline, there are a few studies that highlight
the relationship between race and the severity of school discipline. Kinsler (2011) notes
that for African American students, the incidence of suspension (of at least one day)
increased by 120% from 1972 to 2000, while for White students the increase was sixtyfour percent. As the increase of severity for individual punishments has increased over
time, so have the impacts of school suspension upon academic achievement. In a recent
study, Wildhagen (2012) argued that in schools where punitive disciplinary climates are
more pronounced, African American students are predicted to suffer from academic
underperformance. Specifically, Wildhagen (2012) reports that the, “racial disparity in
the realization of academic potential increases as the school disciplinary climate becomes
increasingly punitive” (p. 17).
The presence of punitive forms of discipline within schools has been shown to
have negative effects for those who suffer the consequences of school actors meting out
punishment for violations to the school’s code of conduct. These punishments have been
shown to be the result of a variety of offences, some severe and other not, but the end
result for the students is decreased access to the classroom learning environment and a
reduction in overall opportunity to learn. The punishments that have been given out to
students have, historically, been disproportionately distributed and have been identified to
have greater effects for students of color. In some cases, the discipline that has been
administered by teachers and school administrators has been far more severe than the
action, but in any case, discipline in American schools has drifted away from remediation
of behavior and towards authoritarianism in order to establish order and control. The

57

consequences of this trend have escalating educational impacts for students who come
into contact with the disciplinary system. As a result, it is essential to think about the
purpose of school discipline and the objectives that are sought in the handing out of
punitive sanctions for classroom misbehavior.
Conclusion
As can be seen, implementation of a new policy can be a considerably challenging
endeavor. The primary challenge in the implementation process is the effort to empower
the individuals who are responsible for the implementation to act in concert with the
policy designers. The interaction between policy designers and policy implementers is
predicated on the coherent messaging that informs and codifies the purpose of the
initiative being introduced to the organization. Through clarity and communication it is
possible to engage the champions of the program at the local level and, at the same time,
allows for the perspectives of those who are responsible to properly frame the need for
the implementation and the comprehend the value of the program that is being
implemented. By properly framing the need for the policy initiative and through the
empowerment of local actors it is possible for innovation to occur. While understanding
policy, for all actors and all levels, is clearly an important factor in the implementation
process, it is also clear that the engagement of local actors is also a critical feature in the
successful implementation process. While implementation may be fraught with
challenges, it is clear that the process is benefitted through open dialogue and constant
interaction with the many actors within the implementation process. In the end, a
successful implementation is a process that is all encompassing and requires the active
participation of all parties involved. Any implementation that fails to incorporate the

58

views, perspectives, and input from the local actors can result in a failed process. Despite
the challenges that are inherent in the implementation effort, it is possible to successfully
introduce a new initiative that has positive effects if the policy designers and program
implementers work in concert with each and acknowledge the value of all stakeholders in
the process.

59

CHAPTER 3: SETTINGS, DATA, and METHODS
This study of the implementation of CRPBIS is set within three schools that are
part of a larger school district. These schools are all elementary schools that serve
kindergarten through third grades. The decision to include the three elementary schools
was a conscious decision that would provide information about how similarly situated
schools attempt to implement CRPBIS. Data for this study will consist of semi-structured
interviews with individuals at multiple levels of the implementation. The information
from the interviews will be coded and analyzed to determine the form and function of the
implementation of the CRPBIS program in the school. From the school district’s central
office to the local schools, individuals who are pivotal in the introduction and
implementation of the new discipline policy have been interviewed at different points in
time. Each of the interviews was conducted in a one-on-one setting and was recorded
digitally to provide an opportunity to have the interviews transcribed for further analysis.
In sum, the setting, data, and methods for this dissertation will be examined to gain a
more robust understanding of the purposes for the implementation of CRPBIS, the
perceived benefits of implementation, as well as the challenges experienced in the full
implementation of the program within the district, but specifically within the three
elementary schools that make up the study.
Setting
Bald Mountain School District. The setting for this dissertation is the Bald
Mountain School District (BMSD). BMSD is located in urban setting and is made up of
27 school buildings, serving over 11,000 students from pre-kindergarten to high school.
In a typical educational arrangement, the district has a Board of Education and a

60

traditional central office configuration for general school operations. The Board of
Education is tasked with setting policy for the district and overseeing the general
operations of the school district. One significant task of the Board of Education is to
choose the district’s superintendent. The superintendent, as is the case in many school
districts, is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the district. These responsibilities
include the determination of the appropriate academic programs of the district, the
financial decisions of the district, and several other critical aspects of the operation of the
district. The superintendent does not manage these objectives in a vacuum, but does so
with the support of a Deputy Superintendent and a cadre of Executive Directors who
manage specific operational departments, such as Student Services, to fulfill the
mandates of the Board of Education. Together, the leadership team of the BMSD is
tasked with meeting the policy goals and objectives of the Board of Education.
In this particular example of program implementation, the Executive Director of
Student Services is the individual who is responsible for introducing and seeing through
the implementation of CRPBIS within BMSD. The executive director is the individual
who will work collaboratively with the district hierarchy and local school building
leadership to ensure that resources are available for the implementation of CRPBIS and
that building level systems of support are available to help the principal and other school
leaders introduce and implement CRPBIS.
The focus of this study is the implementation of CRPBIS in elementary school
buildings. Elementary school buildings were chosen as the specific unit of study within
this dissertation due to the fact that within the BMSD, elementary school buildings were
the location within the school district where disciplinary action was on the increase

61

(based upon a district study) despite the announcement by the BMSD that school
discipline was decreasing within the district as a whole. This is not to argue that the
district was wrong in its proclamation, just that the district did not disaggregate the data
to identify the difference between different levels. There are 11 elementary school
buildings within the district, each with a set of unique grade levels and organizations.
While the elementary buildings within the district have a multitude of variation in their
organization and academic focus, the three specific buildings that are included within this
study are traditional Kindergarten through third grade schools. The three elementary
buildings that are the focus of this study are located in three geographically different
locations within the district. Each of the school buildings has an administration staff that
is representative of the school population in which they serve. The three schools that are a
part of this study are Monument, Bo Buck, and Teocalli Elementary Schools1.
Participating Schools. Monument Elementary School is located in the western
part of the city and the principal of the school is a white, female with many years of
experience within the school district as a teacher and principal. The school itself is made
up of many different ethnicities, but is 43% white and 47% female. A second school, Bo
Buck Elementary School, is more centrally located within the city and is lead by a white,
male principal, and is the most senior school administrator in the school district. The
school is also diverse, but white students make up 35% (the single largest percentage)
and males in the school make up 49.6% of the school population. The third school in this
study, Teocalli Elementary School, is located in the eastern portion of the city. An
African American male principal leads this school. The principal of Teocalli Elementary

1

The names of each building are pseudonyms to mask the identity.
62

is relatively new to the position and is new to the school building itself. The school has a
greater percentage of African American students than any other school within the study,
representing 40.1% of the student body. Teocalli is also a school that has more males
(52%) than female (48%) students. As seen in the following table, the schools are made
up of multiple ethnicities. The individual populations of these schools resemble, but do
not mirror the overall population of the school district.
Table 3.1
District and School Population

BMSD
Total students

11,155

Teocalli
Elementary
265

Bo Buck
Elementary
284

Monument
Elementary
311

American Indian or
Alaskan Native

83
(.7%)

1
(.3%)

6
(2.1%)

4
(1.3%)

Asian

669
(5.9%)

2
(.6%)

1
(.4%)

4
(1.3%)

African American

4378
(39.2%)

108
(40.1%)

82
(28.9%)

46
(14.8%)

Hispanic

2139
(19.2%)

80
(30.2%)

68
(23.9%)

85
(27.3%)

Native Hawaiian or Other
Pacific Islander

7
(.06%)

1
(.3%)

0
(0%)

0
(0%)

Two or more Races

944
(8.5%)

29
(10.9%)

25
(8.8%)

38
(12.2%)

White

2935
(26.3%)

44
(16.6%)

102
(35.9%)

134
(43.0%)

Note. Data for this table was compiled using data available on the mischool.org website.
Percentages in parentheses are reflective of that ethnicities percentage of the population
in the individual school, except for the district column. These percentages reflect the
percentage of that ethnicity in the entire district.
63

Each of three school buildings that make up this study is lead by an individual
principal. Each principal has a support staff (e.g., secretary and other non-teaching adults)
that assists the daily operation of the building. Part of this support staff within the school
building includes the Student Assistance Providers (SAPs). SAPs are assigned to the
schools by the school district’s central office building. The SAPs work to implement new
initiatives, support teacher-student interactions, and act as a liaison between the school
administration and the student body. Officials at the district’s central office determine the
operational structure of each building. Each of the individuals that make up the support
staff within the school works in concert with the building leaders to ensure that the
objectives of the school system are met.
The setting of this study, while predominately in the three specific schools listed
above also includes the central offices where the specific decisions related to
programming within the schools are made. Within the central office of the BMSD,
several individuals have influence over the actions that take place within the individual
schools. In the central offices, the superintendent and the deputy superintendent work
alongside the executive directors to determine the initiatives that will be introduced and
the partnerships that will be made. In this particular instance, the deputy superintendent is
primarily responsible for the decision to engage in the introduction of CRPBIS and the
length of time that is committed to the implementation. After this decision has been
made, it has become the responsibility of the executive director of student services to
introduce and implement the CRPBIS initiative to the individual schools and principals.
The executive director is tasked with designing the implementation and ensuring that the
schools involved in the implementation are clearly informed, have the resources and time

64

necessary to implement, and that the partnership with the Gore Range District
(countywide support district – see below for more information) is facilitated as the
district envisions. In sum, once the district leadership, either the superintendent or the
school board has identified an initiative and the specific outcomes desired, it is the job of
the executive director of student services within the school district to ensure the smooth
implementation over time.
Gore Range District. In a unique relationship with the BMSD, a countywide
support organization, also considered to be a school district, though not in direct control
of any single school, is present to assist and aide all schools within the county to
introduce new curriculum, develop teacher’s skills, or provide analysis of data. In the
implementation that is detailed in this dissertation, the countywide school district is
providing expertise, training, and support for the implementation of CRPBIS. This
support organization operates outside of the individual school districts, yet is partly
funded by each of the schools that are serviced by the support organization. In this study,
this support organization will be referred to as Gore Range District (GRD). GRD is
organized much similar to a traditional school district with a superintendent and is also
structurally organized with a number of departments that are available to provide support
services to the schools within the county. Within the GRD is the Student Instructional
Services (SIS) department that is able to provide assistance to member school districts
that is specific to curriculum development, technical assistance, and program
implementation. Within the SIS, there are multiple individuals with educational
experience and expertise who manage individual initiatives that provide county schools
with support not available within the individual districts. A director oversees the content

65

supervisors, who in turn manage the specific area specialists, leads the GRD SIS team.
The director of the SIS team is responsible for overseeing the overarching initiatives of
GRD related to academic interests. Within the SIS team, there is a cohort of supervisors
of particular content areas, such as curriculum, CRPBIS, or technology. The supervisors
oversee specialists who are tasked with working directly with schools and educators. The
specialists are assigned to work with particular schools that have either requested support
or have been identified as needing support in particular academic areas. As a system, the
individual members of the GRD SIS team operate to provide a variety of professional
development opportunities for county school districts.
The relationship between BMSD and GRD in the implementation of CRPBIS was
a product of the need for services that were initially identified for Teocalli Elementary
School. In the spring prior to full implementation, Teocalli Elementary School was
identified as a school with persistently low achievement and as a result was afforded the
opportunity to restructure several internal programs to address the persistent low
performance. It was the GRD that introduced the implementation of CRPBIS in this one
elementary school (along with a high school) as a potential initiative that would improve
the school climate and potentially lead to improved academic outcomes for the students.
Working in concert with the BMSD, the initiative was brought to the school and
ultimately, through communication and dialogue between the content specialists of GRD
and the leadership of BMSD, expanded the implementation of CRPBIS across the
entirety of BMSD. In the interim months, between spring of the year prior to full
implementation in the following fall, Teocalli Elementary worked with GRD to initially
implement CRPBIS and then serve as an example for other schools. Even with the short

66

amount of extra time in the implementation for CRPPBIS at Teocalli Elementary, the
overall implementation of CRPBIS was not fundamentally altered. The partnership
between BMSD and GRD for the implementation of CRPBIS was created from a need to
address the climate and culture of one school and blossomed into a full district
implementation in a short amount of time.
Together, these two educational systems, the Bald Mountain School District and
the Gore Range District, help to ensure that the students within the local school district
and the county have the resources and opportunities to effectively engage with the school
initiatives. These two organizations are at the heart of this dissertation and the
commitment that they have to the collaborative working environment is critical to the
success of the implementation of the CRPBIS program in the schools. Historically, these
two groups have worked at arm’s length to each for a variety of reasons, but in this
instance the specific collaboration in the implementation of CRPBIS is mutually agreed
upon and is a chance to develop stronger relations between the two organizations.
However, the implementation of CRPBIS within the BMSD is a district initiative that is
being introduced, supported, and led by district actors that are being aided in professional
development and specific training that is provided by the countywide support district.
Data
Data for this dissertation is from a series of semi-structured interviews that took
place during and after the first year of implementation of CRPBIS. The interviews were
conducted with individuals at all levels of implementation, from the central offices of
BMSD, to the schools within the study, and with the members that facilitated the
implementation at GRD. Overall, the data provides a lens into the implementation of

67

CRPBIS at multiple levels and is able to help create an understanding about the
alignment of goals across strata. The interviews shed light on the challenges experienced
in the first year of implementation, especially on the differences in interpretation that
existed across groups about the need for CRPBIS in the schools. Overall, the data paint
an interesting picture of the implementation process. The data highlight the similarity in
goals, but also the discontinuity in implementation across the three individual schools
that are part of this study.
Interviews. Interviews are an important source of data and they provide an
opportunity for the participants to provide voice to the implementation (Kvale, 2006).
Furthering the point made by Kvale (2006), it is asserted by Denzin (2001) that “the
interview functions as a narrative device which allows persons who are so inclined to tell
their stories” (p.25). Interviews themselves, as Alvesson (2003) writes are an example of
knowledge production, in that the interviews provide “rich content” (Alvesson, 2003) that
enable analysis and help to shape the analysis of how individuals think and act. Alvesson
(2003) also writes that, “the interview then appears, on the whole, as a valid source of
knowledge production” (p. 17). From this information and perspective, the interview
process is quite helpful in gaining understanding and also for developing knowledge that
is helpful in the qualitative research process.
The series of semi-structured interviews took place during the winter and spring
of the first year of implementation. The interviews were conducted using a pre-populated
series of questions that were aligned to the research questions and provided interviewees
an opportunity to reflect on the design, implementation process, and follow-through after

68

initial roll out of the CRPBIS program. Interviews were conducted across all levels of
implementation, including district and school leaders, principals, and street-level actors.
Interview participants were selected and included into the interview cohort
because of the role they play in the implementation process. At the school district level,
the deputy superintendent and executive director of Student Services were approached to
participate (both agreed to be interviewed). The deputy superintendent was interviewed
once and the interview took place in the central offices of the school district. The
executive director was interviewed three times, once during the winter, once after the
school year of the first year of implementation, and once during the second year of
implementation. At the individual schools, each principal participated in the interview
process. Each principal was interviewed during the winter of the first year of
implementation and were later interviewed during the second year of implementation. At
the school level, one SAP agreed to be interviewed (a second SAP at a second school
declined to participate). Members of the GRD support team were also interviewed during
the course of implementation. The Director of the SIS team was interviewed and
provided overarching information related to the implementation. Two facilitators,
specialists in implementation and CRPBIS, were also interviewed. These individuals
were interviewed twice during implementation, once during the winter of the first year of
implementation and after the conclusion of the academic year. A final participant of the
interview process was also interviewed, but this individual does not fall into one of the
three levels. This interviewee was a BMSD district employee who was on loan to GRD to
support and observe the implementation process. This individual was interviewed during
the winter of the first year of implementation.

69

Table 3.2
Interview Participants

Organization
Bald Mountain
School District
Bald Mountain
School District

Gore Range School
District

Gore Range School
District/Bald
Mountain School
District

Position
Deputy
Superintendent
Executive Director
of Student Services
Teocalli Elementary
School principal
Bo Buck
Elementary School
Principal
Monument
Elementary School
Principal
Teocalli Elementary
School, Student
Assistant Provider
Executive Director
of Student Services
Supervisor, Student
Services
Supervisor, Student
Services
Implementation
Advisor

Interview #
1
3
3
2
2
2
1
2
2
1

The overall number of interviews is 19. There are limitations in the overall number of
individuals who were interviewed, but the limitations in size of the cohort does not
preclude analysis from being made about the form and function of the implementation
process because of the breadth of their involvement in the implementation process. More
interviews at all levels would have been helpful, but the lack of interview data does not
preclude the investigation about the framing of CRPBIS to be made, especially when
70

considering that this study looks to better understand the way in which the district
approaches a new initiative and the manner in which implementation begins.
The initial plan, by the district, was to implement CRPBIS over a three year
period of time, but a decision was made late in the first year to expand the time frame to a
five year implementation. Due to the fact that this dissertation is unable to fully account
for all five years of implementation, the data provided by the interviews will be utilized
to make early observations about the implementation process and the ways in which
individuals responsible for implementation make sense of and interpret the need for the
program and the manner in which the program is being implemented.
Each of the interviews that took place was scheduled according to the availability
of the interviewee. Initial interviews were conducted in the location where the individual
being interviewed worked on a daily basis; subsequent interviews were done via a
telephone due to circumstances that required this pathway. Each of the interviews were
digitally recorded and later transcribed to provide an accurate record of the interview.
These transcriptions will be the source for the analysis.
The interview data was coded and analyzed using the online service DeDoose to
provide insight into the systemic approach to the implementation of CRPBIS in BMSD.
The data from the interviews highlight the challenges and efforts that were made by all
parties involved to provide the participant schools the opportunity to introduce CRPBIS
in the most effective manner. Using interview coding processes presented by Miles and
Huberman (1994) the interviews were coded to categorize information about the
implementation and the experiences of the implementers. Approaching the interviews in
what Miles and Huberman (1994) posit as an attempt to “dissect them meaningfully

71

while keeping the relations between the parts” (p. 56) presented an opportunity to better
understand the experiences of the individuals who are implementing CRPBIS in the
schools. Further, as Miles and Huberman (1994) and Corbin and Strauss (1990) argue,
the next step after dissection of the interviews is to code the data in a way that creates
meaning. Miles and Huberman (1994) assert that codes are “tags or labels for assigning
units of meaning to the descriptive of inferential information compiled during a study.”
Adding to this conception, Corbin and Strauss (1990) point out that codes consists of
concepts as basic building blocks of coding and that from concepts it is possible to
develop categories within the concepts. Miles and Huberman (1994) posit that the types
of codes that are created fall into one of three fields. First, there are descriptive codes that
“attribute a class of phenomena to a segment of text” (Miles and Huberman, 1994, p. 57).
Second, interpretive codes can be used to describe a “more backstage web of motives
[that] turns up” (Miles and Huberman, 1994, p. 57). Last, there are pattern codes (Miles
and Huberman, 1994, p. 57) that describe particular patterns in the data that help to
provide insight into the relationship between various categories found in the data. These
categories allow the data to be organized in a coherent manner to explain the concepts
developed in initial coding. Following the coding of interview data into the buckets
created by the prognostic and diagnostic coding pattern, iterative pattern coding occurred
based upon themes generated during the analysis process. Together, these three types of
coding produced the framework necessary to further code the interviews into smaller
units of information. The smaller units further clarified the interpretations and
understandings that each individual within the interview cohort applied to the
implementation of CRPBIS. Overall, the investigation into the interviews, using the

72

smaller units of analysis provided an opportunity to further investigate the data found
within the interview transcripts.
Table 3.3
Coding Patterns

Code Type
Diagnostic

Original Coding
Behavioral Definition
Understanding of CRPBIS

Stakeholder Responsibility
Prognostic Reaction to Professional Development
CRPBIS as a tool
Perception of change

Secondary Coding
Biases named or perceived
Behavioral definitions
Students and CRPBIS
Implementation Information
Purpose for implementing
CRPBIS
Plans for professional
development
School leaders
CR definitions
CRPBIS outcomes expected
Staff and faculty responsibility
Implementation variation
Staff experiences
Response to professional
development
Implementation Challenges
Use of CRPBIS as a tool
Change that CRPBIS will bring

Due to the fact that qualitative research, as Winter (2000) discusses, is “concerned itself
with the meanings and personal experiences of individuals, groups, and sub-groups” (n.p)
the coding structure enabled the interpretation of the meanings and various experiences
that individuals have in the implementation of CRPBIS. Following the framework created
by these authors, it will be attempted to show, through interviews, how the

73

implementation of CRPBIS was experienced and understood by those tasked with
implementing the new initiative.
In sum, the data for this dissertation create the framework through which a better
understanding of the implementation of CRPBIS. The interview data will be able to paint
a picture of the implementation from multiple perspectives. This data will offer more
insight into the challenges and success experience in the first year of implementation.
Methods
The methods utilized for this dissertation focus upon interviews as the primary
source of data to fuel the analysis of the implementation of CRPBIS in BMSD. For the
interview data, an inductive coding methodology is used to allow themes to develop from
the material and then form into concepts that identify the way in which the
implementation process unfolded and evolved during the first year of implementation.
Interviews. The primary source of material for this dissertation originated from
the interviews that were conducted during the first year of implementation. The interview
process began with the creation of an interview protocol that would seek to investigate
the actions and beliefs of those who were implementing CRPBIS. After the interview
protocols were approved and submitted to IRB, the process of participant recruitment
began. By reaching out to schools and speaking with stakeholders, a cohort of candidates
was contacted and asked to be a part of the study. Once participants had agreed to the
interviews, appointments were made and interviews were conducted. Following the
interviews, each interview was transcribed so that the interview data could be entered into
a digital analysis tool (Dedoose) for analysis. In the end, the interview process provided

74

critical information to better understand how individuals make sense of this new policy
being introduced to the schools system.
The first step in the interview process was to create a set of interview protocols
that would be used in the interview process. Due to the fact that individuals from multiple
locations, who work in different capacities, would be part of the overall interview process
it was necessary to create six separate interview protocols. Interviews were intended (and
were) conducted with individuals at the school level, with members of the countywide
support organization (the GRD), and with individuals at the central district offices. The
interview protocols all sought to gain insight into how individuals saw the need for the
implementation and how the implementation could affect the existing behavioral
problems that existed within the schools system. The interviews, because they were
designed to allow for dialogue to be part of the interview, allowed the interviewee to
provide knowledge and perceptions about the implementation of CRPBIS. Each of the
different groups within the interview process was asked questions that would provide
insight into how CRPBIS was viewed at their particular level. Each interview protocol
has a second set of questions, which were to be asked at a later time that would seek to
understand how their perceptions had changed over time regarding the implementation of
CRPBIS.
Along with the interview protocols, individual consent forms for each participant
were created and were designed to provide as much anonymity as possible for the
participants. Each participant within the study, per the consent form, was associated with
a pseudonym that would be used to protect individual identity. Within the consent form
were two required signatures. One provided their consent to be interviewed; the second

75

consented to have the interview audio recorded so that a transcription of the interview
could be made at a later date. Each participant in the interview process agreed to each of
the provisions within the consent form.
The selection of those who would be interviewed included a sampling of
individuals from each level of leadership within the implementation plan. As mentioned
previously, ten individuals were part of the interviewee cohort. It was hoped that there
would be more participants, but several locations turned down the opportunity to be a
part of the study. In one school that did participate, the SAP denied the request to be
interviewed for personal reasons. However, the hope was that the interview cohort would
provide a set of individuals that could provide a view into the implementation process
that would present perspectives from all levels, from the top to the bottom of the school
system. Due to this goal, individuals at the central district offices were asked, and
consented, to the interview request. Schools at the elementary level (since this was
location was the focal point of the implementation) were asked to participate. Three
schools agreed to participate, two turned down requests, and others did not respond to
offers to participate. Requests to participate were made via e-mail communication and
personal visits (following the initial round of e-mails).
Following the agreement to participate in the interview process, interviews were
scheduled and conducted in a one-on-one basis. The majority of the interviews were
conducted in person, though some interviews were conducted on the phone. The
interviews lasted between 35 – 70 minutes. During the course of the interview, follow-up
questions were asked based upon the responses of the interviewees to provide clarity of
an answer or to dig deeper into a response. Overall, the interview process sought to

76

include as many participants as possible and provide an insight into the implementation
process through a multitude of lenses.
Following the completion of each interview the audio recording of the interview
was transcribed. The transcriptions provide an opportunity to go back through the
interviews and code the material based upon the answers and insight that they provided.
The interview transcripts were loaded into a digital coding software program (Dedoose)
to enable the iterative coding process to occur. Codes for the interviews were initially
based upon the prognostic and diagnostic frame buckets, however the excerpts were
recoded into pattern codes to further break down the information from the interviews.
The codes were used to bucket thoughts and themes, however, throughout the coding
process further codes were created to better articulate and categorize various perceptions
and concepts that arose during the analysis.
In totality, the interview process included a number of steps. From the creation
and approval of the interview protocols to the actual interviews and ultimately the
analysis of interviews that had been conducted. The process provided the opportunity to
meet and get to know many of the individuals involved in the implementation process.
Their insight and commentary about the process proved to be quite valuable in assessing
how the implementation process occurred and what challenges were faced in the process
of implementing CRPBIS.

77

CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF DATA
Prior to engaging in the analysis of how the implementation process of CRPBIS
led to variations across the schools within the study, it is necessary to discuss components
of the implementation that help to encourage the implementation of CRPBIS. The
specific components that help to position the implementation include a rationale for why
the program was implemented, an understanding of how individuals understand what the
cultural responsiveness (CR), how the implementation evolved within the school systems,
and last an understanding of the disciplinary situation within BMSD. Following the
description of how CRPBIS came to be introduced in BMSD, I will seek to tease out how
individuals at different levels understand the need for and the benefits of CRPBIS in the
BMSD schools, as well as the impact of professional development upon the
implementation of CRPBIS. The analysis in this chapter is predicated on the language
used in the interview process. The words of the principals in the interviews are the source
of the analysis of the adoption for this section, this also limits the study in that clear
causal relationship between the success of the implementation are unclear. The analysis is
based upon the responses of the principals in the interviews. It should be noted that in
this section of the study, I refer to all participants as females. I will also refer to all
members of the BMSD administration as a “district official,” in an effort to protect the
identities of individuals within the study.
Why CRPBIS?
The introduction of CRPBIS within the BMSD occurred as a result of the efforts
by BMSD central office officials to address the growing concern about the suspension
numbers within the school district. CRPBIS was also introduced to BMSD to provide

78

consistency for the students across all school buildings. According to one school leader,
“we started looking at our suspension and expulsion data across the district…and we
were very concerned.” This concern ultimately led to the partnership with GRD to
implement CRPBIS within the school district. The original intent of the GRD was to
begin the implementation with a small cohort of schools, but that desire was superseded
by the decision of one district official at BMSD to implement CRPBIS in all of the
schools within the district at one time. It was thought, by district officials, that this
implementation of CRPBIS would be most effective if all the schools within district
implemented the program at the same time. The assumption is that if implemented across
the entire district, all of the schools would see the commitment and focus that the district
was placing on the implementation of CRPBIS. Additionally, this commitment to the
implementation across all schools would ultimately lead to coherence and a consistent
approach to addressing misbehavior in the classroom across the schools for all students.
As a school district official put it:
It is important that those expectations [related to the approaches taken to school
discipline] for kids are consistent. And especially students at risk, especially
students that are struggling, they need more consistency, not less consistency. So
it was really important to me that we did it district wide and I’m happy to say we
did.
The commitment to implementing CRPBIS across all schools in the district ensures, in
one sense, that all schools will begin the implementation process at the same time, but in
another sense, does not allow for best practices to be discovered and shared with other
schools in the district. The primary purpose for implementing across all the schools is to

79

create consistency and coherence for the students in the schools. As envisioned by the
central offices of the school district consistency and coherence can be attained by
insisting that all schools implement CRPBIS at the same time. Through a universal
implementation of CRPBIS, the district is seeking to introduce culturally responsive
practices in all school building, create continuity in application of behavioral
expectations, and to address the growing rate of school discipline actions.
Culturally Responsive
A key facet to understanding the implementation of CRPBIS is to understand how
individuals interpret Culturally Responsive (CR) approaches to school discipline. The
concept of culturally responsive approaches can best be understood by the definition
provided by Mrs. Roffee of BMSD. Mrs. Roffee argues that:
CR is not just about race and ethnicity. CR is about uniqueness and appreciation
for uniqueness and also the connection and the need for me as an adult to connect
to my students in my classroom in unique ways based on who they are and what
they come with.
The act of being CR is embedded in the totality of actions by schools that include the
background and lived experiences of students and not in the simple acknowledgement of
race. CR is also seen as the effort to understand the culture that is present in the school’s
environment. The ability to comprehend and value the individuals who make up the
community in which a teacher, principal, or other adult in the school operates within is a
key factor in the development of CR practices. Furthermore, Mrs. Roffee points out that
CR “forces us to really consider our privilege and our social location and how that might
disenfranchise other people who are not like us.” To take this a step further and building

80

upon the conceptualization of CR as posited by Mrs. Roffee, CR requires that individuals
pay particular attention to their own station in life and the background from which an
individual comes from and how that affects the day-to-day classroom setting. At the
school level, the CR portion of CRPBIS is about building trust and finding ways to help
teachers adopt culturally responsive practices in the classroom. Cultural responsiveness
can be the way in which teacher’s present material, promoting cultural differences, and
they way in which teacher’s can help students from different cultures interact with one
another. Mrs. Maier, a school leader, provides a strong articulation of what this means in
the classroom by saying that, “it’s really [about] building relationships with kids. It’s
making kids feel safe. They’re in a culture where a lot of times they do not feel safe in
school so to me, that’s the part of the cultural part is how do we make the school safe for
them.” The idea of CR in CRPBIS is to ensure that the local culture of the school is given
the chance to be represented in the policies, procedures, and programs within the school.
Implementation
The implementation of CRPBIS sought to provide students and schools with a
coherent approach to school discipline while at the same time allowing schools to tailor
the implementation to the needs and capacity of each school. This tricky proposal,
allowing for variation yet at the same time seeking to create consistency in systems
across schools, is achieved by providing the schools a basic set of expectations that
stipulates the inclusion of specific requirements. Rather than approach the
implementation of CRPBIS with a “command and control” approach that mandates the
continuation of the traditional disciplinary policy as determined by the central office, the
new approach being implemented, as an official of BMSD articulated, sought to

81

implement CRPBIS in a way that created capacity for local variation, but would require
that schools have three specific features.
Figure 4.1
Implementation Expectations of BMSD

As seen in the figure above, the three circles within the larger circle represent the three
non-negotiable requirements as set forth by the school district. First, each school is
required to locally design a discipline matrix, second, the teachers would be trained in the
CHAMPS approach to classroom management, and last, each school is required
introduce culturally responsive practices in the school. What this means is that while the
district is mandating three specific components to the implementation, there is room for
some variation within those components within the buildings.
For example, while the school district might require a school to have a discipline
matrix, it would be up to the school to flesh out the expectations, consequences, and the
disciplinary action for a student who violates the expectations of the school. The school
district will still require that certain egregious actions require certain punishments, but the
local school leadership will be able to address minor disciplinary actions in a way the
provides students an alternative to the traditional systematic approach to school
misconduct. A second example of the way in which the school can introduce a varied
82

approach to the mandates of the district is to personalize their approach to CR. The
school is required to address CR, but the school is allowed to develop that approach and
can be done in consultation with the students and the families of the school community.
The need for this, as Mrs. Roffee, another district official, argues is that “what's great
about our district is the diversity…and what’s bad about our district is the diversity.
When I talk about diversity, what I really mean is the differences that schools have in
their expectations, policies, and procedures.” Diversity in this case is not racial or ethnic,
but is a diverse product of the community that exists in the school.
CRPBIS is projected by BMSD as the approach to school discipline that helps to
create the structural systems that enable school leaders to account for local populations
and at the same time, introduce the specific requirements of the implementation of
CRPBIS for the school district. This variable consistency will allow for “students to be
able to transfer from one building to another and really understand how to be successful
in that building regardless of whatever location they’re in” according to Mrs. Roffee of
BMSD. The overall goal of the district wide implementation is to address the need that
students have for consistency in the classroom related to approaches to misbehavior as a
result of the high level of transiency in the district.
It was also important for the district to provide to the school leaders a framework
for why the implementation of CRPBIS was important for all schools. The rationale for
this came from the central office and was centered on the importance of addressing the
disproportionality of discipline within the schools. Recall that the risk of a student
receiving a suspension was considerably higher for African American students than for
non-African American students in the district. Due to this existing disproportionality

83

within the system, it was necessary for the district to look closely at how the existing
system of discipline perpetuated the continuing risk for African Americans. As Mrs.
Roffee stated regarding the existing PBIS systems within BMSD, “what you’re seeing
with PBIS in and of itself is no reduction in disproportionality.” It was the district’s
history of disproportionality that led to the inclusion of culturally responsive practices to
curb the removal of students from the classroom. Culturally responsive practices allow
for individuals to have, according to Mrs. Cooper from the GRD, “a better understanding
of the students and the environments that they are coming from. I think they [teachers]
have a better understanding of how to strategically deal with student behaviors on a more
individual basis.” A school principal, Mrs. Mahre, further pointed out that with CRPBIS,
“you're looking for their [students] strengths, their weaknesses, and their proficiencies
and their interest so that you can maximize instruction and get them motivated.” Overall,
the implementation of culturally responsive practices, related to disciplinary approaches
in the school, create the opportunity for schools and school leaders to look beyond the
behavior and seek a deeper understanding behind the misbehavior of the student. It is an
effort designed to seek an understanding as to what is causing the actions of the student
rather than simply punishing the student.
School Discipline History in BMSD
On the whole, punitive discipline within the district has been falling in the years
prior to this study. Despite the fact that punitive discipline was declining district wide
over time, at the elementary school level punitive discipline was on the rise. In fact, one
of the schools in this study (Teocalli Elementary) had the highest rate of suspension in
the school. According to the school principal, at Teocalli Elementary discipline had come

84

to be a form of maintaining order within the school for the principal. Principal Stenmark,
of Teocalli Elementary, saw discipline as “the way to keep the building safe and to run a
tight ship.” The mindset in this case, was that by having a strict disciplinary system in
place, the classrooms would function more efficiently and provide a greater opportunity
for the students who were behaving as asked to learn in the classroom. Though this was
not the dominant mindset across the district, it does present an important view into the
situation in one elementary school where CRPBIS was set to be introduced.
Discipline, across the interviews, was perceived as an important tool to ensure
that students acted appropriately within the schools, but it became clear that many of the
participants within the system have come to the understanding that harsh, punitive
discipline is not an intervention. It is not an intervention that will produce the best results
for students in the classroom and it is possible that the historic approaches to school
discipline may simply propagate further bad behavior in the future. The behavior that
principals spoke of as being the reason why students were sent to the principal’s office
was persistent misconduct or disorderly behavior. These “nuisance” behaviors, as
described by a central district office official, lead to an overall escalation of frustration
within the classroom that results in students being sent to the principal.
Research Question #1
The first of three research questions in this study is designed to gain a better
understanding of how individuals across the school district frame the need for the
implementation of Culturally Responsive Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports
(CRPBIS). Along with understanding the need for implementation, it is also important to
explore how the individuals in this study frame the benefits of the implementation. Thus,

85

the first research question of this study looks at how individuals frame the purpose of
CRPBIS and reads as follows:
In what ways do stakeholders responsible for implementation frame the need for
and potential benefits of CRPBIS as a form of behavioral interventions?
a. What differences exist in the framing of CRPBIS across central office
and elementary school personnel?
b. In what ways do these individual framings change as a result of
professional development, training, and oversight in the
implementation of CRPBIS?
Understanding the way in which individuals across the school district frame the purpose
of CRPBIS is an important first step in understanding the overall implementation of the
CRPBIS program across and within the schools within the Bald Mountain School District
(BMSD). The framing that individuals have related to the implementation has an impact
on how school leaders view the value of CRPBIS and how individuals implement the
program in their individual building. Both of these constructs, the need for CRPBIS and
the benefits of CRPBIS, help to provide insight into why different schools have varying
levels of implementation of the CRPBIS program.
At a basic level, the need for the implementation of the CRPBIS program is
rooted in the conception that the introduction and the implementation of the program will
result in noticeable changes in the classrooms and schools will be able to
reconceptionalize the identification and reaction to student misbehavior. The goal of the
implementation, across the many levels within the school system, is to find ways to
reduce the incidence and severity of school discipline for students within the district. The

86

need for implementation and the benefits of implementation are wedded together in this
study due to the fact that the overarching goal for CRPBIS is to reduce suspensions for
students. These two key objectives, which are closely related, of the implementation of
CRPBIS, represent the first of three research questions in this study and focus on the way
in which individuals use personal frames of reference and experience to implement
CRPBIS to explore the way that the implementing agents understand the need for and
benefits of CRPBIS I look specifically to how the district and local goals of the
implementation are aligned.
Principal interpretation. A pivotal piece of analysis within this study is the
investigation into how principals individually interpret and understand policy initiatives,
but it is also important to understand how an individual’s history and experience
influence the manner in which policy is acted upon. In each of the school buildings that
are a part of this study, the interpretation of the CRPBIS policy was influential in the
actual implementation of CRPBIS. For example, in Monument Elementary school (the
building where an alternative behavior policy, the principal’s desire to maintain the
existing approach to school behavior was preferred over the new method due to the
historical knowledge and experience. The new system, according to the principal, did not
take into account the work that had been previously done and failed to acknowledge the
merits of the existing program. In opposition to this, the principal at Teocalli Elementary
embraced the idea and implementation of CRPBIS in the early stages. At Teocalli
Elementary, the principal came to the understanding that CRPBIS would be helpful in
improving the overall climate and culture of the building.

87

Together, these two examples help to identify that the positionality of the
principals can have influence on the implementation of policy. It is important to
understand that the experience of the principals has an influence on the adoption of
district policy, but that influence is variable based upon the interpretation and
understanding of the policy. The interpretation and understanding of policy by an
individual is predicated on the environment and need in each of the buildings that a
policy is being implemented. As such, the actions of the principals, or sensemaking of the
policy, can have an influence on the overall implementation of policy.
District vs. Local Goals. In the analysis of the interviews, it became clear that
there were a set of distinct goals that were being sought in the implementation. At the
district level, there was an effort to address the inequalities that exist within the system
for students of color and from low Socio-Economic Status (SES). In addition to the
disciplinary inequalities that were identified, it was also the goal of the district to
introduce a systematic approach to school discipline that would provide students with a
sense of consistency within and across school building. Whether students transfer
buildings as a result of a move by the family or if the students graduate from one building
to the next, the goal of the district was to provide structure and coherence for the
students. At the school level, the goals of implementation were to increase the awareness
of the culture that students come from and to increase the level of understanding and
empathy for the students. At both of these distinct levels of administration, the benefits
and needs for implementing CRPBIS were similar in that they represented an attempt to
improve the day-to-day environment for the students.

88

District Level Outcomes. A clear outcome that was identified by district
administrations was that CRPBIS would provide an opportunity for the district to address
existing inequality for students of color within the school system. There is a disciplinary
inequality that exists within the school system. African American students, particularly
African American males, face a much higher rate of suspension when compared to other
students. The reason for the inequality is not that teachers and principals are racist in their
implementation of school discipline, it seems as if the cause of the differences is
attributed to the adjudication of classroom misbehavior. It is offered by Mrs. Roffee that
one potential reason for the differences in disciplinary action may be a result of a
difference in norms and expectations for students. Although it was not outwardly stated
that teachers and principals have a different expectation than students, it can be inferred
from the interview data that an underlying conception is that the traditional composition
of the teaching corps, middle class white females, lends itself to a different understanding
of how students should behave in the classroom. These differences in classroom
expectations imply that students come to the school building with a cultural norm that is
different than the cultural norms of the teaching staff. A result of the differences in
expectations between the two populations is that certain behaviors, especially
oppositional behavior in the classroom, which may be manifested in a refusal to do
certain work or student behavior that could be construed as disruptive, can lead to
disciplinary moments when the clash between cultures results in punitive action taken
against the students. As a result of this, the administration of the district undertook an
effort to address the cultural differences by implementing CRPBIS.

89

Addressing Inequality. Across the board, the interviewees from the district
leadership to the GRD facilitators highlighted that there is a distinct need for a
disciplinary system to be introduced that will provide equality where inequality currently
exists. Central office directors and supporting facilitators both pointed to the fact that it
was pivotal to introduce to the school system a program for school discipline that worked
towards the achievement of discipline equality for all students within the district. While
the expressed need for the implementation of such a system came from different sources,
there was agreement of the need. As Mrs. Cooper, one of the facilitators from GRD noted
that, “we also have unequivocal evidence that we begin with disproportionate discipline
outcomes.” One of the key reasons why, according to Mrs. Cooper of the GRD, the
starting point of inequality in school discipline exists is due to the historical composition
of the teaching and administrative body, which is generally middle class and female. Mrs.
Cooper pointed out that:
If you think about traditionally, who make the rules for the schools? Usually your
teachers and administration, right? They collaborate, they come up with an idea of
what their, what their school should look like, how it should be run? What are the
variables for suspension or behaviors? What are all of those criteria and it’s from
the framework. And traditionally in education, a majority of your teachers are
middle aged and White and so sometimes, when you’re in a highly urban district,
cultural norms that are being established by folks that are not from the culture that
they’re serving sometimes can be a conflict.
This passage provides an important insight to the potential genesis of the existence of a
structural inequality that faces students, especially in urban districts, before the school

90

doors even open. If the rules and expectations for school behavior, and the consequences
for violating those rules, are being set by a group of individuals who are not from the
location in which the school resides, the design of a set of rules and expectations that
reflect what the creators of the policy believe to be appropriate behavior can work against
the world and cultural norms from which the students come from. The potential for a
disconnect between the expectations of the school district and the lived experiences of the
students is quite possible, and might be a significant source of the identification of
“nuisance” behavior such as insubordination or disorderly conduct.
In this setting, if the students of BMSD come to school from backgrounds that are
wholly different that the backgrounds of the adults who design the disciplinary system it
is possible, if not probably, that the system of discipline, if followed as written, could be
putting the students at a disadvantage from the very outset. For some of the students of
this district, many of who are low-income and arrive to school in some sort of trauma
state, as posited by Mrs. Roffee of BMSD, the students may bring to the school an
historical background and set of norms that is in opposition of the school district’s
behavioral expectations. Not that all of the students want to misbehave, not that all of the
students want to create tension in the classroom, but it is possible that the student’s
simply come from a lived experience that not similar to those who set the rules. As
Principal Madsen stated, “just like you have to know where a kid is starting from as a
reader, you gotta know where they’re starting from as a human. And when they come
from the trauma that some of them come from they learn differently.” Not only do the
student’s learn differently, but they also act differently. Knowing where a student is
coming from and understanding that the cultural expectations that the students bring to

91

the classroom is different than the cultural expectations that the school system seeks to
privilege can produce an adversarial situation. This makes it even more important to
introduce culturally responsive practices to bridge the existing gap between the school
and the community to which they serve. As Mrs. Roffee states, “CR [culturally
responsive] really says we need to include their voice and they need to walk alongside us
as we implement policies, expectations, and procedures so that their voice is not lost and
so that disproportionality is not maintained.” The need for implementing CRPBIS as a
system of behavior expectations as a way to address the existing inequality of the
school’s disciplinary system is clearly an important factor for the individuals in this
study. As Mrs. Cooper of GRD argues, the system is naturally biased towards the middle
class normative expectations and it is the responsibility of the school leadership. Mrs.
Madsen states, to seek to understand the students’ cultural background in order to
implement a system that is moving towards a more equal setting. The implementation of
CRPBIS will help the schools and the school district to develop practices that help
teachers and principals to generate conversations, “prickly conversations” according to
Mrs. Moltzan who is a district official. These prickly conversations are conversations that
are centered on race and the application of discipline that might be attributed to racial
beliefs. The conversations are prickly because no teacher or principal will react kindly to
the implication that they are acting in a racist manner, but the conversations must occur.
There must be dialogue that is based upon existing data that highlight the disparity in
discipline within the district. As Mrs. Moltzan of BMSD states, it is a very sensitive area
and individuals may “feel attacked, they get defensive, they stop listening and you aren’t
able to make inroads. So you have to have very delicate conversations but we need to

92

have those conversations.” However challenging or prickly the conversations may be
they do have the potential to produce positives outcomes when they are structured in a
way that is not condescending or accusatory. As Principal Stenmark states, “It’s a tough
conversation, it’s uncomfortable. Now we've had those conversations and we’re seeing
the progress.” While having the conversations may be a challenge and they may stir up
angst, the outcomes as seen by Principal Stenmark produce positive dialogue about what
to do after the issue of racial differences have been identified. The dialogue does not have
to point to a teacher and say that their disciplinary history shows that they act in a racist
manner; the dialogue needs to show that a situation exists and CRPBIS is a way in which
the community can address the situation. In the end, the conversations about race provide
a space for action to take place.
Mrs. Moltzan further states that, “the CR part of it, your gonna open up solutions
and possibilities, rather than being closed off and saying, nope, this is the rule.” By
opening up solutions and possibilities for discipline to be less culturally biased, it is
possible that the historically biased system of school discipline may become more
responsive to the needs of the school buildings and the students within the buildings.
Systematized Approach. A second need that arose across of the interviews during
the investigation of the implementation of CRPBIS was the need for the school district as
a whole to have a systematized approach to school discipline. The need for the
systematized approach is a direct result of the high rate of transiency among the students
within the district. Students move about the school district quite frequently, whether that
is from school to school or as the students advance in age from an elementary building to
a middle school. Either way, the student population is highly transient and as a result, the

93

students experience different expectations from one building to another. The significant
challenge of this implementation is that while the school district wants to achieve a
coherent, consistent systematized approach to school discipline, the district is also
seeking to allow for variation of school discipline based upon the location where CRPBIS
is being introduced. To address this duality of goals, it is necessary to understand that
while the district is expecting local variation in approach, each school needs to include
three specific expectations that have been established the school district as nonnegotiable. As Mrs. Moltzan of BMSD put it, “they’re [individual schools] not gonna be
exactly the same within each of those settings but the closer we can get to having similar
expectations, the easier it is for the kids to predict, know what will happen, know the
consequences of their behavior.” Essentially, according to the school district leadership,
variation in implementation is acceptable as long as the core structure of the approach
includes the three specific expectations identified by the school district. To further this
conception of alignment across schools, Mrs. Roffee of BMSD, pointed out that:
Having systematized, consistent expectations across the district is essential really
to support the type of population that we have. So implementing CR really helps
to have consistency across the board, where everyone has shared expectations and
a student and a parent will know that these same expectations are the same
expectations across the board, regardless of how transient I am as a student and as
a family.
This consistency across buildings means that students will be able to quickly gain an
understanding of the behavioral expectations in their new building and that will,

94

according to individuals interviewed, produce positive results for the students socially
and academically.
Having similar expectations, if not an exact replica from building to building, will
have positive effects for the students and families in the mind of a school district official.
Mrs. Moltzan stated that the outcome of introducing a systematized approach to school
discipline will result in three important outcomes, “attendance will be better. Behavior
will be better. They’ll learn more.” This is, in the view of the school district, an
articulation of the benefits of CRPBIS and the stated goal of having a system in place that
is familiar and predictable for the students. The similarities of approaches across school
buildings will help the students avoid punitive discipline, such as suspension, and remain
in the school building instead of being at home. The similarities will help the students to
understand the limits of their behavior in the classroom and will, eventually, allow the
students to see academic gains. For instance, in Teocalli Elementary, which was at one
point the leader in the number of suspensions administered for the district, students there
during the early stages of the implementation have made some of the largest gains
academically. Even the students who were more frequently sent to the school principal’s
office, the high-flyers, are seeing academic growth. According to Principal Stenmark, of
the 20 students who were identified as high-flyers (those who most frequently sent to the
office), 17 of the 20 students showed growth on standardized math assessments. While
the growth may not be entirely a result of the systematized approach to school discipline,
Principal Stenmark does believe that the CRPBIS program and the systematized approach
did play a distinct role in their academic growth. As Principal Stenmark says, regarding
the implementation of a systematized approach to school discipline:

95

It was huge. Because before, we didn’t have any systems. If a kid, let’s say a kid
continues to be disruptive in class, they come to my office, sit in my office for a
while, do work. Okay, I’m not a teacher. So I can’t teach them. They’re not
learning anything. Or depending on the infraction, I would say okay, you have to
go home. You go home today. The kid comes back, does the same thing. Okay,
you’re going home today. So kids were sitting with me not learning or they were
going home not learning.
The implementation of a coherent and consistent approach to school discipline across the
school district enables the students to more accurately predict the consequences of their
behavior in the school building. The consistency has produced noticeable reductions in
suspension and considerable increases in student achievement. As Mrs. Roffee states,
“we see students are performing better because they don’t have any confusion on what is
expected of them.” The need to have systems and supports in place that are similar across
school buildings is clearly a need that is identified by participants in this study and the
outcome of the systematized approach is beginning to show benefits for students.
School Level Outcomes. At the individual school level, the need for and benefits
of CRPBIS is articulated through a slightly different lens. Rather than CRPBIS
addressing significant overarching goals, at the school level, the outcomes address more
interpersonal and community needs and benefits. CRPBIS, at the school level, has the
potential, according to the school building leaders, to elevate empathy, care, and
understanding from the teaching staff. CRPBIS as a program is believed to be the avenue
through which individuals of different backgrounds can come together as a community.
This community benefit is seen as central actors in the achievement of stated goals of the

96

implementation to address the lack of relationships and cultural understanding between
the teaching staff and the student body. To achieve these goals, it is necessary for the
teaching staff and principals of the schools to make concerted efforts to include the
students and the parents in the school environment. It is also necessary for the school to
reach out to parents and to students in order to gain a better understanding of the lived
experiences of the families outside of the school to have a better context of what the
students are bringing to the classroom when the bell rings.
Understanding of the Students. From the perspective of the individual school
leaders, an important need that is addressed through the implementation of CRPBIS is the
opportunity created to learn about and understand the lives of students outside of the
school. By understanding the students, where they come from, and the cultural norms that
they live by outside of the school building, it is possible for the school to better meet the
needs of the students in the school building.
The primary need, and ultimately the benefit of introducing CRPBIS to the school
building that was addressed through the interviews, was framed in the way that CRPBIS
seeks to have school leaders get to know their students and the communities from which
they come. Each of the principals, and even the school district officials that participated
in the interviews, identified the need to get to know the students and the environment
they come from. This is important because the students bring with them the culture that
they live in to the classroom and this has an effect on their ability to interact with
individuals, both young and old, within the school setting. Principal Madsen stated that,
“we’ve got to understand, you know, in a sense, the raw material that we have, that we’re
working with.” Understanding the raw material, or the cultural norms that students bring

97

to the classroom is quite important when thinking about expected behaviors. It is the
recognition of where students come from, as Mrs. Roffee states, “their SES, ethnic/racial
background, and their cultural practices” that can result in a school building that is more
aware of how a student’s home environment can effect the student’s behavior in the
classroom and how the student may react to the expectations set forth by the teacher, the
school, and the school district.
According to Mrs. Roffee of BMSD, the school district has a number of students
that sit outside the traditional expectations of what a student looks like. Mrs. Roffee states
that:
We have a high percentage of kids coming out of poverty so they’ve already been
stressed out. They’re stressed out on a continual basis. We have a lot of homeless
kids. We have a lot of English Language Learners. We have a lot, a high
percentage of students who have these extraneous things affecting them in
different ways
This conception was supported by the comments of Mrs. Nelms (another school district
official) who echoed the statement of Mrs. Roffee when she said that:
We have such a high proportion of students who aren’t necessarily gonna be
served well with a very traditional education model. They’re not going to be able
to sit in rows. They’re not going to be able to listen for long periods of time, just
based on their backgrounds. We have a high percentage of kids coming out of
poverty, so they’ve already been stressed out. They’re stressed out on a continual
basis.

98

The students come to the school building with a much different mindset than traditional
students. The lived experiences of the students outside of the classroom have a
considerable impact on the ability of the students to meet the expected norms of the
classroom. As a result, the school system needs to better understand the students and the
experiences that the students bring to the classroom. Through a better understanding of
the students, it is possible to better enable academic and social growth.
A significant component of this understanding is realizing that the school’s adult
population, majority white and majority female, do not look the same as the students in
the desks. As Mrs. Moltzan, of the BMSD, states:
When you look at our staff, we’re also disproportionately represented in how our
student population is. Our staff is mainly white females…but when our kids look
at our teachers predominately, they don’t see people that look like them. They
don’t see people that come from their culture or have their values.”
As a result of this difference in population groups, there is a real need for the school
leadership and teaching staff to create relationships and develop a level of understanding
that allows faculty and staff to better work with their students. In order to accomplish this
level of understanding, it was clear that across all levels of the school district, a clear and
concerted effort was needed to get out of the building, out from behind the desk, and get
to know the kids, their families, and their surroundings.
This effort to generate greater outreach and inclusion of external stakeholders was
a goal of the district for the schools. At the district level, getting to know the students was
envisioned as efforts by the faculty and leadership of the school to go to community

99

events, make home visits, and learn about where the students are from. As Mrs. Moltzan,
of BMSD said:
The leaders need to get out and attend community events. They need to know
where their community is from. They need to look at the data. They need to look
at unemployment figures, which sounds counterintuitive to what teachers and
principals should be doing but they need to know their local context. They need to
go to football games. They need to attend, you know, the choir assemblies and
things like that so that they can talk with families.
Interaction with the community can provide an increased level of understanding for the
principals and teachers. It can help to teachers, as Mrs. Moltzan states, to know their local
context and to talk with the families in a non-academic environment. In the same manner,
the principals in this study equally agreed that it was important for the school staff to
know the students and to know their lives. Mrs. Stenmark, principal of Teocalli
Elementary spoke to this when it was intoned that it was necessary for teachers to get to
know the families:
I think that helped out as far as having that first positive contact with families and
they learn, when they call the homes, maybe it’s just mom there. Maybe its just
granddad there. Maybe there’s no one there. Staff really started realizing the lives
of our kids are so much different than ours and we have to be more patient and
have a lot of empathy.
The use of the term empathy is quite important and represents a major decision by the
school leadership to move beyond simply having a disciplinary system and to develop an
approach that includes the students and the community in the disciplinary process. The

100

CR approach, with its inclusion of stakeholders has created an opportunity for solutions,
as was mentioned by Mrs. Moltzan, and CRPBIS provides the opportunity for the
community to become more involved in the school process and to help generate gateways
for parents to inform the teachers about their own conceptions of the disciplinary process.
It was Mrs. Stenmark who noted that part of the success of implementing CR was a result
of reaching out to parents. “I think just involving all stakeholders, making sure they have
a voice has played a pivotal role in success we had.” At the root of this stakeholder
involvement is the need to expand the role of the community in getting to know the
students. Getting to know the students and getting to know their environment was a
critical need of the schools within the study, and is also an important reason why CRPBIS
was brought into the school district.
Framing of CRPBIS. In looking more closely at how the individuals within the
school system framed the need for the implementation, it is evident that two unique
frames were applied to the value of implementing CRPBIS. Framing, as defined earlier in
the study, is the way in which individuals establish understanding and acts as a schema
for individual understanding. It is the act of framing that allows individuals to place
meaning where meaning is unclear. In the case of this study, the act of framing by the
leaders of the school district allowed for various actors in the implementation to place
meaning onto the perceived need for the implementation. It was the framing of the
implementation of CRPBIS that created the space and pathways for the school district to
use a lens that viewed the implementation as meeting the needs of the school system to
address the existence of disproportionality that existed within the school system’s
disciplinary expectations. Secondly, the individual schools approached the

101

implementation with the framing perspective that through the implementation of
CRPBIS, it is possible to develop a more robust understanding of the students and the
families that are part of the individual school’s community. Both of these perspectives
and these individual frames are important to explore. At times, the frames appear to be
considerably different, and at the same time, they are considerably similar in outcome
goals.
The identification, by the school district, that the existing system posed a real
threat to achievement of disciplinary equality in the school system helps to explain the
stated goal of the school system to address the high rate of discipline being meted out to
students of color within the school system. It shows that, despite the existence of an
existing inequality, there are pathways through which the district can be proactive. By
framing the efforts of implementation as a systems approach, the school district is able to
look holistically at how the implementation of CRPBIS can improve the opportunities for
students through consistency and through a coherent approach. As Mrs. Roffee stated,
“by having a clear approach and a consistent approach, we're able to allow our students to
understand the general culture and climate and the expectations” within the school
system. It this consistency in expectations that is able to achieve clear understandings for
the students across the school district.
With regard to the overarching goal of framing the implementation of CRPBIS as
a way to address the existing disproportionality in the school district’s disciplinary
history, the school district has approached with the conception that regardless of a
teacher’s, or principals, perspective to the classroom environment the central effort was
placed in getting to know the students. The effort to get to know the students and their

102

cultural norms is what foregrounded the efforts of the school district. As one school
leader put it, “you really need to build relationships with kids in order for any of it to
work.” By framing the need for CRPBIS in the schools as a social well-being effort, the
school leaders were able to drive the implementation to address more than just the
disciplinary code, but to develop a caring, empathic stance when addressing student
misbehavior. In sum, while the district took a systems approach to the implementation of
CRPBIS, the schools attempted to approach the implementation through social structure
of the school setting.
In sum, the framing of CRPBIS as a program that has the potential to address the
existing disproportionality and the development of social structures to improve the
classroom setting, the implementers, at all levels, have been able to apply multiple
meanings to the current situation that exists within the school system. It is also possible to
see how the frames, the pathways of individual understanding of purpose, align from one
level of the school system to another to seek the overall improvement for students. The
fact that two groups of implementers were able to frame the outcomes of the
implementation in similar ways shows that even with a rigid set of goals, variation is
beneficial in this case because it seeks to achieve two distinct goals. In one frame, the
district was able to assess the overarching situation and strive to implement a set of goals
that assisted with the development of systems that addressed larger goals, while at the
local level, actors within the school were able to address the needs of the school. It is this
similarity of outcomes that makes this implementation so important to study. At one
level, the systems were being developed to provide the schools that chance to work at the
individual level with students and families.

103

The Role of Professional Development, Training, and Oversight. An important
aspect of the school district’s implementation of CRPBIS was the development of
targeted professional development (PD) and training sessions. The PD was designed as a
way to introduce and ensure the implementation of CRPBIS through a series of planned
sessions that would deal directly with CRPBIS implementation in the schools. PD
opportunities within each building was to occur at least once per month during the school
year and two full day sessions for all schools in one location during the school year.
According to a school district official, “we’ve set consistent dates so that all staff across
the district know this is something that is not going away.” In addition to the PD
framework created, the school district (at the outset of the implementation) planned to
have one additional PD opportunity per month that was uniform throughout all of the
school buildings. Mrs. Moltzan, a member of the school district central offices, said that
this approach would ensure that, “it didn't matter if you were a preschool teacher or … a
teacher that teaches at Jupiter High School2 that teachers seniors, you were getting the
exact same professional development.” The intention of the highly structured PD plan for
the school district was to ensure that the teachers and the principals within the school
district understood that the school district was committed to CRPBIS and that this would
be a program that would be supported over time by the central offices.
The intention of the professional development at the onset was sufficient and
provided structure where structure was badly needed. However, with any initiative, what
is planned at the outset sometimes results in different outcomes than the design that is
planned. In BMSD, the plans for professional development were quite robust but in
2

This is a pseudonym to protect the identity of the high school mentioned in the actual
quote
104

actuality there were few opportunities for PD related to CRPBIS. Admittedly, Mrs.
Roffee acknowledged that, “we really struggled with our ability to really manage the
level of focus that they [schools] put on culture.” As a result of the amount of latitude
given to the schools to utilize time allocated to PD, it was hard for the district to ensure
that each session dedicated in the design plan was actually used to focus on CRPBIS. In
the same vain, the initial plan for professional development allocated multiple days
within the year for the facilitators from GRD to work with individual schools, but it
eventually only produced two days during the year when PD took place with the
assistance of GRD. Why there were only two days for PD was unknown, but could have
been caused by a struggle prioritize the events that took place within the school building
according to Mrs. Cooper of GRD. It is also possible, as Mrs. Moltzan of BMSD
surmised, that one of the challenges to fully meeting the goals of the first year might have
been attributed to fact that the district had too many initiatives taking place at once that
competed for valuable PD time. As a result of this acknowledgement of being
overcommitted across the district, Mrs. Roffee made it clear that in the subsequent years
of implementation, the district was going to focus on only four initiatives (CRPBIS being
one of the initiatives) to ensure that CRPBIS will receive the time necessary to see
greater implementation effort. Despite the fact that time was not allocated during the year
as planned, that does not mean that the efforts in the first year were not beneficial. In fact,
according to Mrs. Roffee, the success that was seen in the first year identified that
success was possible and that moving forward there can be much greater success as a
result of decreasing the overall number of initiatives undertaken.

105

Despite the challenges with time allocation, there was time and effort that was
give to provide PD opportunities designed to help address disproportionality was focused
upon how to help teachers and principals introduce culturally responsive approaches in
the classroom. Efforts were made within the schools to collaboratively develop strategies
for engaging students from different cultures, to develop culturally responsive forms of
disciplinary pathways, and how to ensure that all voices are being heard in the school
building relative to discipline.
Professional Development and Cultural Responsiveness. When professional
development opportunities did occur, they helped to develop culturally responsive
approaches. This was done with the assistance of the facilitators and coaches from GRD.
They were the “guides on the side” according to the school district leadership and
provided valuable aide in getting CRPBIS professional development into the schools.
Mrs. Moltzan pointed out that, “They’ve [GRD facilitators] been critical in the
involvement. From the planning, aiding in the professional development, [and] helping us
get speakers.” The introduction of GRD facilitators created a space to introduce practices
that would aid in the cultural understandings that were necessary to develop approaches
to school discipline that respected the culture of the students and the aims of the district.
Mrs. Lindh, from GRD, argued that the professional development needed to address the
differences in the community and how to gain a better understanding of the culture that
students are bringing into the classroom:
A big portion of CR implementation is to either develop, to co-jointly develop
norms and expectations with the stakeholders, with students and parents or at the
very least, vet their norms and expectations through those individuals who can

106

provide feedback into what those terms, what those expectations might mean to
the students and families that might differ from what it means from those people
in power.
Through the inclusion of the community stakeholders it is possible for the schools, and
for the school leadership, to gain a better understanding of the experiences of the students
and their lives outside of the school building. In doing so, the leadership of the school and
the teachers who are in the classrooms will be able to better address the misbehavior in
the classroom because they are more familiar with the expectations that the families have
for the school. As Mrs. Cooper states:
If we’re looking through the culturally responsive lens, I think if we have a better
understanding of, of the students and the environments that they are coming from,
I think they [school leaders] a better understanding of how to strategically deal
with student behaviors.”
The ability of the school leaders and the teachers to develop strategic approaches to
helping students articulate the causes of their misbehavior, when possible, creates a
shared ownership of the classroom or school. The inclusion of the students, at the onset,
in the development is believed to be an important method for developing culturally
responsive practices in the school.
Co-developed CR Practices: One example of collectively community created CR
practices within a school is the development of the school’s code of expectations. This is
a code of expectations is a simple set of expectations that are designed to guide the
actions of the students within the building, but are the starting point for all other
expectations. As an example of a CR practice, the code of expectations generally has

107

three practices that the students are expected to infuse into their daily activities. The code
of expectations varies from building to building, but can look like this: Be safe, be
responsible, be respectful. These three actions fall into what the district considers to be
CR activities and is developed collaboratively during professional development trainings
amongst the staff members. These codes of expectations are to be known by all the
students and prominently placed throughout the school building. The codes of
expectations are also part of the accountability metrics that are used by the district to
measure implementation. The code of expectations within the school also form the basic
building blocks for the rest of the school’s Code of Conduct and the pathways through
which the school addresses student misbehavior. One school district official said that,
“They [examples of CR practices] might look different but they must be present. I must
be able to walk in and know your three words that all students, all staff live by as a
culture and climate in your school.” These words reflect that aims and goals of the school
and are created through PD sessions.
In this implementation, especially in the early phases of implementation,
professional development is a critical piece to the successful integration of CR practices
into the school. Although the professional development did not occur as initially planned,
it did have enough of an impact to get schools started on the path to adoption of the
CRPBIS program. PD, as seen by the district, “is ongoing, job-embedded and high
quality. It's not just a one shot deal.” As a result of this perspective, PD will continue will
be continually developed and perfected.
Conclusion. What became clear through the analysis of the interviews with the
school principals and the school district officials is that all of the individuals that

108

participated in this study possessed a clear understanding that CRPBIS was being
implemented to address the discipline history of the school district and was an attempt to
find ways to create continuity for students in the school buildings. It is remarkable that
the central idea of the implementation was agreed upon at multiple levels across the
school district. One of the main benefits of this alignment is that there is no concern
about whether or not the objective of the initiative is understood by all individuals. As a
result of this alignment of understanding of the central goals of CRPBIS, if there is any
variation in implementation in the schools, the miscommunication of goals can be ruled
out as a cause for variation.
Research Question 2
The second research question in this study seeks to investigate if there was any
variation in implementation of CRPBIS across the buildings within BMSD. In this study,
efforts to understand the implementation of CRPBIS was focused upon school buildings
at the elementary level as a result of the disparity in discipline in these buildings. After
determining the group of schools that fit within this category, attempts to reach out to the
school building leaders took place and three buildings responded. These three schools,
which are kindergarten through third grade buildings, make up the sample set. Over the
course of the last two years I have met with the building leaders multiple times to gain a
better perspective of the implementation of CRPBIS. It is clear in this implementation
that variation in implementation, based upon principals perspectives did occur but that
variation is primarily understood through the interviews that occurred. While the reasons
for the variation in implementation are complex, it is also understandable. The second
research question in this study seeks to identify the factors, as identified through the

109

interview process that cause variation and the degree to which the school vary in their
implementation. Research question two reads as follows:
What variations and similarities exist in CRPBIS implementation across
elementary schools?
a. To what degree do stakeholders attribute the variations in
implementation to differences in their framing of the problem
b. To what degree do stakeholders attribute variation in the
implementation of CRPBIS to localized challenges to implementation?
In order to better understand the variation in implementation, I rely upon interview data
to make sense of how school leaders and other stakeholders frame the problem of school
discipline and the setting in each of the schools that participated in this study.
The three schools that were part of this study were Bo Buck Elementary,
Monument Elementary, and Teocalli Elementary. Each of these buildings, as stated
previously, is a kindergarten through third grade building, and is led by a single principal.
The three schools are located in different locations throughout the city and have unique
populations that they serve. As seen in the chart below, each of the schools lose
population from 2014-2015 to 2015-2016, but are still similar year over year with regard
to the population that the schools serve as can be seen in Table 4.1.

110

Table 4.1
School Population Demographics

2014-2015
Total Population
American Indian or
Alaskan Native
Asian
African American
Hispanic/Latino
Two or more
White

2015 - 2016
Total Population
American Indian or
Alaskan Native
Asian
African American
Hispanic/Latino
Native Hawaiian or
other Pacific
Islander
Two or more
White

Bo Buck
Elementary
312
3

Monument
Elementary
332
3

Teocalli Elementary
293
1

5
79
75
37
113

4
51
89
45
140

1
114
79
30
67

Bo Buck
Elementary
284
6

Monument
Elementary
311
4

Teocalli Elementary
265
1

1
82
68
0

4
46
86
0

2
265
80
1

25
102

38
134

29
44

Note. Data for this table achieved from a publically available data set.
Each school building has a principal and support staff member, a SAP (Student
Assistance Provider), to assist in the implementation process. The three school buildings
were similar in grade levels and leadership, but each building serve a different location of
the city and a diverse group of students.

111

The information from the interview process identified that variation in
implementation had occurred within the three schools. Teocalli Elementary was the most
advanced in their implementation process while Bo Buck Elementary was the least
advanced among the three schools. Monument Elementary fits in the middle due to a
commitment to similar, yet different approach to school discipline. Over the course of the
two-year study, implementation did vary between the schools and the variation in
implementation is predicated on three primary factors. First, the explicit focus on
implementation was varied across buildings. Second, the engagement of stakeholders in
and out of the schools effected the implementation. Last, the funding allocated to the
implementation also played a role in how CRPBIS was implemented. Together these
three factors of implementation led to the three forms of adoption of CRPBIS that was
identified in this study.
Focus Placed on CRPBIS. Intentional effort to implement CRPBIS is crucial to
the implementation. In the three buildings studied in this implementation, each principal
placed a different level of focus on CRPBIS in the implementation process. The varied
amount of effort produced different rates of success. In each of the three buildings, the
principals agreed that a primary goal of the implementation was to address the student
misbehavior that was taking place inside the school but their efforts to introduce CRPBIS
as an intervention varied. For example, Teocalli Elementary, according to the interview
of the principal, was an early adopter and fervent believer in the value of CRPBIS as a
method to address the growing rate of discipline within the building. Across town, at
Monument Elementary, an existing commitment, as described by the principal, to another
program created a tension between the goals of the district and the existing progress made

112

in implementation of a separate program. Last, at Bo Buck Elementary, the status quo,
according to the interviews with the principal, was maintained as a result of slowed
implementation. Together, these three buildings exemplify that challenges that are
present in the effort to implement a new program.
Teocalli Elementary. Starting with Teocalli Elementary, where a relatively new
principal was facing the fact that the building led the school district in suspension handed
out in a single year, it was critical for an intervention to take place. At Teocalli
Elementary, the principal, the school faculty, and a facilitator from GRD worked in
concert with one another to introduce CRPBIS and make the program central to the
development of a new school culture. In all aspects of the schooling experience, CRPBIS
is being infused into the culture of the school. Through summer planning sessions to
weekly school-year CRPBIS meetings, Teocalli Elementary has developed an approach
that maximizes the opportunities to interact with CRPBIS in a manner that increases
awareness and understanding. The localized success in implementing CRPBIS is a direct
result, as intoned by the principal in the interviews, of the focus placed on CRPBIS and
the continuity created by the efforts of the principal and faculty of the school. CRPBIS,
according to the principal has resulted in greater stakeholder participation, increased
academic achievement, and substantially decreased suspension.
One of the ways in which the school sought to increase the understanding and
empathy present in the educational environment was to seek out input from parents and
other community members. Principal Stenmark, of Teocalli Elementary, noted in an
interview that a primary goal for the implementation of CRPBIS was to reach out to the
community, to include the parents into the school culture, and seek out input from

113

outsiders to better understand the expectations for the school and to find ways to
incorporate their perspectives into the school. At Teocalli Elementary, Principal
Stenmark spoke about the importance of reaching out to parents and the impact that such
outreach can have on the implementation of CRPBIS:
We started reaching out to parents and community members, saying this is what
we’re trying [improving community relations through CRPBIS] to do at Teocalli.
We want to make this the best school in town3. We want to make this a
community and not just a school. We want to see this as a large and important
part of the community, similar to what a church would be like.
With outreach to stakeholders as a focus of the implementation, the leadership of Teocalli
Elementary explained that the outreach to the community had helped to create a bond
between the school and the community. This explicit outreach has created an opportunity
for the school leaders to better understand the norms of the community. The result of this
is that the school is able to better communicate with the students and to find alternative
ways to address the challenges that arise during the school day for students.
A second manner in which the faculty and staff at Teocalli Elementary has
worked to increase the local focus on CRPBIS implementation has been to work outside
of the normal professional development pattern to learn about and plan for
implementation of CRPBIS. It is not uncommon, as expressed by the principal, for the
faculty and staff at Teocalli Elementary to meet during the summer to plan CRPBIS
approaches for the coming year. According to the principal, these meetings and dialogue
has the potential to produce data-driven decisions about how to best address persistent
3

I have used the word “town” here instead of the actual city name to protect the identity
of the community in this study.
114

misconduct or it can result in the development and introduction of a common language
across teachers and classrooms that establishes continuity across the school building.
Across the board, at Teocalli Elementary, there is a consistent and driven
approach to implementing CRPBIS in a way that improves the climate and culture of the
school. The singular goal of developing a system that strives to meet the needs of the
students through the implementation of CRPBIS is one reason why Teocalli Elementary
has been able to be successful in the implementation of this initiative. From the principal
to the faculty and to the staff, based on the interviews, this school has made the
development of culturally responsive approaches to school misbehavior a primary focus
and it has produced results in the reduction of suspensions and the overall improvement
of the academics achievement in many students. The focus of the school, to be responsive
to the needs of the students is a good example of what can happen when a school leader is
focused on an initiative and is able to convey the value of the initiative to the school
community.
Bo Buck Elementary. Across town at Bo Buck Elementary, the most senior
principal in the district led the school in a slightly different approach to the
implementation of CRPBIS. In this school, according to the analysis of interview data,
little time was spent leading up to the school year to plan and prepare for the
implementation of CRPBIS. Once the school year began, what time that was available
was spent amongst a small group of individuals (which varied from meeting to meeting
based upon availability) learning about and planning to implement the program. As a
result, according to the principal of the school the introduction of CRPBIS was slower to
occur. Over the course of the next two years, the implementation CRPBIS at Bo Buck has

115

caught up to the level of expectation, but it has taken time to reach a level that has
positive effect due to the lack of concerted effort at the onset to implement CRPBIS.
Initially, when the program was introduced by the school district, Bo Buck faculty
and staff, as mentioned by the principal in the interview process, participated in the
district wide professional development training that was offered in August prior to the
beginning of the school year. In this training, which was a two-day event designed to
introduce the entire district staff to CHAMPS, GRD facilitators presented the focal points
of CHAMPS to those present. CHAMPS is a required element to CRPBIS and helps
schools develop protocols for establishing expected behaviors in the school building. The
introduction of CHAMPS was a way in which the school district could start the roll out of
CRPBIS and give schools a baseline set of protocols for the implementation of CRPBIS.
The challenge for Bo Buck Elementary, as this was one of the first opportunities in the
implementation of CRPBIS that the faculty and staff had to work as a team in the
implementation of CRPBIS, was the development of internal teams to implement
CRPBIS. At Bo Buck Elementary, the implementation began with a small team of three
to four teachers, depending on the day of the meeting. As Principal Mahre, of Bo Buck
Elementary, stated regarding the participation within the school, “we’ll get various
turnouts each month but typically we have at least three or four people.” In comparison to
Teocalli, where meetings were attending by the entire staff, Bo Buck, based on the
interviews with the principal, was getting less participation from the faculty and staff
(due to other commitments) and as a result, the overall implementation of CRPBIS
lagged behind the goals of the district.

116

A second reason for the variation in implementation of CRPBIS in Bo Buck
Elementary may be attributable to the disjointed nature of the implementation within the
school. In eyes of the school district, the implementation of CRPBIS is designed to create
consistency and coherence within and across the schools. However, in this school, one
limiting piece is the piecemeal approach that may have taken place within Bo Buck.
Principal Mahre reported that implementation was slower because of the limited and
variable participation of teachers in the school. In this instance, though not corroborated
with insight from the teachers in the building, it is possible that a reason why Bo Buck
Elementary may have produced different implementation results is that the teachers
within the school either did not buy-in fully to the approach to implementation or the
teachers may have been less able to implement CRPBIS as a result of their own beliefs
about culturally relevant practices. There is no concrete evidence that one teacher or
another may have stalled or been less able to implement the new approach to classroom
expectations, but the implied understanding of the perspective of the principal is that the
implementation is varied in this building as a result of the teachers not fully participating
in the implementation.
For Bo Buck Elementary, the focus was on building an understanding of what the
CRPBIS initiative sought to achieve. The committee meetings and book study that
occurred in this building, as was mentioned in the interview process with the principal,
was more about setting the table for later action than it was about implementing explicit
aspects of the program. Since this activity happened after the school year had begun, the
CRPBIS implementation became another program that was being investigated and
implemented at the same time. This does not mean that Bo Buck was not making

117

progress according to the principal; it is just an example of a more explicit approach to
understanding the full scope of the initiative and what it means for the school where it is
being implemented.
Monument Elementary. The third school within the study, Monument
Elementary, presents another important view into how variation occurs. In this school,
resentment and angst appear to be the reason for variation. When CRPBIS was
introduced to the principals in the spring prior to implementation, Monument Elementary
was already deeply engaged in a program4 to address the culture and climate within the
school building. The implementation of the other program had been developed and
implemented over the course of prior years and was well regarded and accepted by the
faculty of the school. Due to the fact that CRPBIS was being implemented across the
school district without consultation or concern for what had already been in place at
Monument Elementary resulted in a feeling of confusion and angst for the principal.
Confusion about the overall purpose for the implementation, about the specific purpose
of the program (as introduced) was a considerable stumbling block for the school. The
angst was a product of the failure of the school district to consult with the principals
about the existing systems already in place. Due to this, Monument Elementary, based
upon the interview analysis, did not fully engage in the implementation process.
One cause for the lack of equal implementation, based upon analysis of interview
data, at Monument Elementary was the confusion caused by the timing of the
announcement that the school district was going to implement CRPBIS in all schools at
one time. Adding to the confusion, expressed by the principal, about the universal

4

The name of this program is omitted to help protect the identity of this school.
118

application of the CRPBIS implementation was the fact that for those in attendance when
the announcement was made, there was not a clear purpose that undergirded the
implementation of CRPBIS. The announcement of CRPBIS as the district-wide approach
to intervention in the rising level of suspensions came as a surprise to the principal at
Monument and even led to confusion. Admittedly, the principal of Monument, Mrs.
Madsen, was not present in the initial introduction but in subsequent meetings with
faculty and staff, Mrs. Madsen did come to the understanding that CRPBIS was the only
program that would be accepted. This was disheartening to the principal and even led to a
small act of resistance. Principal Madsen said that, “I understood it [CRPBIS
implementation] to be that the school district was interested in pushing for this [CRPBIS]
more of a continuity across schools and across the district. But it was, I gotta tell you, we
were kinda blindsided by it.” This feeling of being blindsided to the implementation led
to the decision to not actively participate in the district offered professional developments
related to the CHAMPS system. As mentioned previously, CHAMPS training and
implementation is one of the three non-negotiable expectations for schools. Principal
Madsen and the school faculty were not going to participate in the professional
development, “I basically said, I said, no, we’re not going to do that.” The reason that
Principal Madsen said that Monument Elementary would not participate in the CHAMPS
training is that it was not aligned with the alternative program that was being
implemented at Monument Elementary. The outcome of this decision is that the
implementation of CRPBIS was different than in other buildings. In this building, the
protocols to address cultural differences and culturally responsive practices were to align
with the original programming but with modifications would be sufficient to meet the

119

expectations of the district. The modifications of the existing protocols in place move the
school towards the district’s goals with CRPBIS, but do not detract from the work
previously engaged in by the Monument Elementary faculty and staff.
In addition to the ad hoc decision by the principal of this school to bypass the
CHAMPS training, there were also mixed messages being sent to the school by
individuals from the district offices. At one level of the school district’s central offices,
CRPBIS was the explicit program to be implemented within the district because of the
benefits offered, but at another level an administration official told Principal Madsen that
Monument Elementary could continue to pursue the existing program in place. In the
words of Mrs. Madsen, an influential member of the central district offices intoned that
CRPBIS, CHAMPS, and other expectations of the implementation plan of BMSD were
not required by individual schools. Principal Madsen, in our interview, said that:
And when I talked to my supervisor, I said, okay so how is this supposed to work?
You guys are saying we have to do this. And she [the supervisor] said, ‘well, I
don't think you have to.’ So when she was talking about it, there wasn’t a sense
of, you know, continuity with what the message was versus what the
interpretation was and of course, she was one person downtown. You know, she
happens to be (some of authority downtown) so I kinda thought, okay, well, that’s
the voice of authority for me.
The ensuing result is that Monument Elementary did not implement CRPBIS in the first
year in the same way that other schools did. Part of the reason why is that there was
confusion about the expectations for implementation from individuals in higher places

120

and the resentment caused by the lack of respect for the effort previously put forth by the
school to address the challenges in Monument Elementary.
In sum, variation can arise for a variety of reasons. In the above examples, focus
and intentional effort is a key reason. One school may buy-in to the program fully and
produce significant results while at the same time, another school may be slow to adopt
or even resistant to the program. Due to this, variation in implementation can be the result
of how individuals in positions of authority actively make decisions that cause variation
and those decisions, both positive and negative, have considerable impact on how a
program is implemented within a large system.
Stakeholder Engagement. A key component in the introduction of CRPBIS
within BMSD is the desire by the district to increase the engagement of stakeholders in
relation to student misbehavior. Included in this outreach, schools were expected to invite
members of the school community into the school and to find other opportunities to
participate in external events in order to build a bridge with the community. As Mrs.
Moltzan of the BMSD stated:
They [school leaders and faculty] need to go to football games. They need to
attend, you know, the choir assemblies and things like that so that they can talk to
families. They need to make school an inviting place for families as well. So
rather than being standoffish and standing behind a counter, they need to come
out and greet parents. It sounds in some ways simplistic and it sounds very
organic and it is. It needs to be relationships one on one.
Through community outreach and inclusion, it is believed that the schools will be able to
better understand their community and their students. The value of this external

121

engagement for the schools in this study can be seen in the positive outcome for one
school and the missed opportunities at the other two schools.
Teocalli Elementary. At Teocalli Elementary, fostering community and
developing outreach has produced considerable positive results but it took time and effort
to ensure success. Two primary focal points for outreach led the efforts of the school
leadership at Teocalli Elementary School. First, Principal Stenmark sought to make sure
that teachers were engaging parents through home visits as well as before and afterschool activities to ensure parents were given opportunities to contribute to the school
community. While this may be a challenge for some teachers to do alone or in the limited
time that is available, the outcome of these efforts have produced a strong relationship
with the community and a greater understanding of the students’ lives outside of the
school building. One example of this relationship development can be seen in the way
that when a staff member was unable to work, a parent came in to take care of the school
building and the responsibilities of the staff member. Even more to the point, Principal
Stenmark, when reflecting on engaging parents and expanding the role that parents have,
said:
Parents start to take ownership. Parents feel, they don't have that sense of division
between home and school. Parents feel like Teocalli is theirs. This is my school.
I’m an active member of Teocalli. I can come in and see Mrs. Stenmark, her door
is open. I can come whenever I like to talk with the teachers.
The ability to include, respect, and gain from the conversations and interactions with the
represents a tremendous area of benefit for the school and highlights how, in this school,
the implementation of CRPBIS has produced positive outcomes for the school

122

community. Through the active engagement of external stakeholders, Teocalli
Elementary has been able to improve the internal operations of the school because
parents and other stakeholders are taking a more active role within the school.
Bo Buck Elementary. The situation at Bo Buck is markedly different and as a
result the implementation of CRPBIS has not seen the same level of growth and impact.
Recall that Bo Buck Elementary was a bit slower in the implementation of CRPBIS.
Despite this difference, even a year into the program the school was still having trouble
getting parents and other stakeholders involved in the implementation of CRPBIS.
Principal Mahre spoke to this when he said that when asked about parental involvement,
“That’s [parental involvement] an area we can show some progress in…we haven’t done
a good job at that yet and that’s an area that we need to work on and show progress.” An
argument that the principal of Bo Buck made to explain the different level of parental
involvement was that due to the many demands on the lives of the parents, and the
precedence that those demands command, the parents are unable to be as engaged in the
activities of the school as some school leaders would hope. This perspective presents a
challenge to the successful implementation of CRPBIS. If the goal of the implementation
is to determine ways to gain a better understanding of the community and the lives that
students live outside of the classroom, it is vitally important (as seen in the experiences of
Teocalli Elementary) to engage the parents. What is good, however, is that the principal
is aware of this deficiency and is actively working to address the concern. Despite this
desire to improve the situation, the lack of parent voice in the implementation has an
impact on the overall implementation and may be a cause for the variation in progress.

123

Monument Elementary. At Monument Elementary, the explicit outreach to the
parents in the community has taken a bit of a different tack when compared to other
schools. Monument Elementary, like some other schools in the district is populated with
many families who need extra support during the year, has worked to find ways to get
families involved in the activities of the school as the preferred method of increased
outreach to stakeholders. Through community nights, which occur each month, or
through the inclusion of parents on school field trips, Monument Elementary has worked
to develop a form of outreach and inclusion that seeks to get the parents involved in the
activities of the school. The school field trips, which are funded through dollars allocated
by the principal, seek parental involvement as chaperones, create opportunities for the
parents and the faculty of the school to interact in a manner that is not focused on
student’s behavior or academics. By including parents in this way, Principal Madsen is,
“creating and building these solid relationships” so that when needed, Principal Madsen
can leverage the social capital to work with parents to address concerns about student
behavior. Another way in which the school works to develop community relations has
been a program that provides families in need with support during the holiday season.
This program reaches a large number of families within the school and helps to continue
to construct the solid relationships with all the families of the school. Some families are
able to support the holiday initiative and some families are able to benefit from the
support. The end product is that this school has been able to build a relationship-based
approach to community inclusion.
This approach to community inclusion is different when compared to other
schools, but this approach is able to get families working alongside the school. This

124

working relationship helps the school leaders to gain a better understanding of the lived
experiences of the students and creates the pathway for the school to understand how the
development of culturally responsive approach to school discipline can be designed in a
way that meets the needs of the students, the lives of the community, and the goals of the
district.
Funding Allocated. The third cause for variation can identified as a result of
funding available for schools and how money is allocated to the implementation of
CRPBIS. In this instance, I will group the three schools into two distinct groups. One,
where extra funding was made available and the other group of two schools, where extra
funding was not in place to aide in the implementation efforts. The funding, for Teocalli
Elementary, was made possible through the School Improvement Grant funds that were
made available to Teocalli Elementary above and beyond the other funding allocated at
the district level for the schools and the implementation of CRPBIS.
For most schools in the district, including Bo Buck and Monument, the school
district used funds from a federal grant to subsidize the training of all teachers in
CHAMPS, for the financial support for the Student Assistance Providers (SAPS) at the
elementary level, and for other resources necessary to implement CRPBIS. At Bo Buck
Elementary and Monument Elementary, this provided the opportunity to support local
initiatives, but did not do much else to provide extra incentives. As a result, these two
elementary schools were unable to match the efforts put forth by Teocalli Elementary
School and this is evident in the velocity in which CRPBIS was implemented.
In most schools within the school district, BMSD allocated funds to support the
placement of SAPs and BIMs (Behavioral Intervention Monitors at the secondary levels).

125

These individuals are “essentially your counselors by any other name” according to Mrs.
Roffee. The placement of SAPs and BIMs in the schools was a design feature that
predated the implementation of CRPBIS, but once implementation began these
individuals became the central actors in the implementation of CRPBIS, but their work
was only half funded by the district. At Teocalli Elementary, with extra discretionary
funds available, money was spent to fully fund the SAP as a full time employee. The SAP
at Teocalli Elementary was the individual who was solely focused on CRPBIS
implementation and was responsible for the development culturally responsive activities
for the students and faculty in the school. The funding difference between the schools
represented a significant capacity that was pivotal for Teocalli Elementary to speed the
implementation and ensure the fidelity within the school. The resulting differences in
implementation, as a result of the funding, produces in the variation in localized
implementation of CRPBIS.
Adoption of CRPBIS. The variation that was identified in how the schools
implemented CRPBIS was also predicated on how individual principals made sense of
CRPBIS and then acted upon that understanding to meet the goals of the district.
Principals in this study fell into one of three categories: energetic adoption, resistant
adoption, and compliant adoption. These three categories are the ways in which I will
organize the adoption of CRPBIS that occurred in each of the school buildings into one
of three distinct categories. The three categories highlight the ways in which the local
leaders approached this initiative and the velocity in which the program is introduced into
the schools. The result of looking at the implementation using these three frames is that it

126

helps to operationalize the ways in which the principals made sense of CRPBIS and how
the program was eventually implemented in the three schools within this study.
Energetic Adoption. Energetic adoption refers to the vigorous approach taken by
a school leader when introduced to a new program and how that introduction to the new
program spurs action. In the case of CRPBIS, the principal saw this program as the way
to address cultural differences between the faculty and the students. CRPBIS was also a
program, in the eyes of the principal that could be tailored to meet the needs of the school
as needed and would produce results socially and academically for students in a short
span of time. CRPBIS represented an opportunity to transform the school and the
approach taken to address the discipline protocols. In this school, the principal brought
together the faculty and staff during the summer to build an all-inclusive plan, the
principal allocated funds to hire an individual that was solely responsible for
implementing CRPBIS, and the principal incorporated student organizations to help
ensure that CRPBIS was in the forefront of everything that took place during the school
year. Principal Stenmark said that, “we made CRPBIS our number one focus over the
past three years which I think provided that foundation and structure for us to have the
[academic] scores that we had.” In all aspects, even in the way in which the school’s
approach to CRPBIS was discussed, this principal was energetic in the implementation
and inclusion of CRPBIS practices within the school. When asked if the school was
progressing at a greater speed than others, the principal stated that, “yes, honestly we’re
way ahead of other buildings to be honest with you” and that “we have a solid team that
meets weekly to look at our students, to look at what’s happening in the building.” The
energetic adoption of CRPBIS in Teocalli Elementary was fueled by the principal’s sense

127

and belief that CRPBIS was the intervention that the school could implement to address
the rising discipline rate and declining academics. The velocity of implementation was a
product of the energy and enthusiasm that this principal exhibited about the program and
the impact that CRPBIS could have in improving the climate and culture of the school.
Resistant Adoption. In contrast to the energetic adoption form of implementation
that can be seen at Teocalli Elementary, the activity at Monument Elementary can be
seen as an example of resistant adoption. In this case, the school went along with the aims
of the program but not the specific measures. At Monument Elementary, where an
existing program had been in place, the principal opted to go in another direction in
implantation. The implementation of CRPBIS did not occur as designed, in part because
of resentment for how CRPBIS was introduced to the district principals and in part
because of a difference in perspective about how successful programs find success.
Principal Madsen firmly believes that good programming and good implementation occur
at the local level, not as a result of a mandate from the central offices. In resistant
adoption, the principal is not openly disregarding the aims and outcomes sought by the
district, but taking those outcome goals and molding the goals to the program and
environment in place. The principal of Monument Elementary intoned that any
implementation that finds success will only happen when it comes from the teachers in
the classroom who have experience first-hand in school misbehavior and the impact of
discipline. For example, one of the district’s main aspects of the implementation of
CRPBIS is the training for staff and faculty in CHAMPS. CHAMPS is an approach to
school expectations that is introduced to create continuity of expectations. CHAMPS
provides structure where structure was previously non-existent or lacking. Principal

128

Madsen initially said that going to the CHAMPS training was not in the plans for the
teachers, but eventually left open the option to attend future trainings if the teachers
wanted to attend. Some did, some did not. Instead, the school, under the leadership of the
principal, continued their implementation of another program and brought in a nationally
renowned trainer (of the other program) to help the school continue on their own path of
implementing a program to address school misbehavior. As a result of the principal’s
aversion to the mandate from central offices to implement CRPBIS in the manner that
district leadership saw fit, the school was flirting with potential sanctions from the central
offices of BMSD for a failure to implement as mandated, but as the principal stated, there
are bigger issues to deal with within the implementation of CRPBIS than to punish, or
sanction, a school for continuing a successful program.
District people came and visited the building and were also very complimentary
and said, you know, and basically said you guys don’t have anything to worry
about. You’re doing a great job. And that made me think, okay they’re not
worried about us. They’re worried about other buildings
The fact that this building was going it's own way may have been a concern to some of
the leaders of BMSD, but it was not a significant concern to warrant any sanctions or
remediation for the decision to go against the aims of the district from the perspective of
the principal of the building. The resistance to the implementation of the district was in
the form of not meeting the specific non-negotiable expectations set for by district
officials because what was happening in the building was successful and was driven by a
strong leader who saw that the main goals of the district’s implementation were being

129

met, albeit in a different approach. As such, in this case, the resistant adoption of
CRPBIS was true to the spirit of the outcomes sought, but not to the letter of the mandate.
Compliant Adoption. A third reaction to the mandate from the district to
implement CRPBIS is the compliant adoption. In this form of adoption, the primary actor
in the implementation neither rejected the aims of the district, nor fully embraced the plan
as set forth. More of middle-of-the-road approach is taken that seeks to meet the
expectations of the district, but does fully embrace the aims of the district either. In this
situation, implementation goals are met but there is not an exuberant effort undertaken to
shift current practices to new approaches. At Bo Buck Elementary, Principal Mahre and
faculty attended the trainings for CHAMPS, created working groups, and started to
address the goals of the school district but it was done at a slower pace than other
buildings. This compliance to the implementation expectations caused the school to fall
behind in implementation compared to other buildings, but still was an attempt to look
into the program to see how the program could meet the needs of the school. At the core
of this compliance was the personal philosophy held by the principal that the principal
knew best how to approach the school’s misbehavior problems and that what the district
was doing was nice, but not the best for Bo Buck Elementary. The result of this lack of
action at the school level led to smaller groups of individuals working on the
implementation within the school. Principal Mahre stated that when meetings occurred
within the school, the number of participants is small, maybe four or five teachers or staff
members and that almost a year into the implementation the principal, when asked to
define current understanding of CRPBIS, stated that, “I can’t give you a clinical
description, definition. It really is an attempt to understand students’ background

130

culturally, socioeconomically, and apply some sound practices to that.” The compliant
adoption pathway makes it hard for real traction to be made in the implementation of a
program because the leadership has not fully adopted the program. This may be caused
by a lack of understanding of the program’s applicability or that there is an underlying
lack of belief in the processes and outcomes of the program. Whatever the internal
reason, or sense of the program that is held by the leaders, their lack of action for or
against the program leads to the compliant adoption that produces an outcome that is
neither good nor bad, but just there. In the end, as a result of the compliant approach, the
program languishes due to the lack of total acceptance or absolute rejection.
Together, these three forms of adoption show how a program can have great
aspirations and total understanding among implementers, but still result in variation in
implementation. Each of these three lenses is created as a result of the sensemaking that
occurs within the minds of the school leaders and among the faculty and staff of the
schools where the programs are being implemented.
The variations in implementation, at the hyper local area of each elementary
school, can be traced to a number of factors. However, three significant sources of
variation can be clearly identified. First, the amount of funding made available to each
school to support the implementation efforts can have, and did in this case, significant
effect on the ability of the school to provide the service necessary to implement CRPBIS.
Second, the amount effort and focus placed upon the implementation also plays a key
role in the school buildings capacity to implement CRPBIS uniformly across the
building. Last, the amount of stakeholder outreach enables the relationship building with
external actors, such as parents, that ensure that the school is cognizant and respectful of

131

the local community. All three of these factors are key elements in the implementation of
CRPBIS, but are also three identifiable causes of variation in the implementation of
CRPBIS in the three elementary schools in BMSD. While there may be other factors,
these three do stand out as factors that are specific to each building and are a cause of
variation.
Research Question #3
An interesting finding developed during the analysis of the implementation of
CRPBIS within the schools. That finding is related to how school leaders within the
school system understood and interpreted the CRPBIS program and its implementation. I
argue that how school leaders interpreted the program is what ultimately led to the
variation in implementation. Variation in the schools is thought to have occurred as a
result of how the individuals interpreted a policy. Sensemaking, as argued by Coburn
(2001) in a study of reading instruction in California, is the way in which individuals seek
understanding of new information through the “lens of their own pre-existing knowledge
and practices” (p. 477). Coburn (2001) posits that sensemaking is mediated by how
individuals interpret and transform policy messages based upon their own conceptions
and experiences. While Coburn’s study is in relation to the implementation of reading
policy, Coburn (2001) is able to look at how teacher understanding is mediated by
principal understanding. A key gap in implementation studies, as identified by Coburn
(2001), is that “studies do not address how school leaders’ sensemaking shapes strategic
choices in leadership practice” (p. 480). Furthermore, Spillane et al. (2002)Spillane et al.
(2002) argue that cognition is a key factor in the implementation of new program and
policies in schools. Spillane et al., (2002) point out that “implementing agents’

132

sensemaking provides numerous opportunities, aside from any will of intentional efforts
to revise policy to fit with local agendas, for the transformation of policymakers’ ideas
about changing local practice” (p. 391). The transformation that is spoken of is at the
heart of this study, how did variation occur and why. In this study, the cognitive
sensemaking made by the principals about the implementation of CRPBIS greatly
affected the implementation of the program in each of the schools studied. As such, this
section will be guided by the third research question:
To what degree does individual sensemaking about CRPBIS explain
implementation variation at both the central office and school levels?
In order to understand how sensemaking effects the implementation, it will be necessary
to explore how the principals made sense of CRPBIS. Using Coburn’s (2001) framework
of sensemaking at the classroom level and applying it to principals, I look to the way in
which principals understand the policy, how this understanding leads to interpretation,
and ultimately adaptation and adoption of policy. These three fundamental aspects of
sensemaking apply to principal sensemaking in much the same way as they do to teacher
sensemaking, but as Spillane (2002) argues, school leaders shape practices in
implementation in part due to their leadership and influence. Thus it is vital to understand
the sensemaking process, in this study, in light of the form of adoption that was
explicated in research question two. Briefly, in this study, three principals adopted
CRPBIS in three different ways and the adoption of the program by the principals led to
overall program variation. One principal was energetic and believed this program was the
savior of the school, another principal saw this program as an affront to the existing
operations in the school, and the third principal was simply compliant with the mandate

133

of the school district. Getting at the reason for these adoption practices is extremely
important in the hopes of understanding the impact of school leadership sensemaking in
implementation. To accomplish this task, I rely on Coburn’s (2001) three components of
sensemaking: understanding, interpretation, and action. I will conclude this analysis by
attempting to assess how the actions of each principal have a profound effect on the
implementation of CRPBIS.
Principal Sensemaking. Sensemaking is the way in which individuals create
meaning and then act upon that understanding to process new information and protocols
through previous experiences. In this implementation, individual principals internalized
the CRPBIS program in light of their own schools and their own ideologies, then acted
upon that understanding. In some cases, that action by principals led to energetic
adoption and in others, resistant adoption. The variations that did occur created an
implementation that was not necessarily in opposition to the aims of the district, it was
just that each building did it differently according to the principal’s interpretation of
CRPBIS and how CRPBIS would be best for their building. In the end, even though the
district was clear in the expectations for implementation, each building leader approached
the implementation with their own perspective about how it would be best done in each
building. In order to better understand the implementation, it is important to explore how
each principal understood and interpreted the impact of CRPBIS and ultimately how
these interpretations and understandings effected the action taken implementation.
In the three schools where implementation of CRPBIS was studied, each principal
interpreted CRPBIS, made sense of CRPBIS, and the goals of the district in their own
unique manner. The interpretation by each of the principals, which is at the core of

134

sensemaking, is predicated on the way in which the principal of the school perceived the
implementation of CRPBIS as an intervention that could positively change the day-to-day
disciplinary protocols of the school. Each of the principals within this study saw the
program differently during the implementation process. One saw the program as a savior
for the school, another saw the program as affront to their prior efforts, and the last
principal in this study saw this as a program that could be effective in addressing the
existing school climate. In sum, the interpretations and sensemaking made by the
principals led to the variation in implementation. This variation in understanding is what
led to a difference between the district intentions in the implementation and the actual
implementation of CRPBIS in the schools. It is the space between how the principals
perceived the implementation of CRPBIS and the development of the CRPBIS activities
in the schools that is of considerable interest.
As mentioned previously, three principals within BMSD were interviewed for this
study and asked to express their understanding and interpretations of CRPBIS. Each of
the principals expressed that the program was designed to reduce disproportional
discipline, increase the understanding of the lived experiences of the students, and to
integrate that understanding into their management of the school’s approach to discipline.
Each of the principals in this study also shared how the implementation occurred in their
school. Through an analysis of the interviews, it is clear that the principals saw the
implementation of CRPBIS as having a different impactful on their schools and as such,
there was a differentiation in implementation. The principal of each school offered a clear
explanation of why the program was being implemented and were uniform in the

135

explanation of the goals of the program, but each of the principals saw the program as
having a different impact on their schools.
Teocalli Elementary. In the school where CRPBIS was seen as a savior, Teocalli
Elementary, the principal expressed that the prior approach to school discipline was
considerably punitive and was thought to be the way in which a school could be made
orderly and safe. There was an acknowledged sense that to establish order, harsh
discipline was necessary. However, after the implementation of CRPBIS began, the same
principal became convinced that CRPBIS was a critical factor in the school’s disciplinary
turnaround. Due to the academic and social success of the students after the
implementation of CRPBIS, Principal Stenmark said that the systems that CRPBIS
encourages was a significant factor in the overall change in the building. As Principal
Stenmark said, that by “putting those systems in place, it changed the entire culture for
our school behaviorally and academically because now teachers can teach…if behaviors
aren’t in place, no instruction is taking place.” CRPBIS, as understood by the principal,
created the systems and pathways for the school to move away from a disciplinary
mindset to an academic mindset. The acknowledgment that the punitive approach that
was taken by the principal in previous times were not beneficial to the educative
environment is an important realization in the interpretation by the principal that CRPBIS
represented a new approach to discipline that could lead to better opportunities for the
students. This is an important reason why the principal argued that CRPBIS saved this
school and as a result, Principal Stenmark continued to lead the school in the
implementation of CRPBIS. Through the interview process the principal was able to

136

identify and support the reasons why CRPBIS represented an important shift in thought
and action.
It seems to be that the leadership that was modeled by the principal, and the effort
to embrace the implementation of CRPBIS, was significant in the school’s ability to
bridge the gap between a majority-minority student population in a building that was led
by a predominately white staff. As Principal Stenmark said, “CRPBIS is more
multifaceted and it takes into consideration different ideas, different ethnicities, different
backgrounds, different experiences. And I think that’s the most beneficial thing,
especially within my school where you have majority white staff.” When the principal,
who as an African American, made CRPBIS a school priority and allocated extra funding
to support the initiative, in a way that was above and beyond other schools in the district,
the principal was exhibiting a strong belief in the interpretation that the program was
going to be beneficial, created the space for others to work to implement the program as
vigorously as could be done.
Monument Elementary. In contrast to the vigor shown in implementation by
Principal Stenmark, another school in this study was less enthusiastic about the
implementation. In fact, the principal of Monument Elementary, as evidenced in the
interviews, was somewhat resentful of the implementation of CRPBIS, especially the
way in which the program was introduced to the school. When CRPBIS was introduced,
it was done so without regard to efforts that had previously been made in the school to
address goals that were similar to the goals of the district with the implementation of
CRPBIS. Principal Madsen stated that, “as we sat there and listened, you know, it was,
the realization kinda washed over us that, well, wait a minute. You know, we already do

137

this and so then it became, well, what’s the difference?” In the eyes of the school
principal, CRPBIS did not do much different than what was already being done and
because there was a new mandate from the central offices of the school district that all the
schools were going to be implementing CRPBIS, resentment towards the implementation
of CRPBIS arose. Principal Madsen said that, “there was sort of this feeling of this
feeling of, wait a minute, you know, and I will use the word resentment. And I’m only
speaking for myself now.” Principal Madsen noted that there was an understanding of the
need for continuity, but this blanket approach of implementing CRPBIS to the entirety of
the school district ran contrary to the approach that the district had previously
encouraged:
We understand the need for, you know, a certain amount of continuity but, you
know, you’ve [BMSD] talked to us for a whole year now about creating our own
culture and then it’s like you can’t snap us back and think we’re all gonna be in
lockstep.
It was this tension between the actions and words of the district and the existing efforts of
the school that led to the differences in how CRPBIS was implemented in Monument
Elementary. In Monument Elementary, the principal believed that the existing program
had many of the same pieces as CRPBIS. From the approach to building community to
regular check-ins with students, the existing program at Monument Elementary provided
many of the same opportunities to develop understanding and community. As a result of
this similarity, a hybrid model of implementation evolved.
The principal at Monument Elementary did what was thought best for the school
by continuing the implementation of their program and hope that it met the expectations

138

of the district. As Principal Madsen stated, “there were so many things that were like,
well, you know, we’re not doing that [a specific expectation] but we’re doing this. So we
really felt like, okay what’s going to happen with this and I finally said to Tori5 [another
building leader], I said, you know, it is what it is.” The principal at Monument
Elementary was willing to suffer the consequences of going their own way regardless of
the consequences because the building principal believed in the approach that they were
taking. This belief was predicated on the assumption that implementations work best
when there are designed from the ground up and not as a result of a mandate from the
central offices of the school district. This principal understood the goals of the
implementation as vital but the approach to the goals as malleable. Principal Madsen
argued that top-down approaches are not effective and that the best way to achieve
success was to work from the bottom-up.
Programs implemented by central offices, in the eyes of this principal, fail to
achieve success because they are not based on the knowledge of the teachers and their
experiences in the classroom. The bottom-up mentality of implementation success was
highlighted by Principal Madsen when it was stated that:
There needs to be a general acceptance of the fact that we can’t all be the same.
And that what works in one school is not gonna work in another school. And
mostly because the things that work best in a building are the things that we think
up ourselves.
The impact of the belief that innovations are best when they come from the classrooms,
as was seen at Monument Elementary, the implementation of CRPBIS looked

5

This is a pseudonym to protect the identity of the individual
139

considerably different than in Teocalli Elementary because of the way in which the
principal made sense of the implementation and the program itself. It was not that the
principal disregarded the goals of the initiative, just that the principal, based upon the
interviews, saw the implementation approach by the district as contrary to how the school
had been approaching policies to address school discipline in the past. Due to this
sensemaking, the approach to implementation looked considerably different in style, but
not in substance when compared to other schools. In this case, there was not an outright
disagreement in the goals of the policy, but disappointment in the manner that the policy
was being introduced and required by district leadership.
Bo Buck Elementary. The third school, Bo Buck Elementary, approached the
implementation in a more neutral manner. As the most senior principal in the district, this
principal has seen programs come and go over the years as a principal and as a result was
less vigorous than Teocalli and less individualistic than Monument. In this building,
based on the interviews that were conducted, committees were created and efforts were
made to implement CRPBIS, but it launched CRPBIS with less speed and vigor than in
other buildings. Principal Mahre did believe, as other principals in this study did, that the
implementation of CRPBIS was in response to the district’s goal to decrease suspensions
and improve the culture of the school. While this school did meet the general
expectations that were set forth by the district, the implementation of CRPBIS at Bo
Buck Elementary was also influenced by the personal beliefs and interpretation of the
policy initiative in the eyes of the principal. In this building, the principal approached
school discipline with an approach that was dependent on the philosophy of school
discipline held by the principal.

140

Bo Buck Elementary got off to an initially slow start in the implementation of
CRPBIS and the effort that did exist within the school to implement CRPBIS was
focused more on developing the building’s understanding of the program than on
implementing the required facets required by the district. In the words of the principal, “it
is just taking the overall program and finding some of the areas that we need support in
and working with the staff.” The focus in this building, and in particular this principal,
was more catered to how the teachers were going to implement CRPBIS and finding
ways to support that initiative at the onset than getting the program operational. One way
in which this school developed a foundation for implementation was through a book
study among the teachers to support and understand the goals of the district. The book
study, led by the principal of the school, was focused on the strategies necessary to
engage and motivate the students. While the development of strategies to engage students
is important and valuable, it took valuable time away from the actual implementation of
CRPBIS. Over time, this school was able to move forward and begin to meet the goals of
the district. Meeting the goals of the district was accomplished by having staff members
attend district-wide professional developments and by creating various internal
committees to address different aspects of the CRPBIS initiative within BMSD.
One of the main reasons why this school is different, in comparison to the other
schools in this study is that the principal’s personal beliefs about discipline were the
overriding factor in how CRPBIS was implemented. The principal had a disciplinary
philosophy that was centered on making “the building a safe and culturally sensitive
building so that the students and parents feel good about sending their kids to school” and
was less about meeting the explicit goals of the school district. When thinking about

141

discipline, this principal relied on a personal philosophy regarding discipline rather than
the mandates of the school district. Principal Mahre stated that discipline varies based on
the families of the students and the perceptions of the home life of the student.
Specifically, Mrs. Mahre stated that, “I firmly believe that kids need to be in school for
most behaviors unless they’re chronic or they’re very egregious in terms of physical
threats. But for a lot of these behaviors and consistent behaviors, there are other things
you can do in the buildings.” The personal philosophy of the principal drove the efforts of
the school, through committees and book study, to address the disciplinary issues in the
classroom. It was a fusion of the CR approaches that were stated as goals of the district
and the local conceptions of how discipline should be handled. While not in tension with
the district, it is less aggressive than what the district was seeking in terms of
implementation, but does get at the same goals.
Principal Understanding of Impact. A key finding of this study is that even
though the principals within this study understood the aims of the policy that was being
implemented by the district, there was variation in how the principals interpreted and
understood the impact that the program would have on their school. In the interview
process, each of the principals in this study saw CRPBIS as an approach to introduce
school discipline reform; it was the impact on each individual building that was seen
differently.
Teocalli Elementary. At Teocalli Elementary, where the principal came to the
realization that this program was an essential intervention to overcome the mentality that
harsh discipline was an appropriate response to misbehavior and ultimately become the
most strident advocate for this program is an example of how an individual’s

142

understanding of a policy can trickle down to implementation. As a result of the
principal’s fervent belief that this program would provide the opportunity for the school
to turnaround the historic punitive approach to school discipline, the environment for
innovation was made possible. As a result, in the mind of this principal, CRPBIS
represented a significant and profound opportunity for the school to address the existing
disciplinary approach, even that of the principal. For the principal of Teocalli
Elementary, the understanding and individual interpretation of the program as an agent of
change led to the actions and decision to develop an environment where CRPBIS was a
central piece of the school’s overall improvement of the disciplinary protocols. CRPBIS,
as understood, by the principal, represented the opportunity for a majority white staff to
increase the cultural awareness of a non-majority population that attended the school. As
an individual of the minority population, this principal understood this program as an
intervention that could lead the school to the goal of reducing the disproportionate
disciplinary actions that had taken place previously and would encourage the faculty and
staff to explore nuanced ways to learn about and include the culture of the community
into the daily operations of the building. As was seen previously, this understanding was
a key component in the development of the protocols and procedures within the building
to understand the community that they served.
Monument Elementary. The situation at Monument Elementary was quite
different and as such the understanding of the policy also was different. At Monument
Elementary, the understanding and subsequent interpretation of the policy initiative had
dual meaning. At Monument Elementary, the principal understood the central goal of the
policy but yet also understood the policy as an affront to the approach that had already

143

been taken at the school. As a policy goal, CRPBIS was clearly understood by the
principal as a policy to infuse cultural responsiveness to the disciplinary approach of the
school. As an intervention, the policy was understood as mandate that failed to take into
account the work that had previously been embarked upon within the school. This created
a tension between the goals of the district and the goals of the school. The principal was
keenly aware of and outspoken about this tension, yet stood true to the existing program.
These parallel understandings represent a difference between the goals of the school and
the goals of the district. In one sense, the principal understood the aims of the policy, but
also understood the implementation of the policy as a top-down mandate that stripped the
school of local authority, which in the mind of this principal is a serious problem that
limits this initiative.
Bo Buck Elementary. At Bo Buck Elementary, the principal had an alternative
understanding and interpretation of this program’s effect on the building, even though the
principal did agree on the goals as set forth by the district. The outcomes of the
implementation of CRPBIS, as has been mentioned previously, were clear and made
sense to the principal, but in this building the understanding of the implementation was
somewhat different. The principal of this building, as an experienced principal of the
district that saw the implementation as a program, like other programs initiated by the
district, that needed to be explored and vetted to ensure that the faculty and staff fully
understood the program and as such was slower to be implemented. Part of the reason for
the slowed implementation at Bo Buck Elementary was the commitment to a group study
about the program. In time, the program was implemented on par with the expectations of
the district, but the implementation of the program was moderated by the principal’s own

144

philosophy about school discipline. In the interview process with the principal, it was
stated this building did not have a long history of punitive disciplinary action and that the
school really only needed to address a few individual students who were the high flyers
over time. In the mind of this principal, the understanding of this initiative by the central
office of the school district was to increase the cultural awareness of the school, but in
this school there was little cultural difference among the students and staff. Both the adult
population and the student were primarily white in this school. Due to this, the principal
understood the policy of CRPBIS as an approach to addressing school discipline, but the
understanding of the implementation was mediated by the principal’s own philosophy of
school discipline that was borne of personal experience. Understanding the central
objective of the policy goal was one thing, but implementing the overall approach to the
policy goals was only a piece of what the principal was attempting to accomplish within
the building. In this case, the principal understood the objectives of the policy, but
transferred only a partial aspect of the objectives based upon the personal philosophy and
local interpretation of the need for CRPBIS in the school based on the understandings of
CRPBIS by the principal of the school building.
Principal Action. Understanding how individuals acted upon their interpretations
and understandings of the policy that implemented CRPBIS in the school district
provides the opportunity to comprehend how sensemaking affects action. As was brought
forth previously, the implementation in each of the schools can be categorized as
energetic, resistant, and compliant. To better understand how the actions of the principals
are mediated by their interpretations of the effects of the policy, I will attempt to match
the action of the principals with the understandings of the policy uncovered in the

145

interview process. Beginning with how the program is introduced to the school by the
principal and then by looking into the continued support for the implementation of
CRPBIS, it will be evident that the interpretations of the policy in the minds of the
principals had an effect on how the policy was implemented within the schools over time.
One of the most interesting factors in the implementation was the alignment of the
implementation efforts to the policy understandings of each principal. In the school
where the program was most advanced, the principal was the most passionate about the
potential value of the program. In this school, the perceived impact of the implementation
of CRPBIS was seen as a way to increase the cultural awareness of the school through
outreach and connection with the community. At the forefront of this effort was the
principal of the school who was effusive about the actual impact of this program. What is
most interesting about this principal is at first the principal was reticent about the
program but through professional development and discussion with facilitators from
GRD, this principal became a outspoken believer in the program in the school and the
school district. This principal spoke openly about the way in which the program provided
opportunity and pathways for students and teachers to move past the traditional
student/teacher relationship and find ways to get to know each other and to be able to
gain a better understanding of the root factors for classroom misbehavior. The principal at
Teocalli Elementary can be seen as a true advocate for the program, in actions and in
words.
Due to this advocacy for the program, it is arguable that this principal was the
catalyst for the advancement of the program and the reason why this particular school
was able to integrate so much of the program into the daily activities. Once the principal

146

was convinced of the benefits of the program, it is possible that this champion of the
CRPBIS was able to engage and encourage the rest of the staff to move towards the goals
of the district. In looking back over the results of the program, it is clear that this school
was able to benefit from the implementation of CRPBIS, but it was the leadership of the
principal that was the catalyst for this positive outcome.
In a similar vein as the principal at Teocalli Elementary, the principal at
Monument Elementary was also a key reason for the implementation outcomes of
CRPBIS. However, in the case of Monument Elementary, the principal acted in a way
that was not aligned with the explicit goals of school district’s implementation CRPBIS.
There are three distinct reasons why the principal failed to interpret the goals of the
central offices of the school district in the same way as the principal at Teocalli. First, at
the very onset of the CRPBIS initiative, the principal at Monument Elementary was not
sure of the approach or the systems that were going to be required as a part of the
implementation. Second, because of the pre-existing program that was in place at
Monument Elementary, the principal was at first confused about the purpose of the
required implementation when an operating program was already in place. Third, the
principal at Monument Elementary was not appreciative that the top-down approach to
implementation was being mandated from the central offices. All three of these reasons
produce the action taken by the principal that varied from the vision of implementation as
put forth by the school district’s central office. Each of these individual factors is
influential in how the principal approached the implementation of CRPBIS. For example,
because the principal believes that the best innovations come from the classroom, the topdown approach to this initiative led the principal to stay true to the existing program

147

rather than change the approach that had been developed inside the school building over
time. Second, the principal was astounded (based on the analysis of interview data) that
the district had not taken into account the previous work that had been engaged in by the
school to develop the climate and culture within the building. Last, the principal was not
a believer in the approach, including the mandated nature of CHAMPS, as a way to
implement CRPBIS. Individually, these factors may not have caused the principal to
decide to continue on the existing path that the school had been on, but the combined
nature of all three of these led the principal to interpret the goals of the district as
distinctly different than the goals of the school. While the principal did find ways to mold
the existing program to fit with the implementation of CRPBIS, the school did not
actively pursue the implementation of CRPBIS as the district had envisioned.
The primary reason why this school did not actively pursue the implementation of
CRPBIS in the way that the school district had intended was in part a result of the way
that the principal, as the school leader, interpreted the actions of the school district in the
decision to choose CRPBIS and the manner in which the school approached the
implementation. It was the interpretation of the district’s agenda that led to action of the
principal and ultimately, the different approach that was taken in this school.
The result of sensemaking, in this study, is that individual principals have
considerable impact in how an initiative is implemented based upon how the individuals
make sense of the program and its impact on the school. Focusing in on the two ends of
the implementation continuum, it is clear that the principals wielded considerable power
in the implementation of the CRPBIS program. As school leaders, the way in which the
principals interpreted the message of the school district and the intent of the program

148

produced different implementation approaches. In one school, the complete belief in the
program led to a fruitful implementation and in the other school, the feeling that the
school was supplanting the existing program with another led to an implementation that
fit the needs of the district, but was not the program that the district had put forth. In sum,
principals are considerably important in how a program is brought to the school building
and their conception of the program has considerable impact in how the program will
eventually be put into action in the school. This is an important realization for program
implementers to grasp; that the understanding of the principals who are implementing the
program could make or break an implementation before the program ever sees the
classroom.
Conclusion. At the onset of this chapter the question was asked, why CRPBIS?
Why is it important for the school district to initiate this particular intervention to address
the disciplinary concerns of the school district leadership? What I have found is that an
important reason why this particular program is important for the district to pursue is that
CRPBIS encourages schools to look deep into their school community to explore how the
school can be responsive to the localized needs of the school community. However, while
this finding is important, what is most interesting and potentially more important is the
identification of the significance of how individuals interpret an initiative and what that
means to the implementation of the initiative. In this case, the implementation of CRPBIS
in each of the school buildings within this study was greatly effected by the way in which
the principals interpreted the objective of CRPBIS and how that interpretation interacted
with what has been working (or not working) in their school prior to the implementation
of CRPBIS. In this case, three important lenses are identified as how principals adopt the

149

CRPBIS program. As identified as a result of research question two, there are varying
types of adoption and they are categorized as energetic, resistant, and compliant adoption.
Each of these forms of adoption effect the implementation of CRPBIS, which causes
variation of the initiative inside each of the school buildings. Implementation variation is
the core of this study and what is important to discover is that even when all participants
agree on the purpose and goals of the initiative (research question one), variation in
implementation can occur. In this case, the cause of that variation was the by-product of
how individuals unpacked the meaning and importance of the program. The individual
meaning and importance that was ascribed to CRPBIS was dependent on the principal of
the school and the perceived need for an intervention in the mind of the school principal.
In conclusion, while this analysis had explored three important questions about
implementation, the most important finding of the analysis is that individual sensemaking
by the school principal has considerable power in the implementation and the variation of
implementation, even when the goals of the program are equally agreed upon.

150

CHAPTER 5: FINDINGS AND RECCOMENDATIONS
The implementation of CRPBIS in the BMSD school district is an attempt to
address the growing discipline situation within the school district. The goal of the district
is to reduce the number of disciplinary incidents in the district through the introduction of
a culturally responsive approach to school discipline. This approach to school discipline
seeks to improve the school’s awareness of the lives of the students outside the school
building and how those experiences impact the behavior of the students in the classroom.
As a result of the increased awareness of the lived experiences of the students, it is
thought that the school faculty and staff will be better able to address the misbehavior of
the students. However, the introduction of this new policy into the schools is mediated by
the interpretations of the policy by the principals in the schools. It is their role as a
gatekeeper of information and driver of action that is influential in the overall
implementation of the new policy. As such, gaining a better understanding of how
principals perceive the policy and how those principals act on the policy is of critical
importance.
In this study, the implementation of CRPBIS was a district-wide initiative,
encompassing all 27 school buildings that occurred at one time was the vehicle through
which the actions of the principals in the implementation effort was examined. The overt
goal with this district-wide implementation was to ensure that all students, regardless of
school attended, would experience the same expectations for behavior. From the district
perspective, the implementation of CRPBIS has the chance to increase the continuity of
approaches to school discipline for students who are transient or those who graduate from
one building to another at the end of a school year. The implementation was initially a

151

three-year program, but has been increased to a five-year implementation to ensure that
all schools have the chance to implement the program to the greatest extent possible.
Implementation of CRPBIS within BMSD was supported by an external support
agency, the GRD. GRD provided expertise in CRPBIS and in implementation protocols.
GRD worked, in some fashion, with each of the schools in the district to support the goal
of reaching 80% fidelity. A Tiered Fidelity Instrument (TFI) measures fidelity of
implementation; the TFI is an observational tool to account for the practices and
procedures within each school. While the TFI is the primary tool used by GRD and
BMSD to measure the implementation of CRPBIS, much of the work takes place in dayto-day actions that improve the culture and climate of the school. The TFI takes a
qualitative and quantitative measurement of implementation, but other metrics are used to
identify the impact of implementing CRPBIS. School discipline and academic
achievement are also analyzed to determine the effects of CRPBIS.
As much as the district seeks to create continuity in implementation through an
all-in mentality to the implementation of CRPBIS, the approach to implementation by
school leaders in the schools is what produces variation in implementation. Variation in
understanding of CRPBIS, while expected to some extent by the school district, produces
differences in the way school buildings approach CRPBIS. The differences in
implementation are caused by the way in which individuals perceive the need for
CRPBIS. Each of the schools in the study approached the implementation with a different
level of engagement and the variation of implementation that occurred produced the
primary finding in this study. This variation in implementation was a product of the
influence that the principal in each building had in the effort and energy that the school

152

approached CRPBIS implementation with. In one school, where the principal is an ardent
supporter of the CRPBIS implementation and has been able to marshal the resources to
lead the school in a very focused implementation of CRPBIS, considerable success in
reducing school disciplinary action has occurred. In another building, the implementation
of CRPBIS was less of a focus but still a part of the overall operation of the school
building, which resulted in a different outcome for the implementation of CRPBIS. In
this chapter, I will look at the variation in implementation across school buildings and
offer recommendations for future implementations of this program. Together, these two
aspects of this chapter will help to better understand the way in which this program can
be implemented in the future and how to avoid the steep learning curve that occurs in the
implementation process. It is important to note that this study does not attempt to address
the effectiveness of the implementation of CRPBIS quantifiably, but is an attempt to
better understand the role of principal sensemaking in the implementation process.
Understanding the role of the principal sensemaking in implementation is considerably
important in the analysis of policy implementation.
Principal Sensemaking Mediates Implementation
A critical finding of this dissertation is how principal sensemaking mediates
program implementation. Previous scholars have pointed out that the specific actions of
principals in schools have mediated how teachers make sense of new policy (Coburn,
2005). What is interesting to see in this study is what happens prior to the introduction of
new policy to the teaching staff. In this study, it can be seen that the principals
themselves interpreted and make sense of the new policy. Sensemaking at the principal
level also seems to have influence on how new initiatives may be implemented. As has

153

been pointed out in this study, each of the principals were introduced and reacted
differently to the introduction of CRPBIS. The impact of this differential interpretation of
the CRPBIS program, at the principal level, led to variation in implementation. The
variation in implementation can be seen in the types of adoption of CRPBIS that took
place in each of the three schools. From energetic to compliant, the introduction of
CRPBIS was mediated by the principals of each building.
It is important to note that each of the principals saw the central objective of
CRPBIS as an approach to discipline that worked to create new systems that would honor
and include the lived experiences of the students and the families of the school
community. This continuity in understanding rules out the lack of clarity as a reason for
variation. What was different between each of these schools was the role that the
principal interpretation of the program affected the building’s implementation of the new
approach to school discipline. In one school, the principal saw the introduction of
CRPBIS as the savior of the school. CRPBIS moved the school away from reliance upon
punitive punishment and towards responsive practices that allowed students to stay in the
classroom and increase instructional time. In another school, the program was a challenge
to an existing approach that had been built over several years and the principal clearly
was upset with the way in which CRPBIS was being presented as the new approach to
school discipline for the entirety of the district. In the third and final school of the study,
CRPBIS was accepted but not fully acted upon by the principal because it was not
necessarily needed immediately. As such, in this third school, CRPBIS launched with
relatively low energy and low interest. In sum, it can be seen that in each of these
schools, the principal acted as a gatekeeper in the implementation process. In this

154

gatekeeper role, each of the principals’ interpretation and understanding of the program is
what ultimately led to the variation in implementation.
For policy designers, acknowledgement and understanding of principal
sensemaking can be important in how programs are eventually carried out in schools.
From this study, it is clear that the interpretations and the understandings of the policy
goals and objectives are instrumental in how the program is implemented over time. To
better plan for this sensemaking that occurs at the local level, it is important that policy
designers understand the need to incorporate the impact of principal sensemaking when
introducing new programs or initiatives into the school buildings. While the outcomes of
the policy may be clear and unmistakable to those who design the new initiative, there is
a distinct need to determine how school leaders, when planning the implementation, will
translate the policy objectives into action. It is this sensemaking, at the school leadership
level, that will provide the setting for a full, partial, or failed implementation. The
variation in implementation, as was seen in this study, is in some way predicated in the
sensemaking of the principals. As such, preparing for principal sensemaking can
positively affect the way in which a new program is implemented.
Program Variation
In this study, the focus has been on the variation of implementation and the causes
of that variation. Gaining a better understanding of the factors that can lead to variation
has the potential to better understand CRPBIS implementation variation. First, it is clear
from the interviews that each individual, at all levels of the school district, understand the
reason why the program has been introduced to the schools, to reduce the amount of
disciplinary action taken in the schools and to increase the awareness of the community.

155

What is also clear is that there was variation among the school buildings of the study.
What is most important within study is that the cause of the variation may be attributable
to the way in which the school leaders interpret the impact of CRPBIS based on their
own understandings of the program.
The results of this study shed light on the impact of how school leaders interpret
the meaning of CRPBIS and the effect that the interpretation can have on the manner in
which school leaders adopt the implementation of CRPBIS. Previous research has looked
deeply into how a school principal can impact the way in which teachers learn about and
implement policies (Coburn, 2001; Spillane et al., 2006), but there has been a gap in the
existing literature about the role of principal sensemaking in policy implementation. In
this study, the analysis of the implementation adoption variation due to principal
sensemaking leads to distinct findings in how school leaders interpret, understand, and
act of policy initiatives of a school district. Factors that lead to principal sensemaking, in
this study, are the way the program is introduced to the principals and the interpretation
of the program effect on the school. Together, these two primary factors have influenced
the manner in which CRPBIS was implemented in this environment. While it is possible
that other factors may influence implementation in other locations, in this instance and in
this environment, the three listed factors played a role in this implementation.
Introduction to CRPBIS. A important contributor to the variation of
implementation can be seen in the way that CRPBIS was introduced to the schools within
the district. In its initial iteration, CRPBIS was brought to a few schools (one at the
elementary and high school levels) to test the waters. The initiative was brought to the
school district by the GRD and done so as a chance to intervene in schools where

156

discipline was a considerable concern. The efforts of the GRD caught the eye of the
district administration and from there, and quite quickly, the implementation went from a
small-scale approach in a few schools to a district-wide initiative. To put this into
context, CRPBIS was introduced in the spring of 2015 by GRD in two schools. Later that
spring, in a meeting between the leadership of GRD and BMSD, a school district (as
pointed out earlier) official felt strongly enough that the program should be implemented
district-wide the following school year. Knowing that there were significant challenges
that faced both the district and GRD, the decision was made that the implementation of
CRPBIS needed to occur and it needed to be done despite the potential lack of resources
to do so. Following this decision by the leadership of the two primary entities, a meeting
was held during the waning days of the 2015 academic year for all principals of the
school district where CRPBIS was introduced and the timeline of implementation was
announced. The implementation of CRPBIS would be part of the following school year
and was to be done across all schools at one time. This decision caused confusion among
principals about why CRPBIS was being implemented. With that in mind and thinking
about the schools of this study, the way in which the program was introduced to the
schools in this study presented an excellent view into how the introduction to a program,
in this case, CRPBIS, can lead to variation in actual implementation.
A few mitigating factors identify how the introduction to CRPBIS in this
particular study led to variation. Of the three schools in this study, I will focus on the
experience of two schools to better understand how the introduction to a program can
lead to variation in implementation. In this study, one school was introduced to the study
by a specific individual from GRD with the stated goal of providing the school a program

157

that would help to provide immediate and a clear outcome, reduced disciplinary action. A
second school learned about the implementation during a GRD presentation of CRPBIS
alongside all the other schools and with the overt, umbrella district goal of reducing
school discipline. The two disparate situations for the introduction of CRPBIS is an
important cue into how the program was implemented and why certain schools may have
different experiences in implementation. Specifically, each school had initial responses to
the introduction that led to long-term differences in how the program was received and
ultimately brought into the school building. In looking at the method of introduction, it is
important to note that the introduction of CRPBIS and the reaction to the introduction is a
critical factor in the overall implementation of the program. Each situation offers insight
into how the manner of introduction causes variation in this study. This, in turn, offers
insight into how implementation can be effected by how individuals receive the
information about a program or protocol. Each situation will be explored to identify the
individual experiences produced differentiated outcomes.
Of the two schools that will be the focus of this section, one school experienced
intentional efforts to improve the climate and culture of the school through an approach
that was targeted to this school and its individual concerns related to school discipline.
The other school was part of the mass introduction of the program that was facilitated not
by BMSD officials, according to principals interviewed, but by GRD facilitators. It is
important to note that in this implementation, the GRD and BMSD worked alongside of
each other in the implementation. Though the school district, BMSD, had absolute
authority to make the decision to introduce CRPBIS to the schools, it was the GRD
facilitators that would be engaged in much of the early implementation efforts. Despite

158

the fact that the facilitators from the GRD were the experts in the program and had
sufficient resources to provide support during the implementation, the introduction of
CRPBIS to the entirety of the school district in the spring meeting produced variation in
implementation.
Program Interpretation. The implementation of CRPBIS in BMSD was an
attempt by school district administrators to implement a program to address the
challenges that were created by a system of discipline that disproportionately impacted
students of color. The identification of the disproportionality and the subsequent decision
to implement CRPBIS happened rather quickly in this district and, as such, the
interpretation of why this program was needed in the schools was different for
individuals at different levels of the educational system. Due to the differentiation of
understanding related to the need for CRPBIS, schools produced drastically different
implementations. In each of the three elementary schools, principals who were given the
responsibility of implementing CRPBIS saw the need for the program in a different light.
At Monument Elementary, where an existing program that sought to address the
climate and culture of the school building had been in place for a number of years,
CRPBIS was an unknown. In the eyes of the principal CRPBIS was a program without a
clear purpose or plan and as a result, the implementation of the explicit goals of the
district was different than in other buildings. The causes of the variation were caused by
the lack of purpose in the eyes of the principal, the poor introduction of the
implementation plan, and the lack of respect for the existing efforts of the school.
One of the reasons why the Monument principal felt that this program was
lacking in purpose was because of their history of implementing programs to address

159

behavior in past years. This is a school that has long worked to introduce a program that
seeks to improve the environment and the behavior of the students. In contrast to the
existing program, in the view of the principal, CRPBIS was being implemented in the
schools without regard for their history and as a result lacked the purpose that made
CRPBIS so valuable in other buildings. According to the principal, when reflecting on a
meeting with district officials, “there were a lot of people, not just us, that were sitting
there kinda going, okay, wait a minute. There was, it was kinda like why, there was a big
piece missing which was kind of the why are we doing this thing?” As a result, the school
reverted back to the program that they knew and were already implementing. The school,
not in an overt act of resistance, decided that they were already doing parts of what the
district was seeking to achieve and as such sought to maintain their program of choice.
The principal saw CRPBIS as a new lens to view school discipline approaches, but did
not see CRPBIS as necessarily different than what was already in place so the school.
Monument Elementary simply augmented the existing work to fit the mold for CRPBIS
presented by the district. In the eyes of the principal, “it was kinda like, okay, well, we do
a lot of stuff. So, it was a little bit like, you know they were talking to us as if this was all
new and it wasn’t all new.” The frustration that was caused by the perceived lack of
purpose of this new program, CRPBIS, led to the lack of fidelity to the goals of the
district in the implementation of CRPBIS in Monument. As a result, this school did not
actively engage in the expectations set forth by the district, the lack of active engagement
does not mean they were in violation of the school district’s implementation expectations,
just that this school went about the implementation in a different manner than in other
schools.

160

The implications of this variation, for this study, mean that the overt expectations
for implementation were not met with complete fidelity in this school due to the
interpretation of the policy goals by the school principal. The school district, at the onset
of the implementation wanted the schools to have the ability to mold the program to the
needs of the school, but still implementation included three specific requirements. As was
mentioned earlier, there was a set of three requirements within a larger circle of
expectations. At Monument Elementary, the principal chose to bypass these requirements
and implement parts of CRPBIS as they fit with the existing program. By pursuing their
own interests, the actions of Monument Elementary exhibit the type of variation that can
lead to outcomes that are along the lines of the goals of the school, but still account for
localized needs and local approaches.
At Teocalli Elementary, where the CRPBIS was implemented with the most
fervor, the need for CRPBIS was clear. To address the growing incidence of disciplinary
action, the principal clearly realized that the concept of suspension was not effective. At
one point in the initial interview, this principal, when thinking about his perspective on
student discipline prior to the implementation, stated that, “I was really big on just,
unfortunately, being punitive. I just really felt that being punitive in terms of discipline
was the way to keep the building safe and to run a tight ship.” However, after
professional development and experience in the CRPBIS approach the same principal
said that:
Putting those systems in place, it changed the entire culture for our school
behaviorally and academically because now teachers can teach. I mentioned
earlier, behavior sets the foundation for instruction. If behaviors aren’t in place,

161

no instruction’s taking place. Even those kids who have the desire to learn and
want to learn, they can't because the behavior is so out of control. Once we got
behavior under control, we started to see gains.
For this principal, the interpretation of the need for CRPBIS was based on the need to
address the behavior of the students. Over time, this principal realized that punitive
discipline, such as suspension, did not provide the students with the stimulus to change
their behavior. What did change their behavior was the concerted effort on behalf of this
principal and faculty to better understand the students and the culture from which they
came. This shift in interpretation of the problem, from kids needing discipline to behave
better to kids needing understanding, transformed the implementation of this program
from just another system to a transformative approach to student discipline. It was a
transformation that moved the principal, and the school, from one of the highest
suspending buildings in the district to one of the highest academically performing
buildings. It was how the leadership of the building interpreted the goal of CRPBIS and
translated that into action. Teachers and staff became more empathetic to the students and
in turn, the discipline problems became less of classroom disruption and turned into an
opportunity to understand the challenges that students bring into the classroom that cause
the misbehavior. CRPBIS and its system of cultural awareness created the space for
alternative approaches to positively influence the experiences of students in the
classroom. For example, the creation of buddy rooms and screeners (adults in the
building that work closely with a few students) provided the students “a place to go and
have someone they can trust or they can count on to avoid an out of school suspension or
detention.” In this school, the interpretation and reaction to the implementation of

162

CRPBIS produced an outcome for students that allowed for individuals to investigate the
deeper causes of the misbehavior rather than simply reacting to an action and sending the
student to the principal’s office. It was, in the eyes of this principal, CRPBIS “pretty
much saved this school.” Implementing CRPBIS provided the opportunity for this
principal and faculty to change the paradigm of school discipline from a reactionary
approach to student misbehavior to an approach that developed community and increased
cultural awareness for school staff and for the students.
The combination of the introduction and the interpretation of CRPBIS impacted
the type of implementation that occurs in the schools. In one sense, these two reactions to
policy lead to the overall implementation variation over time. Program variation, even
with an agreed upon and theoretically valuable program such as CRPBIS, is a product of
how the school leaders understand the program and its impact. Understanding that
principals, even before the action of implementation, have tremendous impact on the way
in which a policy is moved from the design to the deployment stage is a critical finding of
this study. As such, it is important for future policy decisions to incorporate this
understanding into the design phase of a policy. Having a clear understanding of how
principals, and other school leaders, act as conduits for action is one thing, but having a
keen understanding of how interpretation of a program affects implementation will be
critical for future policy deployments.
Recommendations
As a result of this study and the findings from the analysis, there are three
recommendations for any future implementation of CRPBIS. First, an expansive
inventory of existing practices within the school district should be taken prior to the

163

implementation of CRPBIS to investigate what individual schools are already doing to
address school disciplinary issues. Second, the district implementing the program needs
to have a four-year implementation plan that includes a year zero plan designed to plan
the implementation strategy. Third, the school district implementing CRPBIS should
make available equal funding streams to ensure that all schools have the opportunity to
adopt the CRPBIS program with the resources that will promote full implementation.
Together these three recommendations will provide the framework to help facilitate the
implementation of CRPBIS in a way that could lead to the type of outcomes seen in the
top performing schools in study. The recommendations will also help to avoid some of
the challenges that have been identified through this study.
Expansive Inventory. One of the primary factors of variation within this study
was the setting in which the implementation of CRPBIS occurred. In one school, an
existing program was in place and precluded CRPBIS from gaining a foothold. In another
school, an all-in mentality allowed CRPBIS to flourish. There is little doubt that further
variation occurred in other schools within the school district as well. One way in which
an organization that is implementing CRPBIS in the future can avoid similar experiences
would be through an expansive inventory of existing programs that are in place
throughout schools where CRPBIS is thought to be a helpful program. This would require
that the district that is thinking of implementing the program work with all schools to
examine and explore what is already in place throughout the organization in order to see
if there are aspects of existing programs that can be included into the future
implementation of CRPBIS. In doing an expansive inventory of existing programs that
are in place the district will also be able to softly introduce the implementation of

164

CRPBIS, allay fears or concerns about the introduction of the program, and gauge the
responses to a culturally responsive program in schools. This will also provide an
opportunity to assess how school-building leaders will react to a new program in the
school system. This assessment will also allow the district leadership a chance to view
the reactions through the three lenses identified in this study (energetic, resistant, or
indecisive adoption).
The expansive inventory should begin the year prior to implementation through
school visits and discussions about existing programs. This could also be viewed as a
needs assessment approach in some schools. One of the key components of the expansive
inventory assessment is an openness of those who were visiting the schools to identify
and grasp the totality of the environment within the school. By approaching the schools
in a manner that is open and willing to listen, it is possible that many best practices might
be included into the future implementation of CRPBIS. This will provide two specific
benefits. First, the ensuing implementation will include facets of existing programming
that is successful and second, will open up lines of communication between the
leadership of the school district and the leadership of the school buildings. As was seen in
this study, both of these benefits have the potential to enhance the implementation of
CRPBIS.
Four-year Implementation Plan. One way an organization could enhance the
implementation of CRPBIS would be to follow a comprehensive, four-year
implementation plan. All four of the years would be critical to the implementation and
include a specific set of outcomes for each year. In allowing for a prolonged

165

implementation to occur, there is a greater likelihood that the policy will lead to positive
outcomes for the students in the classroom, both academically and socially.
Year Zero. After it has been determined that CRPBIS is a program that is to be
introduced to the school system, the organization responsible for implementing CRPBIS
should strive to include three specific initiatives. First, in the initial year of
implementation, or year-zero, it is recommended that the school district participate in
three specific activities. One, the school system should embark on a system wide
inventory of existing programs (as mentioned in the previous section). This, as mentioned
previously, would provide the organization implementing the landscape of existing
programs and how they might be weaved into the planned implementation of CRPBIS.
Two, the school system needs to begin to clearly identify and articulate the benefits of the
CRPBIS program for students and schools. Through a clear and transparent approach to
explicating the purpose, goals, and outcomes of CRPBIS it is possible that the
implementing organization could avoid confusion and resentment over the
implementation of CRPBIS. Three, the implementing organization needs to begin
professional development programs for CRPBIS that align with the explicit goals of the
school district. These professional development opportunities should begin at the top of
the organization and filter down to the classroom level, but should be informed by the
results of the local inventories that are taken during the year.
Together, these three activities in the year-zero of implementation need to work in
concert with one another to ensure that when the implementation does occur, it occurs
with all stakeholders in alignment to the goals of the implementation. The benefits of
these three components will help to introduce CRPBIS in a way that prevents any one

166

school or individual from being shocked at the implementation or unclear about the goals
of the CRPBIS programming.
Year One. In the first year of actual implementation there are two significant
implementation goals that should be introduced and met to ensure an implementation that
meets the overt goals of the policy designers. First, it would be advisable for the
implementing organization to start with a small cohort of schools, representing multiple
levels of the school system as a sample set to implement CRPBIS. If it is also possible, an
attempt should be made to have schools voluntarily opt-in to the implementation of
CRPBIS, the implementation in this first year will be better off than if the sample set of
schools are forced by the district to implement CRPBIS. Opting in to the implementation
will help ensure that schools that are a part of the initial phase of implementation will be
schools who want to be a part of the implementation. This desire, on part of the schools
that opt in, will show that the schools are willing to implement and hopefully active in
learning about and finding ways to help make the implementation more successful.
The benefit of beginning the implementation with a smaller cohort of willing
implementers is that it will possible to test the strategies designed during year-zero and to
make adjustments as needed. With a willing group of implementers it is also possible to
closely observe how the program evolves during the first year of implementation and
how professional development opportunities impact the implementation of CRPBIS over
the course of the first year. Second, best practices that develop in the schools that begin
the implementation can be infused into the full implementation in the following year.
Through collaborative reflection among participating schools, it is possible that any
challenges that arise can be investigated and addressed early on in the implementation.

167

As much as challenges are informative to the implementation process, any successes that
occur in the first year can be replicated in other schools later. A final benefit of working
with a small cohort of schools is that the implementation can be a central focus for the
school district.
When thinking about beginning the in-school implementation with a small group
of schools, it is important to realize that this year-one group of implementers will also act
as the experts moving forward and as such should be paired with similarly situated
schools moving forward into the third year of implementation. Through effective
management of these pairs (or larger if needed) it will be possible for newly included
schools in the implementation process to benefit from the experience of other schools.
This collaboration among schools can help both schools work through challenges, but
will be most beneficial to newly introduced schools. In the end, the smooth transition to
wider group of schools implementing CRPBIS will be aided by the teamwork atmosphere
by aligning schools that have experience and those who are new to the program.
Year Two. In the third year of implementation the program should be rolled out
fully to all schools in the district. In this rollout of the CRPBIS programming, schools
that have previously implemented the CRPBIS program will act as the guides for newly
introduced schools. During this year, all schools will be working together and operating
with the same knowledge about the program that has been developed over the previous
two years. During this year of adoption, principals and school district officials need to be
constantly monitoring the process of implementation, looking for any challenges that
have previously been observed or any new challenges that arise.

168

One of the most important processes that should occur during this year of full
implementation is the development of dedicated time for school leaders to collaborate
amongst each other to reflect on the implementation. Because the implementation of
CRPBIS can be quite challenging for schools, the district needs to ensure that school
leaders have the opportunity to work together to assess and improve implementation. For
this to occur, as seen in BMSD, reducing the number of initiatives taking place at the
same time within the district is vital. Through the reduction of other programs that take
away time available, implementation of CRPBIS will be in a better position than if
multiple initiatives were taking valuable time away from the efforts in the school
buildings to introduce CRPBIS.
Last, during this year of full implementation, it is important that the district begin
anew the comprehensive inventory of schools to assess the challenges and successes that
are surfacing. From these inventories, the school district should be working closely with
the schools to develop further professional development related to CRPBIS
implementation. In doing so, it will be possible for the school to institutionalize the
practices and procedures that allow CRPBIS to become an integral part of each school’s
day-to-day operations.
Year Three. In the fourth year of implementation, the schools and the school
district should be at a point where the program is institutionalized and where it is not, this
year provides an opportunity for the school district to monitor and aid schools that need
extra care in their implementation efforts. During this year, professional development
should be centered on developing further capacity of schools to increase their ability to
meet the needs of the students.

169

Implementation Funding. One of the more important aspects that must be
attended to is the allocation of funding for schools to implement CRPBIS. As was seen in
this study, the school that allocated funding to the efforts of CRPBIS saw considerable
benefits as a result. While the success that was identified cannot be simply because of the
funding, it is important to note that the school was able to make great strides as a result of
the allocation of funds. For example, the lesson learned in this study is that the one school
that dedicated a full time employee to implement CRPBIS protocols did see academic
and social growth for the students. There are two ways that funding can be used to
support the implementation of CRPBIS. One, the implementing organization should find
a way to provide each school with a full time CRPBIS facilitator, and two, the district
should use funds to provide meaningful professional development for the principals, the
faculty, and the support staff of the schools.
Full Time CRPBIS Facilitators. Due to the fact that CRPBIS is a time intensive
implementation, when done appropriately, having a full time staff member dedicated to
the development of CRPBIS related activities are critical. From planning CRPBIS events
within the school building to analyzing data, a full time employee dedicated to the
implementation is critical. This individual would be responsible for organizing the
approaches to CRPBIS, communicating with faculty and staff members about the
progress being made with students, and to ensuring that the principal is able to lead the
school rather than be a disciplinarian. Another benefit of dedicating an individual to the
development of CRPBIS within the schools is that the school district would have a cohort
of dedicated implementers who will act as conduits of information both to the district
about the implementation and from the district to the schools. Having this person in place

170

will be a significant cost for districts, but based upon the existing study, it is an important
cost to bear when the decision to implement CRPBIS.
Professional Development. While many programs argue that supporting
professional development is important to the implementation of any program, CRPBIS
may be more reliant on professional development. One reason for this is that the CRPBIS
program challenges many preconceived notions an individual possesses about culture and
the influence of culture on an individual’s actions. Due to the fact that CRPBIS forces
systems to investigate the racialized nature of school discipline, CRPBIS implementation
can lead to very personal conversations. Those conversations need to occur, but it is
important that the conversations happen in environments that are conducive to positive
action and not negative results. Another why that professional development can be
important to the implementation is that it can be the framework that the district utilizes to
establish a single language across the school district when implementing CRPBIS. Both
of these examples of how professional development can enrich the implementation of
CRPBIS.
Addressing Preconceived Beliefs. At its core, CRPBIS asks school leaders and
faculty to investigate and explore the disciplinary history of the school. In some
instances, as was found in this study, schools and school districts might find that the
discipline history in the school can look racially biased even when members of the school
ardently assert that they are not racist nor is their approach to school discipline. Because
of this, it is important that professional development be designed to assuage the initial
reactions of participants to data that could show a racialized pattern and work to embrace
the potential of CRPBIS to develop greater awareness of the cultural background of the

171

students and the community. Using professional development to create opportunities for
teachers and school leaders to learn about how to reimagine the school discipline
protocols that seek to understand the root cause of the actions of the students and not
simple act in response to singular action is an important goal for the outcomes of
professional development in schools.
Continuity in Approach. One way that professional development can be a source
of support in the implementation of CRPBIS is through the creation of a continuity of
messaging and approach. Professional development that is designed and deployed by
central district leaders has the potential to shape the approach to CRPBIS that is taken in
the individual schools. As was noted in the interviews for this study, one point of action
that the BMSD hoped to take in future professional development was to create pre-made
presentations for principals to share with their faculty and staff. The goal of BMSD was
to create the presentations at the central offices and then share the presentations at
principal meetings. The principals would then take the presentations back to the schools
and share the presentations with their community. In doing this, BMSD was taking an
active role in developing a singular messaging pattern across all schools. In other
implementations of CRPBIS, this should be a starting point for the dissemination of
messaging and goals, not a realization in year three. Should an organization begin the
implementation of CRPBIS using this form of professional development it will be easier
to spread the central message of the program and similar approaches to developing
CRPBIS programing.
While there are many approaches to professional development, the most
important factor is that the professional development opportunities provide the

172

implementers of CRPBIS the chance to learn about the program and then implement the
program as best as possible. It is very important in the implementation of CRPBIS that
those who are pushed to challenge preconceived notions about the potential for a
racialized nature of school discipline to exist, that there is an effective form of
professional development that provides an opportunity to have difficult conversations,
but more importantly find ways to develop systems within the school to move forward in
a way that improves the overall environment of the school building. One of the ways this
can accomplished is through the provision of adequate funding to make sure that
professional development is a key component of the implementation and not an
afterthought.
Conclusion. CRPBIS is a relatively new approach to school discipline and had
been introduced into the BMSD as a way to address the growing number of disciplinary
actions, particularly for students of color. The implementation is being implemented
across the entirety of the school district and is showing early promise to reduce the
number of punishments for students due to the cultural awareness that the program is
developing amongst the school leaders and faculty. When the program was introduced to
the school system, it was clear that the intent of the implementation was to address the
growing disciplinary issue within the school system. The plan for the implementation of
CRPBIS was originally going to begin in a select number of schools, supported by a local
agency with expertise in CRPBIS and implementation, quickly was upgraded to a system
wide implementation based on the school district’s desire to implement CRPBIS in all
school at one time to give this program to all schools at once. In the first few years of
implementation, a few key findings have emerged. The first is that the implementation

173

across schools produced noticeable variation, despite the intended goal of a continuity
across all schools, and that the variation is partially caused by the way in which school
leaders interpreted and made sense of the goals of CRPBIS. This sensemaking that
occurred at the local level is viewed through the lens as adoption. The energetic, resistant,
and compliant adoption of CRPBIS in the school buildings of this study provide an
important glimpse into how implementation of a program can vary as a result of school
leadership. Even when the program is well understood and the goals of the program are
clear, it is still possible to produce variation that impacts the overall development of
culturally responsive practices at the local level.
What is important to take from this study is that school leaders, even when in
agreement to the outcomes, still have considerable influence on the implementation of a
new program within a school system. This individual influence is of great importance to
individuals or organizations that seek to introduce any new program. Understanding this
influence and how to mitigate the influence through effective communication and
preparation when implementing a program of this scale. Further research should continue
to investigate this finding and provide more clarity about the influence that school
leaders, in particular principals, have in the overall implementation of CRPBIS.

174

APPENDIX

175

GRD participants – Round 1
Interview protocol for Investigating CRPBIS implementation:
Introduction: This interview consists of 12 questions. You may choose to answer or
decline to answer any question as we proceed. This interview should last roughly one
hour. I will be recording this interview so that the interview can be transcribed to produce
an accurate record of your responses.
In an effort to understand the implementation of Culturally Responsive Positive Behavior
Interventions and Supports (CRPBIS), I have a few questions that will help me better
understand your perceptions and your role in implementing CRPBIS. Please answer the
questions that follow as best you are able.
Questions:
1. Can you briefly state your role within the Ingham ISD and how long you have
served in this role?
2. Can you explain the role that you have in the planned implementation of
CRPBIS?
3. Can you describe the behavioral problems that exist within the high schools as
you see them?
4. Can you describe your current understanding of CRPBIS?
a. How did you come to this understanding?
5. Can you briefly articulate why you believe it is important for the school district
to introduce CRPBIS as a form of behavioral intervention in the high schools?
a. What factors do you believe led to the decision to implement CRPBIS?
6. Can you describe your perception of how CRPBIS, as a form of behavioral
intervention, can address behavior problems in the classroom and the high
schools?

176

7. There are some who argue that a key feature of CRPBIS is the involvement of
key stakeholders in the development of protocols to address classroom
misbehavior. Will you reflect on and share your perceptions on the role of
Ingham ISD in the implementation of CRPBIS?
a. Will you also reflect on the role of the school district leadership in the
implementation of CRPBIS?
b. Will you also reflect on the role that principals and other school leaders
have in the implementation of CRPBIS?

8. Professional development is often looked at as a crucial step in the
implementation of any new program; can you articulate how professional
development opportunities provide principals and other school leaders the tools
necessary to implement CRPBIS?

9. What are some of the challenges that you predict in the implementation of
CRPBIS in the high schools? How can the facilitators from Ingham ISD address
challenges that arise?

10. Is there anything else that you would like to add that could help to better
understand the overall goals in the implementation of CRPBIS?

Thank you for your participation and time in this interview. The information you have
contributed will be useful in continued study of CRBIS implementation programs and
their impact schools and communities. Thank you.

177

GRD participants – Round 2
Interview protocol for Investigating CRPBIS implementation:
Introduction: This interview consists of 12 questions. You may choose to answer or
decline to answer any question as we proceed. This interview should last roughly one
hour. I will be recording this interview so that the interview can be transcribed to produce
an accurate record of your responses.
In an effort to understand the implementation of Culturally Responsive Positive Behavior
Interventions and Supports (CRPBIS), I have a few questions that will help me better
understand your perceptions and your role in implementing CRPBIS. Please answer the
questions that follow as best you are able.
Questions:
1. Can you briefly state your role within the Ingham ISD and how long you have
served in this role?
2. Can you explain the role that you have in the implementation of CRPBIS?
3. Can you describe the behavioral problems that exist within the high schools as
you see them?
4. Can you describe your current understanding of CRPBIS?
a. How did you come to this understanding?
5. Can you briefly articulate why you believe that it is important for the school
district to introduce CRPBIS as a form of behavioral intervention in the high
schools?
a. What factors led to the decision to implement CRPBIS?
6. Can you describe your perception of how CRPBIS, as a form of behavioral
intervention, has affected behavior in the classroom and the high schools?
7. How have you observed CRPBIS affecting the interactions between students
and school leaders within the high schools?

178

8. There are some who argue that a key feature of CRPBIS is the involvement of
key stakeholders in the development of protocols to address classroom
misbehavior. Could you reflect on and share your perceptions on the role of the
school district in the implementation of CRPBIS?
a. Can you also reflect on the role that principals and other school leaders
have in the implementation of CRPBIS?

9. Professional development is often looked at as a crucial step in the
implementation of any new program; can you articulate how professional
development opportunities have provided principals and other school leaders
the tools necessary to implement CRPBIS?
a. How would you improve the professional development opportunities
related to the implementation of CRPBIS in the future?

10. What are some of the challenges that have been experienced in the
implementation of CRPBIS in the high schools? How have these challenges be
addressed?
11. Can you describe the relationship with Lansing School District and the
implementation of CRPBIS this year?
a. How have the school leaders (principals, assistant principals, and BIMS)
responded to the implementation of CRPBIS?
12. Is there anything else that you would like to add that could help to better
understand the overall goals in the implementation of CRPBIS?

Thank you for your participation and time in this interview. The information you have
contributed will be useful in continued study of CRBIS implementation programs and
their impact schools and communities. Thank you.

179

BMSD participants – Round 1
Interview protocol for Investigating CRPBIS implementation:
Introduction: This interview consists of 12 questions. You may choose to answer or
decline to answer any question as we proceed. This interview should last roughly one
hour. I will be recording this interview so that the interview can be transcribed to produce
an accurate record of your responses.
In an effort to understand the implementation of Culturally Responsive Positive Behavior
Interventions and Supports (CRPBIS), I have a few questions that will help me better
understand your perceptions and your role in implementing CRPBIS. Please answer the
questions that follow as best you are able.
Questions:
1. Can you briefly state your role within the school district and how long you have
served in this role?
2. Can you explain the role that you have in the planned implementation of
CRPBIS?
3. Can you describe the behavioral problems that exist within the high schools as
you see them?
4. Can you describe your current understanding of CRPBIS?
a. How did you come to this understanding?
5. Can you briefly articulate why you believe that it is important for the school
district to introduce CRPBIS as a form of behavioral intervention in the high
schools?
a. What factors led to the decision to implement CRPBIS?
6. Can you describe your perception of how CRPBIS, as a form of behavioral
intervention, can affect behavior in the classroom and the high schools?
7. How do you see CRPBIS affecting the interactions between students and school
leaders within the high schools?

180

8. There are some who argue that a key feature of CRPBIS is the involvement of
key stakeholders in the development of protocols to address classroom
misbehavior. Could you reflect on and share your perceptions on the role of the
school district in the implementation of CRPBIS?
a. Can you also reflect on the role that principals and other school leaders
have in the implementation of CRPBIS?

9. Professional development is often looked at as a crucial step in the
implementation of any new program; can you articulate how you see the
professional development opportunities offering principals and other school
leaders the tools necessary to implement CRPBIS?

10. What are some of the challenges you predict might be experienced in the
implementation of CRPBIS in the high schools? How will these challenges be
addressed?
11. Can you describe the relationship with Ingham ISD and how you see their
involvement in the implementation of CRPBIS?
12. Is there anything else that you would like to add that could help to better
understand the overall goals in the implementation of CRPBIS?

Thank you for your participation and time in this interview. The information you have
contributed will be useful in continued study of CRBIS implementation programs and
their impact schools and communities. Thank you.

181

BMSD participants – Round 2
Introduction: This interview consists of 12 questions. You may choose to answer or
decline to answer any question as we proceed. This interview should last roughly one
hour. I will be recording this interview so that the interview can be transcribed to produce
an accurate record of your responses.
In an effort to understand the implementation of Culturally Responsive Positive Behavior
Interventions and Supports (CRPBIS), I have a few questions that will help me better
understand your perceptions and your role in implementing CRPBIS. Please answer the
questions that follow as best you are able.
Questions:
1. Can you briefly state your role within the school district and how long you have
served in this role?
2. Can you explain the role that you have in the planned implementation of
CRPBIS?
a. Has your changed over time or varied from your initial understanding of
the role?
3. Can you describe the behavioral problems that exist within the high schools as
you see them?
4. Can you describe your current understanding of CRPBIS?
a. How did you come to this understanding?
5. Can you briefly articulate why you believe that it is important for the school
district to introduce CRPBIS as a form of behavioral intervention in the high
schools?
a. What factors led to the decision to implement CRPBIS?
6. Can you describe your perception of how CRPBIS, as a form of behavioral
intervention, has affected behavior in the classroom and the high schools?
7. How have you observed CRPBIS affecting the interactions between students
and school leaders within the high schools?
8. There are some who argue that a key feature of CRPBIS is the involvement of
key stakeholders in the development of protocols to address classroom

182

misbehavior. Could you reflect on and share your perceptions on the role of the
school district in the implementation of CRPBIS?
a. Can you also reflect on the role that principals and other school leaders
have in the implementation of CRPBIS?

9. Professional development is often looked at as a crucial step in the
implementation of any new program; can you articulate how professional
development opportunities have provided principals and other school leaders
the tools necessary to implement CRPBIS?
a. How would you improve the professional development opportunities
that are offered for principals and other school leaders in the future?

10. What are some of the challenges have been experienced in the implementation
of CRPBIS in the high schools? How have these challenges be addressed?
11. Can you describe how the partnership with Ingham ISD has affected the
implementation of CRPBIS this year?
12. Is there anything else that you would like to add that could help to better
understand the overall goals in the implementation of CRPBIS?

Thank you for your participation and time in this interview. The information you have
contributed will be useful in continued study of CRBIS implementation programs and
their impact schools and communities. Thank you.

183

BMSD participants – Round 3
Interview protocol for Investigating CRPBIS implementation:
Introduction: This interview consists of six questions. You may choose to answer or
decline to answer any question as we proceed. This interview should last roughly one
hour. I will be recording this interview so that the interview can be transcribed to produce
an accurate record of your responses.
In an effort to understand the implementation of Culturally Responsive Positive Behavior
Interventions and Supports (CRPBIS), I have a few questions that will help me better
understand your perceptions and your role in implementing CRPBIS. Please answer the
questions that follow as best you are able.
Questions:
1. Can you briefly state your role and how long you have served in this role?
2. Can you explain the role that you have had in the implementation of CRPBIS?
3. Can you describe your current understanding of CRPBIS?
a. Do you think that this has this changed over time?
4. Can you share your perceptions on the role of the school district in the
implementation of CRPBIS?
a. Can you share your perceptions on the role of the about the ISD?
b. Can you share your perceptions on the role of the individual schools?
5. How has CRPBIS been implemented in your school?
a. What specific components of CRPBIS have been implemented?
6. What factors led to the decision to implement CRPBIS?

Thank you for your participation and time in this interview. The information you have
contributed will be useful in continued study of CRBIS implementation programs and
their impact schools and communities. Thank you.

184

School Building Leadership participants – Round 1
Interview protocol for Investigating CRPBIS implementation:
Introduction:
This interview consists of 10 questions. You may choose to answer or decline to answer
any question. This interview should last roughly one hour. I will be recording this
interview so that the interview can be transcribed to record an accurate record of your
responses.
In an effort to understand the implementation of Culturally Responsive Positive Behavior
Interventions and Supports (CRPBIS), I have a few questions that will help me better
understand your perceptions and your role in implementing CRPBIS. Please answer the
questions that follow as best you are able to.
Questions:
1. Can you state your role within the school and how long you have served in this
role?

2. What is your role in the planned implementation of CRPBIS?

3. Can you describe the behavioral problems that exist within the school as you
see them?
4. Can you describe your current understanding of CRPBIS?
a. How did you come to this understanding?
5. How do believe that CRPBIS can alter the existing behavioral intervention
protocols within the school and classrooms?
6. Some suggest that a key feature of CRPBIS is the involvement of various
stakeholders in the development of protocols to address classroom misbehavior.
Could you reflect on and share your perceptions on the role that the school
district will have in providing the supports for the implementation of CRPBIS?
7. How do you believe the students will respond to the implementation of
CRPBIS?

185

8. How do you see CRPBIS affecting the interactions between school leaders
(principals, assistant principals, and BIMS) and the students within the school?
9. What challenges do you think will be experienced in the implementation of
CRPBIS?

10. Is there anything else that you would like to add that could help to better
understand your understanding about the CRPBIS program?

Thank you for your participation and time in this interview. The information you have
contributed will be useful in continued study of CRBIS implementation programs and
their impact schools and communities. Thank you.

186

School Building Leadership participants – Round 2
Interview protocol for Investigating CRPBIS implementation:
Introduction:
This interview consists of 13 questions. You may choose to answer or decline to answer
any question. This interview should last roughly one hour. I will be recording this
interview so that the interview can be transcribed to record an accurate record of your
responses.
In an effort to understand the implementation of Culturally Responsive Positive Behavior
Interventions and Supports (CRPBIS), I have a few questions that will help me better
understand your perceptions and your role in implementing CRPBIS. Please answer the
questions that follow as best you are able to.
Questions:
1. Can you state your role within the school and how long you have served in this
role?
2. What is your role in the current implementation of CRPBIS?
a. Has this changed since we last met? In what way?
3. Would you describe the behavioral problems that exist within the school as you
see them?
4. Can you describe your current understanding of CRPBIS?
a. How did you come to this understanding?
b. What has led to this understanding?
5. Have you participated in professional development opportunities related to the
implementation of CRPBIS?
a. Did the district provide any of these professional development
opportunities? If not, who?
b. How have these opportunities helped you to implement CRPBIS?
6. Some would argue that a key feature of CRPBIS is the involvement of various
stakeholders in the development of protocols to address classroom misbehavior.
Could you reflect on and share your perceptions on the role that the school
district has played in providing the supports for the implementation of
CRPBIS?

187

7. How have the facilitators from the Ingham ISD assisted in the implementation
of CRPBIS? What tools or supports have they provided to you?
8. How do believe CRPBIS has addressed the existing behavioral problems within
the school and classrooms?
9. How have the teachers have responded to the implementation of CRPBIS in
your opinion?
a. How have the students responded to the implementation of CRPBIS?
10. How do you see CRPBIS affecting the interactions between teachers and the
students within the school?
a. How have the interactions between school leaders and students been
affected by the implementation of CRPBIS?
11. What challenges have been experienced in the implementation of CRPBIS thus
far and how have these challenges been addressed?
12. Based on your experiences this year, would you change anything about the way
in which the implementation of CRPBIS? How? Why?
13. Is there anything else that you would like to add that could help to better
understand your understanding about the CRPBIS program?

Thank you for your participation and time in this interview. The information you have
contributed will be useful in continued study of CRBIS implementation programs and
their impact schools and communities. Thank you.

188

School Building Leadership participants – Round 3
Interview protocol for Investigating CRPBIS implementation:
Introduction: This interview consists of six questions. You may choose to answer or
decline to answer any question as we proceed. This interview should last roughly one
hour. I will be recording this interview so that the interview can be transcribed to produce
an accurate record of your responses.
In an effort to understand the implementation of Culturally Responsive Positive Behavior
Interventions and Supports (CRPBIS), I have a few questions that will help me better
understand your perceptions and your role in implementing CRPBIS. Please answer the
questions that follow as best you are able.
Questions:
1. Can you briefly state your role and how long you have served in this role?
2. Can you explain the role that you have had in the implementation of CRPBIS?
3. Can you describe your current understanding of CRPBIS?
a. Do you think that this has this changed over time?
4. Can you share your perceptions on the role of the school district in the
implementation of CRPBIS?
a. Can you share your perceptions on the role of the about the ISD?
b. Can you share your perceptions on the role of the individual schools?
5. How has CRPBIS been implemented in your school?
a. What specific components of CRPBIS have been implemented?
6. What factors led to the decision to implement CRPBIS?

Thank you for your participation and time in this interview. The information you have
contributed will be useful in continued study of CRBIS implementation programs and
their impact schools and communities. Thank you.

189

WORKS CITED

190

WORKS CITED
Adelman, H. S., & Taylor, L. (2003). On sustainability of project innovations as systemic
change. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 14(1), 1-25.
Alvesson, M. (2003). Beyond neopositivists, romantics, and localists: A reflexive
approach to interviews in organizational research. Academy of Management,
28(1), 13-33.
Arcia, E. (2006). Achievement and enrollment status of suspended students: Outcomes in
a large, multicultural school district. Education and Urban Society, 38(3), 359369.
Bal, A. (2015). Culturally Responsive Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports
(WCER Working Paper No.2015-9). Retrieved from
http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/publications/workingpapers.papers.php
Bal, A. (2016). From intervntion to innovation: A cultural-historical approach to the
racialization of school discipline. Interchange, 47, 409-427.
Bal, A., Kozleski, E. B., Schrader, E. M., Rodriquez, E. M., & Pelton, S. (2014).
Systemic transformation from the ground-up: Using learning lab to design
culturally responsive schoolwise positive behavioral supports. Remedial and
Special Education, 35(6), 327-339.
Bald Mountain School District. (2015). End of Year Discipline Summary.
Banks, T., & Obiakor, F. E. (2015). Culturally responsive positive behavior supports:
Considerations for practice. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 3(2), 8390.
Beck, A. N., & Muschkin, C. G. (2012). The enduring impact of race: Understanding
disparities in student discipline infractions and achievement. Sociological
Perspectives, 55(4), 637-662.
Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An
overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611-639.
Bowditch, C. (1993). Getting rid of troublemakers: High school disciplinary procedures
and the production of dropouts. Social Problems, 40(4), 493-509.
Brownstein, R. (2010). Pushed out. The Education Digest, March, 23-27.

191

Coburn, C. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate
reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 23(2), 145-170.
Coburn, C. E. (2005). Shaping teacher sensemaking: School leaders and the enactment of
reading policy. Education Policy, 19(3), 476-509.
Coburn, C. E., Toure, J., & Yamashita, M. (2009). Evidence, interpretation, and
persuasion: Instructional decision making at the district central office. Teachers
College Record, 111(4), 1115-1161.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and
evaluative criteria. Zeitschrift fur Soziologie, 19(6), 418-427.
Cunliffe, A., & Coupland, C. (2011). From hero to villain to hero: Making Experience
sensible through embodied narrative sensemaking. Human Relations, 61(1), 6388.
Denzin, N. K. (2001). The reflexive interview and a performative social science.
Qualitative Research, 1(1), 23-46.
Dunbar Jr., C. (2015). For naught: How zero-tolerance policy and school police
practices imperil our students' future. Retrieved from
http://www.aclumich.org/blog/2015-01-27/harsh-discipline-pushes-studentsout%E2%80%94-fails-make-schools-safer
Dupper, D. R. (2010). A New Model of School Discipline: Engaging Students and
Preventing Behavioral Problems. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Durlak, J. A. (1998). Why program implementation is important. Journal of Prevention
& Intervention in the Community, 17(2), 5-18.
Dutro, E., Fisk, M. C., Koch, R., Roop, L. J., & Wixson, K. (2002). When state policies
meet local district contexts: Standards based professional development as a
means to individual agency and collective ownership. Retrieved from Ann Arbor,
MI:
Fixen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005).
Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Retrieved from Tampa,
FL:
Fullan, M., & Pomfret, A. (1977). Research on curriculum and instruction
implementation. Review of Educational Research, 47(2), 335-397.

192

Fullan, M. G. (1996). Turning systemic thinking on its head. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(6),
420-423.
Garibaldi, A. M. (1992). Educating and motivating African American males to succeed.
The Journal of Negro Education, 51(1), 4-11.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gregory, A., Skiba, R. J., & Noguera, P. A. (2010). The achievement gap and the
discipline gap: Two sides of the same coin? Educational Researcher, 39(1), 5968.
Hirschfield, P. J. (2008). Preparing for prison? The criminalization of school discipline in
the USA. Theoretical Criminology, 12(1), 79-101.
Honig, M. (2006). Street-level bureaucracy revisted: Frontline district central-office
administrators as boundry spanners in education policy implementation.
Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(4), 357-383.
Horner, R. H., & Sugai, G. (2015). School-wide PBIS: An example of applied behavior
analysis implemented at a scale of social importance. Behavior Analysis Practice,
8, 80-85.
Jordan, J. L., & Anil, B. (2009). Race, gender, school discipline and human capital
effects. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 41(2), 419-429.
Kinsler, J. (2011). Understanding the black-white school discipline gap. Economics of
Education Review, 30, 1370-1383.
Kitson, A., Harvey, G., & McCormack, B. (1998). Enabling the implementation of
evidence based practice: A complex framework. Quality in Health Care, 7, 149158.
Kvale, S. (2006). Dominance through interviews and dialogues. Qualitative Inquiry,
12(3), 480-500.
Lansing School District. (2015). End of Year Discipline Summary. Retrieved from
Lansing, MI:
https://v3.boardbook.org/Public/PublicItemDownload.aspx?ik=37305565
Losen, D. J. (2013). Discipline policies, successful schools, racial justice, and the law.
Family Court Review, 51(3), 388-400.
193

Losen, D. J., & Skiba, R. J. (2010). Suspended education: Urban mIddle schools in
crises. Retrieved from
May, C. (2013). Towards a general theory of implementation. Implementation Science,
8(18), 1-14.
McLaughlin, M. W. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy
implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 171-178.
Meyer, A., Miller, S., & Herman, M. (1993). Balancing the priorities of evaluaton with
the priorities of the setting: A focus on positive your development programs in
school settings. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 14(2), 95-113.
Miles, M., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Monahan, K. C., VenDerhei, S., Bechtold, J., & Cauffman, E. (2014). From the school
yard to the squad car: School discipine, truancy, and arrest. Journal of Youth
Adolescence, 43, 1110-1122.
Noguera, P. A. (1995). Preventing and producing violence: A critical analysis of
responses to school violence. Harvard Educational Review, 65(2), 189-212.
Raffele Mendez, L. M., & Knoff, H. M. (2003). Who gets suspended from school and
why: A demographic analysis of schools and disciplinary infractions in a large
school district. Education and Treatment of Children, 26(1), 30-51.
Rausch, M. K., & Skiba, R. (2005). The acadmic cost of discipline: The relationship
between suspension/expulsion and school achievement. Paper presented at the
American Education Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
Rocque, M. (2010). Discipline and student behavior: Does race matter? American
Journal of Education, 116(4), 557-581.
Skiba, R., & Peterson, R. (1999). The dark side of zero tolerance: Can punishment lead to
safe schools. Kappan(January).
Skiba, R., & Rausch, M. K. (2004). The Relationship between achievement, discipline,
and race: An analysis of factors predicting ISTEP scores. Retrieved from Center
for Evaluation and Education Policy:
Skiba, R., & Sprague, J. (2008). Safety without suspensions. Educational Leadership,
66(1), 38-43.
194

Spillane, J. P. (1996). School districts matter: Local educational authorities and state
instructional policy. Education Policy, 10(1), 63-87.
Spillane, J. P. (1999). External reform initiatives and teachers' efforts to reconstruct their
practice: The mediating role of teachers' zones of enactment. Journal of
Curriculum Studies, 31(2), 143-175.
Spillane, J. P. (2000). Cognition and policy implementation: District policymakers and
the reform of mathematics education. Cognition and Instruction, 18(2), 141-179.
Spillane, J. P. (2004). Standards Deviation: How schools misunderstand education
policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Gomez, L. M. (2006). Policy Implementation and
Cognition: The Role of Human, Social and Distributed Cognition in Framing
Policy Implementation. In M. I. Honig (Ed.), New Directions in Education Policy
Implementation (pp. 47-64). Albany, NY: State University of New York.
Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition:
Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational
Research, 72(3), 387-431.
Sue, D. W., Arredondo, P., & McDavis, R. J. (1992). Multicultural counseling
competencies and standards: A call to the profession. Journal of Counseling &
Development, March/April, 477-486.
Tennessee Department of Education. (2016). Voices from the classroom: Results from
the 2016 Tennessee Educator Survey [Press release]
United States Department of Education: Office for Civil Rights. (2000). 2000 National
and State Estimates.
United States Department of Education: Office for Civil Rights. (2004). 2004 National
and State Estimates.
United States Department of Education: Office for Civil Rights. (2006). 2006 National
and State Estimates.
United States Department of Education: Office for Civil Rights. (2010). 2009-2010
National and State Estimates.

195

Utley, C. A., Kozleski, E., Smith, A., & Draper, I. L. (2002). Positive behavior support:
A proactive strategy for minimizing behavior problems in urban multicultural
youth. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 4(4), 196-207.
Vavrus, F., & Cole, K. (2002). "I didn't do nothin'"" The discursive construction of
school suspension. The Urban Review, 34(2), 87-111.
Vincent, C. G., Randall, C., Cartledge, G., Tobin, T. J., & Swain-Bradway, J. (2011).
Toward a conceptual integration of cultural responsiveness and schoolwide
positive behavior support. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 13(4), 219229.
Weatherley, R., & Lipsky, M. (1977). Street level bureaucrats and institutional
innovation: Implementing special-education reform. Harvard Educational
Review, 47(2), 171-197.
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of
sensemaking. Organizing Science, 16(4), 409-421.
Wildhagen, T. (2012). How teachers and schools contribute to racial differences in the
realization of academic potential. Teachers College Record, 114(1-27).
Winter, G. (2000). A comparative discussion of the notion of 'validity' in qualitative and
quantitative research. The Qualitative Report, 4(3), 1-14.
Wu, S., Pink, W., Crain, R., & Moles, O. (1982). Student suspension: A critical
reappraisal. The Urban Review, 14(4), 245-303.

196