A Tale of Two Policies - The Case of School Discipline in an Ontario School Board

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Muffet

This study examines how staff at one Ontario school board perceive two distinct approaches to school discipline policy: the Safe Schools Act (Bill 81) and Progressive Discipline and School Safety (Bill 212). The centrally controlled, rigid Safe Schools Act drew criticism for perceived human rights violations. By contrast, the flexibility and vagueness of Progressive Discipline was viewed as enabling inconsistent implementation and unequal student outcomes. The paper assesses implications for teacher discretion, accountability, and student outcomes under tightly vs loosely coupled policy.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages14

Reading Time35 min

AccessFree to download

Introduction

Context

Historical shifts in discipline practices

Safe Schools Act (Bill 81)

Criticism and human rights concerns

Transition to Progressive Discipline (Bill 212)

A Tale of Two Policies: The Case of School Discipline in an Ontario School Board Emily Milne, MacEwan University & Janice Aurini, University of Waterloo Abstract This study examines how staff working for one Ontario school board perceive two distinct approaches to school discipline policy: the Safe Schools Act (Bill 81) and Progressive Discipline and School Safety (Bill 212). The more centrally controlled and rigid Safe Schools Act was criticized by interviewees and cited for human rights violations. However, the inherent flexibility and vagueness of the Progressive Discipline policy that replaced it was seen to lead to inconsistent policy implementation and unequal outcomes for students. This paper considers the broader implications of policies that are “tightly coupled” or “loosely coupled” in terms of teachers’professional discretion, accountability, and student outcomes. Keywords: School Discipline; Safe Schools Act; Progressive Discipline; Tight Coupling; Loose Coupling; Education Policy Introduction Student misconduct, an enduring reality of schooling, is defined as any action that “poisons the learning atmosphere,” including bullying, disobedience and classroom disruptions (Public Agenda, 2004a, 2004b) . Educators and researchers acknowledge the potential impact of student misconduct on classroom teaching and learning, but there is little consensus about which school discipline policies most effectively mitigate problems. On one side of the debate: school discipline policies reproduce social norms and behavioural standards. Messages of socialization built into these discipline processes facilitate schools’ central learning objectives and ameliorate broader social problems (Brint, Contreras, & Matthews, 2001; Durkheim, 1961; Ingersoll, 2006; Parsons, 1959) . On the other side of the debate: school discipline policies reflect unequal social relationships and provide schools with a legitimate means to exclude marginalized groups (Arum, 2003; Bourdieu, 1977; 1984; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977; Bowles & Gintis, 1976; Human Rights Settlement Reached with Ministry of Education on Safe Schools, 2007; Karabel & Halsey, 1977; Willis, 1977) . The literature also considers how school discipline influences academic achievement (Burdick-Will, 2013; Ramey, 2015) or reflects broader social forces (e.g., neoliberalism, globalization) (Beck, 2012; Bromley, 2014; Rashby, Ingram & Joshee, 2014) . This paper extends the literature on this topic by examining how school staff at the Lakeside School Board managed two distinct approaches to student discipline policy: The Safe Schools Act (2000) and Progressive Discipline and School Safety (Education Amendment Act, 2007; hereaf- 1 Lakeside School Board is a pseudonym. ter Progressive Discipline) .1 The authors ask a) how do educators perceive the Safe Schools Act and Progressive Discipline policies, and b) what are the perceived trade-offs inherent in policy formation and implementation that are tightly versus loosely coupled? The concept of “coupling” is used in organizational research to describe connections between the environment of schooling, policies, and school and classroom practices.2 The Safe Schools Act and Progressive Discipline represent distinct approaches to policy that are, respectively, more or less “tightly” or “loosely” coupled; one policy is more centrally controlled, rigid, and decisive (Safe Schools Act, 2000), while the other is locally managed, flexible, and based on an evolving logic of students’ individual circumstances and learning needs (Education Amendment Act, 2007). This paper extends the literature and considers the broader implications of policies that are “tightly coupled” or “loosely coupled” regarding teachers’professional discretion, accountability, and student outcomes. Context In the past, school discipline involved methods of “coercive disciplinary tactics like corporal punishment, humiliation, straps, or dunce caps”(Hurn, 1993, p. 135)

FAQs

What two discipline policies does the study compare in the Ontario school board?

The study compares the Safe Schools Act (Bill 81) with Progressive Discipline and School Safety (Bill 212). Staff perceptions are analyzed for how each policy shapes discipline practices.

How do interviewees view the Safe Schools Act’s approach?

Interviewees criticized the Safe Schools Act as more centrally controlled and rigid, and they associated it with human rights violations.

What concerns arise with Progressive Discipline regarding implementation and outcomes?

The flexibility and vagueness of Progressive Discipline were seen as contributing to inconsistent policy implementation and unequal outcomes for students.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Muffet