Strengthening MTSS for Behavior (MTSS-B) to Promote Racial Equity

Abstract

Despite widespread implementation of multitiered systems of support for behavior (MTSS-B), evidence of racial discipline disproportionality persists. We argue MTSS-B must prioritize racial equity and healing in schools. We first discuss how discipline has centered Whiteness, providing a brief history of relevant events and sociopolitical forces that have maintained a reliance on exclusionary discipline practices with a primary focus on out-of-school suspension to oppress youth of color, specifically Black students. Then, we describe the harm exclusionary discipline has caused the Black community by synthesizing counter-storytelling. Finally, we propose ways to strengthen MTSS-B to promote racial equity with a primary focus on supports to adults in the systems in which oppression is maintained. We propose school psychologists can (a) empower students, families, and communities to engage in authentic partnerships, (b) advocate to educational leaders, (c) coordinate transformative staff professional development, and (d) support teachers to create inclusive and healing classroom communities. We frame these suggestions within an ecological–behavioral paradigm that considers root conditions of harm.

Impact Statement

Discipline in U.S. public schools has long been rooted in White centrality, and exclusionary practices (e.g., out-of-school suspension) have caused harm to individuals, particularly in the Black community. School psychologists are poised to strengthen the design and delivery of behavior supports provided in schools to center racial equity and address this sustained harm. School psychologists must focus on providing supports to adults (e.g., educators) in the systems in which oppression is maintained to propel change.

Keywords:

• discipline
• racial equity
• behavior supports
• MTSS

Associate Editor:

• Amanda L. Sullivan

DISCLOSURE

The authors have no conflicts of interest to report.

Notes

1 We define “inclusive” to refer broadly to the implementation of policies, systems, and practices that recognize and respect students’ inherent dignity, worth, intersecting identities and the impact of those identities on their lived experience to ensure all students have access to high quality education that is both individualized to meet their needs and integrated into the wider school community to the greatest extent possible through the use of least restrictive procedures.

2 For definitions of terms used herein such as racism, oppression, and privilege, please see the National Association of School Psychologists’ (NASP; 2019) position statement on racism and Proctor et al. (2017).

3 Criminalized school social control refers to the use of criminal justice mechanisms such as surveillance (e.g., metal detectors, random searches), supervision (e.g., school resource officers), and deterrence (zero-tolerance policies, exclusionary discipline) measures in schools (Ramey, 2018).

4 We begin our brief account nearly four centuries ago, acknowledging that this is not the only place to start. Also, in our brevity, it is not our intention to imply there was a single, unitary colonial culture (Rury, 2019).

5 Today, due to structural racism and resistance to the rise of Black education from Reconstruction to Desegregation (described later in this paper), teacher demographics look remarkably similar to 1890 (Hussar et al., 2020).

6 The push-out phenomenon refers to removing students displaying “problem” behavior from the classroom or school, leading to loss of instruction, decreased sense of belongingness, and increased risk of dropout (Simson, 2013). Federal policies financially incentivize school staff to exclude or create punishing environments to motivate the self-removal of “problem students” (coded language for Black students) from school. Without a high school diploma, students have less economic and social mobility, perpetuating cycles of poverty and oppression (Fine, 2004).

7 Irby (2014b) describes White-supremacist patriarchy as the intersection of identity (race, gender) “to produce forms of domination and oppression that keep many ethnic, racial, and gender groups “in their places”. White supremacist patriarchy requires the production of a normative White feminine subject that in the United States has been produced vis-à-vis the dangerous Black masculine subject. The imagined and real Black masculine subject perpetually threatens the reproduction of Whiteness” (p. 786).

8 Majoritarian implies normative narratives that promote or perpetuate racist outcomes (Mitchell, 2013).

9 Johan Galtung termed structural violence to describe the economic, sociopolitical, legal, and cultural structures that harm specific individuals and groups within a society and impede their ability to achieve their full potential. Examples include disparate treatment in education, health care, and legal systems (Farmer et al., 2019).

10 Implementation drivers refer to the core components needed for successful systems change effort. Competency drivers refer to the knowledge staff need to drive change. Organizational drivers refer to the structures (policy, practices) and data useful toward driving and monitoring change. Leadership drivers refer to administrators and other decision-makers prioritizing and guiding change efforts. See Eagle and colleagues (2015) for a complete description of implementation drivers.

Additional information

Funding

The U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences supported this research through Grant R324B170010 to the University of Massachusetts Boston. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education.

Notes on contributors

Lindsay M. Fallon

Lindsay M. Fallon, PhD, BCBA-D, is an Associate Professor in School Psychology at University of Massachusetts Boston.

Margarida Veiga

Margarida Veiga, MEd, LICSW, is a fourth-year doctoral candidate in School Psychology at University of Massachusetts Boston.

George Sugai

George Sugai, PhD, is an Emeritus Professor in Special Education at University of Connecticut. He is a Senior Advisor and former Co-director of the Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS).