Inconsistent Discipline and Student Expectations: An Organizational Analysis of a High
School Incident
Dr. Lynn Stock
School of Education, Liberty University
Problem Description and Context
In a rural high school serving grades 9–12, a student, Michelle, confronted Mary over
perceived negative comments. Mary attempted to de-escalate and avoid contact by relocating
at lunch. Michelle approached Mary’s table and shoved Mary’s head downward with an open
hand.
The incident was captured on surveillance video and corroborated by multiple witnesses.
Michelle had prior discipline referrals and was on probation; Mary’s record consisted of minor
infractions, including tardiness and speaking out in class, for which she had received in-school
suspension. Contrary to school policy expectations, the principal, Mr. Rabbit, did not suspend
Michelle; he referenced her prior write-ups, probation status, and an effort to graduate her
early. Students observed Michelle present in school and reporting she was “not in trouble.”
Complaints by several students to school counselors alleged preferential treatment. The
organizational problem is inconsistent discipline and expectations, evidenced by a discrepancy
between school policy, past responses to lesser behaviors, and the current handling of a
documented physical assault.
Multi-Lens Organizational Analysis
Inconsistent Discipline and Leadership Implications
Schools rely on discipline policies to maintain safety, fairness, and trust. When
disciplinary responses deviate from established procedures—as in the case of a violent incident
resulting in minimal consequences, organizational legitimacy erodes. Using Bolman and Deal’s
(2021) multi-lens framework, this analysis integrates structural, human resource, political, and
symbolic perspectives while drawing on federal guidance and emotionally intelligent leadership
research (Floman et al., 2024) to recommend strategies for restoring consistency and equity in
school discipline practices.
Structural Lens: Policy Fidelity and Accountability
Discipline codes and due-process procedures provide the formal structure for
decisionmaking. When administrators apply these inconsistently, particularly in cases involving
physical aggression, perceptions of arbitrariness and unfairness increase. Structural alignment
requires clear offense definitions, calibrated administrative discretion, and routine discipline-
data reviews to ensure fidelity, proportionality, and equity (U.S. Department of Education,
2023). A fidelity audit comparing actual decisions to policy expectations can identify gaps,
clarify decision thresholds, and guide corrective action.
Human Resource Lens: Safety, Belonging, and Staff Support
From a human resource perspective, both students and staff must experience the school
as physically and psychologically safe. Unequal consequences undermine belonging and deter
students from reporting harm. Administrators also need decision-making tools, mental health
consultation access, and professional development in emotionally intelligent leadership to
manage incidents consistently and compassionately (Floman et al., 2024). When staff perceive
fairness and emotional support from leadership, trust and commitment strengthen, reducing
burnout and improving school climate.
Political Lens: Competing Interests and Stakeholder Pressures
Discipline decisions often reflect competing priorities, such as maintaining graduation
rates, minimizing suspensions, and responding to parental or board pressures. In this case,
efforts to keep a chronically disciplined student on track for graduation appeared to override
consistent policy enforcement. Transparent criteria for alternative discipline pathways,
documented stakeholder input, and public reporting of aggregated discipline outcomes can
mitigate perceptions of bias or favoritism while balancing academic and safety priorities (Krause
et al.,
2024).
Symbolic Lens: Culture, Meaning, and Legitimacy
Symbolically, discipline signals the school’s moral order and cultural priorities. When
violent incidents result in minimal consequences while lesser infractions prompt harsh
penalties, the system appears arbitrary and expedient. Restoring legitimacy requires aligning
words and actions through visible fairness rituals—timely communication with families,
restorative conferences, and public reaffirmation of behavioral expectations—so the community
reads the school as principled rather than inconsistent (U.S. Department of Education, 2023).
Integrated Strategy for Problem-Solving
A coherent response requires three linked actions. First, conduct a fidelity audit to
compare written policies with actual practices, documenting deviations and clarifying
thresholds for violent conduct. Second, create a calibrated discipline protocol layering
accountability, restorative practices, and mental health supports, specifying mandatory actions
for serious offenses regardless of academic status. Third, implement a transparency cycle with
staff training, stakeholder communication, and quarterly reporting of disaggregated discipline
data and climate survey results to track whether perceptions of fairness and safety improve
over time.
Anticipated Risks and Mitigation
Tightening fidelity may face criticism as lacking compassion for students with behavioral
challenges. Mitigation requires pairing consequence clarity with robust supports such as
counseling referrals, functional behavior assessments, and structured reentry plans.
Inconsistent teacher buy-in can be addressed through administrative modeling, scenario-based
training, and ongoing monitoring of classroom referrals. Transparency concerns can be reduced
by sharing both successes and areas needing improvement, maintaining message discipline
across all levels of leadership.
Application to Leadership Practice
As a leader with a counseling and mental health background, I would integrate
emotionally intelligent leadership principles to balance accountability with support. Training
administrators to regulate emotional responses, communicate transparently, and apply
discipline consistently would help prevent reactive decisions driven by external pressures. My
counseling expertise would also inform restorative practices that address harm, support victims,
and provide behavioral interventions for offenders. By combining policy fidelity with empathy
and stakeholder engagement, I would seek to create a culture where students and staff
experience both safety and belonging.
Conclusion
Inconsistent discipline reflects structural drift, political pressures, and symbolic
misalignment rather than isolated judgment errors. A multi-lens analysis shows that restoring
trust requires clear policy enforcement, emotionally intelligent leadership, and transparent
monitoring systems. Leaders who combine structural consistency with relational support can
reduce violence, enhance legitimacy, and ensure that students and staff experience fairness,
safety, and belonging—foundations for both academic and organizational success.
References
Floman, J. L., Ponnock, A., Jain, J., & Brackett, M. A. (2024). Emotionally intelligent school
leadership predicts educator well-being before and during a crisis. Frontiers in
Psychology, 14, 1159382. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1159382
Krause, K. H., Bell, C., Jordan, B., Carman-McClanahan, M., Ashley, C., McKinnon, I. I.,
Banks, D., Verlenden, J. V., Fodeman, A., Arrey, L., Lim, C., Everett Jones, S., & Mpofu, J. J.
(2024). Report of unfair discipline at school and associations with health risk behaviors
and experiences—Youth Risk Behavior Survey, United States, 2023. MMWR
Supplements, 73(4), 69–78). https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/73/su/su7304a8.htm
U.S. Department of Education. (2023). Guiding principles for creating safe, inclusive,
supportive, and fair school climates.
https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/policy/gen/guid/school-discipline/guiding-
principles.pdf
