Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 2015

Vol. 23, No. 2, 153–173, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2014.932300

Consistency rules: a critical exploration of a universal principle of

school discipline
Decoteau Irbya* and Cindy Cloughb
a
Department of Administrative Leadership, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA; bDepartment of Education Policy and Community
Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA

The current study explores the principle of consistency and its relevance
in the discipline cultures of three middle and two high schools in a Mid-
west US school district. We explore how educators (1) evoke consis-
tency as a necessity for school discipline and (2) attempt to be
consistent in practice to develop disciplined students, encourage aca-
demic-oriented school cultures, and maintain safe and orderly schools.
We found that while consistency is important for collegiality’s sake and
provides a cognitive frame for teachers to think about how to improve
discipline, it may undermine the decision-making and discipline prac-
tices of individual teachers who are more apt to rely on relational rather
that behaviourist discipline approaches.
Keywords: school discipline; school culture; teacher beliefs; education
discourse

Introduction
As with the academic curriculum, a school’s social curriculum is chosen
and administered based on a set of assumptions about what discipline is
supposed to accomplish and how it can be accomplished. Most schools
operate with a mix of discipline models that draw from school-wide behavi-
ourist and socio-emotional approaches (Osher et al. 2010). Most often, a be-
haviourist approach dominates. Given the growing calls for school leaders
and teachers to adopt more socially just and student-centred discipline
approaches (Sharkey and Fenning 2012), it is sensible to question critically
why and how relational discipline approaches often stand secondary to be-
haviourist approaches.
This study examines discipline discourse as articulated in the
Foucauldian tradition (McHoul and Grace 1993). Our project begins
unpacking the ways that discipline-related ideas and utterances order the

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

© 2014 Pedagogy, Culture & Society
154 D. Irby and C. Clough

realities of everyday school life and the ways that teachers’ (and our own)
abilities to think, talk, and behave in school contexts are constrained by
dominant paradigmatic discourses – even when we encounter new knowl-
edge. We explore school organisational culture and the discursive forma-
tions within school institutions. Our initial research objective was to
understand the contradictions between schools’ official discipline pro-
grammes, teacher’s personal philosophies, and the day-to-day practices that
reflected each school’s discipline culture. Through examining these differ-
ences, we discovered that consistency is a guiding principle of school disci-
pline culture. We explore this as a dominant philosophical underpinning of
contemporary school discipline approaches.
School discipline, its conceptualisation, relation to the individual and
society, as well as its inherent value varies based on underlying philosophical
assumptions. Discipline has been articulated in a range of ways, including:
obedience to authority (J. Wilson 1981); intrinsic self-regulation (Smith
1985); the ability to focus based on interest (P.S. Wilson 1971); and the
broad range of school experiences and expectations – the social curriculum –
that socialises students for conformity to societal standards as Durkheimian
and Foucauldian perspectives suggest (Pickering 1998). With the exception
of scholars like Foucault, who is sceptical of almost all forms of institutional
power and views discipline as disempowering and oppressive, most regard
discipline as critical for the pursuit of individual learning, freedom, and the
well-being of society. This is especially true for education researchers. Yet
disagreement prevails concerning what constitutes discipline, the appropriate
methods for achieving it, and its relative value to the educational goals of
teaching and learning. Is discipline internal or external to the individual?
What is the purpose of discipline in schools? What methods are best suited
to cultivate it? How one answers these questions depends on one’s
philosophy of discipline.
Based on his study of how educators, parents, and students conceptua-
lised discipline, Wilson (1981) argued that discipline is adherence to author-
ity. He argues that traditional forms of authority draw on common group
values, charismatic leadership, and relationships. He argues that regard for
traditional authorities has diminished and been replaced by the authority of
rules and policies – new legitimate authorities. Others, including Arum
(2003) and Kafka (2008), made similar arguments about the erosion of
local, school-based authority. Arum (2003) regards this erosion as a crisis
of values and Kafka (2008) as a contributing factor to the proliferation of
zero-tolerance or what J. Wilson might regard as the generation of ‘trouble-
free’ schools (students are removed but not disciplined). J. Wilson regards
rules and policies as legitimate replacements for traditional teacher authori-
ties. The emergence of indiscipline in combination with non-compliance
(Macleod, MacAllister, and Pirrie 2012) reflects a critical need for
rational rules and policies to be deemed legitimate if obedience is to be
 Pedagogy, Culture & Society 155

accomplished in a pluralistic and rational society. This obedience, he argues,

is a prerequisite to teaching and learning.
At the other end of the philosophical spectrum are those such as Smith
(1985) who suggested that discipline is an individual responsibility and jus-
tice that leads to personal freedom. Smith (1985, 26) critiques beliefs that
teachers should ‘first manage the class and then get on to teaching’, arguing
that the discipline before teaching model ‘is dangerous because of the con-
stant tendency for managing to determine the style and even the content of
teaching’. Classroom management contributes to ‘imposing rigid routines
[from which] children are likely to learn slavish dependence and lack of ini-
tiative’ (26). He is highly critical of authorities’ corrupting tendencies to
manipulate students and believes that students ‘should know exactly what is
going on’ (32). In terms of methods, benevolence, sympathy, and even love
(which fall under J. Wilson’s notion of traditional authorities) play a central
role in developing just students who ‘learn justice and fairness by being
treated justly and fairly’ (89). Philosophers such as Kohn (1993, 1996)
share with Smith a critique of classroom management, manipulation, and
punishment. From there, their philosophies diverge.
A philosophical middle ground is found in the work of P.S. Wilson
(1971), who regards discipline as ‘educative order’. Instead of placing the
locus of discipline externally or internally, he explains that the orderliness
characteristic of discipline is ‘internal’ to the activity or relationship in ques-
tion. School discipline is about helping students cultivate and remain self-
motivated learners (students already possess curiosity and pursue activities
in a disciplined way if the topic is of interest). As MacAllister (2013) out-
lines, within a discipline as interest paradigm, the emphasis is placed on the
importance of the curriculum as a conduit for developing interest and even-
tually wisdom, cornerstones of discipline. A teacher adhering to this per-
spective of discipline deems promoting learning to be the primary method
of cultivating student discipline and regards discipline as ‘not something
which one party possesses over or manages to impose upon the other’ (79);
the teacher’s responsibility is to leverage students’ cultural backgrounds,
experiences, and to co-generate activities that further cultivate interests
(educative order). According to P.S. Wilson, one cannot be ‘externally
disciplined’ because discipline is inherently internal. A better way of stating
so-called external discipline is ‘external control’ (79).

Common approaches to school discipline in the United States

Behaviourist discipline, rooted in Skinnerian assumptions, is grounded in a
fundamental belief that student discipline can be fostered and maintained if
students are rewarded for desired behaviours and punished for unwanted
behaviours. The approaches are aligned with philosophical beliefs that
discipline is achieved through external control, manipulation, and explicit
156 D. Irby and C. Clough

instruction. Positive reinforcements in the form of rewards and praise encour-

age desired behaviours. Negative consequences, such as punishment or with-
holding of praise and rewards, discourage unwanted behaviours. In the
United States, parents, teachers, school leaders, and others rely heavily on
behaviourism to rear and educate children. Behaviourism is ubiquitous in
contemporary school settings which are organised around numeric and letter
grades, promises of pizza parties, incentives, and praise which are intended
to motivate students to perform to the best of their academic abilities and
maintain good acceptable behaviour (Kohn 1993). When students do not per-
form well academically or when students display unwanted behaviours,
schools rely on punishment and coercive rewards to redirect students’ actions
to more desirable outcomes. Examples of these common practices include
time-out, loss of privileges (e.g. recess, school dances, etc.), detention, sus-
pension, expulsion, and promises of field trips and pizza parties, respectively.
Kohn (1993) refers to this unquestioned overreliance as pop behaviourism.
Two popular disciplinary approaches that rely on external stimuli to pro-
mote or discourage acceptable and unacceptable behaviours, respectively,
are zero tolerance and positive behavioural supports (PBS). Both approaches
focus on the development and maintenance of discipline based on external
systems and techniques. But substantial differences arise concerning the
value of negative and positive reinforcements as appropriate for fostering
discipline. Zero-tolerance approaches, for example, organise discipline
around punishment and negative reinforcements that teach students what is
forbidden. But even rule-based philosophical perspectives that rely on the
authority of rules and deem punishment as a critical unavoidable element of
school discipline call into question zero tolerance’s over-reliance on removal
as punishment. Removal fosters ‘trouble-free’ rather than disciplined school
environments (Wilson 1981) and thus conflicts with school’s broader educa-
tional goals. In response to the punitive nature of zero-tolerance approaches,
many states, districts, and schools have embraced PBS.
Although school-wide positive behavioural approaches have long existed
under the guise of different names such as school-wide behaviour supports
or school-wide PBS (Osher et al. 2010), positive behavioural interventions
and supports (PBIS) is the most recent iteration of evidence-based proactive
school-wide discipline policy and practice (Horner et al. 2009). In theory,
PBIS is a three-tiered response-to-intervention framework for thinking about
and responding to behaviour problems. In practice, PBIS operates as a disci-
plinary model, complete with coaches and trainers, guidelines, processes,
and scoring rubrics that support educators’ attempts to faithfully implement
PBIS. The first level of behavioural management is universal and applies to
all students. For tier one, schools adopt and teach a series of acceptable
behaviours to all students. These behaviours are reinforced through
repetition in messaging and positive rewards for adhering to the teacher
expectations. At tier two, students who do not conform to universal
 Pedagogy, Culture & Society 157

behaviour expectations are referred for group and targeted interventions

where more intensive supports – teaching, monitoring, and rewards – are
offered as a means for achieving compliance. Targeted students who do not
respond to tier two are provided tier three interventions which call for
individualised behaviour plans.
The PBIS model’s focus on fidelity of implementation is in large part an
effort to eliminate inconsistencies within school and district discipline policy
and practice. Numerous research studies illustrate that PBIS, when imple-
mented with high fidelity, reduces disciplinary referrals, suspensions, and
expulsions in primary school settings (Horner et al. 2009). PBIS research
provides little insight regarding what approaches might affect school-wide
behavioural change in secondary school settings. Despite a record of positive
effects in primary school settings, PBIS is not without its critics (Johnston
et al. 2006; Morrison et al. 2006). Methodologically, research studies that
examine the effects of school-wide PBIS systems rely on measures that are
assumed to reflect actual student behaviour, such as numbers of discipline
referrals, suspensions, and expulsions. PBS researchers, aware of the
methodological limitations of the measures, are committed to validating their
usefulness in terms of understanding behavioural change (Irvin et al. 2004).
As recently noted by Osher et al. (2010, 53), ‘a school can drastically
decrease office referrals for tardiness by simply instructing teachers to no
longer refer students to the office for that behaviour; however, no actual
decrease in tardiness may actually occur’. Decreased referrals, suspensions,
and expulsions could be artefacts of changing teacher perceptions (Bradshaw
et al. 2008; Horner et al. 2009), reflect decreased reporting of incidents or
behaviours, or a combination of opinion-based factors (Jacobson, Foxx, and
Mulick 2005). These methodological limitations notwithstanding, PBS
approaches are regarded favourably in the field of education by many schol-
ars and practitioners alike (Johnston et al. 2006). Few question the philo-
sophical underpinnings of PBIS and its tendencies to institutionalise pop
behaviourism, emphasise the rational authority of rules, or its insistence on
external control and manipulation as prerequisites for learning.
Relational self-discipline approaches offer an alternative to behaviourist-
oriented approaches. What we refer to broadly as a relational behaviour
approach encompasses a range of methods and dispositions including char-
acter education (Bennett 1991; Huffman 1993; Levingston 2009; Tatman,
Edmonson, and Slate 2009), social emotional learning (Durlak et al. 2011),
anti-violence/peace education (Astor, Benbenishty, and Estrada 2009), and
restorative justice (Morrison and Vaandering 2012). Several underpinnings
distinguish relational approaches from behaviourist approaches. The
approaches situate the locus of disciplinary control within people and their
interactions. The approaches assume that students either have a natural dis-
position towards discipline (Smith 1985) or that the activity of engaging in
learning, even learning about the self and managing emotions, cultivates
158 D. Irby and C. Clough

discipline (Wilson 1971). Second, each emphasises the health, wellbeing,

and maintenance of relationships between individuals (e.g. moral reasoning,
character education), groups (e.g. conflict resolution, peer mediation), and
broader communities (e.g. restorative justice, peace education). In lieu of
codified rules and policies, respect for self and others, individual responsi-
bility, social justice, reciprocity in relationships, and learning itself provide
the impetus for guiding student behaviour. Through formal and infor-
mal means, teachers work to develop within students a capacity for
self-awareness, social awareness, relationship skills, and responsible deci-
sion-making (Durlak et al. 2011). Third, relational discipline approaches
seek to develop within students and communities an internal locus of con-
trol. Punishments, rewards, and incentives are not altogether abandoned, but
are regarded as low in value and thus not centred in the discipline process.
By default, independence from external stimuli challenges traditional school
power hierarchies including the multiple forms of authority that operate as
disciplining mechanisms (MacAllister 2013). In this paradigm, a teachers’
responsibility is not to control or manipulate students but rather to share
power, order learning, and model justice and reciprocity with students.
Many researchers promote the importance of using respect-driven models
of discipline that align with tenets of relational discipline (Erickson,
Mattaini, and McGuire 2004; Safron and Oswald 2003; Skiba and Peterson
2003). However, few researchers suggest abandoning punishments and
rewards altogether and fewer still point out the potential incompatibility of
pairing approaches that are at philosophical odds (James and Freeze 2006;
Glazner 2005). Punishment, most insist, should be limited to serious acts,
used as teachable moments, opportunities for reflection and learning, and
coupled with positive reinforcements (Erickson, Mattaini, and McGuire
2004). That even researchers who promote more relational approaches tout
the importance of external controls speaks volumes to the prominence of
pop-behaviourism in school discipline discourse, policy, and practice. While
there is a growing call for school-wide socio-emotional and more recently
restorative approaches to school discipline (Morrison 2005; Morrison and
Vaandering 2012), behaviourist approaches continue to dominate the social
curriculum (Skiba and Peterson 2003) in most public school settings.

Research procedures
We conducted focus groups in three middle schools and two high schools in
a district we call River’s Edge School District. Participating schools were
implementing state-mandated PBIS. We chose River’s Edge School District
because it is undergoing rapid demographic and socio-economic change that
reflects a widespread trend in many US suburban school districts. Racial and
ethnic minorities, poor and working class, and immigrant populations are
opting (or in some cases forced through gentrification) to take residence in
 Pedagogy, Culture & Society 159

urban fringe and suburban communities (Evans 2007). By 2012, in River’s

Edge, the total percentage of students receiving free or reduced lunch (an
indicator of socio-economic status) increased to nearly 30%, up from almost
11% in 2000 (see Table 1). Districts undergoing demographic change often
face challenges related to student discipline that emerge from cultural
collisions between teachers and students (Beachum and McCray 2011).
To gain access, we met with building administrators (i.e. school princi-
pals and assistant principals) to explain the purpose of the study and the
focus group process. We distributed recruitment fliers to 14 district schools.
Schools where at least five teachers responded to the invitation were
included in the study. Our sample includes 47 self-selected participants
spanning the district’s three middle schools and two of three high schools.
The findings are representative of teachers who participated and likely had a
vested interest in their school discipline system. The participants’ years of
teaching experience ranged from 6 months to 29 years. All but one of the
participants self-identified as White. Eleven participants self-identified as
male and 36 as female.

Focus groups
To conduct this research, we relied primarily on focus group methodology.
We asked participants to respond to three questions: (1) What does your
school’s discipline system look like in terms of codified school-wide poli-
cies? (2) What does your school’s discipline system look like in terms of
how it functions on a day-to-day basis? (3) What would your school’s disci-
pline system look like if you could have your ideal system? After partici-
pants individually reflected on these questions, we asked for volunteers to
share their thoughts with the group. We probed for details, asked for exam-
ples, and asked them to relate their responses to real school events.

Data transformation and analysis

We transcribed focus group audio recordings verbatim which yielded 143
single-spaced pages of conversational texts across seven primary documents.
After cleansing transcripts of identifying information, we imported the tran-
scriptions and audio into Nvivo9 qualitative data analysis software. We
imported audio with the transcriptions to enhance our ability to infer tone
from the conversational exchanges. In the first round of coding, we individ-
ually open-coded subsets of data that yielded 157 first impression inductive
codes between two researchers. We refined the coding process by merging
files to examine our coding procedures and nodes. We reconciled comple-
mentary and divergent codes and code application.
After we finalised our coding dictionary and procedures, we applied the
refined coding scheme to all transcription data. We ran queries to explore
 160

Table 1. River’s Edge School District and school demographics, 2011–12.

D. Irby and C. Clough

Total % American % % % % Pacific % % Two races % Economicaally

School site enrolment Indian Asian Black Hispanic Islander White or more disadvantaged
District 13,766 0.4 3.9 4.8 18.4 0.1 70.1 2.3 29.3
Bush 1188 0.1 3.5 5.6 12.9 0 77.3 0.8 22.4
Carter 606 0.5 1.8 4.5 15.7 0.2 76.4 1.0 30.7
Clinton 990 0.5 3.8 4.3 13.3 0 76.6 1.4 28.9
Obama 1270 0.4 3.0 2.4 5.6 0.1 88.3 0.3 14.1
Washington 809 0.1 2.7 7.0 22.7 0 65.6 1.7 40.5
 Pedagogy, Culture & Society 161

relationships between selected references. We identified major themes of

school discipline culture (what happens in the school setting) and school
discipline philosophies (what teachers believed should happen in the school
setting) and became interested in exploring the intersection of beliefs and
actual happenings. We operationalized school discipline culture as a super-
code from a query that combined passages coded as [Student Behaviour]
OR [Classroom Management and Rules] OR [Discipline Strategies] OR
[Actual Net Comments]. We determined the school discipline philosophy
super-code by combining passages coded as [Relationships] OR [Philoso-
phies] OR [Policy Solutions] OR [Ideal].
Using the results of our query, we created a 27-page single-spaced pri-
mary ‘findings’ document that we used to mine for exchanges and interac-
tions that reflected complementary and argumentative exchanges within and
across groups. Complementary interactions offer researchers an opportunity
to understand similarities between individuals and shared group culture
(Kitzinger 1994, 107). Argumentative interactions reflect disagreements
within the group and offer researchers the opportunity to make inferences
about where consensus is fragile. In other cases, disagreement may reveal
the existence of marginalised knowledge and voices. This is often a limita-
tion of focus groups that must be considered when collecting and analysing
data.
With focus group research, group composition also shapes interactions.
Personal histories and power differentials between participants have the
potential to shape the nature of the conversation. For example, in one group
a new teacher said almost nothing during the focus group but came up and
shared her opinions with one of us after the formal focus group adjourned.
Gender differences also can play a factor in focus groups. For example, in
our study, there were fewer men participants, but they offered longer, more
detailed (uninterrupted) responses than did women participants. In our anal-
ysis, we accounted for this imbalance being mindful to represent all voices.
Finally, since focus groups have the potential to revolve around complemen-
tary rather than argumentative exchanges (e.g. group effect often leads to
consensus), we were mindful, as will be illustrated in the findings section,
to give voice to alternate perspectives and opinions.

Findings
Consistency emerged as a central concept that participants across all focus
groups evoked when discussing discipline problems and solutions. We
learned that consistency in enforcement of rules, consistency of expecta-
tions, and the need for consistent application of pre-set consequences func-
tioned in three ways across the study sites. First, consistency operates as a
gesture used to maintain collegial relationships. Second, teachers used con-
sistency to promote fair and equal treatment of students. Third, participants
162 D. Irby and C. Clough

argued that consistency is important to help students understand and comply

with school-wide rules and expectations. We discovered that consistency,
while evoked for the sake of collegiality and for students’ sake, served an
additional latent purpose of preserving and extending discipline cultures.

Be consistent for the sake of collegiality

I would like to see administrators in the hallway to help back us as teachers,

to know that there’s consistency on the floor and up in the offices. (Elizabeth,
teacher, Clinton Middle School (MS))

As exemplified by Elizabeth’s quote, consistency, when discussed within the

frame of collegiality, underscores teachers’ expressed need for solidarity
among adults in the school building. In the focus groups, this was often
described as a need to ‘get on the same page’ with regards to expectations
and the enforcement of rules. Consistency operates as a gesture to foster
and maintain collegiality in lateral and vertical relationships. We extend the
idea of lateral and vertical relations within an organisation to understand
consistency within the school’s discipline programme. Lateral consistency
refers to the degree to which colleagues at the same professional level share
the same disciplinary philosophies and practices, such as teacher-to-teacher
or administrator-to-administrator. Vertical consistency refers to the degree to
which school professionals at different organisational levels share disciplin-
ary philosophies that result in mutually supportive interventions and prac-
tices, such as teachers and principals or principals and superintendents. The
commitment to consistency for the sake of collegiality works to preserve
the existing behaviourist disciplinary structures.
When further examining lateral consistency, the focus group conversa-
tions revealed some participants’ internal conflicts when responding to
student behaviours. Some participants shared a belief that behavioural
occurrences could be best managed from a relational or moral authority
philosophy. Yet, they often felt obligated to intervene from a consequence-
driven behavioural perspective in order to be consistent with school rules
and policies. Matthew, a principal at Bush High School, shared a dilemma
of collegiality with another principal in his response to a food-throwing
incident between two students in the cafeteria.

I sent a girl home yesterday and a boy home yesterday. She threw a cookie at
the boy. He threw apple sauce at her. I didn’t want to do it [suspend the stu-
dents]. But my partner said, ‘We have to do it here.’ I said, ‘Why do we have
to do it here?’ He said ‘Well, we used to have food fights here.’ I said, ‘Not
since I’ve been here we haven’t had a food fight.’ … The one mother was
just appalled that the boy would throw [apple sauce] all over her. The other
mother is angry: ‘Where’s the rule about that?’ So, I’m going to have to
explain to her Policy 5131G and say it’s covered under the all-embracing
 Pedagogy, Culture & Society 163

disorderly conduct. Do I want to? Do I want to send them home? I should

have fought on both [to not send them home], but I thought, I’m not going to
fight my colleagues because I’m going to be gone in two years and they’re
going to be here. (Bush High School (HS) transcript, 21)

In this example, Matthew responded to the incident in a manner that was con-
sistent with his colleague but against his own personal philosophy about
school discipline. He shared further that he has never experienced a food fight
when supervising the students. He believed this was because he is ‘always in
the cafeteria and always visiting with the kids’ (Bush HS transcript, 21).
Matthew implied that he has built rapport and respect among the students
through relationship building and this in turn prevents them from overtly mis-
behaving. His preferred approach to managing the food-throwing incident
contrasts with his colleague’s approach which was to follow the established
discipline policy. Matthew’s willingness to follow policy is based on main-
taining a good relationship with his administrative colleague rather than his
belief that the policy is fair or effective. His admission that ‘I’m going to be
gone’ speaks to his commitment to fostering solidarity amongst building
administrators, even beyond his tenure. This commitment between adminis-
trators represents lateral consistency. Lateral consistency can also exist among
teachers or other school personnel who work at the same organisational level.
The same logic of consistency moves up and down the school hierarchy.
Participants described disconnects between their disciplinary strategies and
perspectives and those of administrators. These disconnects, which we refer
to as vertical inconsistencies, existed in all study sites. Vertical inconsisten-
cies manifested in three forms. First, teachers expressed frustration with not
knowing administrators’ responses to their referrals. Second, teachers were
reluctant to make referrals because they were unsure of whether administra-
tors would respond with the corrective actions they thought were ideal.
Third, teachers often disagreed or were disappointed by their administrator’s
responses. Ben, a teacher at Carter Middle School, revealed the ‘stuff that
goes through his head’ when he is forced to make ‘split-second’ decisions
about how to deal with misbehaviour:

How is this going to be handled? Are you going to send a kid down [to the
office] and he’s going to be back? Or are you going to send a kid down, is
he going to disappear? Or if I send this kid down, this is bad and it’s a rule,
but that it’s a first time. But the last time I sent a kid down he got sent home
and this kid really doesn’t deserve this. (Carter MS transcript, 2)

Ben’s statement reflects his conflict, in part, because of what he deems to

be a lack of consistency and fairness in administrative responses. Ben also
acknowledged that not only was he conflicted about how to respond to stu-
dent behaviours but he was also aware that other individuals may hold
different perceptions about the gravity of an incident of misbehaviour: ‘Am
164 D. Irby and C. Clough

I going to make a big deal out of this and send it down the road, down the
funnel and nothing’s going to happen? Somebody else might say “Well, I
don’t think this [behaviour] was this bad.” Where does that leave you?’
(Carter MS, transcript, 2). Jennifer, also a teacher at Clinton Middle School,
shared how teachers have stopped making referrals due to vertical inconsis-
tencies between teachers and administrators: ‘I think in the beginning of the
year, we had an administrator that would send students right back to class. I
think from what I’ve seen, what I’ve heard, what I’ve dealt with is that the
staff kind of lost faith in upstairs [administrators] dealing with the behav-
iours’ (Clinton MS transcript, 16).
Teachers who experienced ongoing vertical inconsistencies often lost faith
in the administrator’s willingness and ability to support their disciplinary
decisions. The ‘loss of faith’ in administrator support holds the potential to
erode the teacher–administrator relationships that are important for teaching
and learning. A rationale for lateral and vertical consistency within much of
the focus group conversations dealt with the importance of fostering and
maintaining collegiality among school faculty, staff, and administrators.

Be consistent for discipline’s sake

In this section, we address how consistency relates to the student body and
teachers’ desires for discipline. Teachers expressed that consistent expecta-
tions, rules, and consequences help students understand and comply with
school rules. Most participants assumed that if students were more aware of
expectations and rules, they could live up to and follow them. While many
teachers believed that consistent messaging is important to help students
learn expectations and rules, a small minority of teachers rejected the idea
that students do not know the rules. They posited that students know very
well and understand the rules yet still choose to do as they please. We
uncovered three areas where teachers believed consistency was important in
promoting wanted behaviours: communication, surveillance, and enforce-
ment of consequences.
Many teachers’ primary concern was that inconsistencies confused stu-
dents’ about what is and what is not appropriate behaviour. To remedy the
likelihood that students would receive conflicting messages, teachers called
for more consistent communication to students, as illustrated in the
following quote from Joy, a high school teacher:

I think a keyword though that Amanda brought up, too, was consistency,
consistency among everybody. From top down, if you have a rule, it’s got to be
consistent. Because students get confused [emphasis added]. All of a sudden, I
have kids walking into my classroom eating food and drinking sodas … I have
a big sign in my room ‘No Food or Drink’. And they’ve got to remember that in
my classroom, they do this, but in this classroom, they do this, in this classroom.
Of course it’s confusing for them. (Bush HS transcript, 13)
 Pedagogy, Culture & Society 165

Joy’s statement reflects a common concern in numerous school discipline

models for using signage and scripted verbal messages that relay school
rules to students (e.g. PBIS). Teachers also deemed ongoing surveillance of
the student body as an important practice for maintaining discipline and
order. In the following exchange, a moderator talked with middle school
teachers about minor behavioural infractions, student horseplay in the hall-
way, and the challenge of addressing such behaviours on a school-wide
basis:

Donna: There’s just so many rules that are kind of petty that we don’t
need to worry about. If we had just a few set rules, we’d all be
on the same page because we can follow the five main safety
rules and enforce them.
Deborah: And I just remember the transition sixth grade into seventh
grade, they’d [the students] say, ‘Are we allowed to chew gum?’
‘Well, some teachers say it’s okay. Other teachers say it’s not.
So, just kind of whatever teacher says is okay.’ And then, when
we got here [eighth grade], they were like, ‘Ah! None of the
teachers can let us chew gum now.’ So, I say, ‘Okay. Don’t chew
gum. Here, have a piece of candy. Just make sure that the paper
isn’t on the floor.’
Moderator: So you’re talking about consistency with minor behaviours.
Others have mentioned hallway horseplay behaviours. How do
you deal with these issues?
Melanie: What I would like to see, honestly, and since we have kind of
three main disciplinary people [administrators], I’d like to see
one person on each floor just walking the floor. Before school
would be really great. Lunchtime would be really great. After
school would be really great. And just kind of give that consis-
tency, that visibility, for the kids, for the staff, knowing that
we’re all on the same page with this. (Clinton MS transcript,
18–19)

As reflected in the above quote, many teachers believed that visibility

and presence offer the best deterrent to schoolyard behaviours such as push-
ing, running in the building, playing around stairs, and jumping on each
other. Hence, the teachers recommended making sure that adults were con-
sistently watching students and were visible to the students. They believed
the presence of adults operated as a surveillance mechanism that disciplines
the student body.
In addition to consistency in messaging and surveillance, many teachers
believed that consistency in enforcement of consequences was important in
teaching students school rules and appropriate behaviours. In the exchange
below, Amanda and her faculty colleagues from the Carter Middle School
focus group detailed their frustrations with both lateral and vertical
inconsistencies in the administration of consequences. They explained how
those inconsistencies send conflicting messages to students.
166 D. Irby and C. Clough

Amanda: We have a rule that has to do with dress code, that girls are not
to wear strappy straps. Yet girls come wearing strappy straps and
nothing happens. The rule says, I believe, that they are going to
be called home and new clothes are brought, or if that can’t hap-
pen, then a shirt will be provided. That’s not done. Or the guys
who have their pants hanging all the way down past their derri-
eres, and there’s no follow-through. So, officially, we have these
rules and the consequences should be followed through, but what
I put down actually is that, yeah, we have the rules, but the con-
sequences are not followed. There’s no follow-through.
Kayla: Yeah, if I’m teaching a student sixth or seventh hour and there’s
a dress code issue, how did it get to the end of the day?
Amanda: And I think it’s to the point where people [teachers] first or
second hour see it and they want to address it, but because of
situations where they have addressed it and there’s been no
follow-through, then everybody’s just said, ‘Well, why bother
then?’ because there’s no follow-through.
Amanda: I asked that question [to administration] once and they said, ‘Oh,
we have string’. So I brought it up and I tied somebody’s [pant]
loops together because that’s what they [administration] said we
should do. And he [the student] was shocked … there’s no
follow-through [from administrators]. (Carter MS transcript, 4)

Rhonda, also a teacher from Carter Middle School, expressed that ‘if it
was an expectation and they [students] knew that if they did X, Y would
happen every time’ that the school would succeed in reducing misbehaviour
(Carter MS transcript, 3). She continued, stating her belief that consistency
in the administration of consequences is important to students at school and
beyond and that consistent consequences, even when students have difficult
lives, will help them succeed in life.

Contradictions of consistency
While many teachers across all focus groups expressed frustration with
implementing consistency through a behaviourist framework, they did not
abandon the principle of consistency as the key element of effective dis-
cipline. Rather, as expressed in the previous sections, they offered ideas
and suggestions to establish consistency among staff at all levels for the
purpose of teaching student’s rules and expectations. There were, how-
ever, focus group participants who drew from fundamentally different
philosophies as a means of making sense of student behaviours. By
extension they offered for consideration fundamentally different ways to
address unwanted behaviours. Kevin, a Bush High School physical
education teacher, is a case in point. Kevin described his ideal approach
to addressing tardiness as one that draws from a position of moral
authority to foster among students an intrinsic motivation to arrive in
class on time:
 Pedagogy, Culture & Society 167

Bush High School is not that big. And if you want to get somewhere in five
minutes, you’re going to get there, and if you don’t want to get somewhere
in five minutes, you aren’t going to get there. Kids will purposely wait for
the warning bell or whatever it is, and that will just kind of be their cue to
take on that next step of, ‘Maybe I’ll start getting to class now.’ Part of it’s
because maybe the doors and stuff aren’t consistently closing, but the other
part is just, yeah, they don’t have that internal switch that says, ‘I’m going to
be in that door because that’s what I’m supposed to do’ … if it has to have
any involvement from the professional authority, then maybe we didn’t give
them the tools at first or whatever it is … they have to be actively thinking
through, ‘I got to make this decision, I’m going to make the best decision.
Not because someone else is telling me that I have to do it, but because
intrinsically I’m wanting to do it.’ (Bush HS transcript, 6)

Across our study sites, there were numerous teachers whose comments
reflected a philosophy grounded in moral authority and the importance of
students developing an internal locus of control. Kevin’s statement acknowl-
edged that in an ideal situation, students would possess the intrinsic motiva-
tion or capacity to make responsible decisions that would result in them
arriving in class on time. Although Kevin did not fully explain what the
teachers can offer in terms of ‘tools’ to motivate students, he did not believe
that professionals (others besides teachers) were necessarily equipped to
build intrinsic motivation among the students. His comments suggest that
people who are moral authorities in students’ lives were best suited to
develop intrinsic motivation and responsibility.
Counterpoints, such as Kevin’s, that challenged behaviourist models,
were mostly disregarded. His statement ‘tools or whatever it is’ reflects the
ways the prominence of discourse of discipline as technique and practice
dominate the school’s discipline system. In the behaviourist-dominated
school contexts relational alternatives or ‘whatever it is’ were not fully
fleshed out and articulated as a part of the school discipline culture. That
relational discourses were subjugated in the school settings may explain
Kevin’s inability or unwillingness to further articulate his beliefs about why
and how students should develop an internal locus of control. Ironically,
these very relational dynamics operated among adults in ways that disci-
plined the faculty, staff, and administration. In another example, Daniel, a
teacher at Obama High School, shared his relationship-based perspective.
His fellow teacher Timothy then weighed in to offer a different perspective:

Daniel: I think learning is non-negotiable, that would be my number one.

Actual engagement in the classroom would be number one. But I
would allow kids to wear hats in my ideal school, I don’t care.
It’s a board policy, so I enforce it. I think in my perfect school, I
would let kids come in and out and call me by my first name so
that it’s a relationship that is focused on learning and it’s not
focused on titles and power. But that’s just in an ideal school.
That’s not in reality. In reality, that doesn’t work. But ideally,
168 D. Irby and C. Clough

that would work. I think that relationships are the number one
thing. Once you have relationships, discipline problems just are
gone.
Timothy: I agree with Daniel, but probably from a different tack. I grew
up in the military, which has innumerable rules that you don’t
even think about not following, you just do. But I agree that the
relationship’s important, and once you get there, it’s nice. But I
always found that it takes a longer time to develop that relation-
ship than it does to establish the playing field. But for me starting
that first day relying upon relationships to get stuff done I found
doesn’t work, and the discipline is pretty easy. Once the disci-
pline’s done for me, the relationships come. But I would suggest
that once the kids get past the rules, I have good relationships
with students. (Obama HS transcript, 1–2)

The exchange illuminates a key difference in philosophical perspectives.

Daniel’s statement reflects a desire to adopt a disciplinary approach that
would undermine school-wide consistency. However, when Daniel stated
‘It’s a board policy, so I enforce it’, he recognised the inconsistency
between his philosophical beliefs and his practice of enforcing rules. It is
important to note the absence of a consistency discourse in Daniel’s
quote. The absence of consistency as an organising frame for describing
discipline prevailed among others who also shared a relational philosophy
on discipline. But Timothy’s rebuttal re-centred the importance of rules.
He explained that, while he believed relationships are important, it was
first necessary to establish and enforce rules. For Timothy, it was only
within a rules-oriented context that relationships could develop and
flourish.
Others recognised the inherent flaw in assuming that school-wide consis-
tency is possible. In the following quote, Laurie discussed the ‘variable of
people’ which underscores the question of whether or not, and if so to what
extent, consistency can mitigate human variability. She points to both adults
and students as actors that undermined consistency. Laurie shared her feel-
ings about the ways that students actively take advantage of the school’s
inconsistencies:

Since you have the variable of people, the kids know how to play the game.
So, in this class, this is what I can get away with, and in another class, this is
what I can get away with. If I’m sent to this assistant principal, this is going
to happen. If I have this [assistant principal], this is going to happen. (Bush
HS transcript, 7)

Laurie made two important points. First, she recognised that having ‘people
in charge’ lends itself to inconsistency. Second, in comparison to those who
believed students might be confused by inconsistent messages, Laurie gave
students credit in terms of their human agency. Her comment flies in the
face of behaviourist assumptions that consistent messaging and enforcement
 Pedagogy, Culture & Society 169

(positive or negative) improved student behaviour. She complicated a be-

haviourist stance by suggesting that students know the rules and people well
enough to ‘play their game’. If, as Laurie’s comment suggests, students
know the rules and the people who are supposed to enforce the rules, then
students behave in the context of a system-wide (what are the rules and
consequences) and a relational (adults’ dispositions and commitments to the
said system) awareness. That individuals adopt multiple consistency orienta-
tions speaks to the importance of asking not only about how to be more
consistent, but suggests explorations into deeper questions about the pur-
poses of consistency and its relation (and relevance) with behaviourist and
relational discipline paradigms are warranted.

Discussion and conclusion

Rules-oriented philosophies (e.g. PBIS practice, zero-tolerance policy, etc.)
dominated our focus group conversations. Participants adhering to these
approaches conceptualised discipline as students’ ability to adhere to exter-
nal rules and expectations. The prominence of behaviourist discourses prob-
ably reflects the dominance of PBIS in study sites. For rules-oriented
perspectives, school discipline systems are premised on several assumptions
that require consistency to be evoked and practised to prop up the system.
First, extrinsic stimuli motivate students to behave in desirable ways. While
participants’ statements reflect beliefs in positive reinforcements (e.g. praise,
rewards, incentives), descriptions of actual events, strategies offered for
improving discipline, and practices described suggest that negative rein-
forcements (punishments) remain an important aspect of the discipline cul-
tures of each school. Second, managing and modifying student behaviour is
thought to involve a logical chain of events that will produce an expected
outcome. If a student does A (Bad Behaviour or Good Behaviour) and
adults respond with B (Response in the form of Negative Reinforcement or
Positive Reinforcement or Support), this will yield an intended outcome of
C (Good Behaviour). A third assumption is that students do not know the
rules, can be easily confused by different messages, and therefore must be
taught the rules as part of an explicit social curriculum.
Consistency is central to each of the assumptions. For example, if a
response to a particular student behaviour is not producing an intended out-
come (Logic: A→B→ C), many participants’ tended to believe that inconsis-
tent application of the agreed-upon response is the root cause for why a
particular intervention fails. Another example is the intense focus on sloganis-
ing expectations and posting reminders so that students understand and are
not confused about rules. Both practices – responding with agreed upon
reinforcements, praise or punishments, and sending clear messages to students
– require commitment and effort from all teachers to be consistent, to ‘get on
the same page’, and to implement practices and policies with fidelity.
170 D. Irby and C. Clough

The participants most conflicted about the rules-based approach to disci-

pline offered relationship-based philosophical approaches. They talked more
about moral authority, equitable rather than equal treatment, commitment to
community, intrinsic motivation, and the development of an internal locus
of control. Participants expressing relationship-oriented philosophical per-
spectives saw inconsistency as inevitable. In addition to acknowledging the
unpredictability and wide variability of behaviours within the school com-
munity, people who expressed relational perspectives held to a belief that
students indeed do ‘know’ the rules. They acknowledged that students exer-
cise their own judgement about how to behave regardless of how consistent
the staff may be at messaging, enforcing rules, or responding to behaviours.
Being attuned to students’ reasons for behaving in particular ways mat-
tered more to these participants than did consistency. Establishing relation-
ships was the preferred means for addressing the behaviour. They were less
likely to use the term consistency (i.e. discourse) and when they did it was
typically for the sake of collegiality. These were the teachers and adminis-
trators who were explicit about their personal resistance to rules-orienta-
tions. Closing the door to late students, following established policies, not
allowing gum in class, and making students remove hats in the name of
consistency were not deemed effective or useful. Many thought that such
practices undermined the relationships that relational-oriented educators
sought to foster as a means of developing disciplined students. Still, these
participants articulated little in terms of moving their philosophies past cri-
tiques to an operationalised school-wide disciplinary model. This could
reflect their lack of exposure to non-behaviourist approaches. When partici-
pants who adhered to a relational-oriented philosophical perspective acted
with consistency (i.e. practice), it was often done so with reluctance and pri-
marily to maintain relationships with colleagues or to respect the system-
wide rules. Ironically, consistency for collegiality’s sake served an implicit
function of disciplining relation-oriented teachers, staff, and administrators
to act in ways that often did not align with their personal philosophies of
discipline.
Our research suggests that there are limits and unintended consequences
to relying uncritically on consistency as a guiding principle for improving
school discipline. We point to the fact that consistency is not merely an
under-theorised aspect of discipline but that it has not been theorised despite
its prominence in dominant discipline discourses. Our assertion about the
importance of theorising consistency is no different than the need to criti-
cally understand other disciplinary concepts such as authority (Macleod,
MacAllister, and Pirrie 2012). Being consistent may be problematic for
schools and educators who wish to operate from relational discipline
perspectives. Consistency may undermine the discipline practices and deci-
sion-making of teachers who are more apt to rely on socio-emotional and
relational discipline approaches, especially outside of their classrooms. We
 Pedagogy, Culture & Society 171

know little about the teachers who do not send students out of class and
who achieve high academic outcomes (Yang 2009). These teachers, whom
Yang calls ‘teacher X’, may employ alternate discourses and practices that
will illuminate new approaches for understanding discipline.
Critical questions worth further exploration include: How is consistency
evoked as policy, procedure, and practice and to what ends? While consis-
tency may allow teachers to meet stated behavioural objectives, what are
the unintended consequences of these same consistency practices on stu-
dents who do not respond to the approaches employed? How useful is con-
sistency within different discipline cultures and paradigms? And what does
it look like? Does consistency relate to the net-widening and net-deepening
of school discipline policies (Irby 2013)? How does consistency operate in
schools where relational approaches dominate? Answering these sorts of
questions would do much to confirm or disconfirm the findings of this study
and move the field closer to understanding ways of thinking, talking, and
behaving that enable or hinder schools’ transitions from rules-based to rela-
tionship-based school discipline systems (Morrison and Vaandering 2012;
Reeves 2006; Roache, Joel, and Lewis 2011).

Funding
This research was supported by a University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee School of
Education’s Institute for Excellence in Urban Education research award.

References
Arum, R. 2003. Judging School Discipline: The Crisis of Moral Authority.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Astor, R. A., R. Benbenishty, and J. Estrada. 2009. “School Violence and Theoreti-
cally Atypical Schools: The Principal’s Centrality in Orchestrating Safe
Schools.” American Educational Research Journal 46: 423–461.
Beachum, F., and C. McCray. 2011. Cultural Collision and Collusion: Reflections
on Hip-hop Culture Values. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
Bennett, W. 1991. “Moral Literacy and the Formation of Character.” In Moral, Char-
acter, and Civic Education in the Elementary School, edited by J. S. Benninga,
131–138. New York: Teachers College.
Bradshaw, C. P., Koth, C. W., Bevans, K. B., Ialongo, N., and Leaf, P. J. 2008.
“The impact of School-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports
(PBIS) on the Organizational Health of Elementary Schools.” School Psychology
Quarterly 23 (4): 462–473.
Durlak, J., R. Weissberg, A. Dymnicki, R. Taylor, and Schellinger. 2011. “The
Impact of Enhancing Students’ Social and Emotional Learning: A Meta-analysis
of School-based Universal Interventions.” Child Development 82 (1): 405–432.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x.
Erickson, C., M. Mattaini, and M. McGuire. 2004. “Constructing Nonviolent
Cultures in Schools: The State of the Science.” Children and Schools 26 (2):
102–116.
172 D. Irby and C. Clough

Evans, A. 2007. “Changing Faces.” Education and Urban Society 39 (3): 315–348.
Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Smolkowski, K., Eber, L., Nakasato, J., Todd, A. W., and
Esperanza, J. 2009. “A Randomized, Wait-list Controlled Effectiveness Trial
Assessing School-wide Positive Behavior Support in Elementary Schools.”
Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions 11: 133–144.
Huffman, H. 1993. “Character Education without Turmoil.” Educational Leadership
51 (3): 24–26.
Irby, D. 2013. “Net-deepening of School Discipline.” Urban Review: Issues and
Ideas in Public Education 45 (2): 197–219.
Irvin, L. K., T. J. Tobin, J. R. Sprague, G. Sugai, and C. G. Vincent. 2004. “Valid-
ity of Office Discipline Referral Measures as Indices of School-wide Behavioral
Status and Preventive Effects of School-wide Behavioral Interventions.” Journal
of Positive Behavior Interventions 6: 131–147.
Jacobson, J. W., R. M. Foxx, and J. A. Mulick, eds. 2005. Controversial Therapies
for Developmental Disabilities: Fads, Fashion, and Science in Professional
Practice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
James, S., and R. Freeze. 2006. “One Step Forward, Two Steps Back: Immanent
Critique of the Practice of Zero Tolerance in Inclusive Schools.” International
Journal of Inclusive Education 10 (6): 581–594. doi:10.1080/1360311050
0264636.
Johnston, J., R. Foxx, J. Jacobson, G. Green, and J. Mulick. 2006. “Positive Behavior
Support and Applied Behavior Analysis.” Behavioral Analysis 29 (1): 51–74.
Kafka, J. 2008. “‘Sitting on a Tinderbox’: Racial Conflict, Teacher Discretion, and
the Centralization of Disciplinary Authority.” American Journal of Education
114 (3): 247–270.
Kitzinger, J. 1994. “The Methodology of Focus Groups: The Importance of Group
Interaction between Research Participants.” Sociology of Health and Illness 16
(1): 103–121.
Kohn, A. 1993. Punished by Rewards. The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive
Plans, A’s, Praise, and Other Bribes. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Kohn, A. 1996. Beyond Discipline: From Compliance to Community. Alexandria,
VA: ASCD Publishing.
Levingston, J. 2009. Sowing the Seeds of Character: The Moral Education of
Adolescents in Public and Private Schools. Westport, CT: Praeger Press.
MacAllister, J. 2013. “School Discipline, Educational Interest, and Pupil Wisdom.”
Educational Philosophy and Theory 45 (1): 20–35. doi:10.1080/00131857.2012.
711902.
Macleod, G., J. MacAllister, and A. Pirrie. 2012. “Towards a Broader Understand-
ing of Authority in Teacher Student Relationships.” Oxford Review of Education
38 (4): 493–508.
McHoul, M., and W. Grace. 1993. A Foucault Primer: Discourse, Power, and the
Subject. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.
Morrison, G. M., M. Redding, E. Fisher, and R. Matthewson. 2006. “Assessing
School Discipline.” In Handbook of School Violence and School Safety, edited
by S. R. Jimerson and M. J. Furlong, 211–220. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Morrison, B., and D. Vaandering. 2012. “Restorative Justice: Pedagogy, Praxis, and
Discipline.” Journal of School Violence 11 (2): 138–155.
Osher, D., G. Bear, J. Sprague, and W. Doyle. 2010. “How Can We Improve
School Discipline?” Educational Researcher 39 (1): 48–58. doi:10.3102/
0013189X09357618.
 Pedagogy, Culture & Society 173

Pickering, W. S. F. 1998. “The Administration of Punishment in Schools.” In

Durkheim and Modern Education, edited by G. Walford and W. S. F. Pickering,
54–64. New York: Routledge.
Reeves, D. 2006. “Leading to Change/How Do You Change School Culture?”
Educational Leadership 64 (4): 92–94.
Roache, Joel, and R. Lewis. 2011. “The Carrot, the Stick, or the Relationship:
What Are the Effective Disciplinary Strategies?” European Journal of Teacher
Education 34 (2): 233–248. doi:10.1080/02619768.2010.542586.
Safron, S., and K. Oswald. 2003. “Positive Behavior Supports: Can Schools
Reshape Disciplinary Practices?” Exceptional Children 69 (3): 361–373.
Sharkey, J., and P. Fenning. 2012. “Rationale for Designing School Contexts in
Support of Proactive Discipline.” Journal of School Violence 11 (2): 95–104.
doi:10.1080/15388220.2012.646641.
Skiba, R., and R. Peterson. 2003. “Teaching the Social Curriculum: School
Discipline as Instruction.” Preventing School Failure 47 (2): 66–73.
Smith, R. 1985. Freedom and Discipline. London: George Allen and Unwin.
Tatman, R., S. Edmonson, and R. Slate. 2009. “Character Education: A Critical
Analysis.” International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation 4 (4):
1–14. doi: http://cnx.org/content/col11119/1.1/.
Wilson, P. S. 1971. Interest and Discipline in Education. Boston, MA: Routledge
and KeganPaul.
Wilson, J. 1981. Discipline and Moral Education: A Survey of Public Opinion and
Understanding. Windsor, Berks: The NFER-Nelson.
Yang, K. 2009. “Discipline or Punish? Some Suggestions for Teacher Practice and
Policy.” Language Arts 87 (1): 49–61.
Copyright of Pedagogy, Culture & Society is the property of Routledge and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.