美国“支持性学校纪律”政策提出了不同于排除性、惩罚性惩戒的新纪律方案，提倡在学生违纪前采取多种预防措施，违纪后实施“恢复性”惩戒。虽然新纪律方案获得了一定的积极评价，但“支持性学校纪律”政策在美国引发大量争议，甚至一度被废止。鉴于全球性的政策扩散趋势，“支持性学校纪律”或在未来西方国家的学校纪律政策中占据重要地位，这些国家也可能面临与美国同样的困境。因此，深入研究这一政策及其后续受到的争议具有必要性和重要性。
本研究选取费尔克拉夫批判话语分析理论的三维分析框架作为理论基础。该理论认为话语和社会双向互动、相互建构，提出“文本-话语实践-社会实践”三个维度，从微观、中观、宏观三个层面剖析话语和社会的关系。本研究采取话语分析方法和语料库语言学的工具，按照费尔克拉夫的三维分析框架，对政策文本、相关新闻报道、政治声明等文献进行研究，结合政策出台时的具体情境和美国社会历史背景，分析美国“支持性学校纪律”政策所承载的意识形态及其后续争议。主要有以下几点发现：
第一，相较于美国此前的学校纪律政策，“支持性学校纪律”政策在意识形态方面提出新的学校安全观，加强了“市场主义取向”。传统上，学校纪律政策侧重关注学校物理环境层面的安全，以此为基础建构学校安全观。为了回应“零容忍”政策的弊端，增强公众认同，“支持性学校纪律”政策强调学生的心理安全感，还特别了关注少数族裔学生的安全感对实现“全体学生安全”的意义。政策接受并内化了公共教育中的经济 “霸权”，增强了“市场主义取向”。具体表现为：首先，政策关注绩效，强调学校纪律问题对学生成功的影响，要求改善学校氛围和纪律实施结果。其次，政策提倡替代性学校纪律措施，为教育市场“开源节流”。新的纪律方案减少学生停课、辍学造成的经济损耗，通过要求学校购买服务创造经济收益，实际上成为美国公共教育市场的“新商品”。再次，政策强调“循证”与“问责”，引用学术研究证明替代性措施的科学性，通过制定书面纪律政策、收集数据等措施，为问责开创条件。最后，政策使用一定的话语策略，弱化联邦政府的干预和在具体纪律方案上的引导，呈现“小政府”的姿态。
第二，政策引发的争论聚焦政策的合法性和实践效果，指向联邦与地方教育权的争夺和政策的新学校安全观问题。政策合法性方面，批评者指责联邦教育部过度介入地方教育问题，这一观点既呼应了美国将教育权归于地方的“常识”，又顺应了公众对标准化教育改革的批评趋势，获得大量支持。政策实施后果方面，批评者认为“支持性学校纪律”政策无益于处理学生违纪行为，还会带来消极影响，造成学校秩序失调，危害师生人身安全。对政策后果的批评实质上是对其学校安全观的质疑，作为回应，特朗普政府调整联邦层面的学校安全观，回避了少数族裔学生因为歧视而感到不安的问题，同时将物理环境安全置于“安全”话语内涵的首要地位。
第三，新自由主义思想对美国教育的影响深远，能够解释“支持性学校纪律”政策的意识形态及后续争议。新自由主义对政策的影响主要表现为三个方面。其一，新自由主义思想关注市场和绩效，促成政策中关于非排除性纪律措施、循证、问责的规定。其二，市场逻辑影响了学校安全观的生成与争议。学校安全事关学生学业成就和个体发展，能够影响美国社会经济发展，因此，对“安全”的关注可被视为对其经济效果的关注，争论者出于自身经济利益强调“安全”的不同向度。其三，市场逻辑影响政策的生产与消费过程。政策提出替代性纪律措施，既作为排除性惩戒和种族歧视问题的解决方案，又是公共教育市场的“新商品”，成功将民权问题统整进市场与经济的意识形态议程。新自由主义对政策争议的影响主要体现在特朗普政府时期。该时期的政府以回避纪律中的歧视问题、批评联邦教育权的扩张为策略，保留了教育市场的“新老商品”，维护以市场为首的新自由主义意识形态。

"School discipline" is widely recognized as an ongoing problem in Chinese public schools. However, the development and implementation of disciplinary rules in China are still in exploratory. Therefore, it is meaningful to examine the relevant practices in other countries. In 2011, the U.S. Department of Education and Department of Justice launched a collaborative project – the Supportive School Discipline Initiative, and later released guidance as a new discipline policy. The "Supportive School Discipline" policy provides effective alternatives to exclusionary discipline and suggests preventions and interventions for students' misbehavior. Although those alternatives received some positive reviews, the policy generated a great deal of controversy in the United States and was once abolished. Given the global trend of policy transfer, "Supportive School Discipline" may occupy an important place in future school discipline policies in western countries, and may face the same dilemma as in the United States. Therefore, it is necessary to examine this policy and its subsequent controversies.
This study employs the three-dimensional framework of Norman Fairclough's critical discourse analysis as a theoretical foundation and uses corpus linguistics tools to examine the ideology of the U.S. "Supportive School Discipline" policy and its subsequent controversies. Based on the three-dimensional framework of critical discourse analysis, I analyze the text of the "Supportive School Discipline" policy, its production, distribution, and consumption processes, the history of school discipline in the United States, and the social context in which the policy is shaping. The main findings are as follows:
First, the " Supportive School Discipline " policy offers a new view of school safety and reinforces a marketization orientation compared to previous U.S. school discipline policies. Whereas previous school discipline policies focused on the safety of the physical school environment, the new discourse emphasizes students' psychological safety, with particular attention to the minority students. To enhance "marketization orientation", the policy produced a "new commodity" of alternative school discipline measures for the public education market, focused on students' performances, and emphasized the importance of evidence and accountability. In addition, the policy used discursive strategies to weaken the federal government's responsibility and its choice orientation.
Second, the debates focus on the legitimacy of the policy and the consequences of policy implementation, pointing to the federal role over local education issues and the new school safety values from the policy. Complying with the criticism trend of public opinion on standardized education reform and the common sense of the United States that "education is mainly a state and local responsibility", the accusation that the Federal Department of education offends local control over education has received a lot of support.  As for the policy's effects, critics argue that the " Supportive School Discipline " policy does not help address student discipline and results in negative consequences. Under harsh federal intervention, the high-risk measures proposed by the policy lead to schools paying too much attention to discipline data and deliberately ignoring students' misbehavior, which will eventually cause school disorder and endanger the personal safety of students and teachers. Criticisms of the policy's consequences challenge the "supportive school discipline" policy on its school safety values. It emphasized the importance of personal safety and "school order" while omitting the problem of discrimination among ethnic minority students.
Third, neoliberalism helps explain the ideologies and subsequent controversies of the "Supportive School Discipline" policy. Neoliberalism's focus on markets and rewards contributed to the non-exclusionary disciplinary measures, evidence-based practices, and accountability in the policy. This economic perspective can also explain the value of school safety. The success of students is related to social and economic development, so the concern about "safety" can be regarded as the concern about the "economic impact of safety," in this way, the two sides of the debate present different views on "whose" and "which level" of safety will affect the economy. Additionally, the marketization logic influences the production and consumption processes of policy. The policy proposes alternative disciplinary measures as both a solution to the problems of exclusionary discipline and racial discrimination and as a "new product" for the public education market. In the subsequent Trump Administration, the avoidance of discrimination in discipline and the criticism of the federal’s expanding role serves as a strategy to safeguard the interests of the education market.