Given the rapidly changing policy landscape, it is important to understand whether educators prioritize discipline reform in their own schools and whether role type and school poverty are related to respondents' likelihood to prioritize discipline reform. This American Educator Panels Data Note provides insight into teachers' and principals' perceptions of the need for discipline reform in their schools.

Read Online

Time for Change?

Educators' Perceptions of Discipline Reform in Their Schools

by Rachel Perera, Courtney Armstrong

Download Free Electronic Document

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 0.2 MB

Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.

Research Question

  1. Do secondary teachers and principals see discipline reform as a priority in their schools?

Beginning in the late 1980s, policymakers concerned about violence in schools began to enact "zero-tolerance" policies in districts and states across the country. These policies mandated the use of exclusionary discipline for a range of behaviors, including such less serious offenses as classroom disruption and dress code violations. The efficacy of exclusionary discipline has been challenged, given persistent concerns that schools' safety and discipline policies and practices do not create a safe and supportive learning environment for all students; empirical evidence demonstrating persistent disparities in school discipline; and the negative consequences of harsh discipline practices on a number of student, teacher, and school outcomes. Over the last few years, the state policy landscape has begun to dramatically shift away from exclusionary discipline in response to both local and federal pressure. This American Educator Panels Data Note provides insight into teachers' and principals' perceptions of the need for discipline reform in their schools.

Key Findings

Educators prioritize discipline reform, especially in high-poverty schools

  • Discipline reform was identified as one of the top three most important interventions by 31 percent of teachers and 25 percent of principals.
  • Secondary teachers were more likely to identify discipline reform as a top three issue than secondary principals, although this difference was not statistically significant.
  • Secondary teachers and principals in high-poverty schools were more likely than those in low-poverty schools to identify discipline reform as a top three important intervention, although the difference diminished after also controlling for numerous school-, district-, and state-level variables.

Recommendation

  • Although many educators indicate a need to prioritize discipline reform as an intervention for their schools (among the given options), it remains unclear why they identified discipline reform as one of the top three needed interventions for their schools. Further research is required to provide a detailed understanding of educators' perspectives on the efficacy of different discipline methods.

Research conducted by

The research described in this report was conducted by RAND Education and Labor and supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. For this document, different permissions for re-use apply. Please refer to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation section on our permissions page.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation Research report series. RAND reports present research findings and objective analysis that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.

Permission is given to duplicate this electronic document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Copies may not be duplicated for commercial purposes. Unauthorized posting of RAND PDFs to a non-RAND Web site is prohibited. RAND PDFs are protected under copyright law. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit the RAND Permissions page.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.