A full canon of empirical literature shows that students who are African American, Latinx, or American Indian/Alaskan Native, and students who are male, diagnosed with disabilities, or from low socioeconomic backgrounds are more likely to experience exclusionary discipline practices in U.S. schools. Though there is a growing commitment to mitigating discipline disparities through alternative programming, it is clear that disproportionality in the application of harmful discipline practices persists. The purpose of this literature synthesis was to examine the effectiveness of empirically studied school-based interventions in reducing disproportionality in discipline practices. We analyzed articles that assessed both prevention and intervention program effects using at least one outcome variable representing exclusionary discipline, either in the form of office discipline referrals or suspension/expulsion rates. Included studies used experimental, quasi-experimental, or observational research designs that disaggregated student outcomes by race, ethnicity, gender, disability, or other sociodemographic categories. We identified 20 articles meeting inclusion criteria, four of which provided direct evidence of disproportionality reduction using interaction terms. Results indicate limited evidence that available programs reduce discipline disparities and that common programs may function as a protective factor for White and female students while failing to do so for marginalized students. Findings identify promising areas for future research.

Culturally responsive teaching (CRT) is a set of practices designed to build on students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds as teaching and learning occur. Although CRT can have positive effects on student outcomes, little research has examined teachers’ self-efficacy to implement CRT practices. Using the Culturally Responsive Teaching Self-Efficacy (CRTSE) scale, the authors explore specific areas in which teachers feel self-efficacious in regard to implementing CRT practices and the factors that affect both preservice and practicing teachers’ self-efficacy in delivering CRT. Participants ( n = 245) reported feeling more confident in building personal relationships with students and building trust, but less confident in areas that involved specific cultural knowledge, such as being able to validate students in their native language and teaching students about their culture’s contributions to curricular topics. Results also showed that years of experience positively correlated with increased self-efficacy.

Until recently, existing research on teacher professional development (PD) has largely relied on teacher perceptions and self-reports to evaluate effectiveness. Though more current research has used a diverse array of designs and methodologies to examine impact on teacher knowledge, practice, and student learning, uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of various PD models remains, particularly for these nonperceptive variables. There has been a call in the field to apply a consistent conceptual framework in order to identify critical mechanisms underlying effective models and to support improved theorizing about teaching and learning. Thus, we present an integrated literature synthesis of one collaborative model of PD, teacher study groups (TSGs), in an effort to make sense of the relatively rich body of research that has been performed on this model. We identified 32 studies that examined TSGs’ impact on teacher and student outcomes and synthesized this research using Desimone’s five-factor conceptual framework, which is being increasingly applied across the field. Findings suggest that TSGs are an effective PD model and that there are components of the model not accounted for in the five-factor framework that affect teacher outcomes and student learning. We conclude with a discussion of implications, including limitations of the five-factor framework and ideas for further refinement that situate PD in a vast empirical landscape.

Using a dis/ability critical race theory (DisCrit) and critical quantitative (QuantCrit) lens, we examine disproportionate application of exclusionary discipline on multiply marginalized youth, foregrounding systemic injustice and institutionalized racism. In doing so, we examined temporal-, student-, and school-level factors that may result in exclusion and othering (i.e., placing into special education and punishing with out-of-school suspensions) within one school district. We frame this study in DisCrit and QuantCrit frameworks to connect data-based decision making to sociocultural understandings of the ways in which schools use both special education and discipline to simultaneously provide and limit opportunities for different student groups. Results showed a complex interconnectedness between student sociodemographic labels (e.g., gender, race, and socioeconomic status) and factors associated with both special education identification and exclusionary discipline. Our findings suggest that quantitative studies lacking in-depth theoretical justification may perpetuate deficit understandings of the racialization of disability and intersections with exclusionary discipline.

Studies related to disproportionate special education identification of students from historically marginalized groups have used increasingly complex analyses to understand the interplay of factors that cause and maintain disparities. However, information regarding the influence of students’ grade level at initial special education placement remains limited. Situated in labeling theory and life course theory, we used discrete-time survival analysis to examine temporal student- and school-level factors related to patterns of placement for minoritized students within one large urban school district. Results showed that gender, race, and socioeconomic status were all factors generally associated with special education identification, and that African American and Latinx students were more likely to be placed into special education later in their school careers. This disproportionality in delayed placement was associated with particular special education labels; for example, African American students identified post-elementary school were more likely to be labeled with emotional disturbance and specific learning disability compared to same-age White peers, and Latinx students were more likely to be labeled with specific learning disability and intellectual disability compared to same-age White peers. These results implicate inequities that emerge at the intersections of age, race, and perceptions of ability that should be considered in future studies of educational equity.