The Discipline Dilemma: Why Diversifying School Consequences Has Failed to Close the Racial Gap
For years, American public education has been gripped by a fundamental tension: how to maintain a safe, orderly learning environment while dismantling the “school-to-prison pipeline.” Driven by data showing that exclusionary discipline—specifically out-of-school suspensions—disproportionately sidelines students of color, school districts across the country have pivoted toward a broader menu of corrective actions. From restorative justice circles and behavioral interventions to detention and the loss of school privileges, the logic seemed sound: replace the blunt instrument of suspension with nuanced, individualized support.
However, a groundbreaking new study released in July 2026 suggests that this shift in strategy has hit a significant roadblock. Researchers Youngsun Lee and Jing Liu of the University of Maryland, College Park, and Emily K. Penner of the University of California, Irvine, have found that diversifying disciplinary options has failed to close the persistent racial and ethnic gaps in school discipline. In a comprehensive analysis of a large, unnamed southern school district, the researchers discovered a troubling trend: while the type of punishment may have changed for some, the pattern of bias remains firmly intact.
The Scope of the Study: Data-Driven Transparency
The study, titled "Discipline Beyond Suspensions: Racial/Ethnic Disparities Across the Spectrum of Disciplinary Actions," offers a granular look at the realities of modern school governance. By analyzing two years of administrative data covering the 2022–2024 academic cycle, the researchers examined a district of 70,000 students spread across 125 schools.
To move beyond superficial statistics, the team tracked 47 distinct disciplinary actions, clustering them into seven actionable categories: out-of-school suspension, in-school suspension, school resource officer (SRO) involvement, detention, loss of privileges, behavioral guidance interventions, and miscellaneous outcomes.
The methodology was designed to isolate the “race effect” by controlling for context. Rather than comparing the district as a whole, the researchers compared students from the same schools who were referred for identical infractions. In the most rigorous arm of the study, they analyzed students involved in the exact same incident—such as two students involved in the same physical altercation—to determine whether race, rather than the nature of the rule-breaking, was the primary driver of the resulting punishment.
A Statistical Snapshot: Enrollment vs. Outcome
The baseline data presented in the study underscores the systemic nature of the problem. Within the studied district, Black students accounted for 42 percent of the total enrollment but were the subjects of 62 percent of all disciplinary referrals. More jarringly, they accounted for 74 percent of all out-of-school suspensions.
Conversely, white students represented 27 percent of the district’s enrollment but were systematically underrepresented in every disciplinary category, from the most minor detention to the most severe suspension. This statistical imbalance, while consistent with national trends observed over the last two decades, provides the foundation for the study’s central question: if administrators have more options than ever, why does the disparity persist?
The Flashpoint: The “Fighting” Disparity
The researchers identified “fighting” as the focal point of the current discipline gap. As the second most common infraction in the district and the leading cause of out-of-school suspensions, fighting acts as a barometer for how administrators interpret behavior under stress.
The data reveals that for a fighting incident, Black students were roughly four percentage points more likely to receive an out-of-school suspension than white students, and two percentage points less likely to receive the relatively milder in-school suspension. When the researchers isolated students involved in the same physical fight, the disparity widened. Black students were 2.5 percentage points more likely to be suspended out-of-school and nearly three times as likely to have a School Resource Officer (SRO) involved in the disciplinary process.
In the same instances, white students were significantly more likely to receive a “loss of privileges”—such as a temporary ban from extracurriculars or cafeteria seating—as their most severe consequence. This suggests that even when the behavior is identical, the administrative lens through which that behavior is viewed is fundamentally racialized.
Contextual Nuance: Where Disparity Disappears
Interestingly, the study does not suggest that bias is ubiquitous in every school interaction. When the researchers analyzed infractions outside of fighting—such as classroom disruption, tardiness, or minor rule noncompliance—the racial gap all but vanished.
This finding is critical. It implies that the disparity is not necessarily a byproduct of day-to-day, low-stakes classroom management where teachers may have established routine, standardized protocols. Instead, the bias emerges most clearly during “high-stakes” events where administrators are forced to exercise significant individual discretion. When a situation is volatile, such as a fight, the “wide latitude” granted to school administrators appears to allow unconscious (or conscious) biases to dictate the severity of the consequence.
Implications for Reform: The Blind Spot of “Equitable Fixes”
The primary takeaway from the work of Lee, Liu, and Penner is that school districts have fallen into a “reform trap.” By framing alternatives to suspension as an inherently equitable solution, policymakers have shifted their attention to the wrong metrics.
“We have been so focused on reducing the total volume of suspensions that we’ve ignored how the remaining disciplinary options are distributed,” the authors suggest. Because administrators are given a “menu” of options to choose from, the existence of that menu actually creates more room for subjective, racially disparate decision-making.
The study highlights a crucial blind spot: an option that is technically “less severe” than suspension (like a detention) is only an equitable reform if it is applied with parity. If administrators continue to use their discretion to route Black students toward exclusionary options and white students toward restorative ones for the same acts, the “reform” is merely a change in branding, not a change in outcome.
Moving Forward: Recommendations for Policy
The researchers conclude that expanding the list of disciplinary choices is insufficient without a parallel effort to standardize the application of those choices. Their recommendations focus on three key pillars:
- Administrative Guidelines: Districts must move away from “open-ended” disciplinary policies. Clearer, more rigid guidelines for what constitutes a specific response to a specific infraction—regardless of the student’s background—are essential to removing the room for subjective interpretation.
- Professional Development for Discretion: Training for administrators should focus on the psychology of high-stakes decision-making. By making administrators aware of their own biases during stressful events, districts may be able to mitigate the “fighting gap.”
- Ongoing Equity Audits: Districts should not measure success solely by a reduction in suspension rates. Instead, they must conduct regular, granular audits of all disciplinary categories to identify whether gaps are simply shifting from one punishment type to another.
Conclusion: The Persistence of the Status Quo
The findings from the University of Maryland and UC Irvine serve as a sobering reminder that administrative policy change is not synonymous with systemic social change. While the shift toward restorative justice and behavioral interventions was motivated by the best of intentions, the data suggests that these programs are being filtered through the same long-standing racial biases that shaped the previous era of zero-tolerance policies.
For educators, policymakers, and parents, the message is clear: if the goal is true equality in school discipline, the focus must move beyond the tools of discipline and toward the people wielding them. Until the discretion of school officials is guided by strict, data-backed, and racially neutral standards, the disparities identified by Lee, Liu, and Penner are likely to remain a permanent feature of the American educational landscape. The path to a truly equitable school environment requires not just new options, but a new commitment to consistency, ensuring that the same rule, in the same hallway, leads to the same outcome for every student.
