September Research Rundown: Exclusionary Discipline, Teacher Performance Pay, and School Spending
By Madie Spartz
Published: September, 2026
For September’s Research Rundown—our curated list of recent, relevant research we think is worth adding to the education equity conversation—we highlight articles on:
- Exclusionary discipline in early childhood settings,
- Teacher performance pay, and
- Nationwide school spending trends since 1976
Harsh Punishment and Exclusionary Discipline in the Early Years
Children’s Equity Project at Arizona State University, September 2026
In light of the Trump Administration’s recent proposal to eliminate the Head Start Program Performance Standards (HSPPS), this report explores existing research and state-by-state policies on discipline in early learning settings. In its current form, HSPSS prohibits corporal punishment and expulsion and severely limits suspension, based on research finding that such practices have severe negative effects on child development and are more likely to be used on boys, Black children, and children with disabilities. If HSPPS is rescinded, early education discipline policy will largely be determined at the state level, which varies widely across and within states.
They found that just 14 states have exclusionary discipline policies that align with Head Start, but only 7 of those states include all children ages 0-5. Even in states that do include all ages, not all learning settings are included in the policy, further reducing the pool of students who would remain protected from exclusionary discipline practices if HSPPS is eliminated. Furthermore, corporal punishment is still legal in public schools in 17 states, and data from 2021-2022 shows that 500 preschool-aged children were subject to corporal punishment. The authors argue that without HSPSS, these numbers could grow.
Why This Matters in Minnesota
Minnesota has some important guardrails around exclusionary discipline for children ages 0-5, putting us a step ahead of many states, but even still, our current policy framework does not cover students in all settings. On the positive side, Minnesota law requires schools to provide nonexclusionary supports and alternatives to children in grades 3 and under before resorting to exclusionary discipline—and the report identifies us as the only state in the country to explicitly name Head Start in such a policy.
While Minnesota is also cited as one of the 14 states with HSPSS-aligned policies, thanks to our Prek-3 suspension and expulsion ban, those protections don’t extend to children outside of state-funded programs. This places Minnesota out of step with current Head Start policy and leaves our youngest learners without explicit protections if current federal rules are rescinded. In light of these pending federal changes, it is a good moment for Minnesota to review and align state policy to provide safe, welcoming, and supportive environments for all children ages 0-5.
Teacher Sorting and Preferences over School Disadvantages: Evidence from Performance Pay in Texas
Annenberg Institute at Brown University, July 2026
This study examines Texas’ performance pay system for teachers, the Teacher Incentive Allotment (TIA), which creates a tiered salary structure based on two factors: teacher effectiveness and school disadvantage. Under TIA, teachers receive a salary bump commensurate with higher evaluations, and they also can earn more money through teaching at schools in rural or low-income communities. This study’s author examined if TIA is achieving its intent: are salary increases attracting high-quality teachers to disadvantaged schools?
The results suggest that TIA increases mobility for teachers, but not in the direction the policy intends. Teachers who earn the effectiveness designation are more likely to switch schools, but they tend to choose campuses in wealthier areas. The author estimates that a salary bump of $6,000 is needed to push teachers towards low-income or rural schools and most TIA increases fall short of that number. He argues that in order for the policy to fulfill its intent, pay scales for low-income and rural schools need a more significant increase to truly incentivize recruitment.
Why This Matters in Minnesota
Differentiated pay has long been tested as a policy solution to address the fact that on average, the most experienced teachers work in the most advantaged schools. This is true in Minnesota, where over a third of teachers in high-poverty districts are considered “inexperienced,” compared to only a fifth of teachers in low-poverty districts. Minnesota has its own alternative teacher payment system, commonly referred to as Q-Comp, but it’s far more complex than Texas’ model and not universally implemented statewide. Rather, it’s locally negotiated into union contracts and often provides additional pay for additional duties. This study highlights that as candidates for office propose new ideas around teacher pay, it’s important to explore what’s working and what isn’t across the country.
School Spending Equity Since 1976
Brookings Institution, June 2026
This report takes the long view to examine how school spending varies across districts, how that correlates with race and poverty, and how those trends have changed over time. Analyzing a dataset spanning from 1976 to 2021, the authors found that after 1995, school funding within states became more progressive, or equitable, meaning more resources were targeted towards poorer districts and districts predominantly serving students of color. The authors acknowledge that this runs counter to the widely held belief that poorer districts receive less funding due to school funding’s reliance on property taxes, but they argue that the picture is more complicated than what common narratives allow for.
First and foremost, while the report states that predominantly non-white districts have higher overall funding, high labor costs offset much of that; such districts tend to be concentrated in urban areas, where the cost of labor is higher. Another important caveat is that differences between states in education spending is a “major driver” of the overall picture of inequality nationwide, since high poverty and majority non-white districts are more likely to be located in states that spend less on education overall. Finally, another major finding is that high-poverty districts were the most affected by cuts during the Great Recession, suggesting that times of economic upheaval risk hitting disadvantaged schools the heaviest.
Why This Matters in Minnesota
Minnesota has one of the more equitable (or progressive) school funding structures in the country, making real effort through policy to limit funding disparities between wealthy and poor districts. For example, Minnesota sets a limit on how much funding districts can raise via local levies, to prevent revenue in higher-wealth communities from significantly outpacing revenue in districts where property wealth is lower, or where voters aren’t as likely to approve increased taxes.
Despite this relatively equitable system, Minnesota also has some of the greatest disparities in education outcomes. If we provide more equitable funding, why do these disparities persist? This report reminds us that in education, there are often no simple answers. First, is our base funding adequate? Second, even if funding tends to move toward the areas of greater need, are we fully identifying and targeting the students who need the most support? Third, is our system keeping up with changing demographic trends, evolving student needs, an evolving federal landscape, and inflation? Making meaningful change to the education system requires seeking multiple sources, digging deeper beyond topline findings, and ensuring we’re asking the right questions.