Evaluating student discipline practices in a public school through behavioral assessment of office referrals.

One fifth-grade class kept racking up office referrals. The team counted every referral, then ranked all classes. They picked the worst one and gave it two layers of help: class-wide rules and a quick check-in for the top two students. They kept counting referrals to see if things got better.

Referrals dropped after the plan started. The class went from highest on the list to near the bottom. The two students with the most slips also showed fewer trips to the office.

Kaufman et al. (2010) looked at the same referral slips across an entire district. They found younger kids get written up for fights, middle-schoolers for talking back, and high-schoolers for skipping. Boys and Black students were sent out more often. The 2003 case study zooms in on one class and shows you can act on those numbers right away.

Anger et al. (1976) cut disruption in half with a daily report card sent home. That paper works on single kids, while Putnam et al. (2003) uses the same referral count for a whole class. Both get results, but the newer study is faster because it uses data the school already collects.

Kestner et al. (2019) tell us to fix class-wide conditions before we test one child. Putnam et al. (2003) did exactly that: they saw high referrals, added class rules, and only then checked the two students who still stood out.

You do not need a new form or extra staff. Just print the referral log, rank each class, and start with the highest number. Add clear rules and quick adult check-ins. Watch the count for two weeks. If it drops, you just saved instructional time and kept kids in class.