Neetu Arnold The High Costs of Classroom Disorder With consequences ranging from teacher attrition to declining student learning, schools have failed to enforce fundamental behavioral standards.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/classroom-disorder-student-learning-schools-discipline

Since at least 2022, the education world has been preoccupied with the “teacher exodus”: a troubling trend of teachers quitting at record rates. Though attrition has eased somewhat since its pandemic peak, it remains stubbornly high. Deteriorating classroom conditions are a big reason. Teachers cite chronic student misbehavior as the top source of stress and burnout, ranking it above workload and even pay.

Longtime educator Ben Foley is one of many who found the situation unbearable. After more than two decades teaching middle school in California, he resigned midyear, worn down by classrooms that had descended into chaos. He described the daily environment as “anarchic,” with students routinely ignoring basic instructions, roaming the room, throwing things, and roughhousing. Foley likened the experience to “death by a thousand cuts,” explaining that “for every request I make, several kids flat-out defy it.”

Foley blamed the breakdown on lax discipline practices introduced under Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS), a widely adopted framework for managing student behavior. In debates over weak school discipline, PBIS often escapes scrutiny, overshadowed by its more politically charged cousin, restorative justice. But PBIS is no less problematic; it simply masks its anti-punitive bias behind uncontroversial goals like improved data collection and clearer communication. It’s also far more widely used than restorative justice and has been a fixture in school discipline policy for decades—backed by a dedicated, taxpayer-funded center run by the U.S. Department of Education.

When I began asking teachers about PBIS, I heard no shortage of complaints. Educators described how it drove disruptive classrooms, undermined their authority, and made effective teaching nearly impossible. Yet when I spoke with PBIS trainers and reviewed official materials, the disconnect was striking: trainers insisted that the teacher accounts didn’t reflect the structured framework they endorsed. It quickly became clear that PBIS is complex and highly adaptable, with implementation varying widely from school to school. To understand how one discipline model can produce such divergent outcomes, we need to examine what PBIS is, where it came from, and how it rose to dominate school discipline in the United States.

PBIS is designed to promote positive student behavior—and, ideally, to reduce the negative kind. Trainers emphasize that PBIS is a management system, not an intervention. It doesn’t mandate specific behavior expectations or consequences for misconduct; instead, those decisions are left to each school’s discretion, with PBIS offering tools to manage and assess them. Still, the framework strongly encourages rewarding positive behavior over punishment, and newer versions take ever-firmer stances against punitive measures.

PBIS operates through a three-tiered system, with each tier offering increasingly targeted support for students struggling with behavior. Tier 1 is universal: school leaders set conduct expectations for all students. While full implementation includes all three tiers, many schools—and most PBIS studies—focus only on Tier 1, due to limited resources. Tier 2 provides extra support for students who don’t respond to the universal approach, using tools like regular staff check-ins. Tier 3 delivers individualized strategies for students with the most serious behavioral challenges. This layered model is also used in related frameworks like the Multi-Tiered System of Supports and Response to Intervention.