Another key aspect of equity is the learning climate. The data shown on this page include discipline data, as well as a few other data points. The discipline data presented include the percent of students with one or more discipline referrals, as well as the percent of students receiving exclusionary discipline. Data are presented at the division level (by ethnicity, student group, and gender), as well as by level (elementary, middle, and high).

In addition, there are data charts showing teacher quality measures at Title I and non-Title I schools (comparing PWCS and the state) as well as charts showing the number of computers at Title I and non-Title I schools per 100 students.

**
NOTE:
Updated
information
for
discipline
indicators
is
not
available
due
to
the
impact
of
COVID-19
on
schools
and
remote
instruction
during
the
2020-21
school
year.
Listed
below
is
discipline
data
for
the
2017-18,
2018-19,
and
2019-20
school
years.**

## Discipline - Division

### Percent of Students with Discipline Referrals by Ethnicity

The
Percent
of
Students
with
Discipline
Referrals
by
Ethnicity
graph
displays
the
percentage
of
students
with
discipline
referrals
for
the
most
recent
three
years.

The
percentage
of
Asian
students
with
discipline
referrals
in
2017-18
was
6%,
2018-19
was
6%,
and
2019-20
was
6%;
the
percentage
of
Black
students
with
discipline
referrals
in
2017-18
was
20%,
2018-19
was
19%,
and
2019-20
was
17%;
the
percentage
of
Hispanic
students
with
discipline
referrals
in
2017-18
was
14%,
2018-19
was
13%,
and
2019-20
was
13%;
the
percentage
of
White
students
with
discipline
referrals
in
2017-18
was
9%,
2018-19
was
8%,
and
2019-20
was
7%.

### Percent of Students with Discipline Referrals by Student Group

The
Percent
of
Students
with
Discipline
Referrals
by
Student
Group
graph
displays
the
percentage
of
students
with
discipline
referrals
for
the
most
recent
three
years.

The
percentage
of
economically
disadvantaged
students
with
discipline
referrals
in
2017-18
was
16%,
in
2018-19
was
16%,
and
in
2019-20
was
14%;
the
non-economically
disadvantaged
students
with
discipline
referrals
in
2017-18
was
10%,
in
2018-19
was
10%,
and
in
2019-20
was
9%;
the
gap
between
the
two
groups
in
2017-18
was
6%,
in
2018-19
was
6%,
and
in
2019-20
was
5%.

The
percentage
of
EL
students
with
discipline
referrals
in
2017-18
was
12%,
in
2018-19
was
11%,
and
in
2019-20
was
10%;
the
non-EL
students
with
discipline
referrals
in
2017-18
was
13%,
in
2018-19
was
13%,
and
in
2019-20
was
11%;
the
gap
between
the
two
groups
in
2017-18
was
1%,
in
2018-19
was
2%,
and
in
2019-20
was
1%.

The
percentage
of
Special
Education
students
with
discipline
referrals
in
2017-18
was
21%,
in
2018-19
was
19%,
and
in
2019-20
was
16%;
the
non-Special
Education
students
with
discipline
referrals
in
2017-18
was
12%,
in
2018-19
was
11%,
and
in
2019-20
was
10%;
the
gap
between
the
two
groups
in
2017-18
was
9%,
in
2018-19
was
8%,
and
in
2019-20
was
6%.

### Percent of Students with Discipline Referrals by Gender

The
Percent
of
Students
with
Discipline
Referrals
by
Gender
graph
displays
the
percentage
of
students
with
discipline
referrals
for
the
most
recent
three
years.

The
percentage
of
male
students
with
discipline
referrals
in
2017-18
was
17%,
in
2018-19
was
16%
and
in
2019-20
was
14%;
the
female
students
with
discipline
referrals
in
2017-18
was
9%,
in
2018-19
was
8%
and
in
2019-20
was
8%;
the
gap
between
the
two
groups
in
2017-18
was
8%,
in
2018-19
was
8%
and
in
2019-20
was
6%.

### Percent of Students with Exclusionary Discipline by Ethnicity

The
Percent
of
Students
with
Exclusionary
Discipline
by
Ethnicity
graph
displays
the
percentage
of
students
with
exclusionary
discipline
for
the
most
recent
three
years.

The
percentage
of
Asian
students
with
exclusionary
discipline
in
2017-18
was
2%,
2018-19
was
2%,
and
2019-20
was
1%;
the
percentage
of
Black
students
with
exclusionary
discipline
in
2017-18
was
9%,
2018-19
was
9%,
and
2019-20
was
5%;
the
percentage
of
Hispanic
students
with
exclusionary
discipline
in
2017-18
was
6%,
2018-19
was
6%,
and
2019-20
was
4%;
the
percentage
of
White
students
with
exclusionary
discipline
in
2017-18
was
3%,
2018-19
was
3%,
and
2019-20
was
2%.

### Percent of Students with Exclusionary Discipline by Student Group

The
Percent
of
Students
with
Exclusionary
Discipline
by
Student
Group
graph
displays
the
percentage
of
students
with
exclusionary
discipline
for
the
most
recent
three
years.

The
percentage
of
economically
disadvantaged
students
with
exclusionary
discipline
in
2017-18
was
8%,
in
2018-19
was
7%,
and
in
2019-20
was
5%;
the
non-economically
disadvantaged
students
with
exclusionary
discipline
in
2017-18
was
3%,
in
2018-19
was
3%,
and
in
2019-20
was
2%;
the
gap
between
the
two
groups
in
2017-18
was
5%,
in
2018-19
was
4%,
and
in
2019-20
was
3%.

The
percentage
of
EL
students
with
exclusionary
discipline
in
2017-18
was
5%,
2018-19
was
5%,
and
in
2019-20
was
3%;
the
non-EL
students
with
exclusionary
discipline
in
2017-18
was
5%,
in
2018-19
was
5%,
and
in
2019-20
was
3%;
the
gap
between
the
two
groups
in
2017-18
was
0%,
in
2018-19
was
0%,
and
in
2019-20
was
0%.

The
percentage
of
Special
Education
students
with
exclusionary
discipline
in
2017-18
was
11%,
2018-19
was
10%,
and
in
2019-20
was
6%;
the
non-Special
Education
students
with
exclusionary
discipline
in
2017-18
was
4%,
2018-19
was
4%,
and
2019-20
was
3%;
the
gap
between
the
two
groups
in
2017-18
was
7%,
in
2018-19
was
6%,
and
in
2019-20
was
3%.

### Percent of Students with Exclusionary Discipline by Gender

The
Percent
of
Students
with
Exclusionary
Discipline
by
Gender
graph
displays
the
percentage
of
students
with
exclusionary
discipline
for
the
most
recent
three
years.

The
percentage
of
male
students
with
exclusionary
discipline
in
2017-18
was
8%,
in
2018-19
was
7%
and
in
2019-20
was
5%;
the
female
students
with
exclusionary
discipline
in
2017-18
was
3%,
in
2018-19
was
3%
and
in
2019-20
was
2%;
the
gap
between
the
two
groups
in
2017-18
was
5%,
in
2018-19
was
4%
and
in
2019-20
was
3%.

## Discipline - Elementary

### Elementary Schools Percent of Students with Exclusionary Discipline by Ethnicity

The
Elementary
Schools
Percent
of
Students
with
Exclusionary
Discipline
by
Ethnicity
graph
displays
the
percentage
of
students
with
exclusionary
discipline
for
the
most
recent
three
years.

The
percentage
of
Asian
students
with
exclusionary
discipline
in
2017-18
was
1%,
2018-19
was
0%,
and
2019-20
was
0%;
the
percentage
of
Black
students
with
exclusionary
discipline
in
2017-18
was
4%,
2018-19
was
3%,
and
2019-20
was
2%;
the
percentage
of
Hispanic
students
with
exclusionary
discipline
in
2017-18
was
2%,
2018-19
was
1%,
and
2019-20
was
1%;
the
percentage
of
White
students
with
exclusionary
discipline
in
2017-18
was
2%,
2018-19
was
1%,
and
2019-20
was
1%.

### Elementary Schools Percent of Students with Exclusionary Discipline by Student Group

The
Elementary
Schools
Percent
of
Students
with
Exclusionary
Discipline
by
Student
Group
graph
displays
the
percentage
of
students
with
exclusionary
discipline
for
the
most
recent
three
years.

The
percentage
of
economically
disadvantaged
students
with
exclusionary
discipline
in
2017-18
was
3%,
in
2018-19
was
2%,
and
in
2019-20
was
1%;
the
non-economically
disadvantaged
students
with
exclusionary
discipline
in
2017-18
was
1%,
in
2018-19
was
1%,
and
in
2019-20
was
1%;
the
gap
between
the
two
groups
in
2017-18
was
2%,
in
2018-19
was
1%,
and
in
2019-20
was
0%.

The
percentage
of
EL
students
with
exclusionary
discipline
in
2017-18
was
2%,
2018-19
was
1%,
and
in
2019-20
was
1%;
the
non-EL
students
with
exclusionary
discipline
in
2017-18
was
2%,
in
2018-19
was
2%,
and
in
2019-20
was
1%;
the
gap
between
the
two
groups
in
2017-18
was
0%,
in
2018-19
was
1%,
and
in
2019-20
was
0%.

The
percentage
of
Special
Education
students
with
exclusionary
discipline
in
2017-18
was
6%,
2018-19
was
5%,
and
2019-20
was
3%;
the
non-Special
Education
students
with
exclusionary
discipline
in
2017-18
was
1%,
2018-19
was
1%,
and
in
2019-20
was
1%;
the
gap
between
the
two
groups
in
2017-18
was
5%,
in
2018-19
was
4%,
and
in
2019-20
was
2%.

### Elementary Schools Percent of Students with Exclusionary Discipline by Gender

The
Elementary
Schools
Percent
of
Students
with
Exclusionary
Discipline
by
Gender
graph
displays
the
percentage
of
students
with
exclusionary
discipline
for
the
most
recent
three
years.

The
percentage
of
male
students
with
exclusionary
discipline
in
2017-18
was
3%,
in
2018-19
was
3%,
and
in
2019-20
was
1%;
the
female
students
with
exclusionary
discipline
in
2017-18
was
1%,
in
2018-19
was
1%,
and
in
2019-20
was
0%;
the
gap
between
the
two
groups
in
2017-18
was
2%,
in
2018-19
was
2%,
and
in
2019-20
was
1%.

## Discipline - Middle

### Middle Schools Percent of Students with Exclusionary Discipline by Ethnicity

The
Middle
Schools
Percent
of
Students
with
Exclusionary
Discipline
by
Ethnicity
graph
displays
the
percentage
of
students
with
exclusionary
discipline
for
the
most
recent
three
years.

The
percentage
of
Asian
students
with
exclusionary
discipline
in
2017-18
was
3%,
2018-19
was
2%,
and
2019-20
was
2%;
the
percentage
of
Black
students
with
exclusionary
discipline
in
2017-18
was
13%,
2018-19
was
11%,
and
2019-20
was
8%;
the
percentage
of
Hispanic
students
with
exclusionary
discipline
in
2017-18
was
8%,
2018-19
was
7%,
and
2019-20
was
6%;
the
percentage
of
White
students
with
exclusionary
discipline
in
2017-18
was
5%,
2018-19
was
4%,
and
2019-20
was
3%.

### Middle Schools Percent of Students with Exclusionary Discipline by Student Group

The
Middle
Schools
Percent
of
Students
with
Exclusionary
Discipline
by
Student
Group
graph
displays
the
percentage
of
students
with
exclusionary
discipline
for
the
most
recent
three
years.

The
percentage
of
economically
disadvantaged
students
with
exclusionary
discipline
in
2017-18
was
10%,
in
2018-19
was
9%,
and
in
2019-20
was
7%;
the
non-economically
disadvantaged
students
with
exclusionary
discipline
in
2017-18
was
5%,
in
2018-19
was
4%,
and
in
2019-20
was
3%;
the
gap
between
the
two
groups
in
2017-18
was
5%,
in
2018-19
was
5%,
and
in
2019-20
was
4%.

The
percentage
of
EL
students
with
exclusionary
discipline
in
2017-18
was
8%,
2018-19
was
6%,
and
in
2019-20
was
6%;
the
non-EL
students
with
exclusionary
discipline
in
2017-18
was
7%,
in
2018-19
was
6%,
and
in
2019-20
was
4%;
the
gap
between
the
two
groups
in
2017-18
was
1%,
in
2018-19
was
0%,
and
in
2019-20
was
2%.

The
percentage
of
Special
Education
students
with
exclusionary
discipline
in
2017-18
was
15%,
2018-19
was
12%,
and
in
2019-20
was
9%;
the
non-Special
Education
students
with
exclusionary
discipline
in
2017-18
was
6%,
2018-19
was
5%,
and
in
2019-20
was
4%;
the
gap
between
the
two
groups
in
2017-18
was
9%,
in
2018-19
was
7%,
and
in
2019-20
was
5%.

### Middle Schools Percent of Students with Exclusionary Discipline by Gender

The
Middle
Schools
Percent
of
Students
with
Exclusionary
Discipline
by
Gender
graph
displays
the
percentage
of
students
with
exclusionary
discipline
for
the
most
recent
three
years.

The
percentage
of
male
students
with
exclusionary
discipline
in
2017-18
was
11%,
in
2018-19
was
9%,
and
in
2019-20
was
7%;
the
female
students
with
exclusionary
discipline
in
2017-18
was
4%,
in
2018-19
was
3%,
and
in
2019-20
was
3%;
the
gap
between
the
two
groups
in
2017-18
was
7%,
in
2018-19
was
6%,
and
in
2019-20
was
4%.

## Discipline - High

### High Schools Percent of Students with Exclusionary Discipline by Ethnicity

The
High
Schools
Percent
of
Students
with
Exclusionary
Discipline
by
Ethnicity
graph
displays
the
percentage
of
students
with
exclusionary
discipline
for
the
most
recent
three
years.

The
percentage
of
Asian
students
with
exclusionary
discipline
in
2017-18
was
3%,
2018-19
was
4%,
and
2019-20
was
2%;
the
percentage
of
Black
students
with
exclusionary
discipline
in
2017-18
was
14%,
2018-19
was
15%,
and
2019-20
was
9%;
the
percentage
of
Hispanic
students
with
exclusionary
discipline
in
2017-18
was
11%,
2018-19
was
11%,
and
2019-20
was
7%;
the
percentage
of
White
students
with
exclusionary
discipline
in
2017-18
was
4%,
2018-19
was
5%,
and
2019-20
was
2%.

### High Schools Percent of Students with Exclusionary Discipline by Student Group

The
High
Schools
Percent
of
Students
with
Exclusionary
Discipline
by
Student
Group
graph
displays
the
percentage
of
students
with
exclusionary
discipline
for
the
most
recent
three
years.

The
percentage
of
economically
disadvantaged
students
with
exclusionary
discipline
in
2017-18
was
13%,
in
2018-19
was
14%,
and
in
2019-20
was
8%;
the
non-economically
disadvantaged
students
with
exclusionary
discipline
in
2017-18
was
5%,
in
2018-19
was
6%,
and
in
2019-20
was
3%;
the
gap
between
the
two
groups
in
2017-18
was
8%,
in
2018-19
was
8%,
and
in
2019-20
was
5%.

The
percentage
of
EL
students
with
exclusionary
discipline
in
2017-18
was
13%,
2018-19
was
13%,
and
in
2019-20
was
9%;
the
non-EL
students
with
exclusionary
discipline
in
2017-18
was
8%,
in
2018-19
was
9%,
and
in
2019-20
was
5%;
the
gap
between
the
two
groups
in
2017-18
was
5%,
in
2018-19
was
4%,
and
in
2019-20
was
4%.

The
percentage
of
Special
Education
students
with
exclusionary
discipline
in
2017-18
was
17%,
in
2018-19
was
17%,
and
in
2019-20
was
9%;
the
non-Special
Education
students
with
exclusionary
discipline
in
2017-18
was
8%,
in
2018-19
was
8%,
and
in
2019-20
was
5%;
the
gap
between
the
two
groups
in
2017-18
was
9%,
in
2018-19
was
9%,
and
in
2019-20
was
4%.

### High Schools Percent of Students with Exclusionary Discipline by Gender

The
High
Schools
Percent
of
Students
with
Exclusionary
Discipline
by
Gender
graph
displays
the
percentage
of
students
with
exclusionary
discipline
for
the
most
recent
three
years.

The
percentage
of
male
students
with
exclusionary
discipline
in
2017-18
was
11%,
in
2018-19
was
12%,
and
in
2019-20
was
7%;
the
female
students
with
exclusionary
discipline
in
2017-18
was
6%,
in
2018-19
was
6%,
and
in
2019-20
was
4%;
the
gap
between
the
two
groups
in
2017-18
was
5%,
in
2018-19
was
6%,
and
in
2019-20
was
3%.

## Additional Learning Climate Measures

### Percent of Students Absent 10% or More of Membership Days by Ethnicity

The Percent of Students Absent 10% or More of Membership Days by Ethnicity graph displays the percentage of students chronically absent for the three most recent years.

The percentage of All Students chronically absent in 2018-19 was 10%, 2019-20 was 13%, and 2020-21 was 4%; the percentage of Asian students chronically absent in 2018-19 was 8%, 2019-20 was 12%, and 2020-21 was 2%; the percentage of Black students chronically absent in 2018-19 was 9%, 2019-20 was 11%, and 2020-21 was 5%; the percentage of Hispanic students chronically absent in 2018-19 was 12%, 2019-20 was 17%, and 2020-21 was 6%; the percentage of White students chronically absent in 2018-19 was 9%, 2019-20 was 11%, and 2020-21 was 2%.

### Percent of Students Absent 10% or More of Membership Days by Student Group

The Percent of Students Absent 10% or More of Membership Days by Student Group graph displays the percentage of students chronically absent for the three most recent years.

The percentage of Economically Disadvantaged students chronically absent in 2018-19 was 13%, 2019-20 was 17%, and 2020-21 was 7%; the percentage of Non-Economically Disadvantaged students chronically absent in 2018-19 was 7%, 2019-20 was 10%, and 2020-21 was 2%; the gap between the two groups in 2018-19 was 6%, 2019-20 was 7%, and 2020-21 was 5%.

The percentage of EL students chronically absent in 2018-19 was 10%, 2019-20 was 15%, and 2020-21 was 6%; the percentage of Non-EL students chronically absent in 2018-19 was 10%, 2019-20 was 13%, and 2020-21 was 4%; the gap between the two groups in 2018-19 was 0%, 2019-20 was 2%, and 2020-21 was 2%.

The percentage of Students with Disabilities chronically absent in 2018-19 was 15%, 2019-20 was 19%, and 2020-21 was 8%; the percentage of Students without Disabilities chronically absent in 2018-19 was 9%, 2019-20 was 13%, and 2020-21 was 4%; the gap between the two groups in 2019-19 was 6%, 2019-20 was 6%, and 2020-21 was 4%.

### Teacher Quality State and Division

The 2020-21 Teacher Quality State and Division graph displays the percentage of Title l Schools and Non-Title l schools for the 2020-21 school year.

The percentage of Out-of-Field Teachers in Title l schools in the Division was 3.0%, and in the State, it was 2.3%. The percentage of Inexperienced Teachers in the Division was 5.2%, and in the State, it was 5.5%. The percentage of Out-of-Field and Inexperienced Teachers in the Division was 0.8%, and in the State, it was 0.5%.

The percentage of Out-of-Field Teachers in Non-Title l schools in the Division was 4.4%, and in the State, it was 3.5%. The percentage of Inexperienced Teachers in the Division was 3.4%, and in the State, it was 4.3%. The percentage of Out-of-Field and Inexperienced Teachers in the Division was 0.6%, and in the State, it was 0.5%.

### Out-of-Field Teachers Teacher Quality State and Division

The Out-of-Field Teachers Teacher Quality State and Division graph displays the percentage of out-of-field teachers in Title I and Non-Title I schools for the most recent three years.

The percentage of Out-of-Field Teachers in Title l schools in the Division in 2018-19 was 1.5%, 2019-20 was 1.7%, and 2020-21 was 3.0%. The percentage of Out-of-Field Teachers in Title l schools in the State in 2018-19 was 1.7%, 2019-20 was 2.4%, and 2020-21 was 2.3%.

The percentage of Out-of-Field Teachers in Non-Title l schools in the Division in 2018-19 was 3.3%, 2019-20 was 2.9%, and 2020-21 was 4.4%. The percentage of Out-of-Field Teachers in Non-Title l schools in the State in 2018-19 was 2.9%, 2019-20 was 3.3%, and 2020-21 was 3.5%.

### Inexperienced Teachers Teacher Quality State and Division

The Inexperienced Teachers Teacher Quality State and Division graph displays the percentage of inexperienced teachers in Title I and Non-Title I schools for the most recent three years.

The percentage of Inexperienced Teachers in Title l schools in the Division in 2018-19 was 6.9%, 2019-20 was 6.9%, and 2020-21 was 5.2%. The percentage of Inexperienced Teachers in Title l schools in the State in 2018-19 was 6.3%, 2019-20 was 7.4%, and 2020-21 was 5.5%.

The percentage of Inexperienced Teachers in Non-Title l schools in the Division in 2018-19 was 4.3%, 2019-20 was 5.1%, and 2020-21 was 3.4%. The percentage of Inexperienced Teachers in Non-Title l schools in the State in 2018-19 was 4.7%, 2019-20 was 5.6%, and 2020-21 was 4.3%.

### Out-of-Field and Inexperienced Teachers Teacher Quality State and Division

The Out-of-Field and Inexperienced Teachers Teacher Quality State and Division graph displays the percentage of out-of-field and inexperienced teachers in Title I and Non-Title I schools for the most recent three years.

The percentage of Out-of-Field and Inexperienced Teachers in Title l schools in the Division in 2018-19 was 0.3%, 2019-20 was 0.4%, and 2020-21 was 0.8%. The percentage of Out-of-Field and Inexperienced Teachers in Title l schools in the State in 2018-19 was 0.4%, 2019-20 was 0.6%, and 2020-21 was 0.5%.

The percentage of Out-of-Field and Inexperienced Teachers in Non-Title l schools in the Division in 2018-19 was 0.4%, 2019-20 was 0.3%, and 2020-21 was 0.6%. The percentage of Out-of-Field and Inexperienced Teachers in Non-Title l schools in the State in 2018-19 was 0.4%, 2019-20 was 0.6%, and 2020-21 was 0.5%.

### Average Computers per 100 Students Title I and Non-Title I Schools

The Average Computers per 100 Students Title I and Non-Title I Schools graph displays the average number of computers per 100 students for the most recent three years.

The average number of computers per 100 students for Non-Title l Schools in 2018-19 was 66, 2019-20 was 69, and 2020-21 was 76; for Title l Schools in 2018-19 was 76, 2019-20 was 80, and 2020-21 was 83.

### Average Trailers per School Title I and Non-Title I Schools

The Average Trailers per School Title I and Non-Title I Schools graph displays the average number of trailers per school for the most recent three years.

The average number of trailers per school for Non-Title l Schools in 2018-19 was 1.79%, 2019-20 was 1.60%, and 2020-21 was 1.72%; for Title l Schools in 2018-19 was 2.97%, 2019-20 was 2.65%, and 2020-21 was 2.55%.

### Percent of Teachers with Graduate Degrees Title I and Non-Title I Schools

The Percent of Teachers with Graduate Degrees Title I and Non-Title I Schools graph displays the percent of teachers with graduate degrees in Title I and Non-Title I schools for the most recent three years.

The percent of teachers with graduate degrees for Non-Title l Schools in 2018-19 was 68%, 2019-20 was 68%, and 2020-21 was 71%; for Title l Schools in 2018-19 was 62%, 2019-20 was 64%, and 2020-21 was 65%.

### Teacher Retention Title I and Non-Title I Schools

The Teacher Retention Title I and Non-Title I Schools graph displays the percent of teachers retained in Title I and Non-Title I schools for the most recent three years.

The percent of teachers retained for Non-Title l Schools in 2018-19 was 85%, 2019-20 was 85%, and 2020-21 was 88%; for Title l Schools in 2018-19 was 80%, 2019-20 was 78%, and 2020-21 was 84%.

### Elementary School Teacher Retention Title I and Non-Title I Schools

The Elementary School Teacher Retention Title I and Non-Title I Schools graph displays the percent of teachers retained in Elementary Title I and Non-Title I schools for the most recent three years.

The percent of teachers retained for Elementary Non-Title I Schools in 2018-19 was 86%, 2019-20 was 83%, and 2020-21 was 87%; for Elementary Title l Schools in 2018-19 was 80%, 2019-20 was 77%, and 2020-21 was 84%.