research proposal on discipline in schools

I Combed Through 81 Studies on School Discipline. Here’s What Educators Need to Know

• Share article

For many district and school leaders, the new school year has not only brought excitement but also uncertainty about how to address their school discipline dilemma . Directors of student supports and principals are inevitably having heated conversations about whether to suspend certain students—and for how long—or send them to alternative schools. Refashioning school discipline policies and practices has become the bane of policymakers’ and educators’ existence.

District and school leaders are caught between a rock and a hard place. Teachers and parents are demanding safe schools. Equity advocates highlight persistent racial inequality in suspensions and expulsions and growing evidence of the school-to-prison pipeline. Student behavior has worsened as students are still readjusting to life after the disruption of the pandemic. Infractions like vaping and banned cellphone use are on the rise. There is an ongoing mental health crisis among students. Many districts are struggling to find teachers to fill vacancies in the face of the supposed mounting chaos in public schools.

Some states are responding to the uptick in students’ behavioral issues by reverting to zero-tolerance policies and hardening schools . This impulse to suspend, not support, students presents a false dichotomy between the exclusion of students of color for the benefit of the overall “orderly” learning environment. We are stuck in punitive sands as racial disparities in students’ disciplinary outcomes remain persistent . We need a better plan.

School discipline is a highly racialized topic, but there is no shortage of studies on what’s driving discipline disproportionalities . And the knowledge base for what school discipline reforms are working is rapidly expanding. So, what can we do to reduce the far too frequent instances of Black students and students with disabilities being disciplined more frequently or severely than their peers?

In a recently published integrative literature review , I synthesized the research evidence (81 studies published between 2010 and 2022) on policies and programs that have successfully reduced discipline disparities, not only the rates at which students are sent to the office, suspended, or expelled. Several considerations emerge for educational policymakers and leaders to address the root cause of discipline disparities by lowering office discipline referrals for African American students:

1. School discipline reform needs a strategic direction. Districts and schools are rarely doing one thing to address school discipline issues. Typically, there is some combination of code-of-conduct changes as well as other possible investments in programs and personnel to reduce discipline disparities. Rejecting race-neutral school discipline reforms and strategically coordinating various alternative approaches to exclusionary discipline are a central plank of transforming school discipline. A key question that district and school leaders must ask is whether school discipline reforms are educator-focused or student-focused.

2. School discipline reform must support educators, not just students. Developing an empathic mindset , coaching, and professional development in classroom management and culturally responsive practices for educators are evidence-based reforms that show promise. Teachers have been given the proverbial basket to carry water. Upgrading their training and capacity to better manage classrooms is also a central plank of reducing discipline disproportionality, based in large measure on documented deficiencies in teacher-preparation programs. There is also evidence that the “top referrers"—the small number of educators who send the most students to the office for discipline— contribute significantly to discipline disparities . As such, supporting school administrators and teachers—emphasizing educator-focused interventions as much as student-focused programs—is an important strategic direction in school discipline reforms.

3. Leaders should acknowledge the potential and the limitations of school discipline-policy changes. A ban on suspensions for attendance-related infractions may reduce the overall use of exclusionary discipline and lower the racial disparities in suspensions. Yet, a growing number of studies have illustrated the limitations of policy interventions in school discipline. Before those interventions can succeed, however, educators need training to build their capacity and confidence and be given the tool kits to implement nonpunitive policies. Implementing policy changes without providing the prerequisite training is akin to putting the cart before the horse.

4. Sustainable school discipline reform depends on the quality of implementation. District and school leaders ought to prioritize the fidelity of the implementation of school-based programs such as restorative justice and positive behavioral interventions and supports, or PBIS. Complementing these programs with school mental health help also shows promise of reducing racial inequality in office discipline referrals and suspensions. PBIS in tandem with school mental health may reduce the overall use of exclusionary discipline and importantly the rates at which Black students are referred to the office and suspended. Overall, the emerging evidence indicates programs’ outcomes are dependent on the quality of the implementation. Factors such as the tiers and length of implementation (reforms may need sufficient time to take root) shape the overall effectiveness of programs such as PBIS on students’ disciplinary outcomes.

In closing, there seems to be a disconnect between the wealth of research evidence, the prevailing discourse around school discipline reforms, and the decisions that will disrupt discipline disparities in schools and districts. This is not to say that there is no need for further research on topics such as the effects of anti-bias training and culturally responsive programs on students’ disciplinary outcomes at the national level. Comparative studies of multiple districts could also help bolster the consensus on essential mechanisms across states and districts.

My experiences have also led me to believe that equity-centered research-practice partnerships may provide a vehicle to connect research evidence on school discipline to the decisionmaking process on school discipline policies and practices in districts, though more empirical research is needed. Now is the time to listen to the research evidence on school discipline and forge new ways of tapping into the experiential knowledge and expertise of practitioners to disrupt racial inequality in school discipline.

A version of this article appeared in the November 01, 2023 edition of Education Week as 4 Research-Backed Lessons On School Discipline

Sign Up for The Savvy Principal

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

NASP: The National Association of School Psychologists

A Framework for Effective School Discipline

In this section.

• Policy Recommendations for Implementing the Framework for Safe and Successful Schools

Positive and effective school discipline is critical to promoting students' successful learning and well-being. This guidance from NASP provides an evidence-based framework for effective school discipline policies and practices that:

• promote a positive school climate
• reinforce positive and prosocial behaviors
• promote school safety
• keep students in the classroom and out of the juvenile justice system
• addresses and reduces disproportionality in exclusionary discipline practices

School psychologists play an integral role in the collaborative process that includes developing a shared understanding of the key components of effective discipline, the benefits of effective practices, consequences of punitive discipline, and specific steps schools can take to implement effective approaches. This document outlines these key practices and offers federal, state, and local policy recommendations to promote equitable and effective discipline and to reduce the use of suspension, expulsion, and other exclusionary discipline practices, particularly those that disproportionately impact students of color. 

National Association of School Psychologists. (NASP; 2016). Integrated Model of Academic and Behavioral Supports [Position statement] . Bethesda, MD: Author.

National Association of School Psychologists (NASP; 2018). Understanding Race and Privilege [handout]. Bethesda, MD: Author. 

National Association of School Psychologists. (2018). Effective school discipline policies and practices: Supporting student learning [Research summary]. Bethesda, MD: Author.

Alternatives to Suspension and Expulsion: Going Beyond Admiring the Problem to Taking Action Podcast

Cook, Clayton R., Coco, S., Zhang, Y., Fiat, A., Duong, M.T., Renshaw, T.C., Long, A.C., & Frank, S. (2018) Cultivating Positive Teacher-Student Relationships: Preliminary Evaluation of the Establish-Maintain-Restore (EMR) Method. School Psychology Review: September 2018 , Vol. 47, No. 3, pp. 226-243.

Gregory, A., Huang, F. L., Anyon, Y., Greer, E., & Downing, B. (2018). An examination of restorative interventions and racial equity in out-of-school suspensions. School Psychology Review, 47(2), 167-182.

Iovannone, R. Kincaid, D. & Christiansen, P.S. (2015). FBA/BIP Technical Adequacy Tool for Evaluation .

Safe Supportive Learning - Addressing the Root Causes of Discipline Disparities

Transforming School Discipline Collaborative. (2016). Transforming School Discipline Collaborative's model code of conduct:  An interdisciplinary approach to transforming school discipline.  

Kelly Vaillancourt Strobach, Director of Policy & Advocacy,  [email protected]

Kathy Cowan, Director of Communications, [email protected]

The Framework

Related Resources

ASCA-NASP School Re-Entry SEL Considerations Guidance NASP and American School Counselor Association (ASCA) has released a resource with considerations for local education agencies and schools planning re-entry post COVID-19 closures.

School Psychology Review Special Edition on Racial Disparities in School Discipline In October 2018, School Psychology Review  published a special issue on disproportionality in school discipline. This page discusses the top-line findings and links to a podcast discussion with the guest editors.

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Assignments

• Annotated Bibliography
• Analyzing a Scholarly Journal Article
• Group Presentations
• Dealing with Nervousness
• Using Visual Aids
• Grading Someone Else's Paper
• Types of Structured Group Activities
• Group Project Survival Skills
• Leading a Class Discussion
• Multiple Book Review Essay
• Reviewing Collected Works
• Writing a Case Analysis Paper
• Writing a Case Study
• About Informed Consent
• Writing Field Notes
• Writing a Policy Memo
• Writing a Reflective Paper
• Writing a Research Proposal
• Generative AI and Writing
• Acknowledgments

The goal of a research proposal is twofold: to present and justify the need to study a research problem and to present the practical ways in which the proposed study should be conducted. The design elements and procedures for conducting research are governed by standards of the predominant discipline in which the problem resides, therefore, the guidelines for research proposals are more exacting and less formal than a general project proposal. Research proposals contain extensive literature reviews. They must provide persuasive evidence that a need exists for the proposed study. In addition to providing a rationale, a proposal describes detailed methodology for conducting the research consistent with requirements of the professional or academic field and a statement on anticipated outcomes and benefits derived from the study's completion.

Krathwohl, David R. How to Prepare a Dissertation Proposal: Suggestions for Students in Education and the Social and Behavioral Sciences . Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2005.

How to Approach Writing a Research Proposal

Your professor may assign the task of writing a research proposal for the following reasons:

• Develop your skills in thinking about and designing a comprehensive research study;
• Learn how to conduct a comprehensive review of the literature to determine that the research problem has not been adequately addressed or has been answered ineffectively and, in so doing, become better at locating pertinent scholarship related to your topic;
• Improve your general research and writing skills;
• Practice identifying the logical steps that must be taken to accomplish one's research goals;
• Critically review, examine, and consider the use of different methods for gathering and analyzing data related to the research problem; and,
• Nurture a sense of inquisitiveness within yourself and to help see yourself as an active participant in the process of conducting scholarly research.

A proposal should contain all the key elements involved in designing a completed research study, with sufficient information that allows readers to assess the validity and usefulness of your proposed study. The only elements missing from a research proposal are the findings of the study and your analysis of those findings. Finally, an effective proposal is judged on the quality of your writing and, therefore, it is important that your proposal is coherent, clear, and compelling.

Regardless of the research problem you are investigating and the methodology you choose, all research proposals must address the following questions:

• What do you plan to accomplish? Be clear and succinct in defining the research problem and what it is you are proposing to investigate.
• Why do you want to do the research? In addition to detailing your research design, you also must conduct a thorough review of the literature and provide convincing evidence that it is a topic worthy of in-depth study. A successful research proposal must answer the "So What?" question.
• How are you going to conduct the research? Be sure that what you propose is doable. If you're having difficulty formulating a research problem to propose investigating, go here for strategies in developing a problem to study.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

• Failure to be concise . A research proposal must be focused and not be "all over the map" or diverge into unrelated tangents without a clear sense of purpose.
• Failure to cite landmark works in your literature review . Proposals should be grounded in foundational research that lays a foundation for understanding the development and scope of the the topic and its relevance.
• Failure to delimit the contextual scope of your research [e.g., time, place, people, etc.]. As with any research paper, your proposed study must inform the reader how and in what ways the study will frame the problem.
• Failure to develop a coherent and persuasive argument for the proposed research . This is critical. In many workplace settings, the research proposal is a formal document intended to argue for why a study should be funded.
• Sloppy or imprecise writing, or poor grammar . Although a research proposal does not represent a completed research study, there is still an expectation that it is well-written and follows the style and rules of good academic writing.
• Too much detail on minor issues, but not enough detail on major issues . Your proposal should focus on only a few key research questions in order to support the argument that the research needs to be conducted. Minor issues, even if valid, can be mentioned but they should not dominate the overall narrative.

Procter, Margaret. The Academic Proposal.  The Lab Report. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Sanford, Keith. Information for Students: Writing a Research Proposal. Baylor University; Wong, Paul T. P. How to Write a Research Proposal. International Network on Personal Meaning. Trinity Western University; Writing Academic Proposals: Conferences, Articles, and Books. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Writing a Research Proposal. University Library. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Structure and Writing Style

Beginning the Proposal Process

As with writing most college-level academic papers, research proposals are generally organized the same way throughout most social science disciplines. The text of proposals generally vary in length between ten and thirty-five pages, followed by the list of references. However, before you begin, read the assignment carefully and, if anything seems unclear, ask your professor whether there are any specific requirements for organizing and writing the proposal.

A good place to begin is to ask yourself a series of questions:

• What do I want to study?
• Why is the topic important?
• How is it significant within the subject areas covered in my class?
• What problems will it help solve?
• How does it build upon [and hopefully go beyond] research already conducted on the topic?
• What exactly should I plan to do, and can I get it done in the time available?

In general, a compelling research proposal should document your knowledge of the topic and demonstrate your enthusiasm for conducting the study. Approach it with the intention of leaving your readers feeling like, "Wow, that's an exciting idea and I can’t wait to see how it turns out!"

Most proposals should include the following sections:

I.  Introduction

In the real world of higher education, a research proposal is most often written by scholars seeking grant funding for a research project or it's the first step in getting approval to write a doctoral dissertation. Even if this is just a course assignment, treat your introduction as the initial pitch of an idea based on a thorough examination of the significance of a research problem. After reading the introduction, your readers should not only have an understanding of what you want to do, but they should also be able to gain a sense of your passion for the topic and to be excited about the study's possible outcomes. Note that most proposals do not include an abstract [summary] before the introduction.

Think about your introduction as a narrative written in two to four paragraphs that succinctly answers the following four questions :

• What is the central research problem?
• What is the topic of study related to that research problem?
• What methods should be used to analyze the research problem?
• Answer the "So What?" question by explaining why this is important research, what is its significance, and why should someone reading the proposal care about the outcomes of the proposed study?

II.  Background and Significance

This is where you explain the scope and context of your proposal and describe in detail why it's important. It can be melded into your introduction or you can create a separate section to help with the organization and narrative flow of your proposal. Approach writing this section with the thought that you can’t assume your readers will know as much about the research problem as you do. Note that this section is not an essay going over everything you have learned about the topic; instead, you must choose what is most relevant in explaining the aims of your research.

To that end, while there are no prescribed rules for establishing the significance of your proposed study, you should attempt to address some or all of the following:

• State the research problem and give a more detailed explanation about the purpose of the study than what you stated in the introduction. This is particularly important if the problem is complex or multifaceted .
• Present the rationale of your proposed study and clearly indicate why it is worth doing; be sure to answer the "So What? question [i.e., why should anyone care?].
• Describe the major issues or problems examined by your research. This can be in the form of questions to be addressed. Be sure to note how your proposed study builds on previous assumptions about the research problem.
• Explain the methods you plan to use for conducting your research. Clearly identify the key sources you intend to use and explain how they will contribute to your analysis of the topic.
• Describe the boundaries of your proposed research in order to provide a clear focus. Where appropriate, state not only what you plan to study, but what aspects of the research problem will be excluded from the study.
• If necessary, provide definitions of key concepts, theories, or terms.

III.  Literature Review

Connected to the background and significance of your study is a section of your proposal devoted to a more deliberate review and synthesis of prior studies related to the research problem under investigation . The purpose here is to place your project within the larger whole of what is currently being explored, while at the same time, demonstrating to your readers that your work is original and innovative. Think about what questions other researchers have asked, what methodological approaches they have used, and what is your understanding of their findings and, when stated, their recommendations. Also pay attention to any suggestions for further research.

Since a literature review is information dense, it is crucial that this section is intelligently structured to enable a reader to grasp the key arguments underpinning your proposed study in relation to the arguments put forth by other researchers. A good strategy is to break the literature into "conceptual categories" [themes] rather than systematically or chronologically describing groups of materials one at a time. Note that conceptual categories generally reveal themselves after you have read most of the pertinent literature on your topic so adding new categories is an on-going process of discovery as you review more studies. How do you know you've covered the key conceptual categories underlying the research literature? Generally, you can have confidence that all of the significant conceptual categories have been identified if you start to see repetition in the conclusions or recommendations that are being made.

NOTE: Do not shy away from challenging the conclusions made in prior research as a basis for supporting the need for your proposal. Assess what you believe is missing and state how previous research has failed to adequately examine the issue that your study addresses. Highlighting the problematic conclusions strengthens your proposal. For more information on writing literature reviews, GO HERE .

To help frame your proposal's review of prior research, consider the "five C’s" of writing a literature review:

• Cite , so as to keep the primary focus on the literature pertinent to your research problem.
• Compare the various arguments, theories, methodologies, and findings expressed in the literature: what do the authors agree on? Who applies similar approaches to analyzing the research problem?
• Contrast the various arguments, themes, methodologies, approaches, and controversies expressed in the literature: describe what are the major areas of disagreement, controversy, or debate among scholars?
• Critique the literature: Which arguments are more persuasive, and why? Which approaches, findings, and methodologies seem most reliable, valid, or appropriate, and why? Pay attention to the verbs you use to describe what an author says/does [e.g., asserts, demonstrates, argues, etc.].
• Connect the literature to your own area of research and investigation: how does your own work draw upon, depart from, synthesize, or add a new perspective to what has been said in the literature?

IV.  Research Design and Methods

This section must be well-written and logically organized because you are not actually doing the research, yet, your reader must have confidence that you have a plan worth pursuing . The reader will never have a study outcome from which to evaluate whether your methodological choices were the correct ones. Thus, the objective here is to convince the reader that your overall research design and proposed methods of analysis will correctly address the problem and that the methods will provide the means to effectively interpret the potential results. Your design and methods should be unmistakably tied to the specific aims of your study.

Describe the overall research design by building upon and drawing examples from your review of the literature. Consider not only methods that other researchers have used, but methods of data gathering that have not been used but perhaps could be. Be specific about the methodological approaches you plan to undertake to obtain information, the techniques you would use to analyze the data, and the tests of external validity to which you commit yourself [i.e., the trustworthiness by which you can generalize from your study to other people, places, events, and/or periods of time].

When describing the methods you will use, be sure to cover the following:

• Specify the research process you will undertake and the way you will interpret the results obtained in relation to the research problem. Don't just describe what you intend to achieve from applying the methods you choose, but state how you will spend your time while applying these methods [e.g., coding text from interviews to find statements about the need to change school curriculum; running a regression to determine if there is a relationship between campaign advertising on social media sites and election outcomes in Europe ].
• Keep in mind that the methodology is not just a list of tasks; it is a deliberate argument as to why techniques for gathering information add up to the best way to investigate the research problem. This is an important point because the mere listing of tasks to be performed does not demonstrate that, collectively, they effectively address the research problem. Be sure you clearly explain this.
• Anticipate and acknowledge any potential barriers and pitfalls in carrying out your research design and explain how you plan to address them. No method applied to research in the social and behavioral sciences is perfect, so you need to describe where you believe challenges may exist in obtaining data or accessing information. It's always better to acknowledge this than to have it brought up by your professor!

V.  Preliminary Suppositions and Implications

Just because you don't have to actually conduct the study and analyze the results, doesn't mean you can skip talking about the analytical process and potential implications . The purpose of this section is to argue how and in what ways you believe your research will refine, revise, or extend existing knowledge in the subject area under investigation. Depending on the aims and objectives of your study, describe how the anticipated results will impact future scholarly research, theory, practice, forms of interventions, or policy making. Note that such discussions may have either substantive [a potential new policy], theoretical [a potential new understanding], or methodological [a potential new way of analyzing] significance.   When thinking about the potential implications of your study, ask the following questions:

• What might the results mean in regards to challenging the theoretical framework and underlying assumptions that support the study?
• What suggestions for subsequent research could arise from the potential outcomes of the study?
• What will the results mean to practitioners in the natural settings of their workplace, organization, or community?
• Will the results influence programs, methods, and/or forms of intervention?
• How might the results contribute to the solution of social, economic, or other types of problems?
• Will the results influence policy decisions?
• In what way do individuals or groups benefit should your study be pursued?
• What will be improved or changed as a result of the proposed research?
• How will the results of the study be implemented and what innovations or transformative insights could emerge from the process of implementation?

NOTE:   This section should not delve into idle speculation, opinion, or be formulated on the basis of unclear evidence . The purpose is to reflect upon gaps or understudied areas of the current literature and describe how your proposed research contributes to a new understanding of the research problem should the study be implemented as designed.

ANOTHER NOTE : This section is also where you describe any potential limitations to your proposed study. While it is impossible to highlight all potential limitations because the study has yet to be conducted, you still must tell the reader where and in what form impediments may arise and how you plan to address them.

VI.  Conclusion

The conclusion reiterates the importance or significance of your proposal and provides a brief summary of the entire study . This section should be only one or two paragraphs long, emphasizing why the research problem is worth investigating, why your research study is unique, and how it should advance existing knowledge.

Someone reading this section should come away with an understanding of:

• Why the study should be done;
• The specific purpose of the study and the research questions it attempts to answer;
• The decision for why the research design and methods used where chosen over other options;
• The potential implications emerging from your proposed study of the research problem; and
• A sense of how your study fits within the broader scholarship about the research problem.

VII.  Citations

As with any scholarly research paper, you must cite the sources you used . In a standard research proposal, this section can take two forms, so consult with your professor about which one is preferred.

• References -- a list of only the sources you actually used in creating your proposal.
• Bibliography -- a list of everything you used in creating your proposal, along with additional citations to any key sources relevant to understanding the research problem.

In either case, this section should testify to the fact that you did enough preparatory work to ensure the project will complement and not just duplicate the efforts of other researchers. It demonstrates to the reader that you have a thorough understanding of prior research on the topic.

Most proposal formats have you start a new page and use the heading "References" or "Bibliography" centered at the top of the page. Cited works should always use a standard format that follows the writing style advised by the discipline of your course [e.g., education=APA; history=Chicago] or that is preferred by your professor. This section normally does not count towards the total page length of your research proposal.

Develop a Research Proposal: Writing the Proposal. Office of Library Information Services. Baltimore County Public Schools; Heath, M. Teresa Pereira and Caroline Tynan. “Crafting a Research Proposal.” The Marketing Review 10 (Summer 2010): 147-168; Jones, Mark. “Writing a Research Proposal.” In MasterClass in Geography Education: Transforming Teaching and Learning . Graham Butt, editor. (New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2015), pp. 113-127; Juni, Muhamad Hanafiah. “Writing a Research Proposal.” International Journal of Public Health and Clinical Sciences 1 (September/October 2014): 229-240; Krathwohl, David R. How to Prepare a Dissertation Proposal: Suggestions for Students in Education and the Social and Behavioral Sciences . Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2005; Procter, Margaret. The Academic Proposal. The Lab Report. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Punch, Keith and Wayne McGowan. "Developing and Writing a Research Proposal." In From Postgraduate to Social Scientist: A Guide to Key Skills . Nigel Gilbert, ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2006), 59-81; Wong, Paul T. P. How to Write a Research Proposal. International Network on Personal Meaning. Trinity Western University; Writing Academic Proposals: Conferences , Articles, and Books. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Writing a Research Proposal. University Library. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

• << Previous: Writing a Reflective Paper
• Next: Generative AI and Writing >>
• Last Updated: Mar 6, 2024 1:00 PM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/assignments

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS. A lock ( Lock Locked padlock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Important information for proposers

All proposals must be submitted in accordance with the requirements specified in this funding opportunity and in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) that is in effect for the relevant due date to which the proposal is being submitted. It is the responsibility of the proposer to ensure that the proposal meets these requirements. Submitting a proposal prior to a specified deadline does not negate this requirement.

Enhancing STEM Education, Research Capacity, and Workforce Development in Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) Jurisdictions

Dear Colleague:

In alignment with the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022, the U.S. National Science Foundation's Directorate for STEM Education (EDU) affirms its commitment to support science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education, research capacity, workforce development, and professional development within institutions in Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) eligible jurisdictions. Through this Dear Colleague Letter (DCL), EDU encourages new proposal submissions to EDU programs and supplemental funding requests to existing EDU awards led by institutions in the 28 EPSCoR jurisdictions (see list below). In order to achieve this, EDU seeks increased accessibility to the ideas, opportunities, and tools of STEM education and research for students, educators, researchers, communities at all levels and in all settings (both formal and informal), and by the public in EPSCoR jurisdictions, which historically receive less STEM education funding than other regions of the country.

The mission of EDU is to achieve excellence in U.S. STEM education; to support the development of a diverse and well-prepared workforce of scientists, technicians, engineers, mathematicians, and educators; and to strengthen a well-informed citizenry. This DCL is aligned with this mission by expanding the geographic and institutional reach of EDU investments in EPSCoR jurisdictions that will enhance and support untapped STEM innovation, instructional talent, and robust and rigorous research on teaching and learning in STEM education. Focused attention in these areas is likely to stimulate private sector investments in these jurisdictions and, importantly, greater equity in STEM education and economic development throughout the Nation. The EDU mission is intentionally seeking broader institutional inclusion that may catalyze STEM education, scientific discovery, and workforce development in EPSCoR jurisdictions, improving the quality of life of all citizens and the health, prosperity, welfare, and security of the nation.

Proposal submissions and supplemental funding requests should address one or more of the following EDU goals:

• Prepare the next generation of STEM professionals and attract and retain more Americans to STEM careers.
• Develop a robust research community that can conduct rigorous research and evaluation that will support excellence in STEM education and that integrates research and education.
• Increase the technological, scientific, and quantitative literacy of all Americans so that they can successfully participate in every realm of citizenship, living productive lives in an increasingly technological society.
• Broaden participation (e.g., individuals, geographic regions, types of institutions, and STEM disciplines) and close achievement gaps in all STEM fields.

EPSCoR-eligible jurisdictions (FY2024-FY2027) include Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, US Virgin Islands, West Virginia, and Wyoming. These jurisdictions have demonstrated a commitment to enhance their research capacity and improve the quality of STEM research yet have historically received little federal research and development funding. Pub. L. No. 100-570, 102 Stat. 2865 sets forth a jurisdiction's eligibility for EPSCoR funding. Please visit the EPSCoR website for more information

All Four Divisions in the Directorate for STEM Education (EDU) are participating in this DCL:

Division of Equity for Excellence in STEM (EES) serves as a focal point for NSF's agency-wide commitment to enhancing the quality and excellence of STEM education, STEM education research, and STEM research through expanding participation by individuals from historically underrepresented groups – racial/ethnic minorities, women, and persons with disabilities. Priority is placed on investments that promise innovation and transformative strategies and that focus on creating and testing models that ensure the full participation of and provide opportunities for the educators, researchers, and institutions dedicated to serving these populations. For EES program information, please see the Division's webpage . Division of Research on Learning in Formal and Informal Settings (DRL) invests in the improvement of STEM learning for people of all ages and backgrounds by promoting innovative research, development, and evaluation of learning and teaching across all STEM disciplines in formal and informal learning settings. It is the only Division at NSF that focuses exclusively on preK-12 STEM education in formal schooling environments and learning outside of school (e.g., television, film, radio, exhibitions, Artificial Intelligence, etc.). For DRL program information, please see the Division's webpage . Division of Undergraduate Education (DUE) aims to promote excellence in undergraduate STEM education for all students. The Division accomplishes its mission through a variety of programs that constitute a comprehensive approach to strengthening STEM education at two- and four-year colleges and universities by improving curricula, instruction, laboratories, infrastructure, assessment, diversity of students and faculty, and collaborations. For DUE program information, please see the Division's webpage . Division of Graduate Education (DGE) advocates for innovative, inclusive, high quality graduate education in STEM fields. DGE manages innovative cross-Foundation programs that directly or indirectly support U.S. citizens and permanent residents in their quest to become the leading scientists and engineers of the future. To better inform its programs, DGE supports research and other activities that will generation exciting new ideas for graduate education of the future. For DGE program information, please see the Division's webpage .

PROPOSAL AND SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING REQUEST PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

New Proposals

Proposals must include "EDU EPSCoR DCL:" at the beginning of the proposal title or immediately following any solicitation specific or PAPPG required title prefix.

New proposals must be prepared and submitted to an EDU program within one of the divisions named above.  Proposers must follow the guidance in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) and must adhere to the due dates (if applicable) and guidance specified in the relevant program solicitation, program announcement, or program description to which the proposal will be submitted.

For new proposals, in addition to the proposal types specified in the relevant program solicitation, program announcement, or program description, proposers may also consider the following additional proposal types specified in the PAPPG and below. See Chapter II.F of the PAPPG for more information.

• EArly Concept Grants for Exploratory Research (EAGER) Proposals
• Planning Proposals
• Rapid Response Research (RAPID) Proposals
• EDU is especially interested in conference proposals seeking to host NSF funding and informational workshops for single or multiple EPSCoR jurisdictions.

Proposers are encouraged to discuss proposal concepts with the relevant program before submission.

SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING REQUESTS

For supplemental funding requests, approval must be obtained from the cognizant NSF Program Director for the original award prior to submission of the supplemental funding request. The email confirming approval to submit must be uploaded as a Supplementary Document in the proposal.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Partnerships among EPSCoR jurisdictions are encouraged but not required.

EDU plans to conduct outreach and information dissemination, which will be accessible online at https://new.nsf.gov/edu to all eligible institutions, which includes 2- and 4-year institutions of higher education, community-based organizations, and informal STEM providers.

For general inquiries regarding this DCL please forward your inquiry to [email protected] .

James L. Moore III Assistant Director Directorate for STEM Education

Organization(s)

• Division of Research on Learning in Formal and Informal Settings (EDU/DRL)
• Division of Equity for Excellence in STEM (EDU/EES)
• Division of Undergraduate Education (EDU/DUE)
• Division of Graduate Education (EDU/DGE)
• Directorate for STEM Education (EDU)

Seed Grants Fund Research Centers for Critical Minerals, Spatial Computation and Navigation

Apr 23, 2024 — atlanta, ga.

The College of Sciences is funding two research centers through a new seed grant program. 

Selected from a finalist pool of nine proposals, Associate Professors Yuanzhi Tang and Thackery Brown ’s ideas were chosen for their high potential for novel interdisciplinary research and impact. 

Tang’s center will focus on sustainable mineral research, and Brown’s on spatial computation and navigation. Applications for the research will span the development of more sustainable batteries, as well as seeking to improve human health and well-being.

“Improving the human condition, fostering community, and pursuing research excellence are at the forefront of Georgia Tech’s mission, and these new centers will play a critical role in furthering that goal,” says Laura Cadonati , associate dean for Research in the College of Sciences and a professor in the School of Physics . “The College of Sciences is thrilled to support these new initiatives, and is excited to continue to develop the seed grant program.” 

A second call for research center proposals is planned for January 2025, with funding to start in July 2025.

The new Center for Sustainable and Decarbonized Critical Energy Mineral Solutions (CEMS), to be led by Yuanzhi Tang , an associate professor in the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences , will serve as a hub for sustainable procurement solutions for critical energy mineral resources, including rare earth elements and metals used for battery production.

Thackery Brown , an associate professor in the School of Psychology , will lead the second center, the Center for Research and Education in Navigation (CRaNE) . CRaNE will investigate problems related to spatial computation, cognition, and navigation — which has implications for human health, animal conservation, smart architecture and urban design.

“This generous support from the College of Sciences will enable us to host a conference on spatial cognition, computation, design, and navigation; to provide collaborative multi-lab seed grants; and to establish the first of a series of explicitly co-mentored, interdisciplinary graduate student Fellowships,” Brown says. “Collectively, these are the seeds of a high-impact and self-sustaining center.”

About the Center for Sustainable Decarbonized Critical Energy Mineral Solutions (CEMS)

Yuanzhi Tang, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences 

Co-sponsored by the College of Sciences , Strategic Energy Institute (SEI), Brook Byers Institute for Sustainable Systems (BBISS), Institute for Electronics and Nanotechnology (IEN) , and Institute for Materials (iMat) , CEMS began as a joint BBISS-SEI initiative lead project that has since grown into a joint center focused on critical elements and materials for sustainable energy.

Sustainably sourcing these materials provides a critical foundation for both high-tech industry and green economy. “Rare earth elements and battery metals like lithium, copper, and nickel are in high demand, but low domestic resources and production have resulted in a heavy reliance on imports,” Tang explains. “How can we domestically produce these resources, and how can we do this sustainably? Georgia Tech and the College of Sciences are in a unique position for developing a large regional research umbrella to connect these dots.”

CEMS will leverage on three key pillars: science and technology development, strengthening collaboration among the University System of Georgia (USG) universities, and developing regional resources and economy, Tang says. “By leveraging collaboration among Georgia universities, and fostering engagement with regional industries, the Center will develop new science and technology, leading the way in research on how to procure these ‘essential vitamins’ for clean energy transition in a sustainable and decarbonized manner.”

About the Center for Research and Education in Navigation (CRaNE)

Thackery Brown, School of Psychology 

CRaNE will focus on solving problems related to spatial computation, cognition, and navigation. “How do we treat catastrophic loss of one’s ability to get from A to B in Alzheimer's disease? How do we build smarter cities that are easier and more carbon efficient to navigate? How can we develop robots,” Brown says, “which navigate with the flexibility and efficiency of our own minds? CRaNE will bring together experts from many different fields to help address these problems with truly creative and integrative scientific and technological solutions.”

CRaNE will support interdisciplinary collaborative research, including developing a graduate student fellowship program, and conducting K-12 outreach.

“Our goal for CRaNE is to position the College of Sciences, Georgia Tech, and our extended network of collaborator institutions as a center of gravity for cutting-edge work on how the mind, brain, and artificial systems process space — how they can be made better at it, and how we can engineer our world around us in ways that support the humans and animals that need to navigate it to survive,” Brown says.

Emphasizing the collaborative nature of CRaNE, Brown adds that “by targeting collaborative grants, research, and education, and by promoting outreach and education earlier in the STEM pipeline, we hope to accelerate progress at the frontiers of these fields — and to invest in future science that cannot be easily addressed by a single lab or discipline.”

Thackery Brown

Written by Selena Langner

Contact: Jess Hunt-Ralston Director of Communications College of Sciences Georgia Tech

Bank of America Shareholders Reject Proposal to Split CEO, Chair Roles

FILE PHOTO: A Bank of America logo is seen on the entrance to a Bank of America financial center in New York City, U.S., July 11, 2023. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid/File Photo

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Bank of America shareholders rejected a proposal to divide the CEO and chairman roles held by Brian Moynihan on Wednesday at the company's virtual annual meeting.

Proxy advisers had recommend investors vote for the bank to separate the positions in an effort to improve governance. The proposal was backed by 31% of shareholders.

All of BofA's management proposals were approved by shareholders.

(Reporting by Nupur Anand and Tatiana Bautzer in New York, editing by Lananh Nguyen)

Copyright 2024 Thomson Reuters .

Tags: United States

The Best Financial Tools for You

Credit Cards

Personal Loans

Comparative assessments and other editorial opinions are those of U.S. News and have not been previously reviewed, approved or endorsed by any other entities, such as banks, credit card issuers or travel companies. The content on this page is accurate as of the posting date; however, some of our partner offers may have expired.

Subscribe to our daily newsletter to get investing advice, rankings and stock market news.

See a newsletter example .

You May Also Like

7 best electric vehicle etfs to buy.

Tony Dong April 23, 2024

Best Beginner Investing Books

Julie Pinkerton April 23, 2024

Are There Any Tax-Free Investments?

Marguerita Cheng April 23, 2024

8 Best Defense Stocks to Buy Now

Wayne Duggan April 22, 2024

7 Best Energy ETFs to Buy Now

Tony Dong April 22, 2024

Small-Cap ETFs to Buy for Growth

Glenn Fydenkevez April 22, 2024

7 Best IPOs in 2024

Brian O'Connell April 22, 2024

Oil Stocks Tied to Crude Prices

Wayne Duggan April 19, 2024

7 Best Dividend ETFs to Buy Now

Jeff Reeves April 19, 2024

Could Energy Costs Suppress Bitcoin?

Dmytro Spilka April 19, 2024

Best Tech ETFs to Buy

Coryanne Hicks April 19, 2024

15 Best Dividend Stocks to Buy for 2024

Ian Bezek April 19, 2024

Commodity Stocks to Buy for Dividends

Matt Whittaker April 18, 2024

ETF vs. Index Funds: What to Know

Tony Dong April 18, 2024

Best Actively Managed ETFs

Glenn Fydenkevez April 18, 2024

8 Top Nancy Pelosi Stocks to Buy

Wayne Duggan April 18, 2024

7 Best Manufacturing Stocks to Buy Now

Jeff Reeves April 17, 2024

What's a Self-Directed IRA?

Kate Stalter April 17, 2024

5 Cloud ETFs to Buy Now

Coryanne Hicks April 17, 2024

8 Best Stocks to Buy Now With $1,000

Wayne Duggan April 16, 2024

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Key facts about Americans and guns

Guns are deeply ingrained in American society and the nation’s political debates.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms, and about a third of U.S. adults say they personally own a gun. At the same time, in response to concerns such as rising gun death rates and  mass shootings , President Joe Biden has proposed gun policy legislation that would expand on the bipartisan gun safety bill Congress passed last year.

Here are some key findings about Americans’ views of gun ownership, gun policy and other subjects, drawn primarily from a Pew Research Center survey conducted in June 2023 .

Pew Research Center conducted this analysis to summarize key facts about Americans and guns. We used data from recent Center surveys to provide insights into Americans’ views on gun policy and how those views have changed over time, as well as to examine the proportion of adults who own guns and their reasons for doing so.

The analysis draws primarily from a survey of 5,115 U.S. adults conducted from June 5 to June 11, 2023. Everyone who took part in the surveys cited is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the  ATP’s methodology .

Here are the  questions used for the analysis on gun ownership , the questions used for the analysis on gun policy , and  the survey’s methodology .

Additional information about the fall 2022 survey of parents and its methodology can be found at the link in the text of this post.

Measuring gun ownership in the United States comes with unique challenges. Unlike many demographic measures, there is not a definitive data source from the government or elsewhere on how many American adults own guns.

The Pew Research Center survey conducted June 5-11, 2023, on the Center’s American Trends Panel, asks about gun ownership using two separate questions to measure personal and household ownership. About a third of adults (32%) say they own a gun, while another 10% say they do not personally own a gun but someone else in their household does. These shares have changed little from surveys conducted in 2021  and  2017 . In each of those surveys, 30% reported they owned a gun.

These numbers are largely consistent with rates of gun ownership reported by Gallup , but somewhat higher than those reported by NORC’s General Social Survey . Those surveys also find only modest changes in recent years.

The FBI maintains data on background checks on individuals attempting to purchase firearms in the United States. The FBI reported a surge in background checks in 2020 and 2021, during the coronavirus pandemic. The number of federal background checks declined in 2022 and through the first half of this year, according to FBI statistics .

About four-in-ten U.S. adults say they live in a household with a gun, including 32% who say they personally own one,  according to an August report based on our June survey. These numbers are virtually unchanged since the last time we asked this question in 2021.

There are differences in gun ownership rates by political affiliation, gender, community type and other factors.

• Republicans and Republican-leaning independents are more than twice as likely as Democrats and Democratic leaners to say they personally own a gun (45% vs. 20%).
• 40% of men say they own a gun, compared with 25% of women.
• 47% of adults living in rural areas report personally owning a firearm, as do smaller shares of those who live in suburbs (30%) or urban areas (20%).
• 38% of White Americans own a gun, compared with smaller shares of Black (24%), Hispanic (20%) and Asian (10%) Americans.

Personal protection tops the list of reasons gun owners give for owning a firearm.  About three-quarters (72%) of gun owners say that protection is a major reason they own a gun. Considerably smaller shares say that a major reason they own a gun is for hunting (32%), for sport shooting (30%), as part of a gun collection (15%) or for their job (7%). 

The reasons behind gun ownership have changed only modestly since our 2017 survey of attitudes toward gun ownership and gun policies. At that time, 67% of gun owners cited protection as a major reason they owned a firearm.

Gun owners tend to have much more positive feelings about having a gun in the house than non-owners who live with them. For instance, 71% of gun owners say they enjoy owning a gun – but far fewer non-gun owners in gun-owning households (31%) say they enjoy having one in the home. And while 81% of gun owners say owning a gun makes them feel safer, a narrower majority (57%) of non-owners in gun households say the same about having a firearm at home. Non-owners are also more likely than owners to worry about having a gun in the home (27% vs. 12%, respectively).

Feelings about gun ownership also differ by political affiliation, even among those who personally own firearms. Republican gun owners are more likely than Democratic owners to say owning a gun gives them feelings of safety and enjoyment, while Democratic owners are more likely to say they worry about having a gun in the home.

Non-gun owners are split on whether they see themselves owning a firearm in the future. About half (52%) of Americans who don’t own a gun say they could never see themselves owning one, while nearly as many (47%) could imagine themselves as gun owners in the future.

Among those who currently do not own a gun:

• 61% of Republicans and 40% of Democrats who don’t own a gun say they would consider owning one in the future.
• 56% of Black non-owners say they could see themselves owning a gun one day, compared with smaller shares of White (48%), Hispanic (40%) and Asian (38%) non-owners.

Americans are evenly split over whether gun ownership does more to increase or decrease safety. About half (49%) say it does more to increase safety by allowing law-abiding citizens to protect themselves, but an equal share say gun ownership does more to reduce safety by giving too many people access to firearms and increasing misuse.

Republicans and Democrats differ on this question: 79% of Republicans say that gun ownership does more to increase safety, while a nearly identical share of Democrats (78%) say that it does more to reduce safety.

Urban and rural Americans also have starkly different views. Among adults who live in urban areas, 64% say gun ownership reduces safety, while 34% say it does more to increase safety. Among those who live in rural areas, 65% say gun ownership increases safety, compared with 33% who say it does more to reduce safety. Those living in the suburbs are about evenly split.

Americans increasingly say that gun violence is a major problem. Six-in-ten U.S. adults say gun violence is a very big problem in the country today, up 9 percentage points from spring 2022. In the survey conducted this June, 23% say gun violence is a moderately big problem, and about two-in-ten say it is either a small problem (13%) or not a problem at all (4%).

Looking ahead, 62% of Americans say they expect the level of gun violence to increase over the next five years. This is double the share who expect it to stay the same (31%). Just 7% expect the level of gun violence to decrease.

A majority of Americans (61%) say it is too easy to legally obtain a gun in this country. Another 30% say the ease of legally obtaining a gun is about right, and 9% say it is too hard to get a gun. Non-gun owners are nearly twice as likely as gun owners to say it is too easy to legally obtain a gun (73% vs. 38%). Meanwhile, gun owners are more than twice as likely as non-owners to say the ease of obtaining a gun is about right (48% vs. 20%).

Partisan and demographic differences also exist on this question. While 86% of Democrats say it is too easy to obtain a gun legally, 34% of Republicans say the same. Most urban (72%) and suburban (63%) dwellers say it’s too easy to legally obtain a gun. Rural residents are more divided: 47% say it is too easy, 41% say it is about right and 11% say it is too hard.

About six-in-ten U.S. adults (58%) favor stricter gun laws. Another 26% say that U.S. gun laws are about right, and 15% favor less strict gun laws. The percentage who say these laws should be stricter has fluctuated a bit in recent years. In 2021, 53% favored stricter gun laws, and in 2019, 60% said laws should be stricter.

About a third (32%) of parents with K-12 students say they are very or extremely worried about a shooting ever happening at their children’s school, according to a fall 2022 Center survey of parents with at least one child younger than 18. A similar share of K-12 parents (31%) say they are not too or not at all worried about a shooting ever happening at their children’s school, while 37% of parents say they are somewhat worried.

Among all parents with children under 18, including those who are not in school, 63% see improving mental health screening and treatment as a very or extremely effective way to prevent school shootings. This is larger than the shares who say the same about having police officers or armed security in schools (49%), banning assault-style weapons (45%), or having metal detectors in schools (41%). Just 24% of parents say allowing teachers and school administrators to carry guns in school would be a very or extremely effective approach, while half say this would be not too or not at all effective.

There is broad partisan agreement on some gun policy proposals, but most are politically divisive,   the June 2023 survey found . Majorities of U.S. adults in both partisan coalitions somewhat or strongly favor two policies that would restrict gun access: preventing those with mental illnesses from purchasing guns (88% of Republicans and 89% of Democrats support this) and increasing the minimum age for buying guns to 21 years old (69% of Republicans, 90% of Democrats). Majorities in both parties also  oppose  allowing people to carry concealed firearms without a permit (60% of Republicans and 91% of Democrats oppose this).

Republicans and Democrats differ on several other proposals. While 85% of Democrats favor banning both assault-style weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, majorities of Republicans oppose these proposals (57% and 54%, respectively).

Most Republicans, on the other hand, support allowing teachers and school officials to carry guns in K-12 schools (74%) and allowing people to carry concealed guns in more places (71%). These proposals are supported by just 27% and 19% of Democrats, respectively.

Gun ownership is linked with views on gun policies. Americans who own guns are less likely than non-owners to favor restrictions on gun ownership, with a notable exception. Nearly identical majorities of gun owners (87%) and non-owners (89%) favor preventing mentally ill people from buying guns.

Within both parties, differences between gun owners and non-owners are evident – but they are especially stark among Republicans. For example, majorities of Republicans who do not own guns support banning high-capacity ammunition magazines and assault-style weapons, compared with about three-in-ten Republican gun owners.

Among Democrats, majorities of both gun owners and non-owners favor these two proposals, though support is greater among non-owners. 

Note: This is an update of a post originally published on Jan. 5, 2016 .

• Partisanship & Issues
• Political Issues

Katherine Schaeffer is a research analyst at Pew Research Center

About 1 in 4 U.S. teachers say their school went into a gun-related lockdown in the last school year

Striking findings from 2023, for most u.s. gun owners, protection is the main reason they own a gun, gun violence widely viewed as a major – and growing – national problem, what the data says about gun deaths in the u.s., most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy