The significant problems tied to using exclusionary school discipline practices such as suspension and expulsion are well documented across multiple fields. Research also reveals the disproportionate use of these practices with students based on categories such as race, ability, and economics. Effective alternatives exist but only work for some situations. The variables that maintain the widespread use of exclusionary discipline practices despite such concerns are varied and complex, as have been the states’ response to federal recommendations to remove this barrier to educational equity. Each state must report discipline data by demographic subgroup and establish school performance criteria as accountability measures. Tennessee is representative of states that have explicitly set a goal to reduce the disproportional use of exclusionary discipline practices, yet progress is slow. The purpose of this casual-comparative study was to explore differences in the use of exclusionary discipline between Tennessee’s public schools that received the 2018 performance accountability designation of Reward, which indicated high performance, and those schools designated as Priority, which indicated low performance. Specifically, this research sought to identify differences between those performance accountability designations related to discipline types and certain subgroups. Findings indicated statistically significant differences in expulsion, in-school suspension, and out-of-school suspension between the two sets of schools. The 2018 Priority (low-performing) schools reported higher usage rates of exclusionary discipline than 2018 Reward schools across all categories. Statistically significant differences also were found in the rates that Black/Hispanic/Native American, students with disabilities, and economically disadvantaged students in 2018 Priority (low-performing) schools were removed from classrooms compared to members of the same subgroup who attended Reward (high-performing) schools that year. The rates that English learners were removed from Priority school classrooms also was higher than those who attended Reward schools, but the difference was not statistically significant for that subgroup. Being identified as economically disadvantaged, Black/Hispanic/Native American, or having a disability predicted involvement with exclusionary discipline in both high- and low-performing schools. In high-performing schools, the strongest predictor was being economically disadvantaged. In low-performing schools, the strongest predictor was being included in the Black/Hispanic/Native American subgroup. Both performance designations revealed correlations between the Black/Hispanic/Native American, economically disadvantaged, and students with disabilities subgroups. The economically disadvantaged and Black/Hispanic/Native American subgroups had the strongest relationship in both designation sets. These findings suggest the annual school performance accountability designations may serve as a leverage point to improve efforts to reduce exclusionary discipline practices, while exponentially improving several other key education measures. By injecting funding, training, and other resources needed to successfully implement alternatives to exclusionary discipline practices specifically into schools identified as the lowest-performing, improvements also may be triggered in areas with known associations, such as improved academic performance, dropout rates, and attendance. Additional conclusions, implications, recommendations, and opportunities for future research are included in the final chapter.