Background/Context: This study contributes to the theoretical development of Critical Race Theory and further advances its potential as a causal model for education policy analyses. Critical Race Theorists study the impact of American law and policies via critical social structures and resource allocations to test how they uphold white supremacy. Almost fifty years of scholarship shows that--regardless of a child's behavior--being "Black" increases their probability of being suspended, restrained, referred, expelled, confined, beaten, or arrested in school [1, 2]. Racialized groups of schoolchildren misbehave proportionality [3, 4]; yet, schoolchildren who are "Black" experience the highest school discipline rates in nearly every outcome [5]. Purpose/Objective/Research: Question Over the decades, school discipline scholarship has increasingly relied on advanced, statistical models to quantify racial disparities but weak, acritical theoretical models to explicate them [6, 7]. Grounded in CRT, I exploit the inherent design of California's K-12 funding model to isolate the effects of high-need student population grants on school suspensions and expulsions. A regression discontinuity analysis finds null effects for multiple school discipline outcomes. Critical Race Theory predicts and explicates why colorblind, student population grants fail to impact discipline disparities rooted in white supremacy. Implications for theory and reform are discussed. Setting & Population: This study takes place in California. The sample population includes all public school districts in California that reported suspension and expulsion data for the years 2011 through 2019. Intervention/Program/Practice: Policymakers and researchers hailed the LCFF/P as a "grand experiment" and one of America's most progressive weighted per-pupil funding models to date [8]. The LCFF/P was a complete restructuring of California's school finance and accountability systems enacted in 2013 to address four decades of racial and class disparities across the educational pipeline. California's prior K-12 funding model and policy were based on district supply (e.g., local property tax); now, the LCFF/P is based on district need (how many high-need students a district enrolls). Furthermore, districts that enrolled a high-need student population that exceeded 55% were eligible for a concentrated grant allocation. Lastly, the LCFF/P introduced a new statewide accountability system with seven school priorities that affect district ratings. School Climate--quantified as school suspension and expulsion rates--is one such priority [9, 10]. Research Design: Given the design of the Local Control Funding Formula and Policy (LCFF/P), a regression discontinuity design is the best way to ascertain the effects of the LCFF/P's concentrated grant (see figures 1-3). I test the effects of the LCFF/P's grant allocations on school district discipline outcomes as measured by school suspensions and expulsions at the district level; precisely, suspensions and expulsions per unduplicated student offender, total repeat suspensions and expulsions per duplicated student offender, and total repeat suspensions and expulsions for defiance-only infractions. My research questions are 1) how did the LCFF/P's differential grant allocations impact public K-12 school district discipline outcomes? And 2) how did district-level characteristics mediate the effects of the LCFF/P's grants on public K-12 school district discipline outcomes? Data Collection and Analysis: I leverage publicly available longitudinal district-level data from state and national sources on all CA public school districts: SLDS-CA (Suspension files, Expulsion files, and Cost of Education files for 2011-12/2018-19: General Public District files for 2019), CDE School Fiscal Services Division (LCFF snapshot data files and California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System files for 2012-13/2018-19), and SEDA (Geographic District Covariate files for 2011-12/2018-19). After I compiled the data, I merged each of the datasets into a master data file by school district-school year as the unit of analysis. The final dataset had 5,675 school district-year observations with 953 districts. Findings/Results: The key findings from the LATE primary analysis results indicate that: (1) There was no local average treatment effect of the LCFF funding formula on any of the expulsion or suspension outcomes in this sample of districts; (2) There was variation in upward or downward trend in the outcomes as measured by the school year depending on the outcome of interest. Expulsions tended to increase over time, except for defiance only expulsion counts where they decreased over time. Suspensions tended to have no trend over time, except for defiance only suspension counts where they decreased over time; (3) In all instances, as current expense per average daily attendance increases, levels of suspension and expulsion outcomes decrease; and (4) In all instances, elementary school districts have considerably less levels of suspension and expulsion outcomes compared to high school districts, which is to be expected. In sum, these findings suggest that the LCFF funding formula does not impact behavioral outcomes as it relates to suspensions and expulsions in these school districts. However, these results show that as current expense per average daily attendance increase, behavioral outcomes decrease. In addition, Elementary school districts tend to have lower behavioral outcomes compared to High school districts. In some cases, Unified districts also have lower behavioral outcomes compared to High school districts, but with a lower magnitude than elementary schools. Added covariates impact significance of the LCFF funding dummy and the direction and significance of the time trend variable. Conclusions: Causal research on school discipline is emergent. In consequence, stakeholders rely on descriptive evidentiary support. The resultant reforms and interventions typically follow one of four patterns: no-effects, short-term effects (e.g., reducing school discipline outcomes for one year only), paradoxical effects (e.g., increasing instances of school discipline), or disparate effects (e.g., only reducing discipline for schoolchildren who are "White") [2, 11-13]. The dearth of substantive solutions and empirical explanantia for this extensively researched social phenomena suggests that the academy must move beyond untheorized, descriptive research to theory building and testing. Without cumulative theory building and testing, education science--and education systems--cannot move forward. This study could advance education substantively and empirically. Firstly, by exploiting a natural experiment in a regression discontinuity design to isolate the causal effects of high-need student population grants on suspensions and expulsions in California public schools. Secondly, by testing the extent to which Critical Race Theory can predict and explain how colorblind, need-based fiscal policies impact discipline disparities rooted in white supremacy.