Exclusionary Discipline Practices in Early Childhood
You are here
When hearing the words suspension and expulsion, most people do not think about children 5 and under. However, young children in state-funded preschool settings are expelled at three times the rate of K–12 students, and children in private and community programs are expelled at even higher rates (Gilliam 2005, 2006; US Department of Education 2016). Both suspension and expulsion are forms of exclusionary discipline practices, or practices that remove a child from the learning opportunities available in the classroom (Noltemeyer & Mcloughlin 2010). Being suspended or expelled as a child increases an individual’s chances of later dropping out of school, earning less money as an adult, and even becoming involved in the criminal justice system (Pascoe & Smart Richman 2009; Monahan et al. 2014).
What makes the use of exclusionary discipline even more problematic is that racial and ethnic minority children are much more likely to experience exclusionary discipline than White children. In preschool, Black children are twice as likely to be expelled as White children, and 42 percent of suspended preschoolers are Black, even though only 18 percent of all preschoolers are Black (USDHHS & ED 2014). Research shows that these disproportionalities are not because Black children display worse behavior than their White peers (Bradshaw et al. 2010; Skiba et al. 2011); that is, the different rates of discipline are not caused by different rates of behavior problems. Thus, these disproportionalities may well be due to explicit and implicit racial biases teachers have against Black children.
Because of the short- and long-term negative consequences of suspending and expelling young children, particularly children of color, many national organizations—including NAEYC—and federal agencies such as the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services have called for an end to suspensions and expulsions in early childhood. Some states and school districts have put policies in place to prevent or severely limit the use of exclusionary discipline, such as the elimination of suspensions for children pre-K through second grade by Chicago Public Schools in 2014. While policies to minimize the use of suspensions and expulsions in early childhood are an important step, eliminating those disciplinary strategies as an option does not necessarily help teachers manage negative behaviors in the classroom more effectively. In fact, even if suspensions and expulsions are eliminated, students may still be excluded in more subtle ways.
Ms. Lawson hears yelling across the pre-K classroom during center time. She looks up and sees two children, Caleb and Michael, struggling over a toy. She immediately knows who must have started this: Caleb. Caleb is often out of sync with the rest of the class during transitions, fights with his peers, and refuses to follow instructions.
Ms. Lawson feels as though she is constantly calling out Caleb’s name, needing to redirect or reprimand him repeatedly. This keeps her from providing instruction to or having meaningful interactions with the rest of the class, and it does not seem to be helping Caleb behave better. She has regularly voiced her concerns to the director but has received no help or support.
She calls over, “Caleb, give Michael back the toy.” Caleb scowls and pushes Michael. Ms. Lawson hurries over, yelling, “No, Caleb!” She grabs his hand and walks with him to the classroom of younger students next door. She knows Caleb will entertain himself with the toys there and she can focus on the other children back in her classroom.
“Soft” exclusionary strategies are not official suspensions or expulsions but still result in children being excluded from learning opportunities. We define a soft exclusionary practice as any practice that reduces or eliminates the opportunity for a child to learn from the activity or experience they should be engaged in during the school day. This could include sending a child to a different classroom (as Ms. Lawson did with Caleb), putting a child in time-out, or assigning a child to “silent lunch.” Even more subtle strategies, like moving a child away from the rest of the class during story time, where the child can still hear the teacher but not see the book, lessen the child’s ability to participate and learn from experiences in the classroom. While the child is still at school, they are not fully participating in the classroom environment. In Caleb’s case, he receives little instruction and few opportunities to engage with peers while he is in the other classroom with younger children.
More than anyone, teachers know how important their work is in preparing children to be successful in school and in life beyond their classrooms.
These practices happen frequently in early childhood classrooms. Managing negative behaviors in the classroom is one of the most stressful parts of a teacher’s job, so it’s understandable that teachers use strategies like removing the child to try to quickly stop a behavior and end a challenging situation.
Teachers' positive relationships with children they find most challenging are critical to those children's success.
Sometimes strategies that temporarily remove a child from a learning environment can be recommended and, in theory, may be effective—if they are used properly. For example, having a child go to a calm-down space in a classroom does remove the child from instruction but is seen as an effective strategy if the child is truly able to use that space to regulate their emotions or behavior and quickly rejoin classroom activities. However, a child sent to a calm-down space who doesn’t understand how to calm down essentially experiences a lengthy time-out. Another child may opt to repeatedly return to the calm-down space to avoid certain situations, such as challenging learning tasks. In both cases, the children miss out on opportunities to learn and grow in self-regulation and task-related skills. Soft exclusionary discipline practices reduce a child’s access to learning opportunities related to an activity and rarely provide opportunities for the child to build stronger self-regulation skills.
Repeatedly removing a child from learning activities can also perpetuate cycles of negative teacher−child interactions, damaging the relationship. This is concerning because positive teacher−child relationships play a critical role in children’s learning experiences. For a child to develop the full range of skills needed to be successful in school—academic, behavioral, emotional, and social skills—a warm, supportive, and sensitive teacher−child relationship is essential (Pianta 1999).
Strong relationships are even more important for young children who find classroom settings challenging (Hamre & Pianta 2005; Baker, Grant, & Morlock 2008; Sabol & Pianta 2012; Hamre 2014). From the children’s perspectives, being excluded can make them feel as though the teacher does not like them. A child who struggles to regulate their behavior is often repeatedly in this situation, setting a negative tone in the teacher−child relationship. Lacking self-regulation skills and being stuck in a negative cycle with the teacher, the child continues to behave in the same way (or even worse), resulting in escalating exclusion and frustration for everyone.
Caleb has had another rough day at school, hitting his peers and taking their toys. Ms. Lawson is not sure how to get his behavior back under control and doesn’t think he is getting anything out of being in the classroom when he is like this. She calls his mom to see if she can pick him up. As he waits for his mom in the office, Caleb feels upset thinking about how he is going to miss outside time with his friends. His mom is clearly frustrated when she picks him up, which makes him feel even worse.
Caleb’s mom doesn’t know how she is going to manage her work schedule with having to pick up Caleb so often; she isn’t sure how much longer this can work. She spends the drive home lecturing Caleb about how he needs to be good at school and respect Ms. Lawson.
This is the message, as Caleb interprets it: He gets sent home because he’s bad and because Ms. Lawson doesn’t want him around.
Over time, the situation can become unsustainable for families like Caleb’s, who have to find alternative child care arrangements and leave work to pick up their children. Eventually, the children may be moved to new settings where they have a good chance of experiencing the exact same problems because they have not learned how to better self-regulate, and now also have negative expectations for school and for the new teachers. Instead of early childhood education setting these children up for success, the children have a more negative view of school, teachers, and themselves than if they had never attended school at all—all before entering kindergarten.
Racial bias in discipline practices
The disproportionate rates of exclusionary discipline for children from racial and ethnic minority groups extend to soft exclusionary practices. In one study looking at a range of disciplinary strategies in preschool classrooms, Black students with White teachers were significantly more likely to experience soft exclusion than were White students (Wymer & Williford 2018). One potential cause of this difference in discipline rates is implicit bias.
Part of the work in exploring biases is learning to become comfortable with being uncomfortable in order to make progress.
Implicit biases are unconscious attitudes, beliefs, and stereotypes that everyone has. We all have unconscious biases related to race, gender, disability status, and other social groups. In contrast to explicit biases, in which a person is aware of the bias, implicit biases are not intentional and, in fact, may be completely contrary to what the person consciously believes.
We develop implicit biases from an early age as we are exposed to direct and indirect messages in our cultures. Even though we are unaware of these biases, and even if they are not beliefs we would consciously agree with, implicit biases affect our actions and decisions. In the United States, pro-White and anti-Black messages are pervasive in history and culture. Like the majority of Americans (Schmidt & Nosek 2010), teachers tend to have more positive biases toward White students and more negative biases toward non-White students (Van den Bergh et al. 2010; Glock & Karbach 2015; Hartlep 2015). There are exceptions; for instance, research on the effects of race matching on school exclusion indicates that teachers of color treat children of color more equitably (Lindsay & Hart 2017).
Teachers, on average, may unconsciously view and interpret Black children’s behaviors in a way that leads to more discipline. In one study, preschool teachers were asked to review classroom footage and look for challenging behavior; those teachers spent more time watching Black children than White children and spent the most time watching Black boys in particular (Gilliam et al. 2016). It appears that due to implicit biases, teachers may unconsciously expect to see more negative behaviors from young Black children, so they observe those children more and may be more likely to interpret their behavior as a problem (Okonofua & Eberhardt 2015).
Because exclusionary discipline practices are both harmful and disproportionately applied to certain groups of children, we need to look for better techniques—techniques that can be applied equitably, maximize children’s learning opportunities, preserve positive teacher−child relationships, and help children learn to better regulate their behavior without the serious downsides associated with exclusionary techniques.
Practical alternatives
While states, organizations, and school districts may take steps to reduce the use of harsh exclusionary discipline practices such as suspension and expulsion, teachers are the most essential element in creating successful educational experiences for children in the classroom and minimizing the negative impacts of implicit bias and exclusionary discipline in schools.
Early childhood educators welcome children into their classrooms at a critical age for social, emotional, and cognitive development and set the tone for children’s future school experiences. More than anyone, teachers know how important their work is in preparing children to be successful in school and in life beyond their classrooms, and they often sacrifice incredible amounts of time and effort to make sure their students reach their full potential. The harm done by using exclusionary strategies is exactly the opposite of what most teachers intend, so what steps can teachers take to help their students be successful while still safely managing negative behaviors in the classroom?
Four steps for addressing implicit biases
While everyone has implicit biases, those biases do not have to be permanent. Research has shown that unconscious biases can be changed and steps can be taken to reduce their impact on our behavior (Dasgupta 2013).
-
Understand implicit bias: It’s hard to open ourselves to thinking and talking about bias at first. When certain biases, such as those against different racial or ethnic groups, are discussed, it can make people feel defensive and as though they are being accused of holding explicit racial biases—of “being racist.” Implicit biases, however, are a result of normal human cognitive processes.
Noticing differences between people is completely normal; human cognition involves quick categorizing. From a young age, we are exposed to direct and indirect messages about those differences; being saturated with negative messages about people from racial and ethnic minority groups often leads to holding unconscious biases, even if they conflict with conscious beliefs. Understanding how biases come to exist and that they do not necessarily reflect our conscious beliefs is an important first step toward being able to look at and challenge those biases.
-
Increase self-awareness: After we understand that everyone has implicit biases that can arise even if we do not consciously agree with them, the next step is learning to recognize them in ourselves. This can be accomplished by learning about what biases most people hold, by reflecting on what messages we received growing up about different groups of people, and even by taking a test that measures biases (e.g., the Implicit Association Test). The more we become aware of a bias, the less chance it has to unconsciously influence our decision making.
-
Discuss and reflect: Having conversations about bias, particularly with people from different groups, can help us better know and explore our own biases and also help others recognize and understand their biases. Initially, people often find it very uncomfortable to talk about biases and how they impact behavior. Part of the work in exploring biases is learning to become comfortable with being uncomfortable in order to make progress. It is important when exploring these issues to set up a space in which people do not feel judged or attacked when being open and vulnerable.
-
Use research-based strategies that minimize bias: Implicit biases are most likely to impact behavior in ambiguous situations. For example, a lack of a clear policy about when a child should be removed from a classroom leaves that issue open to interpretation, allowing biases to influence if and when a child is removed. One way to minimize bias is to collect meaningful data and make decisions based on those data rather than on impressions. Data can be used to monitor progress, to determine when a child needs additional support, and to track whether there are disparities in how interventions and consequences are being administered. Some useful resources for learning about effective strategies for discipline and ways to reduce bias include
Three key positive behavioral interventions
Effective classroom management is key in addressing challenging behavior. Although an in-depth discussion of behavior management is beyond the scope of this article, the important components include setting up children to be successful, acknowledging and rewarding success, and teaching new skills. Here are some strategies that can help reduce discipline disparities:
- Focus on relationships: Children who struggle to meet classroom demands and who are sometimes viewed as disruptive or challenging are less likely to share a sensitive and supportive relationship with their teacher. This lack of connection leads to a cycle of negativity between the teacher and child that worsens over time. Unfortunately, young children are also less likely to have a positive relationship with teachers of a race different from their own (Saft & Pianta 2001; C. Murray, K.M. Murray, & Waas 2008). To prevent negative interaction cycles and to provide a warm, supportive relationship to children who need the most help, teachers can focus on building a more positive relationship with the students who are struggling most in the classroom. One research-backed strategy is Banking Time (Pianta & Hamre 2001), an intervention designed to support teachers in developing close, positive relationships with target students. A few times a week, the teacher and individual children spend one-on-one time together during brief (10−15 minute), student-led sessions called Banking Time. During each session, the teacher interacts with the child in a specific way (e.g., asking limited questions, labeling the child’s emotions) that helps both the teacher and the child change how they perceive each other. Banking Time has been shown to decrease preschoolers’ disruptive behaviors over the school year (Williford et al. 2017).
- Understand the why of behavior: When a child is not meeting classroom expectations, it is essential to look for the reason behind the child’s behaviors. After the teacher knows the reason (e.g., the skill deficit, the function of the behavior), they can then know how best to respond, such as by teaching a replacement behavior or providing extra scaffolding. Maybe the child tends to struggle when given a motor task he finds challenging, such as cutting with scissors. Providing the child with additional support, such as coaching the child on how to grip the scissors, using thicker paper that is easier to cut, or encouraging the child to ask for help when something is too hard, is a much more effective plan than punishing them when they become frustrated and act out. Taking the time to consider possible actions reduces the chance that implicit biases can influence an in-the-moment decision.
- Implement restorative practices: When negative behaviors cannot be ignored, instead of using punishment, teachers can put in place restorative practices, or practices that focus on repairing the harm caused by a behavior. Restorative approaches are being used more and more in schools, and while most of the research has focused on older students, there is evidence that this approach to discipline may help narrow the racial discipline gap (Gregory et al. 2014). An example in an early childhood setting would be bringing back to the block area a child who knocked over another child’s block construction and having that child help the harmed child clean up. The solution is logical and focuses on fixing any harm that was done rather than punishing the child. If no harm was done, this may be an example of something to let go!
Closing thoughts
Caleb has been grabbing toys out of his peers’ hands. Ms. Lawson checks in with Caleb’s mom about whether she has observed that same behavior and how she responds. Caleb’s mom tells Ms. Lawson that Caleb has much older brothers, so he doesn’t usually have to share his toys.
Ms. Lawson knows that she often gets frustrated with Caleb and has started thinking of him as aggressive, and she is working on changing her relationship with him. She decides to test the idea that maybe Caleb just needs some help in learning how to ask for toys more appropriately. The next day, Ms. Lawson takes Caleb aside to play a new game. She has collected some of his favorite toys and has Caleb practice asking her to play. Ms. Lawson gives Caleb enthusiastic praise when he asks. She then recruits another child to play with them, and they take turns practicing asking each other to play together.
Later in the day, Ms. Lawson notices that Caleb appears frustrated while watching a peer play with a toy he likes. She calls Caleb over and whispers in his ear a reminder about how to ask to play with a friend. Caleb goes back to his peer and asks if he can play; the child says yes, and Caleb sits down. Ms. Lawson smiles at Caleb and later tells him how proud she is of the way he asked politely and played so well with his friend.
Addressing our implicit biases and managing children’s difficult behavior in the classroom are both challenging tasks. However, the strategies discussed here are both effective and essential for preventing the harm exclusionary discipline techniques do to all students—and to students of color in particular. While the strategies may require new ways of thinking about and doing things, the time and effort spent in implementing them will be invaluable to children who previously may have been set on very negative paths by being excluded from school.
Teachers’ positive relationships with children they find most challenging are critical to those children’s success. Finding ways to maintain a strong relationship while keeping a child engaged in learning opportunities makes the difference between the child entering elementary school already believing that they don’t belong in the classroom and a child who is ready to learn and grow.
References
Baker, J.A., S. Grant, & L. Morlock. 2008. “The Teacher–Student Relationship as a Developmental Context for Children with Internalizing or Externalizing Behavior Problems.” School Psychology Quarterly 23 (1): 3−15.
Bradshaw, C.P., M.M. Mitchell, L.M. O’Brennan, & P.J. Leaf. 2010. “Multilevel Exploration of Factors Contributing to the Overrepresentation of Black Students in Office Disciplinary Referrals.” Journal of Educational Psychology 102 (2): 508−20.
Dasgupta, N. 2013. “Implicit Attitudes and Beliefs Adapt to Situations: A Decade of Research on the Malleability of Implicit Prejudice, Stereotypes, and the Self-Concept.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 47: 233−79.
Gilliam, W.S. 2005. Prekindergarteners Left Behind: Expulsion Rates in State Prekindergarten Systems. FCD Policy Brief Number 3. New York: Foundation for Child Development.
Gilliam, W.S., & G. Shahar. 2006. “Preschool and Child Care Expulsion and Suspension: Rates and Predictors in One State.” Infants & Young Children 19 (3): 228–45.
Gilliam, W.S., A.N. Maupin, C.R. Reyes, M. Accavitti, & F. Shic. 2016. Do Early Educators’ Implicit Biases Regarding Sex and Race Relate to Behavior Expectations and Recommendations of Preschool Expulsions and Suspensions? Research Brief. New Haven, CT: Yale University Child Study Center.
Glock, S., & J. Karbach. 2015. “Preservice Teachers’ Implicit Attitudes toward Racial Minority Students: Evidence from Three Implicit Measures.” Studies in Educational Evaluation 45: 55–61.
Gregory, A., J.P. Allen, A.Y. Mikami, C.A. Hafen, & R.C. Pianta. 2014. “Effects of a Professional Development Program on Behavioral Engagement of Students in Middle and High School.” Psychology in the Schools 51 (2): 143−63.
Hamre, B.K. 2014. “Teachers’ Daily Interactions with Children: An Essential Ingredient in Effective Early Childhood Programs.” Child Development Perspectives 8 (4): 223−30.
Hamre, B.K., & R.C. Pianta. 2001. “Early Teacher–Child Relationships and the Trajectory of Children’s School Outcomes through Eighth Grade.” Child Development 72 (2): 625−38.
———. 2005. “Can Instructional and Emotional Support in the First Grade Classroom Make a Difference for Children at Risk of School Failure?” Child Development 76 (5): 949−67.
Hartlep, N.D. 2015. “Unwilling or Unable? Measuring Anti-Asian Implicit Biases of Pre-Service Teachers in Order to Impact Teacher Effectiveness.” GAUISUS 3. https://sotl.illinoisstate.edu/downloads/gauisus/HartlepVolume3.pdf.
Monahan, K.C., S. VanDerhei, J. Bechtold, & E. Cauffman. 2014. “From the School Yard to the Squad Car: School Discipline, Truancy, and Arrest.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 43 (7): 1110−22.
Murray, C., K.M. Murray, & G.K. Waas. 2008. “Child and Teacher Reports of Teacher–Student Relationships: Concordance of Perspectives and Associations with School Adjustment in Urban Kindergarten Classrooms.” Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 29 (1): 49−61.
Noltemeyer, A., & C.S. Mcloughlin. 2010. “Patterns of Exclusionary Discipline by School Typology, Ethnicity, and Their Interaction.” Perspectives on Urban Education 7 (1): 27−40.
Okonofua, J.A., & J.L. Eberhardt. 2015. “Two Strikes: Race and the Disciplining of Young Students.” Psychological Science 26 (5): 617−24.
Pascoe, E.A., & L.S. Richman. 2009. “Perceived Discrimination and Health: A Meta-Analytic Review.” Psychological Bulletin 135 (4): 531−54.
Pianta, R.C. 1999. Enhancing Relationships between Children and Teachers. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Sabol, T.J., & R.C. Pianta. 2012. “Recent Trends in Research on Teacher–Child Relationships.” Attachment & Human Development 14 (3): 213−31.
Saft, E.W., & R.C. Pianta. 2001. “Teachers’ Perceptions of Their Relationships with Students: Effects of Child Age, Gender, and Ethnicity of Teachers and Children.” School Psychology Quarterly 16 (2): 125−41.
Schmidt, K., & B.A. Nosek. 2010. "Implicit (and Explicit) Racial Attitudes Barely Changed During Barack Obama’s Presidential Campaign and Early Presidency." Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 46 (2): 308–14.
Skiba, R.J., R.H. Horner, C.G. Chung, M.K. Rausch, S.L. May, & T. Tobin. 2011. “Race Is Not Neutral: A National Investigation of African American and Latino Disproportionality in School Discipline.” School Psychology Review 40 (1): 85–107.
US Department of Education (ED). 2016. The State of Racial Diversity in the Educator Workforce. Report. Washington, DC: ED.
USDHHS (United States Department of Health and Human Services) & ED. 2014. Policy Statement on Expulsion and Suspension Policies in Early Childhood Settings. Washington, DC: USDHHS and ED.
Van den Bergh, L., E. Denessen, L. Hornstra, M. Voeten, & R.W. Holland. 2010. “The Implicit Prejudiced Attitudes of Teachers: Relations to Teacher Expectations and the Ethnic Achievement Gap.” American Educational Research Journal 47 (2): 497−527.
Williford, A.P., J. LoCasale-Crouch, J.V. Whittaker, J. DeCoster, K.A. Hartz, L.M. Carter, C.S. Wolcott, & B.E. Hatfield. 2017. “Changing Teacher–Child Dyadic Interactions to Improve Preschool Children’s Externalizing Behaviors.” Child Development 88 (5): 1544−53.
Wymer, S., & A.P. Williford. 2018. “Relationship between Teacher−Child Race Matches and Trajectories of Disruptive Behavior in Preschool.” Poster presented at the National Research Conference on Early Childhood, Arlington, VA, June 2018.
Photographs: © Getty Images