Takeaways for Policymakers

Numerous themes were evident in our research and listening sessions with practitioners in Illinois and Colorado. Here are 10 takeaways and recommendations that other states can use as they pursue reform in ECE discipline policies and work to help teachers address challenging behaviors:

1. The lack of a uniform, cohesive ECE system within states makes it difficult to efficiently address exclusionary discipline in a way that reaches all children and providers. Young children attend a mix of ECE programs in different settings that are governed by different quality regulations and paid for through distinct funding streams, which results in uneven access to training and support services. One possible solution to this problem is creating a new government entity charged with overseeing all of a state’s ECE programs, such as the Department of Early Childhood just launched in Colorado. As of 2021, eight states had taken such a step.¹
2. While recruiting and retaining ECE staff has always been difficult due to low compensation and often difficult working conditions, the pandemic has exacerbated the problem. Program administrators in both Colorado and Illinois overwhelmingly named staff shortages as their greatest source of stress. High turnover rates can make it difficult to provide professional development that requires ongoing training and coaching, such as the Pyramid Model. As several administrators described, the poverty-level wages and high stress levels lead many early educators to leave the field entirely or depart for a job in the public school system that provides better compensation. Despite some evidence that reducing teacher stress could lower expulsion rates, none of the 12 state bills related to reducing early childhood exclusionary discipline introduced between 2015 and 2018 mention the need to address teacher stress.² Because high-quality ECE depends on a high-quality workforce, policies must support the preparation, development, retention, and fair compensation of early educators.
3. Private and public programs face different challenges when it comes to appropriately addressing student behavior. Early educators in our listening sessions who worked for large publicly funded programs, such as Head Start and public pre-K, suggested that they had more access to professional development for dealing with student behavior than their peers working for private centers. The private, family child care providers in our listening sessions said that they wanted access to certain professional development topics but had trouble affording the training. Family child care providers are often the sole educator in their setting, making it difficult for them to step away from the classroom for professional development, which is something state policies focused on professional development for early educators should take into account.
4. ECMHC is a popular strategy that research shows is effective, but it is not reaching enough programs. Professionals in both Colorado and Illinois expressed the need for more mental health consultants, and this appears to be a national trend. Most states require early childhood mental health consultants to have an advanced degree in an appropriate field such as social work or psychology and experience working with children and their families.³ With limited funding for these positions, it can be difficult to recruit and retain highly qualified staff. Telehealth can lessen the shortage, particularly in rural areas where driving long distances hinders consultants’ ability to reach more programs. However, there are challenges with virtual consultations, such as not being able to observe classrooms in person or demonstrate strategies in a real environment. Because mental health consultation is often used as a reactive strategy and programs request services when they already have a challenge, it is crucial for them to be able to access services in a timely manner.
5. States should be diligent in educating practitioners and families on relevant policies and resources. It is not enough for states to simply pass legislation or offer guidance. As heard in our Illinois listening sessions, years later there remains confusion about the details of the policy. States must follow through with outreach and implementation, publicizing policy changes and explaining to providers how to access available supports. It is equally important for parents to understand the policies and know their rights. Parents are often not aware that there are policies in place to help children remain in a program. Parents may not know that providers must employ certain supports before exclusion is considered, or that their children should receive assistance in finding a program that is a better fit, as is the case in Illinois.
6. ECE discipline policies should focus on racial equity, and that should be clearly communicated to practitioners. According to a 2021 report, 15 state policies have language with an intentional focus on racial equity.⁴ Despite evidence on disparities in discipline practices, racial equity issues did not organically emerge in any of the listening sessions. There are multiple possible explanations for why race was not explicitly discussed in these sessions. Practitioners may not have felt comfortable discussing issues of race or bias with peers or with us. They may not be aware of the equity implications of exclusionary discipline, or it may not have been communicated to them that this is an intentional part of the law. The data suggest that doing a better job of reducing exclusionary discipline in ECE will benefit Black children, especially Black boys, the most, and policies should be designed accordingly.
7. Accurate data on discipline practices and related policies is essential for successful policy implementation. The lack of data in ECE settings makes it difficult to evaluate whether the law is being implemented successfully. Collecting this data is especially challenging in the early years because the system is disjointed since there are often different governing bodies, funding streams, and regulations guiding different programs. As a study published in the January issue of The Review of Educational Research explains, “unlike K–12 superintendents, ECCE [early childhood] settings do not have access to a full cadre of district personnel to collect, organize, and upload requisite data.”⁵ A family child care provider might not even have reliable access to a computer or the internet to input data. Accurate statewide data collection is essential to uncovering racial disparities and monitoring the effect of new laws aimed at decreasing the frequency of exclusionary discipline practices.
8. The success of the reforms depends on sufficient funding. It is important that any policy changes made by states do not turn into an unfunded mandate. States need to provide adequate funding to ensure that programs are able to update their practices and policies to comply with any new laws or regulations. In both Illinois and Colorado, children are still being excluded from ECE settings, despite the policies and supports that have been put in place. Limited funding is one reason that some programs have difficulty accessing resources in a timely manner. For real change, stable, long-term funding must follow to ensure providers have the resources necessary to update their practices.
9. Policymakers should think beyond the classroom to meaningfully support children’s well-being and development. Improving access to programs and supports to meet families’ basic needs like housing, physical and mental health care, and nutrition are important to ensuring that children thrive. These supports can also potentially lessen children’s exposure to trauma. States can look to comprehensive education models like community schools for examples of how to engage families and coordinate with community organizations.⁶ States can also take steps to ensure that it is easy for families to access the range of services they need, such as by streamlining eligibility requirements and applications.
10. Engaging families as partners is instrumental to understanding and supporting children’s behavioral challenges. While children may spend a significant portion of their days in ECE settings, parents continue to be their first and most important teachers. When programs collaborate with parents, students experience a stronger home-to-school connection that can be beneficial. As Gilliam said in a past interview, “one of the things that I’ve never seen is a child expelled from a preschool program where the teacher and parent knew and liked one another.”⁷ Communication with families can help teachers understand children’s development and also ensure consistency between home and school approaches. Schools can help families learn strategies to support healthy development. School efforts to connect with families are especially important now, after so many have felt less connected to their ECE programs during the pandemic.