Preschool Suspension and Expulsion for Young Children With Disabilities

Abstract

Despite their negative effect, preschool suspension and expulsion are prevalent. Researchers have explored adverse childhood experiences and teachers’ racial bias that link to disproportionate suspension and expulsion in preschools, but little research has investigated disability status as a risk factor. This study investigates the extent to which preschool children with disabilities are related to exclusionary practices. We used weighted logistic regression to analyze data from the 2016 National Survey of Children’s Health. Results indicated that 5.4% of young children with disabilities had been either suspended or expelled, compared to 1.2% of children without disabilities. Accounting for child- and family-level covariates, disability status was not a strong indicator of preschool suspension or expulsion. Instead, young children with attention deficit disorder or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder or reported behavioral or conduct problems were much more likely to experience exclusionary practices. Implications for prevention and response efforts to address challenging behavior and promote inclusive practices in preschool settings for all children are discussed.

A Systematic Review of Early Childhood Exclusionary Discipline

“…Three drew on qualitative interviews with teachers (Martin et al, 2018; Zinsser, Zulauf, et al, 2019; Zulauf and Zinsser, 2019) though it should be noted that the latter two (along with Silver and Zinsser, 2020) all leveraged data from the same sample of teachers. Parents’ reports of expulsion collected as part of the National Survey of Early Care and Education Project Team (2016) informed two studies by the same author (Zeng et al, 2019; Zeng et al, 2020). Half of the studies included samples of children (50%), a third sampled only teachers, and four (20%) included samples of administrators or programs.…”

“…Half of the studies included samples of children (50%), a third sampled only teachers, and four (20%) included samples of administrators or programs. Sample sizes varied by study design, but most—save for secondary analyses of national surveys (e.g., Zeng et al, 2019; Zeng et al, 2020; Hooper & Schweiker, 2020)—relied on convenience samples of a few hundred teachers.…”

“…c Silver and Zinsser (2020), Zinsser, Zulauf, et al (2019), and Zulauf and Zinsser (2019) used the same sample ( N s differ slightly due to missing data). d Both of Zeng et al’s analyses (2019 and 2020) use data from the National Survey of Early Care and Education Project Team (2016). In Zulauf-McCurdy and Zinsser (2020), “Exp” = teacher who reported a child had previously been expelled, “No Exp” = teacher reported no child with previous expulsion.…”

“…Conners-Edge et al (2018), Natale et al (2020), Upshur et al (2009), and Vinh et al (2016) not displayed because they did not report any quantitative analyses predicting exclusion, only frequencies or proportions at various time points. a Silver and Zinsser (2020), Zinsser, Zulauf, et al (2019), and Zulauf and Zinsser (2019) all used the same sample. b Both of Zeng et al’s analyses (2019 and 2020) use data from the National Survey of Early Care and Education Project Team (2016). …”

“… a Silver and Zinsser (2020), Zinsser, Zulauf, et al (2019), and Zulauf and Zinsser (2019) all used the same sample. b Both of Zeng et al’s analyses (2019 and 2020) use data from the National Survey of Early Care and Education Project Team (2016). …”