Head Start vs. State Early Childhood Discipline Policies: Which Children Are Protected?
A young child's protection from suspension, expulsion, and harsh discipline can depend heavily on where the child lives and what type of early learning program they attend.
Head Start has historically operated under federal Program Performance Standards that prohibit expulsion, tightly limit suspension, prohibit multiple forms of harmful discipline, and connect behavior support with family partnership, mental-health consultation, disability inclusion, screening, and other services.
State early childhood systems are far less uniform.
In its 2026 review, the Children's Equity Project compared state legislation and 2025-27 Child Care and Development Fund State Plans with Head Start's suspension and expulsion standards. CEP found that only a small group of states aligned with Head Start in policy content - and even among those states, protections did not always extend across all children ages birth to five or all parts of the early childhood system.
What protections does Head Start provide?
Under the HSPPS reviewed in the report, Head Start:
- prohibits expulsion;
- limits suspension to extraordinary circumstances and no more than three days;
- requires programs to work with parents and specialists on a plan during suspension;
- requires positive strategies to support children's well-being and address challenging behavior;
- prohibits corporal punishment and other physically harmful treatment;
- prohibits seclusion and emotionally harmful practices such as humiliation and shaming;
- requires regular access to early childhood mental-health consultation;
- supports developmental and behavioral screening and referral;
- requires family-program partnerships; and
- includes disability-inclusion and coordination requirements.
This framework is important because discipline policy is embedded in a broader support system. Programs are not only told what they should not do; they are also expected to build capacity to respond to children's needs.
How CEP defined state policy alignment
CEP did not define “alignment” as simply having any suspension or expulsion policy.
The research team coded whether state policy met three core criteria:
1. Expulsion was prohibited, except in extraordinary circumstances involving a serious safety threat.
2. Suspension was limited to extraordinary circumstances involving a safety threat.
3. A supportive process was required, including family engagement, support from specialists such as mental-health professionals, and connections to IDEA service providers or other relevant helpers when needed.
States were considered aligned in content if they met all three areas through legislation, CCDF State Plans, or a combination.
CEP then went further. The team examined whether policies applied across the full zero-to-five age spectrum and whether they extended across different parts of the early childhood system.
That distinction is crucial. A policy can look strong on paper but protect only four-year-olds in state-funded pre-K, leaving infants, toddlers, or children in other settings under different rules.
How many states aligned with Head Start in content?
CEP identified 14 states/jurisdictions whose policies aligned with HSPPS in content under the study's criteria:
- California
- Colorado
- District of Columbia
- Delaware
- Massachusetts
- Maryland
- Maine
- Minnesota
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- Ohio
- Oregon
- Rhode Island
- Vermont
This is a relatively small share of the national policy landscape.
CEP also found that more than 70% of states either had no policy or had policies that did not align in content with HSPPS.
That finding is one of the report's central conclusions: replacing a federal Head Start framework with reliance on state rules would not produce an equivalent level of protection in most places.
Why age coverage matters
Of the 14 states CEP identified as aligned in content, only seven appeared to apply aligned protections across the full zero-to-five age spectrum:
- California
- Delaware
- Massachusetts
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- Oregon
- Rhode Island
The report notes that even within this group, some protections may apply only in particular types of learning settings.
Colorado, the District of Columbia, Maryland, Maine, Minnesota, Ohio, and Vermont had policies that aligned in content but applied only to pre-K-age children in CEP's age analysis.
This matters because early childhood does not begin at age four. Infants and toddlers can also experience exclusion, and families often move between care systems as children grow.
A strong policy limited to one age band leaves a fragmented protection system.
Why program and system coverage matters
Age is only one dimension. Early childhood policy is also divided by system.
A state may have one rule for CCDF-funded child care, another for public pre-K, and another set of licensing requirements for other child care providers.
CEP's report describes policies that apply only to CCDF providers, only to state-funded pre-K settings, or across multiple systems. It also found that only Minnesota's policy explicitly included Head Start programs.
That creates an important practical question: if Head Start's federal protections were removed or replaced with a general instruction to follow state rules, which state rule would govern a Head Start program?
The answer may not be obvious because state policies often specify the programs, ages, or funding streams they cover.
What state child care licensing adds - and leaves out
CEP separately reviewed state child care licensing data and found that all 50 states and the District of Columbia have center-based policies addressing behavior guidance and discipline.
But only 17 states specifically addressed suspension and expulsion in their child care licensing systems.
Licensing rules also vary significantly across other harsh-discipline domains. According to the report's licensing table:
- 48 states and D.C. prohibited denial of food or food-related punishment;
- 44 states and D.C. prohibited derogatory remarks;
- 47 states and D.C. prohibited abusive language;
- 19 states addressed yelling, shouting, or screaming;
- all 50 states and D.C. prohibited physical punishment;
- 40 states and D.C. prohibited physical or mechanical restraint;
- 30 states and D.C. prohibited locked time-out, dark-room, or closet seclusion; and
- 42 states and D.C. prohibited punishment for toileting accidents.
The pattern is clear: state licensing offers important protections, but the level and type of protection depend on the practice and jurisdiction.
Why a state policy can look strong but still leave gaps
There are at least four ways a state policy can leave children unevenly protected.
1. The content may be weak
A policy may require a written expulsion procedure without actually prohibiting or tightly limiting expulsion.
2. The policy may cover only some ages
A rule may protect four-year-olds in public pre-K but not infants and toddlers in child care.
3. The policy may cover only some systems
A CCDF policy may apply to subsidized providers but not every licensed provider. A public-pre-K law may not apply to private child care.
4. The policy may lack required supports
A prohibition is more effective when programs also have access to family engagement, specialists, mental-health consultation, and disability-related services.
CEP's alignment framework captures this distinction by looking beyond whether a policy simply exists.
What this means if federal Head Start protections change
The CEP report was written in the context of proposals to roll back parts of the HSPPS and replace detailed federal standards with more general reliance on state and local law.
CEP argues that such a shift could reduce protections because most state systems do not match the federal Head Start framework in content, age coverage, or system coverage.
The report also raises a legal concern: standards prohibiting harsh discipline existed at the time of the 2007 Head Start reauthorization, and the Act restricts the Secretary from reducing the quality, type, or scope of services that were in place through regulation at that time. CEP therefore argues that eliminating those protections may conflict with the Act.
Readers should consult the full report for the detailed statutory analysis.
Methodology and limitations
CEP's state review examined 2025-27 CCDF State Plans and state legislation regarding suspension and expulsion in the early years.
The legislative review did not include every possible regulatory guidance document, administrative code, or policy memo, although the CCDF review sometimes followed references into state websites, guidance, regulations, and other materials for clarification.
The research team developed a codebook, used multiple coders, and discussed unclear cases to consensus.
Because policy changes over time, any public state tracker should be dated and periodically re-verified.
Download CEP's Harsh Punishment and Exclusionary Discipline in the Early Years for the maps, state findings, coding method, and detailed Head Start comparison.
Source grounding: CEP report pp. 13-17, 25-27, 29.
Additional Content:
Head Start and Discipline: How Emotional Safety Protects Young Children Preschool Suspension and Expulsion in the U.S.: What the Data ShowExclusionary Discipline in Early Childhood: What It Is and Why It MattersCan a Preschool Expel a Child? Understanding Suspension and Expulsion RulesHead Start vs. State Early Childhood Discipline Policies
News Mentions:
K-12 Dive - ‘Zero positive outcomes’ from harsh preschool discipline, report says
Frequently Asked Questions
CEP identified 14 states/jurisdictions that aligned with HSPPS suspension and expulsion policy content under the study's criteria.
No. CEP identified seven as appearing to cover the full zero-to-five age span, with possible limits based on setting.
Not necessarily. State policies often specify particular program types or funding streams. CEP found only Minnesota's policy explicitly included Head Start programs.
Early childhood governance is fragmented across licensing, public pre-K, CCDF, legislation, and other state systems. Different rules can apply to different ages and providers.
No. A requirement to have a written policy is not the same as a prohibition or strict limitation.