Harsh Punishment and Exclusionary Discipline in the Early Years: Data, Research, and a Policy Comparison Between Head Start and States
September 2026
Authors: Dr. Shantel Meek, Dr. Brittany Alexander, Dr. Darielle Blevins, Mario Cardona (JD), & Dr. Rosemarie Allen
Today, the CEP published a new report that reviews the data, research, and policy landscapes of harsh punishment and exclusionary discipline, exploring requirements in the Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act (IHSSRA), the Head Start Program Performance Standards (HSPPS), and state policies - including legislation, state child care licensing, and state Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) policies.
Research finds that harsh punishment and exclusionary discipline run counter to emotional and psychological safety and child wellbeing. In fact, data and research have long documented three major themes on harsh and exclusionary discipline:
- It starts early, with studies documenting suspensions and expulsions in 2-year olds and federal data consistently pointing to the use of these practices in preschoolers;
- It is applied disproportionately to boys, Black children, American Indian and Alaska Native children, and children with disabilities;
- It is associated with zero positive outcomes and a host of negative outcomes - impacting children’s learning and educational trajectories in the long term.
Despite this research, harsh and exclusionary discipline is considerably less regulated in early learning settings, compared to K-12. Our review found that the discipline policy landscape in early childhood is complex and not straightforward, with policies existing in multiple places and platforms, pertaining to providers in different categories, and to children of various ages.
The exception is Head Start, with protections codified in the IHSSRA and the HSPPS, that include a uniform set of professional standards of conduct that prohibit harsh punishment; prohibit expulsion; limit suspensions; and require family engagement, the support of early childhood mental health professionals, and referrals to IDEA service providers, as needed.
Very few other states’ policies align to the protections codified in the IHSSRA and the HSPPS. What’s more, it is unclear what policies would even apply to Head Start programs at the state level, considering all but one state fail to name Head Start explicitly in their policy. This change may also conflict with IHSSRA, considering that the law prevents the Secretary from changing the “quality, type, and scope of services” to anything below the HSPPS at the time of the reauthorization in 2007. At that time, prohibitions on specific forms of harsh punishment existed in the HSPPS personnel codes of conduct.
Replacing HSPPS with state policies would reduce protections for young children’s wellbeing, increasing the possibility of harsh punishment and exclusionary discipline. These issues have a disparate impact on the experiences of Black children, AI/AN children, children with disabilities, and boys, undermining the notion of equal education opportunities in publicly funded settings, on the basis of race, gender, and disability.
Harsh Punishment and Exclusionary Discipline in the Early Years: Data, Research, and a Policy Comparison Between Head Start and States examines the evidence on suspension, expulsion, corporal punishment, restraint and seclusion; disparities affecting young children; Head Start protections; and the early childhood discipline policy landscape across states.
Browse all of our Head Start Resources
Key findings on harsh and exclusionary discipline:
Preschool discipline disparities begin early
Federal 2021–22 preschool data show substantial disparities in exclusionary discipline. Black children represented 18% of preschool enrollment but 38% of preschool children suspended one or more times. Preschool children served under IDEA represented 23% of enrollment but 74% of expulsions, while boys represented 54% of enrollment but 84% of expulsions.
Head Start prohibits expulsion and tightly limits suspension
Under the Head Start Program Performance Standards, programs may not expel enrolled children because of behavior. Programs must work with families, mental health consultants, and other relevant partners to develop a plan that supports the child and family.
State child care licensing protections vary widely
All 50 states and Washington, D.C., have child care center rules addressing behavior guidance and discipline, but only 17 states specifically address suspension and expulsion in their child care licensing systems. Protections against other harsh practices also vary considerably by state.
Most states do not provide protections equivalent to Head Start
Our review identified 14 states with policies that align with HSPPS in content related to expulsion, suspension, and supportive processes. Only seven of those states appeared to apply those protections across the full birth-to-five age spectrum, and protections can still vary by early learning system.
Head Start is rarely named explicitly in state discipline policies
Our review found that only Minnesota explicitly included Head Start programs in the state policy analyzed, creating uncertainty about which state requirements would apply to Head Start programs if federal protections were replaced.
Preschool discipline by the numbers
| Finding | Data |
|---|---|
| Black children's share of preschool enrollment | 18% |
| Black children's share of one-or-more suspensions | 38% |
| Children served under IDEA: share of enrollment | 23% |
| Children served under IDEA: share of expulsions | 74% |
| Boys' share of preschool enrollment | 54% |
| Boys' share of expulsions | 84% |
| States with HSPPS-aligned policy content | 14 |
| States in that group covering the full 0–5 age range | 7 |
| States explicitly including Head Start in the policy reviewed | 1 |
What is harsh and exclusionary discipline?
Exclusionary discipline removes a child from their learning environment because of behavior. The most common examples are suspension, in which a child is temporarily removed, and expulsion, in which a child is permanently removed from a program.
Harsh discipline is broader and includes practices that can physically or emotionally harm children. Examples examined in the report include:
- corporal punishment;
- physical and mechanical restraint;
- seclusion;
- humiliation, shaming, threats, and other emotionally harmful treatment;
- withholding food or basic needs as punishment; and
- other punitive practices that threaten children's physical or psychological safety.
Head Start's standards contain detailed protections against multiple forms of physical and emotional harm. State protections differ substantially across jurisdictions and early learning systems.
Why discipline in the early years requires a developmental approach
The early years are a period of rapid development. Young children are learning to communicate their needs, regulate emotions, navigate new environments, separate from caregivers, build relationships, and interact with peers. Behaviors adults may experience as challenging are often part of this developmental process.
Research reviewed by CEP finds that responding to these behaviors through harsh or exclusionary discipline can negatively affect children's emotional and psychological well-being, learning, and longer-term educational trajectories. Children need skilled educators, strong family partnerships, appropriate ratios and group sizes, developmental and behavioral screening, mental health support, and policies grounded in child development.
How Head Start protects children from harsh and exclusionary discipline
Head Start's approach to discipline is not limited to prohibiting specific practices. Its standards connect children's emotional safety with broader supports designed to help programs respond to children's developmental and behavioral needs.
These protections include:
- prohibition of expulsion;
- strict limits on suspension;
- positive approaches to child guidance;
- protections against corporal punishment and other harmful treatment;
- regular access to early childhood mental health specialists;
- developmental and behavioral screening and referral;
- family-program partnerships;
- supports for children with disabilities and coordination with early intervention and special education systems; and
- program data used to identify strengths and needs.
The report describes these requirements as an interconnected system supporting children's social, emotional, and behavioral development.
How do state early childhood discipline policies compare with Head Start?
CEP reviewed state legislation and 2025–27 CCDF State Plans to examine whether state policies aligned with Head Start protections. Alignment required three core features:
- prohibiting expulsion except under extraordinary circumstances involving a serious safety threat;
- limiting suspension to extraordinary safety circumstances; and
- requiring a supportive process that involves families, specialists such as mental health professionals, and other relevant providers when needed.
CEP also examined whether protections applied across the full birth-to-five age range and across different parts of the early childhood system.
The results show a highly fragmented policy landscape. A state may have a strong policy that applies only to a particular age, funding stream, or type of early learning program, meaning children can experience very different protections depending on where they receive care.
Suggested Citation:
Meek, S., Alexander, B., Blevins, D., Cardona, M., & Allen, R. (September, 2026). Harsh Punishment and Exclusionary Discipline in the Early Years: Data, Research, and a Policy Comparison Between Head Start and States. The Children’s Equity Project at Arizona State University. https://cep.asu.edu/resources/harsh-punishment-exclusionary-discipline-early-years.
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| The Hechinger Report: From kindergarten to disciplinary school: Texas sends kids as young as 6 to harsh alternative campuses
Frequently Asked Questions
Exclusionary discipline refers to practices that remove a child from their learning environment because of behavior. The most common forms are suspension and expulsion. In early childhood, these practices can result in lost learning time and may negatively affect children's educational and developmental trajectories.
Federal preschool discipline data show persistent racial disparities. In the 2021–22 CRDC, Black children accounted for 18% of preschool enrollment but 38% of children suspended one or more times. Research reviewed by CEP identifies multiple contributing factors, including policy, school climate, educator support and preparation, and individual and structural bias, not evidence that Black children behave worse than their peers.
Harsh discipline includes practices that can physically or emotionally harm children. Examples include corporal punishment, restraint, seclusion, humiliation, emotional abuse, and other forms of punishment that threaten children's physical or psychological well-being.
Head Start prohibits expulsion and permits suspension only in extraordinary circumstances. Programs must work with families, mental health consultants, and other relevant partners to develop a plan to support the child and family.
Yes. The Head Start Program Performance Standards prohibit corporal punishment and other physically or emotionally harmful practices. Prohibited behaviors include hitting, kicking, shaking, dragging, force-feeding, and restraining children, as well as humiliating or shaming children.
Federal data show that preschool children continue to experience suspension and expulsion, with significant disparities by race, disability status, and gender. In 2021–22, Black children represented 18% of preschool enrollment but 38% of preschool children suspended one or more times.
The report identifies Black children, children with disabilities, and boys as experiencing disproportionately high rates of harsh and exclusionary discipline. Research reviewed in the report also identifies factors such as educator preparation and support, working conditions, policy, school climate, trauma, and bias as contributors.
Not consistently. The report found that all 50 states and D.C. have child care licensing policies addressing behavior guidance and discipline, but only 17 states specifically address suspension and expulsion in their child care licensing systems.
The report identified 14 states with policies that aligned with the HSPPS in content regarding expulsion, suspension, and supportive processes. However, these protections do not necessarily apply across all early learning systems or across the full 0–5 age range.
Restraint restricts a child's movement, while seclusion involves involuntarily confining a child alone in a room or area from which they cannot leave. Research reviewed in the report raises concerns about the use of these practices, particularly when they are used as punishment rather than in genuine safety emergencies.
The HSPPS provide a consistent federal framework for protecting children from harsh and exclusionary discipline while supporting children's social-emotional development. The report finds that state protections vary substantially and often do not apply consistently across settings or across the full 0–5 age range. Replacing HSPPS protections with state standards could therefore leave many children with fewer protections from harmful discipline practices.
Children with disabilities are substantially overrepresented in preschool exclusionary discipline. In the 2021–22 data reviewed by CEP, children served under IDEA represented 23% of preschool enrollment but 74% of expulsions.
No. State policies vary by age, early learning setting, funding stream and policy type. Some protections apply only to public pre-K or CCDF-funded programs, while others cover broader portions of the early childhood system.