Equity in Early Childhood Education: A Policy Agenda, Essays (university) of Lease Finance and Investment Banking

Download Equity in Early Childhood Education: A Policy Agenda and more Essays (university) Lease Finance and Investment Banking in PDF only on Docsity! FROM THE EARLY YEARS TO THE EARLY GRADES Data, Research, and an Actionable Child Equity Policy Agenda WITH START EQUITY Page 2 Start with Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center Generous funding from: The Heising Simons Foundation T. Denny Sanford School of Social and Family Dynamics, Arizona State University Research assistance from: Brittany Alexander, Arizona State University, Children’s Equity Project Sean Austin, University of Oregon Janniqua Dawkins, Arizona State University, Children’s Equity Project Abby Green, Vanderbilt University Ana Maria Guevara Melendez, Arizona State University, Children’s Equity Project Robert Tovar, Arizona State University, Children’s Equity Project Communications support from: Dorie Turner Nolt Graphic design from: Allison Wachtel CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS Shantel Meek, PhD, Arizona State University, Children’s Equity Project Founder and Director Linda Smith, Bipartisan Policy Center Rosemarie Allen, PhD, Center for Racial Equity and Excellence, Children’s Equity Project partner Evandra Catherine, PhD, Arizona State University, Children’s Equity Project Kelly Edyburn, PhD, Arizona State University, Children’s Equity Project Conor Williams, PhD, The Century Foundation, Children’s Equity Project partner Richard Fabes, PhD, Arizona State University, Children’s Equity Project Kent McIntosh, PhD, University of Oregon, Children’s Equity Project partner Eugene Garcia, PhD, Arizona State University Ruby Takanishi, PhD, New America Senior Research Fellow Lisa Gordon, Bank Street College, Children’s Equity Project partner Oscar Jimenez-Castellanos, PhD, Trinity University, Children’s Equity Project partner Mary Louise Hemmeter, PhD, Vanderbilt University, Children’s Equity Project partner Walter Gilliam, PhD, Yale University, Children’s Equity Project partner Ryan Pontier, PhD, Florida International University, Children’s Equity Project partner ACKNOWLEDGMENTS OUR WORK WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE WITHOUT: Diligent review from: Veronica Fernandez, University of Miami, Children’s Equity Project partner Dawn Yazzie, Southwest Human Development Center, Children’s Equity Project partner Doug Steiger, American University, DSteiger Consulting Michael Yudin, The Raben Group Rebecca Cokley, Center for American Progress Shannon Rudisill, Early Childhood Funders Collaborative Megan Vinh, University of North Carolina- Chapel Hill Heather Rieman, The Education Trust Ruth Gallucci, National Association of State Directors of Special Education 619 Affinity Group Annie Davis, Georgetown University Logistical support from: Arlyn Moreno Luna, Berkeley University Arabella Pluta-Ehlers, Bipartisan Policy Center EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page 6 Start with Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center In 1983, President Reagan established a commission to examine the state of the U.S. education system. The resulting landmark report, A Nation at Risk, raised major concerns about our students’ preparedness to compete in an evolving and interconnected world economy. Despite several education system overhauls and billions of dollars, we are still very much a nation at risk four decades later. Today, the primary source of that risk is the uneven playing field and inequitable distribution of opportunity in our education system—starting with our youngest learners. More than half of the 74 million children in the United States are children of color, and they are served by learning systems that are gravely inequitable. The COVID-19 pandemic and its effects on the health, economic wellbeing, and education of young children, only exacerbate existing inequalities. In the midst of this global pandemic, the inequities that pervade everyday life for Black Americans and other people of color in the United States have come to a head with the recent killing of George Floyd at the hands of police and the thousands of people across the country protesting for an end to police violence and racial injustice. The opportunity to finally bring about equitable change across America’s systems, including the early learning and education systems, is as ripe as it has been in a generation. Against this backdrop, the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center present a new, concrete early learning equity policy agenda that will help close opportunity gaps in learning systems. With support from the Heising-Simons Foundation, our two organizations held convenings in 2019 with over 70 experts to examine the state of equity in young children. Informed by those convenings, we developed a new report that reviews child equity data, research, and policy and culminates in targeted recommendations to build more equitable learning systems across this nation. The United States is at a crossroads. We can spend the next several years trying to get back to the broken, ineffective status quo in our learning systems, where children were falling—or being pushed—through the cracks at astonishing rates. Or, we can choose to address the core, structural inequities that have held generations of children, especially Black, Latinx, and Native American children, back. For the sake of our country, we hope policymakers respond to the multiple crises facing our nation, with the latter. The policy agenda presented here can help us get there. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY More than half of the 74 million children in the United States are children of color, and they are served by learning systems that are gravely inequitable. Page 7 Start with Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center A CRITICAL MOMENT The public health and economic emergencies this country faces as a result of COVID-19 are unprecedented, painful, and large in scale. This pandemic has exposed the precarious economic and social conditions of children and families across the United States, but especially those from historically marginalized communities. Even with incomplete data, it is clear that people of color and people with disabilities are getting sicker and dying at higher rates. This fact is tragic, but not surprising. COVID-19 does not discriminate based on race or income, but our American systems do. Discriminative housing, financial, labor, education, and criminal justice policies have stacked the deck against people of color. Today, people of color are less likely to have access to health insurance and more likely to face bias within the healthcare system. They are more likely to be exposed to air pollution and lead, live in food deserts and near toxic sites and landfills, and lack access to clean drinking water. Each of these factors, and others, affect underlying health conditions. The broader effects of COVID-19 on Americans’ pocketbooks, education, and other domains of life will be unknown for some time. But it is a fact that a long and living history of discriminatory policies have resulted in people of color having less wealth—by some estimates, ten times less— and dramatically less upward economic mobility than their White counterparts. It is a fact that their children are more likely to attend high-poverty, underfunded schools. It is a fact that nearly one in three Black and Native American children, and one in four Latinx children lived in poverty, before COVID-19 ravaged communities economically. And now, where the data are disaggregated, we know that children of color are also more likely to suffer directly from losing a loved one from COVID-19. Given the inequity baked into our American systems, it is almost certain that people from marginalized communities will suffer more from this pandemic and its aftermath in ways that include, but also extend far beyond, health consequences. Our systems have created barriers that stack the deck against many children—and they have to climb over those barriers before they are out of diapers. We have a system that is unequal, unfair, and unsustainable. That is even more apparent today than it was 6 months ago. The compounding effects of discriminatory policies that have caused these conditions are undergirding the wide scale protests across the nation and the globe calling for an end to police violence and racial injustice. With these protests, advocates have brought hope for an America that lives up to its ideals. Fixing child serving systems must be part of the solution. If all children are given access to the academic and social- emotional supports they need—instead of being kicked out of school, floundering in ineffective and ideologically driven teaching models, and separated into sub-par learning settings—young children who have been locked out of opportunity for generations could get closer to reaching their full potential. If we seize this moment as an opportunity for positive change, for a long overdue pivot toward equity, maybe we can climb out of this turbulent time in American history stronger, and ensure that all of our children, not just some of them, have the opportunity to thrive. Early learning experiences can have long-lasting, life-changing effects on children. Unfortunately, it is clear that the systems charged with providing those experiences are not living up to their promise. Page 10 Start with Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center Corporal punishment is legal in public States where corporal punishment is legal in public schools States representing the majority of corporal punishment cases National data show that more than 160,000 children were subject to corporal punishment in a given year. More than 1,500 of those were preschool students. MAJOR FINDINGS: HARSH DISCIPLINE Discipline can and should be positive, helping to promote a child’s social-emotional development and ability to self-regulate. However, it can also be harsh and cause harm to a child’s well-being. There is no evidence that harsh discipline improves children’s behavior in the short term or over time, but there is an abundance of research showing it is associated with poor outcomes. For the purposes of this report, we define harsh discipline as: • Exclusionary discipline via expulsion or suspension • Corporal punishment • Seclusion • Restraint used inappropriately Harsh discipline is common even in the early years. The data show that harsh discipline practices are used frequently in schools and early learning settings and occur even with infants and toddlers. Consider the case of exclusionary practices, such as expelling or suspending a child. In an analysis of Pre-K through elementary school systems, states reported 1.27 million cases of young children enrolled in public schools being disciplined through exclusionary practices in the 2015-2016 school year. A national parent survey found that approximately 50,000 children under five were suspended, and 17,000 were expelled, in a single year. When it comes to corporal punishment, defined as paddling, spanking, or other forms of physical punishment imposed on a child, there are no federal laws or regulations governing the practice other than those authorizing data collection, and the practice remains legal in 19 states—mostly in the South. National data show that more than 160,000 children were subject to corporal punishment during a given year. More than 1,500 of these were preschool students. When it comes to physically restraining children, the latest data show 86,000 children were restrained over the course of a year. 36,000 children were subject to seclusion, the practice of locking children in a room alone without the ability to get out. These practices were never supposed to be commonplace; they were developed to be used exclusively for emergencies and to mitigate physical harm, but they are overused and abused, and sometimes used to punish children for minor misbehavior It’s disproportionate. This is all happening inequitably. schools in 19 states. Page 11 Start with Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center Black children are disciplined—and children with disabilities are restrained and secluded—at far higher rates than their peers. DISCIPLINE RATES: BLACK STUDENTS 12% 71% RESTRAINT AND SECLUSION RATES: STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 66% % of K–12 student enrollment % of total students secluded % of total students restrained Total PreK–12 enrollment, Black students Total PreK–12 enrollment, all races Total PreK–12 suspensions and exclusions, all races Total PreK–12 suspensions and exclusions, Black students In K–12 settings, Black children make up 15% of children in schools but 39% of those suspended at least once, 27% of children restrained, and 23% of children secluded. They are also about twice as likely to be corporally punished as their White peers. There is no evidence that Black children show greater or more severe misbehavior. Instead, research suggests Black children are punished more severely than their peers for the same or similar behaviors and that they are subject to increased scrutiny as early as preschool. Well-established research suggests Black children are often the subjects of implicit bias, with adults perceiving Black children as being older than they are, less innocent than their peers, more culpable and aggressive, and more deserving of harsher punishment than White children. Other factors are also at play. And we’re not progressing in making meaningful change. Data in K–12 settings indicate that racial disparities in corporal punishment and exclusionary discipline today are largely consistent, or larger, than when data were first published more than 40 years ago. Disparities also exist for children with disabilities. In more than half of the schools that use corporal punishment, children with disabilities are disproportionately subject to the practice. They also are twice as likely to be excluded from K–12 settings than their peers without disabilities. And children with disabilities make up 12% of student enrollment but 71% and 66% of all children restrained and secluded, respectively. Expulsion rates in public Pre-K settings are about three times higher than in K–12 settings. Some estimates suggest that the rate in child care settings is as much as 13 times higher than K–12 settings. Page 12 Start with Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center State policies and practices vary. For example, Utah has the lowest rate of using exclusion to discipline children, while Mississippi has the highest rate. We calculated exclusion rates for Black children as compared to their peers, and we found racial disparities in every single state. Ohio had the biggest difference in rates at which Black children are suspended and expelled as compared to all other children. Corporal punishment is legal in private school settings in every state in the nation except two (New Jersey and Iowa), and is legal in public school settings in 19 states. The majority of public school corporal punishment cases occur in Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama, and Texas. Policies and practices around seclusion and restraint also vary by state. Only two states, Georgia and Hawaii, ban seclusion outright. A handful ban it for children with disabilities. There are no limits on restraining children in nearly half the states. What is fueling these practices and disparities? Lack of teacher training and ongoing supports are key. One national representative survey found that only 20% of early childhood providers received training in social and emotional development in the previous year. Research finds that when teachers have access to an early childhood mental health specialist, suspensions and expulsions can drop by half. Disparities in access to social-emotional support is also a factor. Children of color have less access to early childhood mental health specialists in early learning settings; in K–12 settings, they disproportionately attend schools with no or insufficient counselors and mental health professionals Implicit and explicit bias is also an underlying driver of the uneven application of harsh discipline. Black children face disparities across all forms of harsh discipline and across all age groups. Pass legislation to end corporal punishment, seclusion and exclusionary discipline, and limit restraint across programs that serve young children and receive federal funding. Congress should: States should: Districts should:Federal agencies should: Eliminate the 10-day suspension allowance for children with disabilities Increase funding for mental health interventions and personnel Raise awareness about the negative impacts of harsh discipline and family rights Tie federal funds to state progress reducing harsh discipline and disparities in its use Prohibit corporal punishment, seclusion, and exclusionary discipline in learning settings serving young children and limit restraint Invest in data systems and professional development Develop infrastructure to receive, investigate, and act on parent complaints Ban harsh discipline even in states where it remains legal Prioritize child mental health and positive school climate over punitive discipline in budgets Reinstate guidance that discourages the use of exclusionary discipline and address racial disparities Require states to report their use of harsh discipline and its disproportionate application in child care PROMOTING POSITIVE DISCIPLINE: SOLUTIONS BEGIN WITH POLICY CHANGE. Ensure that young children never have negative interactions with school resource officers via intimidation, inappropriate restraint, handcuffing, or arrest Invest in systems for training, coaching, and evaluating the use of positive discipline and anti-bias approaches See page 108 for a complete policy agenda. Page 15 Start with Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center MAJOR FINDINGS: INEQUITABLE ACCESS TO BILINGUAL LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES FOR DUAL LANGUAGE AND ENGLISH LEARNERS Dual language learners (DLLs) are young children who are learning a second language while continuing to develop their first language (customarily the language they speak at home). Once they enter the K–12 system, DLLs who are not proficient in English are formally classified as “English learners” (ELs) and are eligible for services to aid their English language development. DLL and EL children are a large, diverse, and growing population. It’s estimated that about a third of children in the country under eight years old are DLLs, though gaps in data prevent a more precise estimate. As a subgroup, DLL and EL children have a host of linguistic, cultural, and social strengths. Their bilingualism is associated with cognitive advantages, including strong executive functioning skills, attention, perspective taking, and self-regulation. The research is clear: The gold standard in instruction is high-quality dual language immersion. Such programs provide instruction in two languages and typically have balanced enrollment between native speakers of each of the languages used. Dual language immersion models are associated with improved developmental, linguistic, and academic outcomes for all students. Research shows that having access to learning experiences in a child’s home language alongside English strengthens the language foundation upon which literacy grows, provides meaningful access to the curriculum, and can foster teacher-child relationships. But despite the advantages of bilingualism and the superiority of bilingual learning models, our learning systems are overwhelmingly depriving DLLs and ELs of such opportunities. About one third of children in the United States are dual language learners. Page 16 Start with Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy CenterThe State of Equity in Learning Settings—From the Early Years to the Early Grades There is a lack of bilingual education nationwide. In some places where bilingual learning does exist, DLLs and ELs are underrepresented; in other places, they are locked out as a matter of policy. English immersion or “English-only” programs are commonplace for DLLs and ELs, but they are not effective. In K–12 settings, these models sometimes result in the segregation of students learning English. Research shows DLLs who are first exposed to English in kindergarten and remain in English-dominant instructional environments tend to fall behind their early-proficient and monolingual English-speaking peers on academic skills (as measured in English). This has contributed to a gap between DLLs’ and ELs’ potential and their outcomes. Beyond a lack of access to appropriate learning approaches, this gap is tied to a societal bias in the United States in favor of monolingualism. Tests and assessments are primarily conducted in English, and bilingualism is only valued for some and seen as a deficit for DLLs and ELs. Combined these factors disadvantage children and create misperceptions about DLLs’ and ELs’ potential. For DLLs, bilingual learning is not an optional enrichment, as it is for children who speak English as a first language. It can make or break their access to a quality education altogether. It is the difference between enrichment and equity. Assessment problems cannot be overlooked. In addition to improving access to high-quality bilingual learning models, we need better assessments for DLLs and ELs so we can effectively measure both student progress and program effectiveness: Too often, assessments are conducted exclusively in English, which end up assessing a child’s English skills rather than subject matter content. And although the field lacks assessment tools in many languages, there are tools in Spanish—by far the most commonly spoken language by DLLs and ELs in this country‚ that are not being used enough. DUAL LANGUAGE LEARNERS ENROLLED IN THESE INSTRUCTIONAL MODELS ARE ARE MORE LIKELY TO: Become proficient in English more quickly Outperform peers in both math and reading Reach national academic performance norms Become biliterate Dual language instruction creates lasting, wide-ranging benefits for all students. For dual language learners, bilingual education is not an optional opportunity for enrichment. It can make or break their access to a quality education altogether. Page 17 Start with Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center Head Start has the most comprehensive standards for DLLs across early learning systems. Other obstacles to access and opportunity are also significant. The national shortage of credentialed bilingual teachers limits access to strong DLI programs. In addition, research finds that teacher bias and differential expectations for DLLs and ELs also impact the success of young learners. Nationally representative data show that teachers have lower academic expectations for children classified as ELs; this is not the case in bilingual schools. Similarly, in countries that place value on speaking multiple languages, the academic differences between monolingual and bilingual students are small or nonexistent. The federal and state policy landscape: Federal funding for English learners is not anywhere near sufficient. Title III funding under ESSA is designed to support ELs but has been stagnant for years, not even keeping pace with inflation or the increase in the number of ELs in the country. States and districts play a significant role in EL policy. In 2015, Congress passed the Every Student Succeeds Act, which shifted much of the responsibility for decision making and accountability related to English learners to the states. Bilingual learning opportunities are growing, but they are not always growing equitably. A number of cities and states are trying to expand access to bilingual learning programs, but the extent to which English learners and dual language learners have access has not been analyzed. Head Start has the most comprehensive standards for DLLs across early learning systems. INTRODUCTION Page 21 Start with Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center “Equal opportunity for all” is a cornerstone promise of American democratic life. And yet, the United States has only fully extended this promise to certain groups of people. Practically and legally speaking, for most of our history “all” has never truly meant all. It has been more than 150 years since the Emancipation Proclamation and many decades since the Civil Rights era. Indeed, these efforts have resulted in important legal precedents and legislative victories for people of color. Still, in 2020, American children’s demographic characteristics are too often predictive of their outcomes. Families of color are more likely to experience daily hardships and lifelong stressors stemming from policies and resulting conditions that systematically disadvantage, disenfranchise, and discriminate against their communities. These policies run the gamut of family life and include limited access to financial capital, affordable housing, quality education, and healthcare, as well as hostile immigration policies and mass incarceration. These policies, and others, have taken their toll on families of color for generations and continue to deny equal opportunity today. Given the critical nature of the earliest period of human development, the stressors that result from policy- influenced inequities are especially consequential for young children. Differences in access to resources—even before birth—profoundly influence children’s development and result in diverging trajectories and stubborn disparities that persist and compound throughout their lives. Pregnant mothers of color have less access to high-quality prenatal care.1 Once born, children from low-income families and children of color have less access to an array of resources, including, but not limited to, clean and toxin-free drinking water, quality health and mental healthcare, and safe and affordable housing.2 When children enter early education, the inequities continue; children of color and children with disabilities have less access to high-quality, inclusive learning environments.3 These inequities are compounded by harsh immigration and mass incarceration policies that result in family separations and that disproportionately bring devastation to communities of color. INTRODUCTION By transforming children’s opportunities, the resources they have access to, and the experiences they have in learning settings, we can move closer to our goal: ensuring that demographic characteristics no longer predict children’s outcomes. Page 22 Start with Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center The Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has only exacerbated these inequities. Even with incomplete data, it is clear that people from marginalized communities— including people of color and people with disabilities— are getting sicker and dying at higher rates. Longstanding inequities in employment, pay, and opportunity mean that members of these communities are more likely to be in more precarious financial positions than their White, non-disabled counterparts. Students of color are not only less likely to have access to tools that enable electronic remote learning, but they are also more likely to suffer directly from losing a loved one and/or from family financial stressors. In light of these realities and research on the disproportionate effects of summer learning loss for children from marginalized communities, it is clear that the pandemic poses a grave threat to educational equity. Amid this global pandemic, thousands of protesters across the United States and around the world have taken to the streets to demand justice for police violence and to bring an end to systemic racism. The murder of George Floyd, and many other Black men and women at the hands of police and white supremacist vigilantes, is a painful and difficult moment for Americans, especially for Black Americans; but it is also a moment of hope. This modern uprising has brought about a long-overdue reckoning about race in the United States. The opportunity to finally dismantle racism and bring about equitable change across America’s systems, including the early learning and education systems, is as ripe as it has been in a generation. Against this backdrop, we present a new, concrete equity policy agenda that will help close the earliest opportunity gaps, from the early years to the early grades. The Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center, with support from the Heising-Simons Foundation, held two convenings in 2019 with over 70 experts to examine the state of equity in young children. Informed by those convenings, this report reviews child equity data, research, and policy and culminates in targeted recommendations to build more equitable learning systems for our youngest learners across this nation. We chose to focus on learning systems—from the early years (birth to five) to the early grades (K-5)—due to the consequential nature of early experiences and the important role that education plays in setting long-term trajectories and opportunities. We centered our work on three specific policy areas—referred to here as “pivotal policy areas”—that if changed, could begin to transform learning experiences, bridge opportunity gaps, and level the playing field for young children. These three pivotal areas are: (a) harsh discipline and its disproportionate application in learning settings, (b) lack of inclusion of children with disabilities in learning settings, and (c) inequitable access to high-quality learning opportunities for dual language and English learners. We believe that addressing unique learning inequities in tribal communities is another pivotal policy area; however, it is outside the scope of this report to deeply examine these issues. In the coming months, we plan to issue a separate report that focuses exclusively on the data, research, and policy landscape of learning inequities in tribal communities. Each of the three pivotal policy areas reviewed in this report disproportionately affects the learning experiences of children from historically marginalized communities, including children with disabilities and children of color— especially those living in low-resourced communities, dual and English language learners, and children from American Indian communities. They also share the common theme of exclusion: exclusion from learning settings altogether, exclusion from inclusive learning opportunities, and exclusion from teaching models that we know work. We believe that shifting to inclusion in these pivotal areas can transform children’s learning experiences and change their trajectories in the long term. Although we frame our report around these distinct issue areas, we recognize that they are not mutually exclusive. It is impossible to consider any single inequity rooted in children’s identities in isolation from all others. It is necessary to explore how children’s intersecting identities contribute to the strengths and experiences of marginalization within and across systems that cannot We believe that addressing unique learning inequities in tribal communities is another pivotal policy area. In the coming months, we plan to issue a separate report that focuses exclusively on the data, research, and policy landscape of learning inequities in tribal communities. Page 25 Start with Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center THE ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT Within each of the three pivotal policy issue areas, we will first examine the relevant data landscape. We know a great deal about how our children are faring in our early learning and education systems, but there is also much we do not know. We review major data efforts that supply us with a better understanding of children’s outcomes, and the distribution of opportunities (or lack thereof) tied to those outcomes. We then take a deep dive into the research base underlying each of the three pivotal policy areas. We review the latest evidence base, with an emphasis on underlying causes, barriers to success, and strategies, models, and approaches that work to close opportunity gaps. Next, we examine the state of the policy landscape and assess what the federal government and states are doing to close opportunity gaps within each of these pivotal areas. The report concludes with a more coherent understanding of what we know and what we do not know across our pivotal equity issue areas. Based on that knowledge, we provide a concrete and actionable child equity policy agenda extending from the early years to the early grades. Our policy agenda includes a series of recommendations—both cross-cutting and unique to each pivotal issue area. We believe that implementing these reforms can move us closer to bridging opportunity gaps and reducing the likelihood that children’s demographic characteristics predict their life outcomes. In this report, we address the data, research, and policy landscapes for each issue area and use our analyses to inform an actionable policy agenda. HARSH DISCIPLINE PIVOTAL POLICY AREA 1: AND ITS DISPROPORTIONATE APPLICATION IN LEARNING SETTINGS PIVOTAL POLICY AREA 1: HARSH DISCIPLINE AND ITS DISPROPORTIONATE APPLICATION IN LEARNING SETTINGS Harsh discipline happens early and often in U.S. early learning and education systems, though rates vary substantially across state lines. At A Glance Black children, boys, and children with disabilities are disproportionately the targets of harsh discipline. A variety of factors contribute to harsh discipline, including implicit biases and their effects on decision making; a lack of training and support for early educators and teachers; teacher stress and depression; poor working conditions, such as long working hours with few breaks; school climate; and a lack of behavior policies that are supportive of children’s social, emotional and behavioral development. Harsh discipline is associated with a host of negative child outcomes and is not associated with a single positive outcome. Harsh discipline is largely unregulated at the federal level (except, in some cases, in children with disabilities). Many states and communities have their own policies, though their quality varies greatly. A handful of interventions and pedagogies have shown promise in reducing harsh discipline, although very few approaches have succeeded in closing racial disparities. Shantel Meek, PhD Arizona State University, Children’s Equity Project Rosemarie Allen, PhD Center for Racial Equity and Excellence Evandra Catherine, PhD Arizona State University, Children’s Equity Project Richard Fabes, PhD Arizona State University, Children’s Equity Project Kent McIntosh, PhD University of Oregon Lisa Gordon Bank Street College of Education Mary Louise Hemmeter, PhD Vanderbilt University Walter Gilliam, PhD Yale University Authors Page 30 Start with Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center In K–12 settings, Black children continue to be disproportionately excluded. Black children make up 15% of K–12 children in the United State but represent 39% of those suspended at least once. Black boys, who make up 8% of the student population, represent a quarter of all suspended students. Data further indicate that children with disabilities are twice as likely to be excluded from K–12 settings than their peers, and Black children with disabilities are the most likely to be excluded.14 Although data do not indicate that children with disabilities are disproportionately excluded from early childhood settings via suspensions and expulsions, it is possible that young children are not yet identified as having a disability, making it difficult to determine whether children who are eventually diagnosed with a disability were disproportionately excluded earlier in life. Patterns in exclusionary discipline data are troubling, but neither are as stark nor as consistent for Latinx and American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) children. For both groups, data generally indicate that they are not overrepresented in exclusionary discipline in the early grades but are in the later grades.15 However, there are exceptions. For example, in California, AI/AN boys are 2.5 times more likely and AI/AN girls are 3.7 times more likely to be suspended in early childhood settings than their same-aged, same-gender peers.16 Data on Asian-American and Pacific-Islander (AAPI) children show that certain subgroups of children within these groups experience disparities in discipline. One study of K–12 students indicated that when examined as a group, AAPI students are less likely to receive exclusionary discipline than White students.17 However, when disaggregated, children in the narrower Pacific Islander category had a risk ratio over four times greater than children in the Asian-American group. There is a small but emerging evidence base that finds exclusionary discipline practices are used in infant and toddler child care settings. One study found that 42% of infant/toddler child care programs had expelled a child in the previous year due to challenging behavior.18 More recently, researchers in Philadelphia found that 26% of child care programs had expelled at least one child in the past year and that toddlers were as likely to be targets of exclusionary discipline as preschoolers.19 By comparison, Dr. Gilliam’s 2005 study found that just over 10% of Pre-K teachers had expelled one or more children in the past year, alarmingly suggesting even higher rates in infant/ toddler child care than public preschool, which already has much higher rates than K–12 settings. The National Survey for Children’s Health,20 conducted by the Health Resources Services Administration (HRSA) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is another source of national exclusionary discipline data of young children. In this 2016 survey, parents reported that approximately 50,000 children under age five were suspended and 17,000 were expelled in one school year alone.21 So far as raw numbers, these quantities are higher than those reported through the CRDC. This data collection effort was a valuable contribution to the data landscape on exclusionary discipline, primarily because parents were the reporters instead of school officials, which enabled a more comprehensive view of the issue across early education setting types (i.e., private child care, public Pre-K, and Head Start). Unfortunately, HHS only included an exclusionary discipline question in the 2016 survey and has no plans to include it in future iterations of the survey. State Data Analyses State analyses of exclusionary discipline have been examined to a lesser extent than national data. Here, we produced a first-of-its-kind analysis of exclusionary discipline rates of children in Pre-K through elementary school (herein referred to as “young students”) using the most recent publicly available CRDC data to determine: (a) state differences in exclusionary discipline rates, and (b) differences in rates between Black children, who consistently experience the largest disparities, and other children. Our analysis revealed racial disparities in every state in the country. Nationally, the average difference in exclusion rate between young Black students and their peers was almost 71 per 1,000 students. Although rates varied across states, from a high of almost 141 in Ohio to a low of 3 in Hawaii. Page 31 Start with Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center In 2015-16, states reported a total of almost 1.27 million cases of exclusionary discipline for young students enrolled in public schools.22 This total obscures considerable differences across the country. To account for state population, we computed rates of classroom exclusion per 1,000 students enrolled. The average rate of classroom exclusion in the U.S. was just over 47 cases per 1,000 students. Utah had the lowest rate of exclusion with about 14 cases per 1,000 young students, followed by Hawaii and Massachusetts, each with under 20 cases per 1,000 students. Mississippi had the highest rate of exclusion with about 116 cases per 1,000 young students, followed by South Carolina, Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, and Delaware, all of which reported more than 80 cases per 1,000 young students. Substantial state differences in rates by race were also noted. Nationally, the average difference in the exclusion rate between young Black children and their peers was almost 71 per 1,000 students. Although rates varied across states, from a high of almost 141 in Ohio to a low of 3 in Hawaii, disparities were noted in every state in the country. Notably, nine states had exclusion disparity rates over 100 and only four states had rates under 30.22 With over 3.5 million young Black students enrolled in U.S. public schools, eliminating this disparity would reduce the number of exclusions for young Black students by almost 250,000 cases. Utah Hawaii Massachusetts Maryland North Dakota New Jersey California New York Idaho Connecticut Rhode Island Maine Iowa Minnesota New Mexico Wisconsin New Hampshire Illinois Vermont Oregon Wyoming Kentucky Pennsylvania Nebraska Montana Washington Colorado South Dakota Virginia Nevada District of Columbia Kansas Michigan Tennessee Arizona Florida Texas Alaska Ohio Indiana West Virginia Georgia Alabama Oklahoma North Carolina Delaware Missouri Louisiana Arkansas South Carolina Mississippi 116.0 88.9 84.6 88.7 86.5 80.2 68.5 67.0 63.3 62.2 60.4 59.2 59.0 58.7 58.1 57.8 57.4 55.8 55.3 49.7 49.2 48.7 47.6 43.4 43.3 60.4 42.1 40.6 39.3 38.0 35.8 33.5 33.3 33.2 32.6 30.4 42.1 42.1 30.2 29.6 27.2 27.0 26.3 25.2 25.2 22.6 22.2 22.2 19.7 16.6 13.9 In 2015–16, the average rate of classroom exclusion of young students in the U.S. was just over 47 per 1,000 students. Page 32 Start with Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center On average, the rate at which young Black students are excluded is more than double that of their peers. Disparity rate of 100 or greater Disparity rate of 70–99 Disparity rate of less than 30 Disparity rate of 30–69 Disparity rate of 70–99 Disparity rate of 100 or greater 4 states 9 states 17 states 21states DISPARITY RATES IN THE EXCLUSION OF YOUNG BLACK STUDENTS Disparity rate of 30–69 Disparity rate of 0–29 Page 35 Start with Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center % total enrollment 15% 27% 23% 49% 48% 55% 1% 3% % total restraints % total seclusions % total enrollment % total restraints % total seclusions % total enrollment % total seclusions BLACK STUDENTS WHITE STUDENTS AMERICAN INDIAN/ ALASKA NATIVE STUDENTS RESTRAINT AND SECLUSION The CRDC defines restraint as “a personal restriction that immobilizes or reduces the ability of a student to move his or her torso, arms, legs, or head freely,” mechanical restraint as “the use of any device or equipment to restrict a student’s freedom of movement,” and seclusion as “the involuntary confinement of a student alone in a room or area from which the student is physically prevented from leaving.” Many policies, including 2012 guidance from the U.S. Department of Education, indicate that restraint and seclusion should be used only as a last resort when there is a serious and immediate safety threat. Unfortunately, in too many instances restraint and seclusion are used as punishment, often for minor and subjective behaviors. CRDC is the main source for restraint and seclusion data, as with exclusionary discipline and corporal punishment. In 2015–16, administrators reported physically and mechanically restraining 86,000 children and secluding 36,000 children.22 These estimates are 23% higher than 2011–12 data, primarily accounted for by cases of restraint. There are significant gender and racial disparities in the use of restraint and seclusion, and the vast majority of children restrained and secluded have disabilities. Black and AI/AN children are disproportionately the subjects of restraint and seclusion. Our state analysis of corporal punishment in elementary- school-aged children finds that Black and/or AI/AN children are disproportionately subjected to corporal punishment in 10 of the 19 states that allow this punishment. The states with the largest disparities for Black children are Louisiana and Mississippi, where Black children make up about 47% and 53% of school enrollment respectively, but make up 60% and more than 67% of corporal punishment cases in those states. South Carolina, Georgia, and Texas also have large disproportionality. The states with the largest disparities for AI/AN children are North Carolina, where AI/AN children make up 1.4% of school enrollment but more than 11% of corporal punishment cases, and Oklahoma, where AI/AN children make up 11.5% of enrollment but nearly 24% of corporal punishment cases. Latino children in this age range were not disproportionately subjected to corporal punishment in any state. In four states that allow corporal punishment—Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, and Wyoming—there were no reported cases for children in this age range for the 2016–17 school year. Page 36 Start with Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center DATA TAKEAWAYS The CRDC is an invaluable source of information for policymakers and stakeholders. No other survey has such wide coverage and high completion rates.28 The fact that the data are designed to be disaggregated and used as a mechanism to enforce civil rights is critical. The Trump Administration has proposed scaling back key components of the CRDC, including preschool enrollment data disaggregated by race/ethnicity. This move would make assessing discipline disproportionality in public preschool settings, where disparities may be the greatest, impossible. The precarious state of data in government, particularly civil rights data, make it critical to impose legislative requirements—including a mandate for universal disaggregation—and create more public-private partnerships that could insulate data from political forces. Notwithstanding the critical data the CRDC provides, significant gaps exist in the discipline data landscape, primarily in early education settings that are not part of the state-funded public Pre-K system. There is no comprehensive data source on harsh discipline in the broader early education system, including the child care system, which serves an estimated 12 million children under age five,29 or Head Start programs, which serve over 1 million children every year. This is especially problematic because the child care system is considered the most under-resourced segment of the early childhood system, and there are a large number of providers who are exempt from licensing and operate unregulated. Child care providers generally have less access to supports, lower levels of education, lower pay, and fewer benefits. Perhaps unsurprisingly, research indicates that exclusionary discipline rates may be highest in child care programs.30, 31 Scholars have estimated that the rate in child care programs may be as much as 13 times the rate in K–12 settings.32 Prompted by the reauthorized federal Child Care and Development Block Grant, some states have recently begun collecting data on exclusionary discipline at the state level, but it has not been aggregated to inform a national understanding of the issue. There is no systematic or national effort underway to track corporal punishment, restraint, or seclusion in early childhood settings outside of the public Pre-K–12 system. Considering the harm that more extreme forms of punishment have on very young children’s brain development, this is among the most problematic gaps in the discipline data landscape.33 The challenge of lack of documentation and data is particularly troubling because children with disabilities—some of whom have speech/language delays and cannot easily communicate these abuses—are much more likely to be the targets of such practices. The challenge of documentation and data also extends to informal exclusionary discipline. Some experts call this practice “soft expulsion,” whereby parents are pressured to remove their children or are given alternate reasons for why their child cannot attend the program (e.g. they are not developmentally ready or it is “not a good fit”).34 Soft expulsions, like formal expulsions, are also used to keep children with disabilities out of inclusive early childhood settings. Soft expulsions are, anecdotally, common practice, but are not systematically tracked in any way. Relatedly, there is scarce data about exclusionary discipline and other forms of harsh discipline in infant and toddler child care programs, which largely operate outside the Pre-K–12 system. Any work to dismantle the school-to-prison pipeline necessarily includes addressing the initial entry point; unfortunately, the small pool of data available on this issue indicates that entry point may be sooner than preschool. Gaps also exist with respect to who provides the data. Experts speculate that local and state administrators may not be the most well-informed reporters on discipline issues in local schools, resulting in a potential undercount. Parents may provide a more comprehensive and accurate count of these issues. The only national data reported by parents on harsh discipline, however, was in exclusionary discipline, and this was a one-time collection. Given the powerful role of data in equity, maintaining data that are currently available—namely through the federal government’s CRDC—and expanding data collection to address the gaps cited in this report are critical to expanding opportunity and bridging disparities in learning settings. As with other forms of harsh discipline, there are significant gender and racial disparities in the use of restraint and seclusion. Boys represent 79% of restraint cases and 77% of seclusion cases in the U.S. Black boys are disproportionately restrained, and Black, American Indian/Alaska Native and White children are disproportionately secluded. The vast majority of children restrained and secluded had disabilities. Children with disabilities comprised 12% school enrollment but made up 71% and 66% of all restraint and seclusion cases, respectively. Of these cases, 83% were boys.27 Page 37 Start with Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center Research surrounding harsh discipline is clear: despite beliefs to the contrary, there is no evidence that harsh discipline improves children’s behavior in the short or long term. There is, however, a plethora of research that finds harsh discipline is associated with poor outcomes. The following section presents a deep dive into the research base of harsh discipline, with an emphasis on contributing factors, resulting outcomes, and preventative approaches that reduce harsh discipline. EXCLUSIONARY DISCIPLINE Exclusionary discipline and the racial disparities therein are not new phenomena. In the years following the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision to desegregate schools, the suspension rate for Black students tripled compared to that of White students.35 During this time, the suspension rate for White children was 22 per 100 students, whereas for Black students the rate was 76 per 100 students.36 In nearly every state in the country, during the 1972-73 school year, the suspension rates for Black children were at least twice as high as for White children.37 More than 40 years later, disparities in exclusionary disciplinary practices are remarkably consistent.38 By some estimates, disparities are larger due to an overall decrease in harsh discipline practices, with White children being the primary and disproportionate benefactors.39 Today, as has always been the case, race is the most significant predictor of out-of-school suspensions.40 Although exclusionary discipline is also associated with other demographic characteristics like income,41 studies find that disproportionality based on race continues to exist, even after statistically controlling for socioeconomic status, gender, prior behavior, age, and other factors.42 Research also consistently finds that Black students are more likely to be excluded for subjective behavioral infractions (e.g., defiance, disrespect) with ambiguous definitions,43 and that these subjective infractions drive the vast majority of disproportionality in discipline.44 Suspension and expulsion are associated with a host of negative outcomes, particularly educational outcomes. One key reason for this is that children simply miss out on valuable learning time. During the 2015-16 school year, students lost more than 11 million school days due to out-of-school suspensions.45 Removing students from the learning process contributes to poor performance in school, decreased scores on standardized tests, decreased reading and writing achievement, grade retention, and increased dropout rates.46 The stress associated with expulsions and suspensions, particularly in very young children, cannot be overstated. The most critical component of a child’s experience in early learning settings is having a secure, positive relationship with his or her teacher.47 Strained teacher- child relationships that lead to suspension or expulsion and other forms of harsh discipline can have negative effects on children’s social and emotional base; they can also influence children’s perceptions of school and learning and lessen their trust in adults during a sensitive and especially consequential time in development. Several factors contribute to exclusionary discipline, including policies, school climate, teacher training and supports, children’s and teachers’ mental health challenges, and programmatic characteristics. Early childhood teachers are not consistently trained to address challenging behavior and almost always cite this skill as their top training need.48 The National Survey for Early Care and Education found that only 20% HARSH DISCIPLINE AND ITS DISPROPORTIONATE APPLICATION IN LEARNING SETTINGS: THE RESEARCH LANDSCAPE Page 40 Start with Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center RESTRAINT AND SECLUSION Restraint and seclusion were not designed for disciplinary purposes; rather, they were developed as emergency measures to mitigate physical harm.70 Unfortunately, in many instances, staff misuse restraint and seclusion to punish children, even when there is not a safety threat. Children are more likely to be subjected to restraint and seclusion than adults, and they are more vulnerable to significant resulting harm.33 A 2009 GAO report found hundreds of allegations of restraint and seclusion abuses that resulted in death or severe physical and psychological injury. All children outlined in the report had a disability, and they ranged in age, with the youngest case being a 4-year-old girl. This 4-year-old girl, who was restrained to a wooden chair with leather straps to resemble an electric chair, was later diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. The catalyst for the restraint was “uncooperative behavior.” In another case, a boy with a learning disability in elementary school was locked into a seclusion room 75 times over a 6-month period for multiple hours at a time. The reasons cited for the seclusion included whistling, slouching, and hand waving.33 The cases outlined in the GAO report highlight the harmful effects of seclusion and restraint abuses. Research indicates that the most common cause of death via restraint is asphyxiation. For seclusion, the most common causes of death include suicide by hanging and injuries sustained during restraint prior to seclusion.33 Seclusion deaths are associated with failure of an adult to monitor children while in seclusion.71 Research finds that restraint and seclusion trigger feelings of humiliation, fear, loss of control, and anger, and they remove children from an environment where they are likely to learn self-management strategies. These practices can traumatize children, do not have a calming effect, and can decrease children’s ability to learn self-control. Children who are secluded or physically restrained may also suffer from depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Instead of improving a child’s behavior, seclusion and restraint typically cause an escalation in behavior in the moment72 and can evoke additional problem behavior in the future.73 This is not surprising, particularly in young children, given that these practices can cause trauma, fear, and insecurity, which may manifest as challenging behavior. Further problematic is that restraint and seclusion can create resentment between the child and the adult, and in some cases irreparably damage the relationship.74 This is particularly problematic given the critical role of the adult-child relationship in child development, wellness, and learning. The causes of seclusion and restraint vary and depend on the intended goal. In instances where the goal is to mitigate a serious and immediate safety threat, the cause is typically a combination of behavior that is perceived as aggressive or out of control along with an adult’s inability to prevent or de-escalate the behavior. In instances where the intended goal is to punish children for misbehavior, more systemic dysfunction is involved and likely includes a negative school climate, lack of training and support, misguided policies, and/or an uninformed understanding of child development and behavior management. Research finds that under-resourced programs are more likely to use restraint and seclusion as “basic behavior management strategies.”75 Schools that use any restraint and seclusion are at higher risk for abusing the practice; for example, restraining or secluding a child for behaviors that do not cause a safety threat as “treatment” or using it as a “short cut” and neglecting to address the root causes of the child’s behavior.76 Instead of improving a child’s behavior, seclusion and restraint typically cause an escalation in behavior in the moment and can evoke additional problem behavior in the future. This is not surprising, particularly in young children, given that these practices can cause trauma, fear, and insecurity, which may manifest as challenging behavior. Page 41 Start with Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center IMPLICIT BIAS IN HARSH DISCIPLINE Racial, gender, and disability-based disparities exist to varying extents among all three forms of harsh discipline discussed here. Black children are the only group that faces disparities across all forms of harsh discipline and across all age groups.77 A robust evidence base indicates that the higher rate of harsh discipline experienced by Black children is not the result of greater or more severe misbehavior.78 A critical factor that contributes and must be addressed is the influence of implicit bias on the disproportionate discipline of Black children, and to a lesser extent other children of color and children with disabilities. Implicit bias is an unconscious belief and stereotype that is triggered unknowingly and without intention.79 These biases impact interactions, behaviors, and feelings toward others.80 Research indicates that Black children are often the subjects of implicit bias. Studies have found that adults perceive Black children as 4.5 years older than their actual age;81 rate Black children as less innocent, and more culpable and aggressive than White children;82 more readily associate Black boys’ faces, as young as age 5, with violence;83 and rate Black girls as being less innocent and more adult-like than their White peers aged 5-14.84 These biases appear to form in childhood. One study assessed the developmental trajectory of empathy and found that children as young as 7 years old rated Black children as “feeling less pain” than White children. Overall, these findings paint a picture of the dehumanization of Black children over time, where Black children are seen as bigger, older, more aggressive, less innocent, and even less able to feel pain. Extensive research shows that these biases extend into the classroom and are related to the discipline gap.85 Research on White teachers’ attitudes toward and expectations of Black children was first conducted in 1973, nearly 20 years following the Supreme Court decision to desegregate schools. This study found that White teachers often ignored Black children, gave them little if any positive attention, and criticized them more than White children. Of note, gifted Black children were treated more harshly than all other children in this study.86 Contemporary research has identified similar patterns. Teachers rate Black children lower in math skills compared to their White counterparts, despite no difference in their test scores or non-cognitive skills.87 Other experimental research has found that when presented with identical behavioral records on paper, teachers are more likely to label children as troublemakers and recommend exclusionary discipline if the child is thought to be Black (e.g. has a stereotypical Black name) compared to children who are perceived to be White.88 Very young children are not immune from being the subjects of bias. An important study found that when early childhood teachers were asked to watch a video and identify “when a challenging behavior was about to occur,” teachers were more likely to direct their gaze at Black boys (assessed via eye-tracking technology),89 even though there were no actual challenging behaviors displayed in the video. This may indicate that teachers expect challenging behavior from Black boys and as a result may spend more time scrutinizing their behavior, and less time scrutinizing other children, who may be just as likely to engage in the same behaviors. Bias plays a role in how adults perceive behavior and the discipline decisions that they make to address said behavior, starting in the youngest children and extending throughout the educational continuum. These findings may be less surprising considering the increasing racial and ethnic mismatch between students and teachers in U.S. schools today. The number of students of color in the United States has steadily increased, with early childhood settings increasing at the fastest rate, whereas the number of teachers of color has decreased.90 By 2024, it is projected that students of color will comprise 54% of the student population.91 In contrast, teachers of color comprise only 17% of the workforce today.92 Many White teachers enter the workforce with few, if any, consistent personal interactions with people of color. Researchers suggest that many White teachers may have developed negative, deficit-based, and ill-informed stereotypes of children of color and their families.93 Of course, even when students and teachers share the same race or ethnicity, it cannot be assumed they share the Findings around implicit bias paint a picture of the dehumanization of Black children over time, where Black children are seen as bigger, older, more aggressive, less innocent, and even less able to feel pain. Page 42 Start with Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center same culture, background, and principles94 and it cannot be assumed that they do not have racial or gender-implicit biases. Indeed, research finds that both Black and White teachers show implicit biases that affect Black children, though it may present differently.95 School climate and demographics also play a role in exclusionary discipline. Black and Latinx students are less likely to experience exclusionary discipline in schools with higher proportions of teachers of color.96 In contrast, these students are more likely to experience exclusionary discipline in schools with higher numbers of Black and Latinx students. The seven highest suspending schools in the U.S. consist majority of Black student bodies.97 One study found that schools with a majority Black student body suspended more than two-thirds of their students during a given year.98 Some researchers have speculated that one phenomenon at play may be White teachers’ fear of losing control in classrooms where the majority of students are Black and the use of suspension as a means of maintaining control.99 Another important consideration is the role of empathy in discipline decisions. Research has found that empathy can improve teachers’ understanding and support for children with challenging behaviors, but that “failures of empathy” are more likely in interactions between people of different groups (e.g., different racial/ ethnic groups).100 Historically, schools with majority Black or Latinx enrollment are considerably more under- resourced and more likely to have inexperienced teachers, fewer counselors, and more school resource officers. Interventions and Approaches to Address Harsh Discipline Most interventions used to address harsh discipline focus on improving school climate and discipline policies, improving teachers’ skills to manage challenging behavior, and fostering children’s social and emotional development.101 Research suggests that a focus on workplace conditions and teacher wellness may also reduce harsh discipline. Most approaches have been evaluated in relation to effects on exclusionary discipline, as opposed to corporal punishment, seclusion, and inappropriate restraint; however, some approaches to decrease exclusionary discipline should theoretically reduce other forms of harsh discipline. Very few interventions have explicitly and directly addressed disparities in harsh discipline; thus, there is a limited evidence base on effective approaches to close racial, gender, and disability gaps. SOLUTIONS: TEACHER CHARACTERISTICS, WELLNESS, AND WORK CONDITIONS Reforms that address teachers’ working conditions, stress, and mental health may decrease the use of exclusionary discipline. These changes may include lowering child-to- adult ratios and group sizes, allowing for sufficient breaks and paid sick days, and ensuring access to mental health professionals—such as counselors, school psychologists, and social workers—who can work directly with children and families. The undercompensated state of the education workforce, in particular child care teachers, and the resulting stress cannot be overstated. Finally, although a racial and ethnic match between teachers and students is neither necessary nor adequate to address harsh discipline practices and reduce disparities, research shows that teachers paired with students from similar racial and ethnic backgrounds may make a difference. For example, research finds that teachers may be less likely to respond with empathy when a child of a different race to their own is exhibiting challenging behaviors.102 And as previously stated, children of color who attend schools with a greater number of teachers of color are less likely to be excluded than children in schools that employ fewer teachers of color.93 SOLUTIONS: CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PRACTICE Culturally responsive practice (CRP) is not an intervention; rather, it is a pedagogy that gets to the heart of less tangible but critical teacher competencies, including dispositions, mindsets, and beliefs. Each of these facets are foundational to healthy teacher-child relationships and learning. This pedagogy is implemented at the individual, instructional, and institutional levels and affects the school climate for all children, especially for culturally, linguistically, and ethnically diverse children and families. In using a CRP framework, teachers teach to children’s strengths and use cultural knowledge to support a positive learning environment.103 One of the pillars of CRP is teacher mindsets, including attitudes and expectations.104 Teachers’ mindsets impact perceptions about students’ potential, motivations, intentions, and behaviors, as well as their decisions about disciplinary actions. These decisions, in turn, affect the teacher-child relationship. Research shows that children’s academic outcomes depend as much on teacher-child Page 45 Start with Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center RESEARCH TAKEAWAYS The disparities in harsh discipline faced by Black children and children with disabilities are not new. They have been documented in the literature since research on the topic began over half a century ago. The effects of harsh discipline on young children’s development, learning, and wellness are universally negative and can be severe and long-lasting. A variety of factors contribute to harsh discipline and disparities in discipline practices, including implicit bias, school climate, demographics and resources, teacher wellness, skills, and support systems, policies, and implementation of policies. Existing approaches to address harsh discipline, most prominently PBIS (including the Pyramid Model) and early childhood mental health consultation, show promise in promoting children’s social and emotional development, building teachers’ skills, and improving school climate. Existing models to reduce seclusion and restraint have been tested in psychiatric facilities and health centers but must be modified and evaluated in education settings. The effectiveness of some of these models in closing racial disparities is promising but still emerging. All future research of these and other models targeted at decreasing harsh discipline must disaggregate data and examine effects on disparities, as opposed to solely child outcomes. All future research of models targeted at decreasing harsh discipline must disaggregate data and examine effects on disparities, as opposed to solely looking at child outcomes, to understand if those models are truly effective. Page 46 Start with Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center EXCLUSIONARY DISCIPLINE The exclusionary discipline policy landscape has swung back and forth like a pendulum over the decades. The 1990’s and early 2000’s saw an escalation of so-called zero tolerance policies. These policies, which were initially developed as a response to fears about school safety and school shootings, were narrowly focused on removing children from school for bringing weapons or making safety threats. Before long, these policies escalated and expanded far beyond expelling children for bringing a weapon to school to being used to address a range of minor, non- threatening infractions like temper tantrums and dress code violations, as well as subjective infractions like defiance or disrespecting authority figures.139 Minor behaviors that were previously handled at the classroom or administrative levels were increasingly referred to law enforcement and paralleled an increased presence of police in schools.140 These outcomes contributed to ramping up the school-to- prison pipeline.141 Children of color have suffered the most under these policies. Since the inception of zero tolerance, the number of children of color suspended and expelled has skyrocketed.142 Unfortunately, very young children have not been immune to this climate. The trend of criminalizing developmentally typical behavior, such as a temper tantrum, has opened an earlier entry point into the school-to-prison pipeline. Today, the lingering effects of school climate partially created by zero tolerance policies can be seen on the news with children as young as 6 and 7 years old being handcuffed and arrested for having temper tantrums.143 To make matters worse, an astounding 28 states and Washington, DC do not have a minimum age for criminal liability, which means it is legal to prosecute a 5-year-old in juvenile court. In States that do have a minimum age, the policy is barely better. South Carolina, for example, sets a minimum age of 6 years old. In another three states, the minimum age is 7 or 8 years old.144 The strong linkage via policy between schools and the criminal justice system has been disproportionately devastating for children of color. There are very few federal laws limiting harsh discipline, except for modest limits in IDEA — resulting in an extremely uneven policy landscape across and even within state lines. HARSH DISCIPLINE AND ITS DISPROPORTIONATE APPLICATION IN LEARNING SETTINGS: THE POLICY LANDSCAPE Page 47 Start with Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center In recent years, however, the exclusionary discipline policy landscape has evolved significantly, catalyzed by disturbing news reports, new data, awareness building, increased federal funding, and policy reforms spearheaded by the Obama administration, states and communities across the country. Dozens of pieces of legislation, regulation, and administrative action have been implemented at all levels of government. These policies have a range of effects, including disallowing or limiting exclusionary discipline, providing additional supports for professionals working with young children, and increasing accountability and data reporting requirements. Federal Action on School Discipline The year 2014 marked the start of a new wave of discipline reform in the United States. The first wave of CRDC preschool discipline data were released and highly publicized by President Obama and his cabinet secretaries. Later that year, President Obama launched the My Brother’s Keeper Taskforce, aimed at closing opportunity gaps for boys and men of color. Among the Taskforce’s key goals in early childhood was eliminating preschool expulsions and suspensions. Months into the initiative, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) and Department of Justice released guidance on school discipline, with recommendations to limit exclusionary discipline and attend to disparities and the potential disparate impact in such practices.145 ED later released several pieces of guidance on effective interventions to positively address discipline. In December of 2014, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and ED released the first policy statement on exclusionary discipline in early childhood settings, recommending that states and early childhood programs establish policies to reduce and eventually eliminate exclusionary discipline.146 In November of 2014, Congress reauthorized the Child Care and Development Block Grant with new language that required states to report to the federal government their policies on expulsion and suspension. This legislation also made social-emotional supports an explicit allowable use of federal dollars for the first time.147 Over the next two years, HHS issued several pieces of guidance to emphasize the detrimental effects of exclusionary discipline and the importance of attending to children’s social and emotional development. In September of 2016, the agency finalized a child care regulation that further reiterated the requirement for states to report their exclusionary discipline policies for children in child care. That same month, HHS updated the Head Start Program Performance Standards for the first time since their inception. The new standards ban exclusionary discipline148 and require that specific supports be provided for children with behavioral challenges.i At the end of 2016, the ED finalized a new rule under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to address pervasive disparities in the treatment of children of color with disabilities, including in identification, placement, and discipline decisions. Key Recommendations in HHS-ED Policy Statement on Expulsion and Suspension Develop and clearly communicate expulsion and suspension policies that reduce and eventually eliminate exclusionary discipline in early childhood settings Access free resources to develop and scale best practices Set goals for improvement and analyze data to assess progress Invest in workforce preparation and development Establish and implement policies that improve overall program quality i Head Start programs must prohibit or severely limit the use of suspension due to a child’s behavior. Such suspensions may only be temporary in nature and must be used as a last resort in extraordinary circumstances where there is a serious safety threat that cannot be reduced or eliminated by the provision of reasonable modifications. In addition, Head Start programs are encouraged to adopt practices set forth in the joint policy statement on suspension and expulsion in early childhood settings issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of Education (2016). Head Start programs cannot expel or unenroll a child because of their behavior. Page 50 Start with Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center State Action on Harsh Discipline Prompted by federal policy, new data, persistent advocates, and a heightened awareness of preschool exclusionary discipline, a wave of new state policies have been implemented since 2014. Nearly all states have taken administrative actions to curb exclusionary discipline in child care settings and more than half of all states have taken action in public Pre-K and the early grades.iii Most legislation exclusively offers protections for children in public school systems, whereas administrative action has primarily focused on the child care system. Notably, eight states (Illinois, Colorado, Arkansas, Georgia, Oregon, and Hawaii) and Washington, DC have addressed both child care and public school settings. In general, these states have passed policies that apply to all programs receiving public funding or have had an existing policy in effect for part of their system and implemented a reform to align the remainder of their system. In addition, a review of all state education agency websites revealed that 19 states have issued policy or position statements on the prevention of suspensions and expulsions, including Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, and Virginia. A wave of new state policies on harsh discipline have been implemented since 2014. STATES THAT HAVE PASSED POLICIES THAT APPLY TO MORE THAN ONE PROGRAM RECEIVING PUBLIC FUNDING: STATE SPOTLIGHT: ILLINOIS The Illinois legislature passed legislation in 2017 that prohibits expulsion in early childhood programs, including licensed child care centers, family child care homes, group day care homes, school- and community- based programs receiving Early Childhood Block Grant funds, and licensed child care providers serving young children. Programs must also seek to provide professional development to teachers, administrators, school board members, school resource officers and staff members on the adverse consequences of exclusionary discipline and justice system involvement and on culturally responsive discipline and practices that promote healthy and positive school climates. iii State policies were compiled through manual searches of state websites and legislative search tools, such as legiscan, National Council of State Legislatures, and Education Commission of the States. Oregon Illinois Colorado Arkansas Georgia Washington, DC Page 51 Start with Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center STATE EXECUTIVE ACTION IN CHILD CARE A scan of states’ Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) plans for fiscal years 2019–2021 reveals that mechanisms leveraged for administrative action vary across state lines in the child care system.149 Actions have included regulatory changes, modifications to quality rating and improvement systems, the incorporation of exclusionary discipline prohibitions into contracts that child care providers sign in order to accept CCDF payment, and increases in funding for social and emotional support. Key components of state policies are outlined below. Exclusionary Discipline as the Last Resort No state disallows the practice of exclusionary discipline in child care settings outright. Eight states indicate that child care programs should have policies that suggest expulsion only as a last resort or in cases where the child threatens their own or others’ physical safety. Of those, seven states recommend that providers employ early intervention, consultants, and behavioral support specialists to address challenging behavior. Raising Awareness Three states—Missouri, Nevada, and South Carolina— have committed to raising awareness of exclusionary discipline and its negative effects to providers, families, and the general public.150 Addressing Racial Disparities Despite the consistently reported racial disparities in harsh discipline, only 11 states name equity issues in their state plans, and only three states propose actionable steps to address inequities. Wisconsin and Indiana offered implicit bias training to state officials, teachers, and providers to try and mitigate these disparities. West Virginia, in line with recommendations in the 2014 federal policy statement, inserted a clause in their plan prohibiting providers from including language that “suggest criminology”—such as “zero tolerance,” “probation plans” or “three strikes”— in their own policies.151 Professional Development The most common component in state plans centered on professional development for child care providers. Thirty-three states explicitly mentioned supports for early educators to limit exclusionary discipline. States that cite in their state plans that exclusionary practices should be used only as a last resort States that cite professional development and technical assistance opportunities to mitigate exclusionary discipline policies Page 52 Start with Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center Family Engagement Nearly half of all states address family engagement in their policies, most of which specify that state and program expulsion policies must be shared with families upon enrollment in the program. States that specify that state and program expulsion policies need to be shared with families upon enrollment in child care Data Ten states propose establishing data infrastructure to coordinate behavior management across providers and to monitor suspension and expulsion. States that discuss establishing data infrastructure and/or data sharing for suspensions and expulsions in their state plans Arkansas has taken a particularly comprehensive and innovative approach to reducing exclusionary discipline. The state added no-expulsion/suspension language to the contract that child care providers sign with the state in order to receive child care reimbursement through the CCDF. They also developed a statewide triage system of support to assist child care providers with addressing challenging behavior, doubled funding for early childhood mental health consultation, and methodically expanded access to supports by prioritizing child care programs that had a previous licensing infraction related to discipline. Prior to these executive actions, Arkansas revised their child care regulations, which included lowering teacher-child ratios and other improvements tied to lowering exclusionary discipline. STATE SPOTLIGHT: ARKANSAS Page 55 Start with Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center CORPORAL PUNISHMENT The use of corporal punishment is disallowed in prisons, the military, and juvenile correctional facilities.155 Still, federal efforts to prohibit the practice in schools have failed. To date, there are no federal laws or regulations concerning school corporal punishment, other than those authorizing data collection of the practice via the federal CRDC. A 1977 U.S. Supreme Court decision ruled that corporal punishment is constitutional and that it does not violate the Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment, nor students’ right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Individual cases have since appeared in lower courts; although many of these cases have been dismissed outright, others have resulted in small settlements to families. Bills to prohibit corporal punishment from public schools have been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate nearly a dozen times in the last two decades but have never come up for a vote. Most recently in January of 2019, the Ending Corporal Punishment in Schools Act was re-introduced and referred to the Education and the Workforce Committee, but no additional movement occurred. As a result, corporal punishment is legal in 19 states. Notably, individual school superintendents can decide not to use corporal punishment in states where it is still legal. There has been some policy movement on the issue at the state level over the past several years. Lawmakers in both Tennessee and Louisiana passed legislation banning corporal punishment among students with disabilities. New Mexico passed legislation prohibiting corporal punishment statewide for all children in 2011. Other states, including Oklahoma and Georgia, have attempted to limit the use of corporal punishment by suggesting that it not be used as the “first line of punishment” and by providing educator trainings to address challenging behavior that would prevent corporal punishment. Prohibitions and limitations have been attempted this past year in other states, including Colorado and Kentucky, but have failed. Four states recognize the right for parents to have input or at least to be kept informed about the discipline of their children. In Texas, parents can “opt out” of their children receiving corporal punishment. To prevent school personnel from being charged with abuse, some states—including Mississippi, Wyoming, and Missouri—exempt school personnel from liability under state child abuse laws. This exclusion means that teachers are permitted to physically harm children in a way that could otherwise be considered child abuse if inflicted by a parent. Corporal punishment is legal in public school settings in 19 states. It is legal in private school settings in all but two states: New Jersey and Iowa. Page 56 Start with Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center RESTRAINT AND SECLUSION The policy landscape on the use of restraint and seclusion in schools also has a history of ebbing and flowing, the latter typically catalyzed by media stories highlighting death or injury from these practices. Over 20 years ago, a local Hartford newspaper conducted a national investigation about the use of restraint in psychiatric hospitals and group homes. The groundbreaking reporting found that 142 people, the vast majority people with disabilities and many of them children (the youngest was six years old), had died from restraint and seclusion while under care. The report prompted Congress to request the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to investigate the issue. The resulting GAO report confirmed and expanded on the disturbing findings.156 This compelled HHS to launch an effort to eliminate restraint and seclusion in these settings and resulted in the agency committing millions of dollars to develop strategies to replace restraint and seclusion. The GAO report also influenced Congress to add legislative language in the Children’s Health Act (2000) that requires HHS to regulate use of restraints and seclusions on residents of certain hospitals and health care facilities that receive federal funds, as well as on children placed in certain residential, non-medical, community- based facilities that receive funds under the Public Health Service Act. Corporal punishment is still legal in Georgia. However, the state has implemented a series of policies to decrease its use. For example, the state education agency formally recognizes schools with strong positive behavior intervention support implementation and those that show reductions in their use of exclusionary discipline. Schools must show zero incidents of corporal punishment to reach the highest level of recognition. STATE SPOTLIGHT: GEORGIA A similar investigation was conducted in public and private school settings by the National Disability Rights Network in 2009. This investigation found 50 cases of restraint and seclusion abuse across 38 states. The findings, similar to those uncovered by the Hartford newspaper 10 years prior, caused public outrage and resulted in a GAO report that identified hundreds of cases of restraint and seclusion abuse over the last two decades in schools.157 Then-Education Secretary Arne Duncan issued a letter to the Council of Chief State School Officers expressing his concern and affirming the agency’s position that restraint and seclusion should not be used except when necessary to protect a child or others from imminent danger of serious physical harm.158 Subsequently, the Education Department began collecting seclusion and restraint data through the CRDC. In 2010, both houses of Congress drafted bipartisan legislation—the Keeping All Students Safe Act—that banned the use of mechanical and chemical restraints, as well as restraints that impeded breathing or otherwise compromised health and safety. The bills also required that states collect data and receive parental consent, staff training and certification, and develop their own policies. The bill was passed in the House but did not pass the Senate. A version of the bill has been reintroduced every year since 2009; a decade later, this legislation has still failed to pass the Senate floor. IDEA, the federal law for special education, is silent on the issue, even though children with disabilities are significantly overrepresented in these practices. In early 2019, ED announced a new initiative to address the inappropriate use of restraint and seclusion on children with disabilities. The initiative, launched by the Office for Civil Rights in Partnership with the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, includes three components: (a) compliance reviews of schools’ implementation of restraint and seclusion on children with disabilities, (b) support to schools on CRDC data reporting quality, and (c) support for schools on the appropriate use of interventions and supports to address the behavioral needs of students with disabilities.159 Restraint and seclusion have also been disputed in court cases over the years. The 2009 GAO report examined 10 seclusion and restraint cases in which a criminal conviction, civil liability, or settlement was decided.160 The cases all involved children with disabilities, many of whom were not physically aggressive and whose parents did not give consent. In half of the cases reviewed by GAO, the accused teachers and staff continued their employment as educators. In one case, a 230-pound teacher placed a 129-pound child face down on the floor and laid on Page 57 Start with Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center top of him for not staying in his seat, killing the child. The death was ruled a homicide, but the jury did not indict the teacher. This teacher was still teaching at the time the GAO report was published. With respect to state action, 30 states have policies addressing restraint and seclusion for all children and 39 states have similar policies for children with disabilities.161 Only two states ban seclusion outright, and five states ban it for children with disabilities. Nineteen states limit seclusion to instances involving a serious safety threat (for all children), and 24 states limit it for children with disabilities. Sixteen states allow for seclusion when there is no emergency or safety risk, either explicitly or via loopholes in policy. Nineteen states prohibit secluding children in locked rooms. Other states place various restrictions on how easily the door can be opened. Five states explicitly allow seclusion for threats of physical harm, destruction of property, or educational disruption. Notably, educational disruption, a subjective infraction, is the type of category that is most susceptible to bias and one where children of color are most overrepresented in discipline infractions.162 With respect to restraint, 23 states have policies that allow restraints and seclusion in instances of immediate safety threats. Nineteen states have no limits on restraint of children, and 12 states have no limits for restraint of children with disabilities. States also have a variety of other policies on restraint and seclusion, including policies that address parental consent and notification procedures, data collection and reporting requirements, and various levels of monitoring and accountability. Most recently, the Chicago Tribune and ProPublica investigated the use of seclusion in public schools in Illinois.163 Journalists reviewed thousands of files documenting instances of seclusion for behaviors as miniscule as ripping a piece of paper or throwing a toy and as subjective as using a raised voice. The investigation documented stories of children screaming for their parents, crying for help, scratching the walls, wetting their pants, and even defecating and smearing it on the walls—all while adults watched and jotted down notes but did not intervene. Findings also showed that teachers and staff used seclusion out of frustration or for convenience, a break, or as punishment; they sometimes referred to it as “serving time.” Less than 24 hours after the investigation was published, Governor Pritzker directed his Board of Education to pass emergency rules to restrict seclusion and signaled his plan to work with the legislature to codify the rules. The report also prompted a letter signed by U.S. Senators and House members to Trump’s Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, requesting that her agency provide guidance to states to eliminate seclusion and significantly limit the use of restraint.164 Policies regarding restraint and seclusion vary widely from state to state. States that ban seclusion outright States that ban seclusion for children with disabilities States that limit seclusion for children with disabilities States that explicitly limit seclusion for all children to incidents involving a serious safety threat PIVOTAL POLICY AREA 2: SEGREGATED LEARNING FOR YOUNG CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES There is a robust evidence base and legal foundation supporting the inclusion of children with disabilities in general early learning and education settings. At A Glance Despite this, the inclusion of young children with disabilities, especially preschoolers, has not substantially increased in decades. Although the vast majority of infants and toddlers receive their services in the natural environment, less than half of preschoolers with disabilities receive their special education services in general early childhood programs. Inclusion rates vary substantially across and within state lines. Children identified with certain disability types are less likely to be included in general early learning and education settings, including children with multiple disabilities, intellectual disability, and emotional disturbance. Cited barriers to inclusion are teacher and administrator attitudes and beliefs, lack of self-efficacy to teach children with disabilities, perceived policy or financial barriers, lack of workforce preparation, uncoordinated services and systems, lack of oversight and accountability, and lack of will to change the status quo. Monitoring and accountability of inclusion is lacking at the federal and state levels. Evandra Catherine, PhD Arizona State University, Children’s Equity Project Shantel Meek, PhD Arizona State University, Children’s Equity Project founder Mary Louise Hemmeter, PhD Vanderbilt University Richard Fabes, PhD Arizona State University Kelly Edyburn, PhD Arizona State University, Children’s Equity Project Authors Few states have engaged in meaningful structural reforms to increase inclusion. The expansion of public Pre-K has not resulted in an expansion of inclusive learning opportunities for children with disabilities. Public Pre-K continues to be an underutilized lever to expand inclusion for children with disabilities. Page 61 Start with Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center The inclusion of individuals with disabilities in all facets of society is a civil right. As such, the right to inclusion begins at birth and should be practiced fully in every system, starting with the early learning system. Young children with disabilities should have access to high-quality learning opportunities in early childhood programsiv and schools alongside their peers without disabilities. The legal foundation for inclusion is longstanding and robust. For over 45 years, the education of children with disabilities in the United States has been guaranteed under law. The goals of the law are clear: all eligible school- aged children with disabilities are guaranteed a free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. Today, the nation’s civil rights law for the education of children and young adults with disabilities is the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The Office of Special Education Programs within the U.S. Education Department is responsible for implementing IDEA at the federal level and ensuring that infants and toddlers with disabilities receive early intervention services in their natural environment. This law also ensures that children ages 3 through 21 receive a free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. Each child who receives services under IDEA has an individual family service plan or an individual education plan (IEP) developed by a team that includes parents, regular and special educators, related service providers, and others, such as advocates. The team determines where and how a child will receive services. Although IDEA requires that a continuum of placements be made available to all children with disabilities, the first option “Inclusion in early childhood programs refers to including children with disabilities in early childhood programs, together with their peers without disabilities; holding high expectations and intentionally promoting participation in all learning and social activities, facilitated by individualized accommodations; and using evidence-based services and supports to foster their development (cognitive, language, communication, physical, behavioral, and social- emotional, friendships with peers, and sense of belonging. This applies to all young children with disabilities, from those with the mildest disabilities, to those with the most significant disabilities.” Inclusion Policy Statement, U.S. Departments of Education and Health and Human Services iv Early childhood programs may include family or center-based child care, public or private preschool, Early Head Start or Head Start, or other community-based early care and education program. SEGREGATED LEARNING FOR YOUNG CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES Page 62 Start with Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center considered should be the natural environment or the general early childhood or education setting, which is the learning environment the child would attend if he or she did not have a disability. Although this is the law, there is wide variability in practice and little accountability for placement decisions. Despite robust science and policy, little progress has been made in increasing access to inclusive learning opportunities for children with disabilities, particularly in the preschool years. Although access to public Pre-K has rapidly accelerated across the country, in too many places children with disabilities have been left out and relegated to learn in segregated systems and settings. In this section, we will examine the data, research, and policy landscapes of the inclusion of children with disabilities in learning settings. Despite robust science and policy, little progress has been made in increasing access to inclusive learning opportunities for children with disabilities. Page 65 Start with Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center States provide services to preschool children in regular early childhood programs at widely varying rates. Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding In terms of disparities in access by race/ethnicity, Latinx children are the least likely to be served under Part B, Section 619, while AI/AN and White children are most likely to be served. Data indicate modest differences by race/ethnicity with respect to placement where services are received. Setting in which Part B, Section 619 services are received, by age Age 3 Age 4 Age 5 % of all children served 24% 35% 42% % receiving services in home 4% 2% 1% % receiving services in separate settings 61% 55% 46% % receiving services in regular EC programs 35% 44% 53% Setting in which Part B, Section 619 services are received, by race/ethnicity AI/ AN Black Latinx Other racesvi White % of all children served 1% 13% 27% 9% 51% % receiving services in home <1% 1% 2% 2% 2% % receiving services in separate settings 46% 54% 52% 55% 52% % receiving services in regular EC programs 52% 45% 46% 43% 46% vi Other races include Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and Two or more races. Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding Page 66 Start with Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center In 13 states, young children of STATES WITH DISPARITIES IN RATES OF INCLUSION FOR CHILDREN OF COLOR Again, disaggregating these data by state reveals substantial variability. In 13 states, the percentage of children of color, including AI/AN, Black, and Latinx children, receiving services in a regular early childhood program is lower relative to the state average. Idaho, Ohio, Mississippi, Virginia, and New York have the greatest discrepancies.vii vii Minnesota and Wisconsin did not report data disaggregated by race; Vermont’s data were suppressed, that is not enough students were identified; and DC did not report AI/AN data. IDEA PART B SECTION 611: SCHOOL-AGED CHILDREN According to IDEA data, 13% of all school-aged children ages 6-21 were eligible for Part B services.169 Placement data for school-aged children is reported differently than for preschool-aged children. States report the percentage of the day that children spend in a general education classroom into three categories (i.e., 80% or more, 40- 79%, or less than 40%). Nationally, almost two-thirds of K–12 children spend 80% or more of the day in regular classes and 13% spend less than 40% of the day in regular classes. It is also critical to examine the intersction of race and disability category. Data indicate that Black children are at least twice as likely to be indentified with an intellectual disability or emotional disturbance than all other racial/ ehtnic groups combined. color are included at rates lower than the state average. Page 67 Start with Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center Inclusion by Disability Category Disability category Spent 80% or more of day in general education classroom Spent 40% or less of day in general education classroom Speech or language impairment 87% 5% Specific learning disability 73% 5% Visual impairment 68% 8% Other health impairment 67% 8% Developmental delay 66% 14% All disabilities 64% 13% Hearing impairment 63% 10% Orthopedic impairment 54% 21% Traumatic brain injury 51% 20% Emotional disturbance 49% 17% Autism 33% 33% Deaf-blindness 26% 36% Intellectual disability 17% 49% Multiple disabilities 14% 45% As is the case for preschoolers, an analysis of state inclusion practices showed wide variation in the amount of time school-aged children with disabilities spent in regular classes. Although national-level data showed most school-aged children with disabilities spent most of the day in regular classes, children in Hawaii—the state with the lowest rate of inclusion—spent less than half their day in regular classes. By contrast, in Alabama—the state with the highest rate of inclusion based on this indicator—84% of children with disabilities spent most of the day in regular classes. These figures indicate wide variability between states but may obscure the substantial district- and school- level variability that is common within states. Disparities by race/ethnicity, gender, and disability category also exist in school-aged children with disabilities. Based on their representation in the general population, school-aged Black and American Indian/Alaska Native children are most likely, and White and Asian children least likely, to receive services—a notable departure from the early intervention and preschool special education systems. Black and Latinx children also have the lowest rates of spending 80% or more of the school day in regular classes. Boys are overrepresented in the population of children served by IDEA, comprising 65% of all school- aged children with disabilities. They are also heavily overrepresented across several disability categories, including emotional disturbance and ASD. IDEA data also indicates that children identified with certain disabilities, particularly multiple disabilities, intellectual disability, and emotional disturbance are less likely to be served in inclusive settings. Only 14% of children identified with multiple disabilities and 17% of children identified with an intellectual disability spend the majority of the day in regular classes, compared to about two thirds of all other children with disabilities. Less than half of children identified with emotional disturbance, one-third of children with ASD, and just over one-quarter of children with deaf/blindness spend the majority of their day in a general education setting. Nearly half of children with an intellectual disability and children with multiple disabilities spend less than 40% of their day in general education settings, compared to 13% for the average of all children with disabilities. It is also critical to examine the intersection of race and disability category in placement decisions. Data indicate that Black children are at least twice as likely to be identified with intellectual disability or emotional disturbance than all other racial/ethnic groups combined. As noted, these are two disability categories that are more likely to be served in restrictive settings and that have had very little, if any, improvement in inclusion over the past several years. Page 70 Start with Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center SEGREGATED LEARNING FOR YOUNG CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES: THE RESEARCH LANDSCAPE THE BENEFITS OF INCLUSION Decades of research have consistently shown that high- quality inclusive classrooms are beneficial for children with and without disabilities.171, 172 Studies find that young children with disabilities in high-quality inclusive early childhood programs make larger gains in their cognitive, communication, and social-emotional development compared to their peers in segregated settings. The benefits of inclusion depend on children being included several days per week across social and learning experiences and simultaneously receiving individualized instructional strategies, alongside peers with and without disabilities.173 Research on school-aged children shows similar benefits. More time spent in general education classes is associated with higher attendance rates and higher reading and math achievement.174 Children in inclusive settings also show less reliance on adults and have more interactions with peers,175 both of which are critical factors for learning.176 These benefits are also observed among children with more severe disabilities. Studies have documented that children with severe disabilities in inclusive environments with differentiated and/or peer-mediated instruction have better social and communication outcomes and greater postsecondary success compared to their peers in segregated settings.177 Parents of children with disabilities who move from segregated to inclusive settings cite that their children are more independent, participate more, and have greater access to inclusive settings in the larger community.178 Importantly, high-quality inclusion that begins early and continues into the K–12 years produces the strongest outcomes for children with disabilities, with respect to peer interactions and social development.179 Unfortunately, this finding is not reflected in policy. Data indicate that fewer than half of young children receive special education preschool services in regular early childhood programs; the youngest preschoolers at 3 years old are the least likely to receive services in inclusive settings. BARRIERS TO INCLUSION There are numerous cited barriers to fostering more inclusive environments for children with disabilities. One important barrier to consider, particularly for school-aged children, is the pattern in placements across disability categories. As reviewed, data indicate that children who are eligible for special education in certain disability categories, including intellectual disability and emotional disturbance, among others, are less likely to be included in general early learning and education settings. It is important to examine this issue in the context of race, as children of color are more likely to be categorized with disabilities that historically are granted fewer services in inclusive settings. Some scholars have posited that the overrepresentation of Black children in disability categories that are both: (a) more subjectively identified, and (b) more likely to be served in segregated settings, points to evolution in the practice of racial segregation that is hidden under the guise of disability.180 Some experts have pointed out an important difference between the “incidence” of disability and the “documentation” of disability for children of color.181 Page 71 Start with Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center Researchers have found that in some communities, segregated special education placements closely mirror historical redlining practices.182 Investigative reporters have found similar trends. A report published in The New Yorker recently examined this issue in the Georgia Network for Educational and Therapeutic Support (GNETS), a statewide system of schools for children with “emotional or behavioral challenges.” Beyond the neglect and abuse documented in these schools, reporters identified that some of these specialized schools were operating in the same buildings as Jim Crow-era schools and that the percentage of Black boys in the system was twice that of public schools in the state. Many of these children are identified with emotional disturbance. Nationally, data consistently indicate that Black children are overrepresented in the emotional disturbance category and have been for the past two decades.183 Other systemic barriers to inclusion cited in the literature include ableism,184 perceived policy or financial barriers, lack of workforce preparation and professional development, uncoordinated services and systems, and lack of commitment.185 “Attitudes and beliefs” about children with disabilities and inclusion, undergirded by ableism, tend to be the most cited barriers by teachers and systems leaders. Research finds that teachers’ beliefs are influenced by personal experience and the amount and quality of prior interaction with individuals with disabilities.186 Negative beliefs have been associated with severity of disability to the extent that teachers have more favorable attitudes about inclusion of children with disabilities with perceived lower levels of need (e.g., speech and language) over those with perceived higher levels of need.187 This research is in line with data that indicate that children with “significant disabilities” are the least likely to be included in general education and are most likely to receive services in self-contained special education classes, a trend that has not changed over the last decade.188 One study that examined perceptions about inclusion found that Head Start and public Pre-K teachers shared positive beliefs about inclusion but did not feel comfortable implementing inclusion practices.189 For example, 85% of Head Start and 70% of Pre-K teachers believed that young children with disabilities should receive services alongside their peers without disabilities, but reported discomfort with implementing individualized teaching strategies, including implementing IEPs, utilizing alternate forms of communication, and positioning young children with motor impairments. Only 7% of Head Start and 3% of Pre-K teachers held positive beliefs about their ability to implement inclusive strategies and adaptations. Early childhood professionals also report several other related factors as urgent training needs, including: (a) addressing children’s behavioral issues, (b) teaching communication strategies, and (c) positioning children with motor impairments.190 In a 2015 survey of early education and special education policy makers and practitioners, about 33% of respondents felt that attitudes and beliefs were the greatest challenges to inclusion, followed by fiscal and contracting policies and curricular differences.191 Importantly, ableism, which includes attitudes and beliefs held by education policy makers, administrators, and other decision makers, have been a primary barrier to implementing systemic inclusion reforms. Ableism and other perceived barriers to inclusion manifest in a variety of ways. Families of children with disabilities report having fewer child care options, being turned away from care, and experiencing more instability in their child care arrangements than families of children without disabilities.192 Coordination between systems also presents a notable challenge. There is little coordination between early intervention and child care at present, which results in “Access refers to providing access to a wide range of learning opportunities, activities, settings, and environments; participation refers to individualized accommodations and supports that allow children and families to participate fully in play and learning activities with peers and adults; and supports refer to the infrastructure of systems-level supports that undergird the efforts of individuals and organizations.” Division for Early Childhood, 2009 Page 72 Start with Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center children receiving early intervention services separate and apart from, rather than in coordination with, their child care program. This lack of alignment may result in inappropriate or inadequate accommodations in the child care setting and represents a missed opportunity to optimize the time that children spend engaged in their learning and development goals. In the preschool system, there is often a similar lack of coordination between special education preschool programs and regular early learning programs, including child care, Head Start, and public preschool programs, though the extent of this varies across state and district lines. This gap may result in an IEP team not considering placement options in a child’s community-based early childhood program, which—depending on the alternate setting—may run afoul of the requirement to provide a free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. This is particularly important in states that do not have a robust public Pre-K system because slots for inclusive settings are primarily in child care settings and Head Start. FEATURES OF HIGH- QUALITY INCLUSION The defining features of high-quality inclusive early childhood programs (as defined by the Council of Exceptional Children's Division for Early Childhood (DEC) and the National Association for the Education of Young Children, and later affirmed by the U.S. HHS and ED in their 2015 policy statement) are access, participation, and supports. DEC also has a set of Recommended Practices that provide guidance to practitioners and families about the most effective ways to improve learning outcomes and promote the development of young children with disabilities. A recent review of high-quality inclusive practices found that 12 practices, most of which are aligned with or overlap with DEC’s practices, are essential for identifying high-quality early childhood inclusive environments.193 Researchers suggest that these 12 practices are also essential for establishing quality environments for children with disabilities.194 Recommended Practices Assessed Practice 1: Adaptations of space, materials, and equipment Practice 5: Membership Practice 2: Adult involvement in peer interactions Practice 3: Adults’ guidance of children’s free-choice activities and play Practice 4: Conflict resolution Practice 6: Relationships between adults and children Practice 10: Feedback Practice 7: Support for communication Practice 8: Adaptations of group activities Practice 9: Transitions between activities Practice 11: Family/professional partnerships Practice 12: Monitoring children’s learning in the Inclusive Classroom Profile195 Page 75 Start with Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center the gap between policy and implementation. The Obama Education Department also released guidance in response to the overrepresentation of children with disabilities who experience exclusionary discipline practices. ED clarified that states and districts must provide children with disabilities appropriate behavioral supports in order to comply with providing a free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. The letter described alternatives to exclusionary discipline, including systems of tiered behavior supports, and warned that a failure to offer such supports could result in inappropriately restrictive placements. In 2016, ED published the Equity in IDEA Act, prompted by data that indicate certain categories of children with disabilities are over-identified for special education services and that this over-identification leads to placement in inappropriately restrictive environments.199 Shortly before the rule was set to take place, the Trump administration delayed its implementation, which prompted a lawsuit that the federal government ultimately lost in 2019. The rule is now in effect. Since its publication, six states (DE, IO, LA, MI, NJ, and RI) have updated their monitoring protocol to include language from the regulation. Three other states (CA, GA, and IL) have published state guidance. Funding Federal IDEA funding incrementally increased each year from the program’s inception through the most recent reauthorization in 2004. Part B appropriations rose an average of 18% annually in the years between the two most recent reauthorizations, i.e.,1997 and 2004.200 Since then, funding has generally stagnated. Per-child funding for Parts C and B Section 619 have decreased from their high points by 64%, adjusting for inflation. The lack of funding has prompted several states to narrow eligibility criteria and charge families for services. The allocation of federal IDEA funds is determined by a formula. Originally, that formula was based on the number of children found eligible for special education services in the state. However, this formula was changed in 1997 over concerns about the over-identification of children with disabilities, particularly children of color. The funding formula has since changed but minimally; today, it considers the state’s fiscal year 1999 base grant, overall population of children, and population of children living in poverty.201 National Early Childhood Inclusion Indicators Cross-sector leadership Policy/guidance Family engagement Accountability, data use, and continuous quality assurance systems Funding State early learning standards/guidelines Program standards Allocation of resources to support personnel Coordinator of professional development resources Early childhood personnel standards, credentialing, certification, and licensure requirements Pre-service education and personnel preparation Public awareness The maximum federal share of funding determined by Congress is 40% of the national average per pupil expenditure. This 40% figure has come to be known as “full federal funding” for IDEA. Congress has never met the goal of fully funding its share of IDEA. Today, Congress funds about 18% of what it costs to educate children with disabilities.202 In 2019, the U.S. House and the Senate introduced versions of the IDEA Full Funding Act. The same year, a bipartisan group of representatives also introduced the Funding Early Childhood is the Right IDEA Act, to restore funding to Parts C and B Section 619. To date, neither chamber has garnered enough support to pass either bill. This failure to even approach full funding exacerbates inequities for children with disabilities. Page 76 Start with Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center Part B, Section 611 (school-aged children) Part B, Section 619 (preschool children) Part C (infants and toddlers) Part D (federal technical assistance and research) Monitoring and Accountability ED monitors states’ performance on a variety of results and compliance indicators and makes determinations regarding whether states meet the requirements in the law. States that do not meet requirements are subject to specific technical assistance or enforcement actions. If a state is determined to need substantial intervention, ED is required to take immediate enforcement action, such as withholding funds or referring the matter to the Department’s inspector general or to the Justice Department. Least restrictive environment and the natural environment are two of the indicators states report for Parts C and B; however, the federal government does not consider those data in making state determinations of compliance. In addition, the government does not consider any preschool indicators at all when assessing state determinations, though OSEP has indicated that it is considering adding preschool indicators as determination factors in the next school year.203 Other Federal Early Childhood Programs and Funding Streams Federal programs and funding streams outside of IDEA have also reinforced the importance of inclusion through policy and practice. For example, the Head Start Act Breakdown: IDEA Funding Categories Congress has never met its goal of fully funding its share of IDEA. Today, Congress funds about 18% of what it costs to educate children with disabilities. requires that at least 10% of program enrollment be children with disabilities. Head Start’s long-standing practice and policy has been to fully include children with disabilities across all program activities. Implementation of the provision varies across grantees, with some grantees citing the inability to identify and recruit enough children with disabilities to meet that provision of the law. With respect to the child care system, the Child Care and Development Block Grant requires that states prioritize services for children with very low incomes and children with special needs (which includes children with disabilities), and requires that HHS penalize states that fail to meet these priority service requirements. HHS can withhold 5% of the discretionary funds allotted for a state for any fiscal year if they fail to comply with the provision. In 2019, 28 states prioritized enrollment for children with disabilities, including 26 states that paid higher rates to providers who cared for children with disabilities, 24 states that did not place children with disabilities on waitlists, six states that waived co-payments for families of children with disabilities, and 3 states that used grants to reserve slots for children with disabilities.201 A recent analysis of child care state plans by Child Trends found that 30 states allocated funds to expand access to child care for vulnerable populations; however, only six states targeted Page 77 Start with Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center funds to expand access specifically for children with disabilities.204 Notwithstanding these policies, gaps remain in the meaningful inclusion of children with disabilities in child care. Families frequently report being turned away for care and poor coordination between Individual Family Service Plan and Individual Education Plan teams and child care programs. A third and much smaller federal early learning funding stream is the Preschool Development Grants, which was originally designed and implemented in 2015 under the Obama administration. Under this initial version of the program, ED provided grants to states to expand access to high-quality preschool, as defined by a set of standards that covered inclusion of children with disabilities. In 2015, the program was authorized, significantly modified, and renamed Preschool Development Grant Birth through Five program in the Every Students Succeeds Act (ESSA). Among major changes to the program was the removal of the quality indicators and a stronger emphasis on coordination across the early childhood system. Although these changes likely limit the development of additional slots in preschool, along with access to inclusive opportunities for children with disabilities, the focus on coordination can be an important funding mechanism to implement meaningful inclusion reforms across systems. Notwithstanding various policy interventions, gaps remain in the meaningful inclusion of children with disabilities in child care. Page 80 Start with Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center State % of 4-year- olds enrolled in state Pre-K % of 4-year-olds with disabilities attending a regular early childhood program District of Columbia 85% 49% Florida 77% 32% Vermont 76% 76% Oklahoma 74% 31% Wisconsin 68% * West Virginia 67% 37% Iowa 65% 43% Georgia 61% 35% New York 51% 46% Texas 49% 30% South Carolina 46% 43% Maine 42% 54% Maryland 38% 58% California 37% 35% Kansas 36% 39% Nebraska 33% 81% Arkansas 32% 13% Michigan 32% 26% Louisiana 31% 26% New Mexico 31% 46% Connecticut 30% 68% Massachusetts 30% 55% Kentucky 29% 74% Alabama 28% 57% New Jersey 28% 46% Illinois 27% 42% General Access to Public Pre-K and Access to Inclusive Settings Among 4-Year-Olds State % of 4-year- olds enrolled in state % of 4-year-olds with disabilities attending a regular early childhood program24 Colorado 23% 93% North Carolina 23% 38% Tennessee 22% 22% Virginia 18% 34% Pennsylvania 14% 63% Oregon 12% 50% Ohio 11% 71% Minnesota 10% * Rhode Island 10% 44% North Dakota 9% 23% Washington 9% 22% Delaware 5% 38% Mississippi 5% 48% Nevada 5% 28% Arizona 4% 28% Alaska 3% 17% Hawaii 2% 22% Missouri 2% 25% Montana 2% 23% Idaho 0% 17% Indiana 0% 32% New Hampshire 0% 57% South Dakota 0% 24% Utah 0% 38% Wyoming 0% 62% Available data suggests that only Vermont was in the top 10 of all states in both access to Pre-K and access to inclusive learning for preschoolers with disabilities. Alaska, Hawaii, Missouri, South Dakota, and Idaho were in the bottom 10 for both Pre-K access and access to inclusive learning for children with disabilities. * No data available Pre-K209 Page 81 Start with Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center who actually receive services in inclusive settings. Some states with relatively low access to public Pre-K, such as Colorado, Nebraska, and Kentucky, had higher numbers of children with disabilities receiving services in regular early learning settings. NIEER data for 2018-19 show little change from the previous year. There was only a 3% increase in enrollment of 4-year-olds from 2017-18 and from 2018-19. Consistent with the previous year’s data, alignment between access and inclusion remains imbalanced. It is clear that the public Pre-K system is not being used to its full potential to include children with disabilities. Part of the challenge is that rather than integrate children with disabilities into growing public Pre-K systems, states may create, grow, or perpetuate parallel programs for children with disabilities. This parallel track is often lower in quality and has limited access to the general curriculum. It is also possible that the lack of association between access to public Pre-K and access to inclusive learning for children with disabilities is, in part, a data collection issue. For example, the overly broad definition of regular early childhood program in the federal data collection system may obscure true inclusion. More investigation of this phenomenon is warranted. The K–12 System States’ efforts to enable greater inclusion of school-aged children with disabilities have also been minimal. Most state policy action has been within states’ administrative codes, regulations, special education handbooks or standards. Frequently, the language on least restrictive environment and inclusion in state codes and handbooks simply reiterates IDEA requirements or includes generic language that is difficult to enforce. There appears to be very little accountability for states and local agencies on least restrictive environment, outside of individual legal action. ESSA requires that states have detailed plans for intervening in low-performing schools and addressing the needs of academically low-performing subgroups, which often include children with disabilities, via technical assistance, professional development, and other supports. A recent analysis of ESSA implementation at the state level found that most states were failing to address the needs of students with disabilities.210 The report identified that almost half of all states did not meaningfully support students with disabilities through their ESSA implementation, and almost all states (46) could do more to develop inclusive policies. Only 18 states had long-term goals for students with disabilities, and 33 states lacked a performance measure for children with disabilities. Half of all states did not include a description of how they align the goals of ESSA and IDEA. States with high access to public Pre-K, like Florida and Oklahoma, had much lower percentages of children with disabilities receiving services in regular early learning settings. These two states each showed a difference of over 40 percentage points between children with disabilities who have general access and children with disabilities who actually receive services in inclusive settings. Page 82 Start with Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center Despite a robust body of research and a long history of legislation, litigation, and policy that affirms and reaffirms inclusion, the number of children receiving special education services in inclusive settings has not substantially increased in several decades. The data are particularly concerning for specific groups of children, including preschool children, children of color, and children in specific disability categories. Research finds that children who start their educational trajectories in segregated settings are more likely be placed in segregated settings when they transition into kindergarten, resulting in a trajectory of separation. This makes the preschool years particularly pivotal in a child’s educational journey. Because of the importance of placement decisions made in these years, states must increase monitoring and accountability for placing children in segregated settings in preschool. Integrating children with disabilities in the general early education SEGREGATED LEARNING FOR YOUNG CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES: TAKEAWAYS system, as opposed to creating or perpetuating dated parallel systems of learning, is paramount to ensuring inclusion is considered as a first resort for every eligible child. The severe underfunding of IDEA has also undoubtedly contributed to the lack of high-quality inclusive learning opportunities for children with disabilities. States and communities often perceive and cite segregated learning as a less costly policy than inclusion, although some research has found that this is not the case.211 Whether or not inclusive learning is more costly than segregated learning, restructuring and merging systems requires upfront costs. When funds are scarce, policy makers may be more resistant to necessary change. Further, although all children should have access to inclusive settings, the lack of appropriate and high-quality supports—primarily due to a lack of funding—often prevents children from being integrated into inclusive settings within the current system. Finally, although the federal government and most states uphold the importance of inclusion for children with disabilities, monitoring and accountability measures have been insufficient. What’s more, the highly individualized nature of services for children with disabilities—which is a strength of IDEA—has inadvertently created a system in which it is difficult to monitor whether least restrictive environment requirements are being implemented as required under IDEA. Few states and communities have engaged in meaningful reforms by investing more funds, reallocating funds, restructuring systems and staffing structures, and meaningfully monitoring least restrictive environment and inclusion practices. Integrating children with disabilities in the general early education system, as opposed to creating or perpetuating dated parallel systems of learning, is paramount to ensuring inclusion is considered as a first resort for every eligible child. Page 85 Start with Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center INEQUITABLE ACCESS Dual language learners (DLLs) are children “who are learning two (or more) languages at the same time, or learning a second language while continuing to develop their first language [and] who come from homes where a language other than English is spoken.”212 This large, diverse, and growing population of children possesses a host of linguistic, cultural, social, and cognitive strengths that often go unacknowledged or untapped, and young DLLs in the U.S. continue to face persistent social and academic inequities. The following analysis of the data, research base, and policy landscape related to DLLs and dual language learning illuminates those inequities, as well as potential paths for better supporting young, linguistically diverse children. TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES FOR DUAL LANGUAGE AND ENGLISH LEARNERS Dual language learners and English learners possess a host of linguistic, cultural, social, and cognitive strengths that often go unacknowledged or untapped. Page 86 Start with Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center Researchers and analysts frequently note that DLLs are one of the fastest-growing student groups in U.S. schools.213 Although this appears to be the case, more detailed information can be hard to find, as there is no comprehensive data collection effort that tracks DLLs in the U.S. or DLLs’ access to and enrollment in early learning or education systems. This lack of data in the early years is, in part, a product of the lack of data gathered on young children prior to school entry. Even in places or within systems that do collect data on young children, DLLs’ diverse language backgrounds are often overlooked. Nonetheless, the U.S. Census, individual states, and standalone programs (e.g., Head Start) collect data that researchers and policymakers often use as proxies. Informed by these measures, we can estimate that DLLs make up an increasingly large proportion of the population of young children in the United States. U.S. Census data and surveys of early childhood education programs conducted by the Migration Policy Institute estimate that the birth-through-age-8 population of DLLs is around 11 million, which is 32% of all children age 8 and under.214 As DLLs enter the K–12 education system, schools formally classify some of them as English learners (EL).vii The counts in these grades appear to be somewhat more systematic; however, their accuracy is difficult to determine, as both English proficiency benchmarks and EL classification procedures vary across states, and identification is particularly challenging in the early elementary grades. About 4.9 million students, or 9.6% of the total K–12 population, were classified as ELs in fall 2016.215 Notably, ELs make up a greater share of the population in the early elementary years, as many children from homes where languages other than English are spoken are formally exposed to English for the first time when they reach kindergarten. In 2016, over 16% of U.S. kindergarteners and first-graders were classified as ELs. As ELs progress through the elementary and middle school grades and reach English language proficiency, they are reclassified as proficient in English and exited from the “English learner” classification. Thus, their share of the student population decreases across grades. For instance, in 2016, just 5% of U.S. high school juniors and 4.1% of seniors were classified as ELs.216 DLLs and ELs are diverse groups of children by almost every measure. Despite their diversity, about two thirds of them live in homes where Spanish is spoken.212 The next most commonly spoken languages include Chinese (3.3%), Tagalog (1.9%), Vietnamese (1.9%), and Arabic (1.9%).211 Many states have a different set of top 5 languages that are most commonly spoken in DLLs’ homes, 209 and in 13 states no single language is spoken by the majority of DLL/EL children.217 Of the DLL population age 8 and under, approximately 62% identify as Latinx, 16% as White/Other, 15% as Asian, 6% as Black, and 0.8% as American Indian.209 About 77% of children in the K–12 EL population identify as Latinx.156 Countries of origin, generational status, and cultural identities of DLL and EL children and their families vary significantly.218 It bears noting that while DLLs and ELs frequently come from families where at least one parent or grandparent is an immigrant, the overwhelming majority of these children are U.S. citizens. DLLs also come from economically diverse families, although they are disproportionately more likely than non- DLLs to live in low-income families and have a parent who vii “English learner” (EL) is a label used by the U.S. Department of Education to describe children in K–12 schools who are in the process of learning and developing multiple languages and require additional supports to participate in school settings where English is the primary language of instruction (Every Student Succeeds Act, 2015). INEQUITABLE ACCESS TO LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES FOR DUAL LANGUAGE AND ENGLISH LEARNERS: THE DATA LANDSCAPE Page 87 Start with Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center has less than a high school education.209 Nevertheless, parental educational attainment is relatively evenly distributed: about 26% of parents of DLLs have less than a high school education, 23% have a high school diploma, 23% have some college, and 30% have a bachelor’s degree or higher.209 In terms of family structure, DLLs are more likely than children from monolingual English- speaking families to live in a two-parent household.219 Latinx, Asian, and immigrant children, many of whom are DLLs, are also more likely to live in multigenerational households.220 Due to the lack of national early childhood education data on DLLs, there is no national figure representing the number of DLLs served under IDEA Part C (birth through age 2). Among children ages 3-5 served under IDEA Part B, Section 619, approximately 8% are identified as “limited English proficient”.221 An estimated 9% of children in the K–12 EL population have diagnosed disabilities.222 The number of young DLLs nationally is substantial but varies across states and early learning sectors. Currently available data indicate that DLLs make up about 23% of the preschool-age population nationally, though percentages vary drastically across state lines (e.g., 3% in West Virginia and 44% in California).223 Notably, fewer than half of all state Pre-K programs collect data on home language use, including some states that have large Latinx populations like Arizona, Florida, and New York. Of the 23 state Pre-K programs in 19 states that assess home language use, 29% of children enrolled in a program are DLLs.218 In Head Start programs, about 28% of all children enrolled nationally are DLLs and 22% are from families that speak primarily Spanish at home.224 Scarce data exist on DLLs in the child care sector, which is where a substantial proportion of children—including Latinx and DLL children—receive early learning services in the years prior to kindergarten. To address the data gaps, the field needs a standardized method to identify and document the number of young DLLs in the general population and in the early childhood system. It is problematic that the field largely relies on Census data, which assesses the number of children who live in households with a person who speaks a language other than English, as a proxy count of DLLs. Although there may be overlap between these populations— children who speak a language other than English at home and children who are still developing their English and home language proficiencies in their early years at school—they are not perfectly overlapping groups. This conflation is especially concerning, given that children under age 5 and young Latinx children in particular, have been significantly undercounted in previous Census data.225 It is also critical to better understand within-group diversity at scale for this group, given the diversity of DLLs and the implications of that diversity for developmental and learning supports.226 Children of color, and especially Latinx children, make up an overwhelming majority of the DLL and EL population. DLLS AGE 8 AND YOUNGER AI/AN Asian Black Latinx ELS IN K–12 White/Other Page 90 Start with Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center DLLS AND SOCIAL- EMOTIONAL DEVELOPMENT Developing bilingual language skills is consistently associated with increased social-emotional skills. This is understandable, given that language learning is inherently social.237 For example, several studies have found evidence that DLLs develop precocious abilities to understand the perspective of others and distinguish it from their own experiences, relative to monolingual children.238 Young DLLs also appear to have greater self- regulation, faster skill development in self-control, higher social competence, and lower externalizing behaviors than their non-DLL peers.239 There is evidence that some of these findings may be related to contextual factors. For instance, when rated by teachers, DLLs tend to have higher ratings of self- control and interpersonal skills and lower levels of behavior problems compared to monolingual children.240 However, these results may differ depending on teacher and classroom characteristics. For Spanish-speaking children in Pre-K, more classroom interactions in Spanish were related to higher teacher ratings of DLL children’s social skills and assertiveness, as well as higher ratings of the quality of teacher–child relationships.241 Other studies have found that social-emotional differences between DLLs and non-DLLs were diminished after accounting for socioeconomic status.235 SOCIETAL BIASES ABOUT LANGUAGE AND EFFECTS ON HOME LANGUAGE MAINTENANCE Another complex aspect of bilingualism relates to the maintenance or loss of home languages. The home language is often a fundamental vehicle for culture and heritage among immigrant families, and the maintenance or loss of home language skills can impact communication and family relationships, which may in turn can affect children’s social-emotional development and wellbeing.242 DLL children and families are exposed to the dominant English monolingual ideology that pervades U.S. culture and schools, and they may receive implicit or explicit messages about English being a more worthwhile language for children to learn or maintain than their home language. Some studies suggest that DLL children and families may internalize these messages or myths about dual language learning, although further research is needed to examine how this may affect their language use, social-emotional growth, and identity development.243 These ideologies are reinforced by the omnipresence of the English language across the overwhelming majority of American media outputs, advertising, and entertainment. Even as the percentage of DLLs and ELs in U.S. schools has grown, the dominance of English in American cultural life helps ensure that the country continues to be stubbornly monolingual.244 It is possible that these messages about home languages having lower social status impact the language and academic development of DLLs and ELs. Notably, in other countries where multiple languages have social prestige and much of the population is bilingual, differences in academic achievement between monolingual and bilingual children are smaller or non-existent, even when controlling for other relevant variables.245 This monolingual environment very likely has an effect on DLLs’ development and long-term outcomes. Research finds that among Latinx DLLs and ELs specifically, developing and maintaining skills in Spanish and English Young DLLs appear to have greater self-regulation, faster skill development in self-control, higher social competence, and lower externalizing behaviors than their non-DLL peers. Page 91 Start with Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center is related to lower high school dropout rates, higher occupational prestige, and higher income in young adulthood. On the other hand, taking into account cognitive ability, educational attainment, and familial socioeconomic status, Latinx DLLs and ELs who have a decline in their Spanish language proficiency over time are more likely to be unemployed as young adults, compared to peers with balanced bilingual skills.246 DLLs who keep their home language are more likely to enter a four-year university after high school. Research also finds that the average difference in earnings between children who lose their home language compared to those who keep their home language and become bilingual is more than $5,400 annually.247 Taken together, these findings highlight the importance of DLLs simultaneously developing and maintaining their home languages and also learning English, as bilingual skills appear to buffer the otherwise negative outcomes. These findings also highlight the value of society and systems supporting home language development to improve DLL outcomes. THE GAP BETWEEN DLLS’ POTENTIAL AND ACADEMIC ASSESSMENTS In public discussions of U.S. schools, DLLs’ and ELs’ academic performance is often flagged as lagging behind that of non-DLLs and ELs. There is clearly an inconsistency between research findings on DLLs’ potential, particularly considering the bilingual advantage, and what assessment data generally imply about their school readiness and academic success. These differences can be explained, in part, by two factors. First, assessments are typically conducted in English, so even tests of academic skills also test a child’s English skills. For example, a poor math score does not necessarily reflect poor math skills; rather, it may instead reflect a child’s English proficiency. Second, most DLLs do not have access to learning opportunities that uniquely foster their development, including early learning or educational opportunities that support bilingualism and biliteracy. Having access to learning experiences in the home language (alongside In countries where multiple languages have social prestige and much of the population is bilingual, differences in academic achivement between bilingual and monolingual children are smaller or non-existent. English) strengthens the language foundation upon which all future language and literacy grows and provides meaningful access to the curriculum, strong relationships with teachers, and more robust peer relations. For DLLs, bilingual learning in education is not an optional opportunity for enrichment; rather, it can make or break their access to a quality education altogether. Although there are significant data and research gaps on language exposure and instruction in early learning contexts that serve DLLs, one nationally representative study found a pattern of decreasing exposure to the home language for DLLs at 9, 24, and 52 months of age across all early care program types. Care settings may also impact DLLs’ exposure to their home language. DLLs in non-center-based care contexts across all ages are more likely to have a care provider who speaks their home language; conversely, DLL children in center-based care are less likely across all ages to have a provider who speaks their home language compared to relative care.248 However, it is important to note that the care provider’s knowledge of the home language does not necessarily reflect use of that language with the child for care and instructional purposes. Similar findings were identified in Head Start and public preschools. The Report to Congress on Dual Language Learners in Head Start and Early Head Start states that Head Start does not currently have descriptive data on the nature of language instruction for DLLs, although English is the language used most often for reading to children. Additionally, the data on general instructional support, which includes language modeling, indicate that average quality nationally is low,249 though this is also true in preschool settings more broadly.250 Research and policy analyses likewise find that most academic instruction for DLLs in Head Start, public preschool, and Page 92 Start with Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center early elementary settings is provided in English and home languages are generally used for behavioral support,251 which does not confer the same benefits as does intentional bilingual instruction, such as the DLI approach. The lack of bilingual education programs and linguistically responsive teaching practices is at least in part attributable to policy and funding decisions that have resulted in insufficient training and preparation of educators and other school personnel in issues related to serving DLLs.252 Nationally, there is a shortage of teachers with the appropriate credentials to teach in English as a second language courses or bilingual education programs.253 Further, most early childhood teacher preparation programs and in-service professional development provide limited, if any, training on competencies for working with the DLL and EL population effectively.213 Taken together, this research suggests that despite the advantages of bilingualism in the early years, DLLs and ELs have limited and inequitable access to models that support bilingualism and their comprehensive development. As DLLs and ELs are primarily served in English-dominant or English-only instructional settings, their language and academic skills are rarely assessed in their home languages. When DLLs and ELs are assessed only in English, the alleged academic disparities in performance, as compared with English monolingual children, are at least partly a reflection of the medium of comparison. This is borne out in research on DLLs’ academic trajectories. Among DLLs, those who enter kindergarten already proficient in English have higher reading and math proficiency than those who are not yet proficient, at least in part because the assessments are in English.254 Across the elementary years, DLLs who enter kindergarten proficient in English tend to grow in their English reading and math skills at a similar or even greater rate than their monolingual English-speaking peers. DLLs who are not proficient in English upon entry to kindergarten or by the end of kindergarten generally have lower rates of growth in these areas than their peers who were proficient in English by the end of kindergarten; thus, initial reading and math gaps are maintained and widen across elementary school.255 Similarly, research suggests that for DLLs who enter kindergarten relatively fluent in English, EL classification may have a significant negative effect on achievement in English language arts and math through at least the middle school years, which grows in magnitude over time. However, the negative effects of EL designation are concentrated in English immersion (i.e. English-only) classrooms, For DLLs, bilingual learning in education is not an optional opportunity for enrichment; rather, it can make or break their access to a quality education altogether. Page 95 Start with Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center The potential interactions between teachers’ expectations and student achievement may be particularly salient when DLLs and ELs are in segregated settings, which is a frequent occurrence. The current context of systemic segregation has emerged out of a long history of segregating children who speak languages other than English in schools. For decades before Brown v. Board of Education, Mexican-American children in the Southwest were educated in separate English-only schools. White school administrators justified this practice by positing that separate settings would facilitate Mexican-American children’s English language development and assimilation to U.S. culture.274 Presently, DLLs and ELs largely live in communities and attend schools that are racially, socioeconomically, and linguistically segregated.275 As a group, DLLs and ELs are more likely to attend schools that are more racially homogenous, have fewer resources and greater proportions of students from low-income backgrounds, and enroll large percentages of other students who are DLLs or ELs276. Nationally, just 25 school districts account for almost a quarter of all ELs enrolled in K–12 schools.277 ELs also tend to be segregated at the classroom level, as their EL designation generally involves placement into separate English language development courses for at least some period of the school day.278 Thus in some states, ELs are segregated as a matter of misguided policy. The impact of segregation on DLLs’ and ELs’ language, social, and academic outcomes is significant. As with students with disabilities, pulling DLLs and ELs out of general education settings (i.e., for specialized language instruction) may perpetuate deficit ideologies surrounding DLLs and ELs among educators.279 Unfortunately, teachers’ lowered expectations and beliefs that DLLs and ELs cannot be served in a typical general education classroom may be reinforced when DLLs and ELs do not thrive academically in segregated settings, thus potentially contributing to a damaging cycle of continued segregation.280 Linguistic isolation at the classroom level also contributes to DLLs and ELs having less time with and exposure to peers who are native speakers of English, which supports language learning.265 When ELs are pulled out or placed in separate classes for language instruction, they may have less access to other grade-level content and enrichment instruction. In Arizona and California, for example, placement in sheltered English immersion classes in high school often results in ELs being systematically restricted from participating in courses needed to graduate or to attend state universities.281 Segregation at the school, community, and district level also affects DLL and EL achievement. One analysis of national achievement data identified that the degree of school segregation was the greatest predictor of disparities in achievement between EL and non-EL students.282 As DLLs and ELs disproportionately attend segregated and under-resourced schools, they are less likely to have access to high-quality instruction, qualified teachers, and strong programs of parent engagement.265 These and other factors likely contribute to the pattern of low academic achievement and poor long-term academic outcomes among DLLs and ELs.250 Even when ELs receive high-quality instruction, oral language proficiency in a second language may take around three to five years to develop and academic language proficiency generally takes several years longer.283 Therefore, over the course of their academic careers, many ELs never attain the level of academic proficiency in English that is purportedly needed to achieve on par with their monolingual English-speaking peers. As a result, these “long-term English learners” may not be exited from EL services before the end of high school.284 This may limit their access to the rest of the academic curriculum in elementary school and to advanced, college preparatory coursework in middle and high school.285 Together, this research suggests that DLLs’ and ELs’ lack of access to research-based models that support their comprehensive development, including English and home language development, compound over time and are associated with an array of negative outcomes across trajectories. Overall, many of the disparities faced by DLLs are staggering and start early in their educational experiences. As a result, there is considerable room to improve practice and policy with a focus on equity for DLLs. A growing evidence base has identified promising strategies and programs for supporting the linguistic, social-emotional, and academic development of young DLLs. As mentioned previously, high-quality early learning, which generally supports positive developmental outcomes for all children, may be particularly important for DLLs. The timing is important, as research suggests that children who enter high-quality ECE programs before age 3 and who remain enrolled longer demonstrate higher language scores and better teacher-rated initiative and self-control skills; these effects are stronger among DLLs than monolingual children.286 Thus, it appears that high- quality early learning experiences in the years before preschool may be particularly helpful for young DLLs, although there is little research defining the nature of high- quality early childhood education for infant and toddler DLLs specifically. Characteristics of general high-quality infant and toddler programs, including a responsive and Page 96 Start with Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center nurturing environment, exposure to complex language use and literacy activities, and a strong program of family engagement, may be applicable but not sufficient for DLLs.213 involves equal numbers of speakers of both languages being used for instruction. In contrast to transitional bilingual programs, which also utilize the home language for instruction but are designed to fade home language instruction over time and eventually transition DLLs to an all-English instructional environment, DLI focuses on building social and academic language skills in both languages. Considering the cognitive, social, and economic benefits of bilingualism, particularly for DLLs, the DLI model seems to be particularly important and superior to the transitional bilingual model and certainly to other more English-dominant models. Partly as a result of these successes, DLI programs appear to be growing rapidly across the United States. A number of states and districts, including Utah, Delaware, North Carolina, New York City, and Washington, DC, are engaged in projects to expand DLI access. Much of the enthusiasm for these programs reflects growing demand from English-dominant families seeking paths for their children to become bilingual. Similarly, 38 states and Washington, DC, have adopted the Seal of Biliteracy initiative, which recognizes students who have become biliterate by their high school graduation.290 However, many have raised concerns that ELs do not have equitable access to these programs or when they do have access, ELs are required to meet higher expectations in their second language (English) than native English-speaking students are in their second language.291 These trends represent an opportunity for DLLs’ and ELs’ families, and DLI advocates, as they support the growth of bilingual instruction in American public schools and push for equitable access to such programs. Although there is less research on the impacts of DLI in the early childhood years than in K–12 settings, research indicates that more Pre-K instruction in the home language helps children develop skills in English without sacrificing home language skills and is associated with higher reading and math scores.292 A recent study in Head Start programs in California and Florida found that children in DLI classrooms demonstrated significantly greater growth in English and Spanish oral language proficiency from the beginning to the end of the school year, relative to children in classrooms with primarily English instruction and some home language support.277 The positive effects associated with preschool DLI are not limited to academic skills; for instance, one study documented that increased use of Spanish in the Pre-K classroom was associated with Spanish-speaking DLL children’s ability to better tolerate frustration and orient to tasks.236 One analysis of national achievement data identified that the degree of school segregation was the greatest predictor of disparities in achievement between EL and non-EL students. DUAL LANGUAGE IMMERSION AND BILINGUAL EDUCATION Multiple studies suggest that oral language development (e.g., receptive/expressive vocabulary, listening comprehension, expressive language skills) is particularly key for young DLLs.287 All children benefit from learning to speak and use language in these early years, and DLLs benefit from using all of their developing languages. As such, dual immersion early learning programs that permit DLLs to access academic content in both their home languages and English can be particularly powerful for these students.288 DLI has been documented as the most effective approach for supporting the development of both languages, resulting in DLLs attaining higher rates of growth in academic skill areas (i.e., reading, math) and sustaining positive academic outcomes over the long term.289 In DLI, teachers alternate between English and a partner language for instruction across content areas, sometimes switching within the course of the school day or alternating days/weeks for each language. The ratio of use of the two languages varies by program and across grades. One-way DLI involves classrooms composed entirely of children who share as their home language only one of the two languages of instruction, whereas two-way DLI Page 97 Start with Equity: From the Early Years to the Early Grades Produced by the Children’s Equity Project and the Bipartisan Policy Center Although there is an emerging base of knowledge about young DLLs and growing evidence for interventions and practices that support these children, there is still much to learn. Additional research is needed to examine how specific early childhood programs work for DLLs, what the relative contributions of language of instruction and other early interventions are, and whether/how instructional practices need to be modified for DLLs specifically.293 This is particularly true for infants and toddlers. Given what we know about early brain development, particularly early brain development in young DLLs, it is critical to better develop more explicit infant/toddler learning models for DLLs that are centered on continued home language development, including English exposure, and that strongly support bilingualism. There is also a need for a stronger conceptualization of high-quality DLI. Although individual DLI models across the country are producing impressive results for DLLs and ELs, as well as for their monolingual English-speaking peers, there is no national model or set of models that define the components of high-quality DLI, which makes high-quality scalability a challenge. Defining high-quality DLI must also extend to classroom quality assessment. There is currently insufficient validity evidence for use of existing measures of general early learning quality as it relates to DLI quality with DLL populations. However, in order to measure children’s language development across time, methods must be developed to assess bilingual language proficiency accurately and from a strengths-based perspective—that is, comprehensively assess a child’s language skills in all of their languages and not borrow inappropriate norms from monolingual children who have fundamentally different developmental trajectories. Nearly all existing measures of early childhood language proficiency are separated by language and designed and validated with monolingual speakers front of mind. Even some assessments that are designated as bilingual require items to be administered first in English and only administered in the child’s home language if the child does not respond. Still other instruments allow a child to respond in their home language to English item prompts. In many assessments, scores are compared or combined across languages, even though the item content, item difficulty, and norming are not equated in each language. These assessments may (and often do) provide extremely misleading information regarding DLL children’s actual language abilities,294 thus calling into question instructional decisions and research findings made on the basis of test scores. The content and structure of existing assessments used with DLLs lack sufficient validity evidence, which undermines the use and interpretation of the scores and qualitative classifications that they yield.295 Developing early childhood bilingual language proficiency assessments that comprehensively measure language skills in all of a child’s languages, and that are sufficiently valid and reliable for use with DLLs, is an urgent need. Dual immersion early learning programs that permit DLLs to access academic content in both their home languages and English can be particularly powerful for these students.