CURRENT POLICY, FUNDING, AND SYSTEMS FOR EARLY ELEMENTARY EDUCATION

In the United States, state governments are obligated to provide public education to all school-aged children. Nonetheless, opportunity gaps exist within this system. Funding disparities in K–12 education affect access to well-resourced and quality programs (Lloyd & Harwin, 2021). As with ECE, these disparities impact a disproportionate number of students of color, although there is considerable variability in this regard across and within states (Raikes & Darling-Hammond, 2019). To illustrate, neighboring suburban counties outspend Chicago by more than $10,000 per student (Raikes & Darling-Hammond, 2019).

A key factor shaping funding inequities is the prevailing school funding model that relies on local property taxes. Thus, children who live in low-income neighborhoods are more likely to attend underresourced schools (Raikes & Darling-Hammond, 2019). Funding disparities in school construction and modernization are also shaped by property wealth. Districts with high property wealth—which serve predominantly White learners—spend significantly more on school construction and modernization compared with low-income districts (Brunner, Schwegman, & Vincent, 2022). Furthermore, district size and racial makeup mediate funding patterns. For instance, small school districts serving mainly White students receive $23 billion more than districts serving minority majority districts (EdBuild, 2019). The Education Trust reports that districts educating mainly White students receive $1,800 more per student per year compared with districts serving primarily students of color (Latino, African American, Native American; Morgan & Amerikaner, 2018).

Federal funding for special populations, such as children in low-income communities, English learners, and children with disabilities, is generally insufficient to bridge state and local gaps, largely because these federal funding streams are underfunded. Research indicates that funding gaps exist nationally between White and Black, White and Latino, and higher-income and lower-income students (Shores, Lee, & Williams, 2021). Black students receive about $400 less than White students, while lower-income students receive about $430 less than higher-income students. The largest gap is between White and Latino students, with Latino students receiving about $1,200 less than their White peers. Shores, Lee, and Williams (2021) examined these gaps in per pupil spending at the national, state, and district levels. They found the largest gaps nationally, explained by differences in education spending across states and the distribution of students of color and lower-income students in states that invest less in education. For example, at the state level, Shores, Lee, and Williams found higher per pupil expenditures for Black, Hispanic, and lower-income students than for White and higher-income students. At the district level, more funding is generally allocated to Black, Hispanic, and lower-income students, with the gap between Hispanic and White students being largest. At the national level, however, resource distribution was found to be more regressive, with Black, Hispanic, and lower-income students receiving lower per pupil spending and lower capital expenditures (Shores, Lee, & Williams, 2021).

Probing further the disparities across states, Baker (2017) reports a national perspective on school funding inequalities. His main findings include the following:

• School funding levels continue to be characterized by wide disparities among states, ranging from a high of $18,165 per pupil in New York to a low of $5,838 in Idaho when adjusted for regional differences.
• Many of the lowest-funding states, such as Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, North Carolina, and Texas, allocate a very low percentage of their states' economic capacity to funding for public education.
• Twenty‐one states are regressive, providing less funding to school districts with higher concentrations of low‐income students.
• Only a handful of states—Delaware, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Massachusetts—have generally high funding levels and also provide significantly more funding to districts where student poverty is highest.
• Low rankings on school funding fairness correlate with poor state performance on key resource indicators, including less access to ECE, noncompetitive wages for teachers, and higher teacher:student ratios.

In light of such funding differences, a research question consistently raised in the literature is whether school spending matters. The available evidence offers an affirmative answer to this question. Increased school funding is associated with better academic performance, higher graduation rates, and improved income in adult life (Jackson, 2018), with the most pronounced effects seen in children from low-income households (Jackson, Johnson, & Persico, 2016). Lafortune, Rothstein, and Schanzenbach (2018) studied the impacts of school finance reforms on student achievement and found that the impacts of increased funding for low-income school districts were immediate, strong, and sustainable. Of significance, Lafortune, Rothstein, and Schanzenbach (2018) found that a one-time $1,000 increment in per student annual spending had a relative achievement impact over a 10-year period of “between 0.12 and 0.24 standard deviations” in low-income districts (p. 6). These researchers also found that funding reforms were effective in reducing inequities across districts, although “other policy tools aimed at closing within-district achievement gaps will be needed to address overall equity concerns” (Lafortune, Rothstein, & Schanzenbach, 2018, p. 4 [emphasis in original]), including achievement gaps between students of color and White learners and between high- and low-income groups.

Jackson (2018) conducted a comprehensive review of the research on school spending and student outcomes. The review distinguished between older studies categorized largely as descriptive and recent research aiming to draw causal inferences. A consistent finding across the two kinds of studies was a positive association between increased school spending and learner outcomes. This was “true across studies that use different datasets, examine different time periods, rely on different sources of variation, and employ different statistical techniques” (Jackson, 2018, p. 13). Nevertheless, Jackson cautions about potential contextual effects not yet well understood. For instance, some research on capital construction and Title I spending does not consistently support the link between school funding and learner outcomes. Critically, however, infrastructure and facility investments may have important effects on children beyond academics—for example, in health and safety.

Jackson, Johnson, and Persico (2016) studied the effects of school reform efforts and found that “a 10% increase in per pupil spending each year for all twelve years of public school leads to 0.27 more completed years of education, 7.25% higher wages, and a 3.67 percentage-point reduction in the annual incidence of adult poverty; effects are much more pronounced for children from low-income families” (p. 1). The authors estimate that the effect of a permanent increase in per pupil spending throughout all school years of about 22.7% (about $2,800 in per pupil spending) for low-income learners would eliminate the achievement gap between high- and low-income students. Three states stand out for instituting school spending reforms that have produced noteworthy improvements in student outcomes and achievement gaps (Baker, 2017). Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Minnesota instituted reforms that included increasing funding for school districts serving a sizable number of marginalized learners; expanding enrollment in quality preschool and investing in school readiness programs and Head Start; and strengthening professional capacity and development through measures that included salary increases, higher professional standards, and sustained professional development (Baker, 2017).

School spending also matters for students with disabilities. Cruz and colleagues (2020) report a positive association between greater spending on special education programs and growth in the number of students with disabilities meeting or exceeding standards for English language arts. However, this pattern was not observed in high-poverty schools, which generally had fewer certified teachers compared with low-poverty schools, suggesting that funding and qualified teachers are both critical. It is important to note that the association between increases in spending on special education programs and growth in the number of students meeting or exceeding English language arts standards also benefited learners without disabilities in both high- and low-poverty schools (Cruz et al., 2020). Taken together, these findings indicate that school spending reforms are linked to improved academic outcomes for students with and without disabilities (with some important contextual caveats).

Special Education

Later in childhood, compared with the early years, the percentage of children who qualify for and receive special education almost doubles. In 2019, among children aged 6–21, 6,374,498, or 9.7% of the resident population in that age range, were served in 49 states, the District of Columbia, and Bureau of Indian Education schools. The most common disability categories among children in this age group served under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) were specific learning disability (37.1%), other health impairment (16.8%), speech or language impairment (16.3%), autism (11.0%), “other disabilities combined” (7%), intellectual disability (6.5%), and emotional disturbance (5.4%). In almost every category, children of color, including Black, Latino, American Indian/Alaska Native, and Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander, were overrepresented in the special education system, generally in the categories of intellectual disabilities, learning disabilities, and emotional/behavioral disorder (NRC, 2002; National Academies, 2019), whereas White and Asian American children were underrepresented in these categories. As elaborated in Table 3-1, representation patterns vary by disability category and racial/ethnic/language group. Cruz and Firestone (2022) conducted a study in a large urban school district in California to trace the timing of special education identification. Their findings indicate that African American and Hispanic/Latino students tended to be identified in later grades (after K–6) and in disability categories associated with greater levels of segregation.

TABLE 3-1

Risk Ratios for Students with Disabilities Aged 5–21 (served by Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA] Part B) by Racial/Ethnic Group and Disability Category, Fall 2019.

Segregated Learning

In the K–12 system, data on segregated learning among students with disabilities are collected according to the percentage of time children spend in the general education classroom—less than 40%, 40–80%, or more than 80%. According to data from the Department of Education (2021b) for the 2019 school year, while most school-aged students served by IDEA (64.8%) spent 80% or more of their time inside a general education classroom, this figure varied by state, disability type, and racial/ethnic group. Alabama had the highest percentage of children with disabilities who spent 80% or more of the school day alongside their peers without disabilities inside the regular classroom, while New Jersey had the lowest percentage. With respect to disability type, children with intellectual disabilities or multiple disabilities were the least likely and children with speech impairments or learning disabilities were the most likely to spend time in general education settings.

There were also differences by race. White children were the most likely to spend most of the day in general education settings compared with children of all other races and ethnicities (Figure 3-1). This evidence indicates gaps in access to inclusive learning opportunities between White children and their peers from other racial/ethnic groups (Fierros & Conroy, 2002; Skiba et al., 2006). Similar patterns have been documented in neighborhood and charter schools (Waitoller & Maggin, 2020).

FIGURE 3-1

Percentage of students aged 5–21 served under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part B within racial/ethnic groups, by educational environment, fall 2019. ¹Percentage of day spent inside the regular class is defined as the (more...)

The disproportionate representation of students of color in special education in general and in segregated settings in particular reflects the complex links between race and disability. These disparities are most noticeable in disability categories—such as learning disabilities, emotional disturbance, and mild intellectual disability—considered most subjective because of the greater role played by professional judgment in diagnostic decisions. Grindal et al. (2019) used individual-level data from three states to analyze racial disparities in special education. They documented greater racial disparities in these more “subjective” disability categories relative to disabilities typically diagnosed in the health care system (e.g., deafness, visual impairment). These authors also found that African American and Latino students were placed in more segregated settings compared with their White counterparts, irrespective of income level. Another study using individual-level data from a large school district and relying on a longitudinal design covering a decade (Cooc, 2022) found that all students with disabilities experienced decreasing levels of inclusion in general education as they became older. Nonetheless, African American learners were the most affected (after controlling for disability type), while Asian American/Pacific Islander students were more included compared with their White and Latino peers. It is important to note that a key challenge in understanding the complex, often ambiguous, and even contradictory findings from studies on racial disparities in special education and disability segregation is the absence of clear theoretical frameworks underlying this knowledge base (Artiles, 2011; Ahram, Voulgarides, & Cruz, 2021).

Indeed, there is a long-standing concern regarding the disproportionate under- and overidentification of learners of color in disability categories. Two National Academies reports addressing this concern were released 20 years apart (NRC, 1982, 2002), and scholarly debates on the issue continue to unfold (Morgan et al., 2015; Skiba et al., 2016). Both patterns can be problematic and can perpetuate opportunity gaps. Underidentification is a problem if children who need services are not diagnosed so that they receive supports. In contrast, overidentification is problematic if a diagnosis is the result of opportunity gaps, false positives, biases, or the conflation of cultural or linguistic differences with disability.

Disproportionality in identification of learners for special education is a complex phenomenon that takes different forms depending on the level of the system in question (national, state, regional, city, or district); the disability category under consideration; the age and grade level of children and youth; the racial and linguistic backgrounds of students; and the role of contextual and ideological factors, including racism and discrimination (NRC, 1982, 2002; Artiles & Trent, 1994; Skiba et al., 2008; Artiles, 2011; Sullivan & Artiles, 2011; Harry & Klingner, 2014; Cruz & Rodl, 2018; Frederick & Shifrer, 2018; Fish, 2019). Methodological and theoretical considerations shape (often conflicting) findings about disproportionality (Waitoller, Artiles, & Cheney, 2010; Cruz & Rodl, 2018). A complex debate has persisted around the role of race and social class. Some researchers argue that the overrepresentation of learners of color in special education is due to their high levels of poverty, whereas others suggest that race plays a critical role (Skiba et al., 2008; Artiles, 2019). Research findings on this issue have been mixed, and again, methodological factors could explain some of these ambiguous patterns. In a recent review of this literature, Cruz and Rodl (2018, p. 10) conclude that:

the ways in which each study conceptualized SES [socioeconomic status] varied, and, thus, results varied. When studies used aggregated measures for SES, they tended to report overrepresentation of students from racially and ethnically diverse backgrounds in more affluent areas. When considering SES by disaggregated free and reduced lunch measures, results were mixed. When using more specific continuous or composite indicators, much of the variability in special education identification could be attributed to SES.

Other studies with an explicit focus on contextual and cultural historical influences (e.g., history of race relations and racial segregation in the school and community, staff beliefs about race, and deficit views of communities of color) have documented the key role of race in overrepresentation at the district and school levels (Eitle & Eitle, 2002; Skiba et al., 2008; Kramarczuk Voulgarides et al., 2021; Tefera, Siegel-Hawley, & Sjogren, 2022).

The evidence suggests that children of color and those living in rural areas tend to be diagnosed with disabilities later than their White peers of similar age (Barnard-Brak et al., 2021), a problem that creates opportunity gaps in light of the importance of intervening early to provide services for these children (National Academies, 2017). At the same time, there is evidence that some groups of children (e.g., African Americans, Native Americans, English learners) tend to be overidentified in certain categories at the national or sometimes at the regional or state level (Skiba et al., 2008). The issue is most stark in the kinds of more “subjectively” diagnosed disability categories noted earlier, such as intellectual disability, learning disabilities, and emotional disturbance—categories that not only require greater professional (subjective) interpretation in the identification process but also tend to be characterized by overrepresentation of Black and Native American children and placement of learners in segregated settings relative to children in other disability categories. For instance, Cruz and Firestone (2022) found that African American and Latino students were identified in later grades relative to White students in the categories of emotional/behavioral disorders and intellectual disabilities, which tend to be served in more segregated settings compared with other disability categories. Table 3-2 presents the odds ratios for special education identification by grade.

TABLE 3-2

Odds Ratios for Special Education Identification by Grade Level and Student Group.

Identification Rates and Placement

Cruz and Firestone (2022) also found that parent education level was positively associated with low-stigma diagnoses (e.g., speech and language impairments, autism). They frame this finding as an instance of opportunity hoarding exercised by privileged parents, given that different disability categories are associated with more or less stigma and services that require more or fewer resources. They explain that “for most disability categories, higher parent education levels were associated with decreased odds of placement; however, for the autism category, as parent education level increased, odds ratios also increased” (Cruz & Firestone, 2022, p. 108; see also Ong-Dean, 2009; Shifrer, 2013).

Disentangling disability from typical language learning for children who speak a language other than English at home has also resulted in under- or overdiagnosis among this group, depending on the context and level of analysis (Castro & Artiles, 2021). English learners tend to be underidentified at the national level in low-incidence categories such as severe autism, moderate/severe intellectual disabilities, and severe emotional/behavioral disorders (National Academies, 2017). Differences in identification rates are shaped by gaps in access related to a host of structural and technical factors, such as variability in referral rates that may be mediated by professionals' misunderstanding of the intersections between speaking multiple languages and disabilities (including myths about second language development), linguistic and cultural barriers in accessing services and service provision, parents' understanding and navigation of health and education service systems, and access to insurance, among other factors (National Academies, 2017). To illustrate, professionals can incorrectly associate English learners' behaviors associated with acquiring a second language with learning disorders, but may hesitate to refer these learners to special education because of this ambiguity (Klingner et al., 2005; Artiles, Klingner, & Tate, 2006). Table 3-3 outlines similarities in behaviors associated with second language acquisition and learning disability that can potentially lead to incorrect referrals to special education for English learners.

TABLE 3-3

Behaviors Associated with Learning Disabilities and Second Language Acquisition.

Researchers have documented underidentification of English learners in grades K–12 in urban school districts in California compared with English-proficient and White students (Artiles et al., 2005). When the data were disaggregated by grade, however, overrepresentation patterns were noticeable; specifically, this was the case in middle and high school, with particularly large gaps in 12th grade, when English learners were more than three times as likely to be placed in special education compared with their English-proficient counterparts. These districts categorized English learners in two subgroups—those with limited proficiency in English only and those with limited proficiency in both the primary language and English. The latter group represents a theoretically controversial category since it implies that these students are not proficient in any language; the group is described as semilingual or theorized as being languageless in the literature (Rosa, 2016). Of note, this latter group had a substantially higher probability of being identified in the learning disability, language impairment, and intellectual disability categories relative to the other three groups (English learners with limited English proficiency, English-proficient learners, and White learners; Artiles et al., 2005).

IDEA includes provisions on monitoring disproportionality. States have been required to report on disproportionate patterns since 1997, and since 2004 have been expected to create and implement policies and procedures to prevent or remedy inappropriate overidentification or disproportionate representation of learners of color. States cited for disproportionality can use up to 15% of IDEA funds to revise their procedures and eliminate this problem in general education. Unfortunately, because of the lack of clear federal guidance, “a sizable number of states have been able to meet the IDEA mandate by increasing their risk ratio and N criterion without addressing the problem of disproportionality” (Cavendish, Artiles, & Harry, 2014, p. 36; see also Albrecht et al., 2012).

Policies and Practices That Can Create Opportunity Gaps

A number of policy and practice issues create disparities in opportunity for children with disabilities, disproportionately affecting those of color and those in low-income households. Among others, these issues include less or later access to services, a lack of cultural and linguistically responsive services, and greater segregation in learning settings. These issues are in turn undergirded, in large part, by chronic underfunding of IDEA services. As mentioned in Chapter 3, the federal government has never fully funded its share of IDEA, leaving an outsized burden on state and local governments and families. This underfunding has influenced how many children are served by the program and has resulted in long waits for each step of the process, including screening, evaluation, eligibility determination, and service receipt; dosages of services that are often far less than what children need; variations in the quality of services children receive; and lack of coordination with other systems, such as child care.

DIFFERENTIAL EXPERIENCES IN EARLY ELEMENTARY LEARNING SETTINGS

As in ECE systems, the quality and funding levels of the early elementary system profoundly impact children's experiences and outcomes. Although the term “quality” is used more commonly in discussing ECE, the concepts of structural quality² and process quality³ (as discussed in Chapter 2) continue to be relevant in the early elementary grades, and deficits in both structural and process quality create gaps in opportunity for early elementary learners. Both structural and process quality and the interplay between them are influenced by systemic drivers, such as funding and policies. In communities with fewer resources, for example, larger class sizes, an element of structural quality, may result in fewer interactions between teachers and children—an element of process quality (Chaudry & Sandstrom, 2020).

As with the ECE system, there is no single or widely agreed-upon framework for quality in elementary school. Nonetheless, several common features have been studied over the years (Lowenstein et al., 2015; Ansari & Pianta, 2019). These include a combination of structural factors (poverty, racial and socioeconomic segregation); school-, district-, or state-level factors (e.g., funding, discipline policies, access to the curricula, ratios/class sizes, use of ability grouping in classrooms, organizational culture, community/family engagement); teacher-level factors (e.g., teacher turnover, teacher absences, distribution of well-qualified educators, educator bias); and child-level factors (e.g., academic outcomes, behavioral infractions; Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2005; Paro et al., 2009; Buttaro & Catsambis, 2019; Darling-Hammond, 2019; Papachristou et al., 2021). Research has examined a variety of teacher factors, for example, including licensure, stress and burnout, compensation, and efficacy, as well as domain-specific (e.g., literacy, math) instructional approaches.

While there is evidence for some factors and some locations (e.g., Montgomery County, Maryland), more work is needed on identifying equitable, holistic frameworks for high-quality elementary experiences that align with and promote continuity with high-quality ECE experiences (Brooks-Gunn, Markman-Pithers, & Rouse, 2016). Research has shown that quality transitions and alignment between ECE and elementary school are important for sustaining learning gains from the early years (Phillips, Austin, & Whitebook, 2016; Johnson & Jackson, 2018; Meloy, Gardner, & Darling-Hammond, 2019; Reynolds & Temple, 2019; Schweinhart, 2019). If quality is high in an ECE program but not in the early grades, it stands to reason that sustainment of ECE achievement gains will likely be low. Evidence also shows that exposure to high-quality processes across the early elementary years results in higher cognitive scores for learners (Vernon-Feagans et al., 2019).

Harsh and Exclusionary Discipline Policies

Another structural dimension of quality that influences opportunity gaps is discipline policies and practices. In the 1990s and early 2000s, a zero tolerance approach to discipline took hold across the country, initially as a response to school safety concerns. These policies included mandatory suspensions or expulsions for students for specific infractions. Initially, those infractions included bringing weapons to school or making safety threats, but not long after, they expanded to include infractions unrelated to safety, including dress code violations, truancy, and developmentally appropriate tantrums in younger students. These policies were undergirded by the view that both minor and major disciplinary infractions should be punished harshly (Skiba & Knesting, 2001). Black children were disproportionately impacted by these policies in the form of higher rates of expulsion and suspension, resulting in an array of negative outcomes despite no credible evidence of worse behavior on the part of these children (Meek et al., 2020). Although such practices accelerated during this era, racial disparities in disciplinary practices have existed since schools began integrating after the Brown vs. Board of Education decision (Mills, 2016). In fact, data from the early 1970s indicate that the rate of suspension was at least twice as high for Black as for White children across the country (Kaeser, 1979).

Two decades later, these trends remain consistent. An analysis of Civil Rights Data Collection data (2015–2016 school year) for children in pre-K through elementary school found that Black children were disproportionately suspended and expelled in every state in the nation (Meek at al., 2020). The most recent wave of these data, from the 2017–2018 school year, revealed stubbornly consistent racial disparities in this regard between Black children and their peers. In addition, American Indian and Alaska Native children were 1.5 times as likely as their White peers to be suspended, while children with disabilities served under IDEA were 2.5 times as likely as their peers without disabilities to be expelled (Ryberg et al., 2021).

Federal data from the 2017–2018 school year revealed modest declines in exclusionary discipline in the elementary grades, especially compared with the more significant declines in rates for children in pre-K. In sum, exclusionary discipline in the elementary grades declined by 2% between the two most recent data collection periods; however, school-related arrests, expulsions with educational services, and referrals to law enforcement increased by 5%, 7%, and 12%, respectively (Department of Education, 2021a). Black children and boys in all racial/ethnic groups were consistently disciplined disproportionately across all discipline categories. Black girls in particular experienced substantial disproportionality in exclusionary discipline (Losen, 2017). One analysis found that Black girls were suspended at a rate four times greater than that of White girls. Black girls were disciplined disproportionately across every discipline category, including suspension, expulsion, referrals, school transfers due to behavior, and restraint (Epstein et al., 2020). Children with disabilities were disproportionately suspended and expelled compared with their peers without disabilities; these disparities were especially stark for Black children with disabilities, who experienced rates more than four times their share of enrollment. Although discipline rates have been inconsistent among Latino students, two recent studies using various methodological approaches identified higher rates of exclusionary discipline for these children compared with their White peers but lower rates compared with their Black peers (Morris & Perry, 2016; Owens & McLanahan, 2020; Gage et al., 2021).

Overall, it has been reported that statewide racial disparities in discipline mask deeper disparities across school districts and schools (Losen, 2017). Although IDEA requires monitoring and intervention on racial disparities in discipline for children with disabilities, only 20 states identified at least one school district with this problem; of the 10 states with the greatest racial disparities in discipline for this population, only four—Wisconsin, Connecticut, Texas, and North Carolina—reported a district with disproportionality patterns (Losen, 2017). See Table 3-4.

TABLE 3-4

Racial Disparities for Students with Disabilities (SWD) in Days of Lost Instruction per 100 Students Enrolled Due to Disciplinary Removal: Top 10 States (including the District of Columbia).

Suspensions and expulsions and disparities in these practices are fueled by a number of factors (Meek & Gilliam, 2016), including discipline policies (Skiba & Peterson, 2000), racial bias (Skiba et al., 2002, 2011; Okonofua & Eberhardt, 2015; Gilliam et al., 2016; Carter et al., 2017), lack of teacher preparation and support and poor working conditions (Gilliam & Shahar, 2006), unaddressed childhood trauma resulting from adverse experiences (Zeng et al., 2019), and school climate (McIntosh et al., 2021), among others. A recent study examining the Black–White discipline gap found that nearly half of this gap could be attributed to differential treatment and/or differential support offered to students, the largest single driver of the disparity (Owens & McLanahan, 2020). These authors also found that some of the gap could be attributed to the sorting of children into schools by race and ethnicity (21%), while differences in children's behavior accounted for the smallest amount of variance (Owens & McLanahan, 2020).

Virtually all studies examining differences in child behavior by race have relied on teacher or administrator ratings. Given the breadth of research on the influences of bias on perceptions of Black people, including young children, it is important to apply a critical lens to findings that rely on subjective perceptions of behavior. Indeed, research has found that racial disparities between Black and White students are driven largely by behaviors (e.g., disrespect, defiance) whose perception is subjective in nature, rather than those (e.g., vandalism, smoking) whose perception is objective in nature (Skiba et al., 2014). In addition, Losen (2017) found that school districts with high rates of suspension tended to apply disciplinary sanctions to students of color for minor infractions and nonviolent or nonthreatening behaviors, such as tardiness, loitering in the hall, dress code violations, truancy, profanity, carrying a cell phone, and smoking cigarettes. Research has provided evidence of racial bias in the perceptions of children's behavior and the discipline decisions made by adults in learning systems (see Marcelo & Yates, 2014; Okonofua & Eberhardt, 2015; Gilliam et al., 2016; Meek et al., 2020). A broader evidence base points to negative biases against Black individuals outside the classroom, including misperceiving Black boys as older than they are and less childlike than White boys, and more often mischaracterizing them as angry (Goff et al., 2014; Halberstadt et al., 2020). Likewise, Black girls are rated as more mature and needing less support, comforting, nurturing, and protection than White girls (Epstein et al., 2020). These biases also include empathy bias, whereby people as young as 7 years of age rate Black children as feeling less pain than White children (Goff et al., 2014). They include as well biases unveiled through automatic association tests in which respondents across racial groups more often associate Black versus White individuals with anger and aggression (Duncan, 1976; Hugenberg & Bodenhausen, 2003; Miller, Maner, & Becker, 2010). Collectively, these dimensions of bias influence how adults perceive behavior, whose behavior is scrutinized, and what decisions are made with respect to those perceptions, all of which can lead to disproportionality in exclusionary discipline.

These biases likely mediate responses to student behaviors, resulting in responses that have a negative impact on various outcomes. For instance, although harsher disciplinary sanctions for minor infractions may lead to a reduction in such behaviors, there is evidence that tough discipline models are associated with reduced high school graduation rates and increases in juvenile justice complaints (Sorensen et al., 2022). Principals with a tough discipline stance create conditions associated with lower academic achievement, wider Black–White achievement gaps, and reductions in student attendance (Sorensen et al., 2022). Indeed, research has shown a robust association between the Black–White discipline and achievement gaps after controlling for numerous factors (Pearman et al., 2019). Teacher behavior management approaches also have differential impacts on young children's perceived identities (e.g., “good,” “troublemaker”) and social relations (Gansen, 2021). Moreover, issues germane to race relations in broader societal contexts are linked to racial disparities in school discipline. For instance, Chin (2021) found that as schools decreased levels of racial segregation, racial disparities in discipline and special education identification increased. Similarly, racial disparities in school discipline were found to be associated with county-level indicators of racial bias (Riddle & Sinclair, 2019). And Perera (2021) documents how school districts with significant equity challenges (e.g., higher levels of racial segregation, substantial racial achievement gaps, larger proportion of racialized students) had a greater probability of receiving civil rights complaints.

Suspension and expulsion result in about 11 million days of missed school in one school year alone, breaking down disproportionately along gender and racial lines. Relative to other groups, Black children and boys in all racial/ethnic groups in one study missed more than twice as many days because of suspensions. Black boys missed the greatest number of days, and Black girls missed about twice as many days as their White female counterparts (Fabes et al., 2021). Losen (2017) reports that, at the national level, Black versus White children lost 76 more days of instruction. Another study found that exclusionary discipline accounted for one-fifth of academic disparities between Black and White children (Morris & Perry, 2016).

Unsurprisingly, suspension and expulsion are positively associated with grade retention, lower achievement, and dropping out of high school, and negatively associated with taking advanced math courses and attending college (Wald & Losen, 2003; Gregory, Skiba, & Noguera, 2010; Fabelo et al., 2011; Morris & Perry, 2016; Losen, 2017; Wolf & Kupchik, 2017; Mittleman, 2018; Pearman et al., 2019; Jabbari & Johnson, 2020)—all of which are outcomes in themselves, but also serve to further perpetuate opportunity gaps going forward. Research has found as well that exclusionary discipline does not reduce challenging behavior; rather, it is associated with increased “delinquent behavior,” and these increases are not moderated by race, indicating that these practices have similarly negative influences across groups (Gerlinger et al., 2021).

Since 2014, following the first federal publication of pre-K suspension and expulsion data, policies at the federal level have guided efforts to reduce exclusionary discipline in K–12 settings (Department of Justice & Department of Education, 2014). State and local legislative efforts to limit exclusionary discipline in the early grades, as well as executive branch efforts of state governors and agencies, have followed. These efforts include improving data collection, fostering family engagement, and providing professional development. Despite the number of new policies, however, these policies vary in both quality and content. During the Trump administration, the Obama-era K–12 federal discipline guidance was rolled back, but the effects on state and local policy are currently unclear. Under the Biden administration, federal officials are undertaking a review of the original policy and its subsequent repeal.

Data indicate that efforts aimed at simply reducing rates of exclusionary discipline have proven insufficient in addressing persistent disparities, pointing to the need to develop effective policies targeted specifically at closing the gaps among groups. Addressing this need has proven difficult, however, as researchers have examined statewide efforts to this end and found them to be ineffective at bridging the gaps (Linick, Garcia, & Grandpre, 2021; see also Cruz, Kulkarni, & Firestone, 2021, for a review of efforts to reduce disproportionality in exclusionary discipline; see Losen et al., 2015, for successful interventions to reduce discipline disparities).

Corporal punishment, defined as paddling, spanking, or other forms of physical punishment imposed on a child, is another form of harsh discipline that is used as a disciplinary practice in both pre-K and K–12 settings. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which the United States has signed but not ratified, states that no child should be subjected to “physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation” at school or by a parent or legal guardian (United Nations, 1989); however, there is no federal law prohibiting corporal punishment, and it remains legal in public school settings in 19 states across the nation and in private school settings in all but 2 states. According to federal data, roughly 70,000 children across age groups, including more than 800 preschool-aged children, were subjected to corporal punishment during a given year (Department of Education, 2021c). As with exclusionary discipline, Black children, boys, and children with disabilities are disproportionately subjected to corporal punishment. Although only 11% of the nation's school districts practiced corporal punishment in 2013–2014, 10 Southern states accounted for 75% of corporal punishment, with Mississippi, Texas, Alaska, and Alabama accounting for more than 70% (Johnson, 2019)—38% of those suspended at least once and 37% of those corporally punished.

Restraint and seclusion are two additional practices used for disciplinary purposes, despite the fact that they were not intended for that purpose but to address emergencies in case of imminent harm to the child or others. The latest federal data show that 74,000 children in public K–12 settings were physically restrained over the course of a year, and 27,500 were subjected to seclusion—the practice of locking children in a room alone without the ability to get out. As with other forms of harsh discipline, restraint and seclusion are applied disproportionately to Black children and children with disabilities in particular. In K–12 settings, Black children make up 15% of total enrollment but 29% of those restrained and 23% of those secluded; children with disabilities represent 13% of total K–12 enrollment but 78% of those restrained and 77% of those secluded. As with exclusionary discipline and corporal punishment, there is no federal law prohibiting these practices, while a patchwork of state laws limit or place parameters around their use (Meek et al., 2020).

Research suggests that each of these discipline policies and practices is associated with adverse outcomes—academic, social, and psychological—as well as engagement with the criminal justice system later in life. Children who are excluded through suspension and expulsion are stigmatized and isolated (Rosenbaum, 2020) in addition to missing days of school and learning opportunities (Losen & Whitaker, 2018; Fabes et al., 2021). Related to these issues are findings indicating that children who are suspended or expelled have lower school engagement, are more likely to repeat a grade, and are less likely to graduate from high school (Browne, Losen, & Wald, 2001; Karega Rausch & Skiba, 2004; Arcia, 2006; Gregory, Skiba, & Noguera, 2010; Skiba, Arredondo, & Williams, 2014).

THE EDUCATION WORKFORCE IN GRADES K–3

The education workforce in grades K–3 has a profound effect on young children's experiences and outcomes. Three aspects of the workforce—the provision of supportive, enriching, and warm teacher–child relationships and interactions; teacher expectations and perceptions of behavior; and pedagogy, instruction, and access to enrichment—are discussed here.

THE IMPACT OF COVID-19

The closure of schools during the COVID-19 pandemic had a pronounced impact on families (Weiland et al., 2021). Parents reported high stress levels due to the shift to working from home and managing remote learning, and essential workers who needed to work in person struggled with providing care for their children. Research has shown that parents felt nervous, anxious, or apprehensive about the pandemic (Gonzalez et al., 2020). In addition, parents/guardians described the ways in which the pandemic caused major changes in their families' activities and routines (Gonzalez et al., 2020) and were more concerned about their children's social and emotional development and well-being than they had been prior to the pandemic (Jung & Barnett, 2021). The effects of interruptions in schooling were exacerbated by the disproportionate incidence of COVID-19 among some racial and minoritized groups: illness, hospitalization, and death due to COVID-19 have been higher among Hispanic or Latino, Black, American Indian or Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander populations (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2020). As a result, children of color have been disproportionately affected by sickness and death among parents and other family members.

The shift to remote schooling during the pandemic introduced changes that were not conducive to social and academic learning (Weiland et al., 2021), and had a significant impact on children's learning opportunities and academic outcomes (EmpowerK12, 2020). Research has shown that many teachers were unable to teach/interact with children effectively online at the onset of the pandemic (Bassok et al., 2021). Reductions in instructional time and quality of instruction have also been documented (Rickles et al., 2020; Weiland et al., 2021). In line with those findings, parents nationally reported high levels of conduct problems, peer problems, and prosocial behavior problems among their children (Jung and Barnett, 2021), and children experienced slower learning growth or unrealized learning opportunities (Dorn et al., 2020; Huff, 2020; Renaissance Learning, 2020; Amplify, 2021; Engzell, Frey, & Verhagen, 2021; Lewis et al., 2021; McGinty et al., 2021; Ohio Department of Education, 2021; Storey & Zhang, 2021; Texas Education Agency, 2021; National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2022). A special administration of the National Assessment of Educational Progress in 2022 found disproportionately large declines in test scores in reading and math overall and inequitable outcomes among different groups of children as a result of the pandemic (NCES, 2022).

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention surveyed parents of children aged 5–12 between October and November 2020 and found that, compared with parents of children attending school in person, parents of children receiving remote instruction were more likely to report higher levels of emotional distress, conflict between working and providing child care, and difficulty sleeping (Verlenden et al., 2021). Families adapted to the new circumstances with significant changes in their labor market participation (National Academies, 2023).

In addition to these effects, the COVID-19 pandemic has affected school enrollment, which may in turn lead to disparities in school funding. Progressive school funding allocations have been shown to have both short- and long-term effects on student outcomes, especially for students from families with low incomes. In fall 2020, many large school districts reported substantial declines in enrollment—especially in kindergarten, where enrollment decreased by an average of 16%. Schools also saw decreases in attendance during the switch to virtual learning in spring 2020. These declines can negatively affect school funding that is based on enrollment numbers, as well as funding for schools that use attendance measures to allocate funding, and are more likely to affect high-poverty compared with better-resourced districts (Blagg, Gutierrex, & Lee, 2021).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the early elementary system is universally accessible to children and families, gaps in access to quality remain pervasive. As with ECE, differences in quality and funding create disparities in children's experiences and outcomes. This unequal access to both structural and process quality can be influenced by such factors as geography, district size, school infrastructure, funding inequities, teacher and administrator bias, disciplinary policies, and other manifestations of marginalization based on disability status, race, gender, and socioeconomic status. These social and systemic drivers also affect the ways in which structural and process quality interact, leading to a broad spectrum of variation in access to resources and quality educational experiences for young children.

In some cases, federal funding for programs to address the needs of certain populations is insufficient to bridge gaps in state and local funding, resulting in underfunded programs. For students living in states that already have relatively low student spending, this funding gap results in more students at risk—especially students from families with lower incomes and students of color. In 2015, in states with higher levels of poverty, underfunding of Title I, which is meant to ensure that all children receive a quality and equitable education regardless of income, was just over one-eighth the amount required to fully fund the Basic Grants portion. As a result, students from states with higher levels of poverty have received less funding per low-income child relative to states with lower levels of poverty. In the case of IDEA, underfunding has left a large burden for state and local governments and families, affecting the quality, timing, and dosage of services children receive and the quality of coordination with other services.

Children from marginalized populations experience a variety of biases in the early grades related to their race/ethnicity, language status, and disability status that can manifest in differential teacher expectations, perceptions of behavior, and perception of age/maturity. These biases influence experiences in the classroom, relationships with teachers, exposure to harsh and exclusionary disciplinary practices, and other experiences in school that can lead to opportunity gaps and influence both short- and long-term outcomes. These biases can also lead to the misperception that some children do not need environments that help support their learning and development. For children with disabilities, biases can contribute to both under- and overidentification of disabilities, which can prevent children from receiving services to which they are entitled legally or result in children being diagnosed with conditions they do not have. In both cases, the result can be gaps in access to inclusive learning opportunities that adequately support student needs.

Well-funded, high-quality experiences in the early grades that follow well-funded and aligned ECE experiences can improve students' academic performance and in the longer term can lead to more positive outcomes, such as higher graduation rates and reduced adult poverty. It is important to ensure that these early elementary experiences are aligned with the latest science and are specifically designed to close opportunity gaps and ensure that all students succeed, particularly those who have been historically marginalized. These experiences include high-quality instruction and asset-driven pedagogies, assessments, and curricula; social-emotional and mental health supports and policies to explicitly reduce exclusionary and harsh discipline and eliminate disparities in such practices; full inclusion of children with disabilities in general education settings, with high-quality and individualized services and supports; bilingual learning opportunities for children who are English learners and dual language learners; structurally sound, safe, healthy, and engaging learning environments; a well-qualified, fairly compensated, and supported teacher workforce; data-driven, continuous quality improvement efforts targeted at identifying and addressing opportunity and outcome gaps; authentic and meaningful family engagement and partnerships; community partnerships and engagement to promote child and holistic family wellness; and strong partnerships with ECE systems that promote seamless transitions from ECE to the early grades.

REFERENCES

• Achilles CM. Class-size policy: The STAR experiment and related class-size studies. National Council of Professors of Educational Administration; Policy Brief Volume. 2012;1(2) https://files​.eric.ed​.gov/fulltext/ED540485.pdf .
• Achilles GM, McLaughlin MJ, Croninger RG. Sociocultural correlates of disciplinary exclusion among students with emotional, behavioral, and learning disabilities in the SEELS national dataset. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. 2007;15(1):33–45. https://doi​.org/10.1177​/10634266070150010401 .
• Afterschool Alliance. Issue: School-age child care: Afterschool programs are a critical resource for working families. n.d. http:​//afterschoolalliance​.org/Issue-School-Age-Child-Care​.cfm .
• Afterschool Alliance & America After 3PM Health & Wellness. Promoting healthy futures: Afterschool provides the supports parents want for children’s well-being. 2022. https:​//afterschoolalliance​.org/documents​/AA3PM/AA3PM-Healthy-Futures-Report-2022.pdf .
• Ahram R, Voulgarides CK, Cruz RA. Understanding disability: High-quality evidence in research on special education disproportionality. Review of Research in Education. 2021;45:311–45. https://doi​.org/10.3102/0091732X20985069 .
• Albrecht S, Skiba R, Losen D, Chung CG, Middelberg L. Federal policy on disproportionality in special education: Is it moving us forward. Journal of Disability Policy Studies. 2012;23:14–25. https://doi​.org/10.1177/1044207311407917 .
• Amplify. COVID-19 means more students not learning to read. Amplify Education; 2021. https://go​.info.amplify​.com/download-whitepaper-fy21​_general​_moydata_national_readingresearch .
• Ansari A, Pianta RC. School absenteeism in the first decade of education and outcomes in adolescence. Journal of School Psychology. 2019;76:48–61. https://doi​.org/10.1016/j​.jsp.2019.07.010 . [PubMed: 31759468]
• Ansari A, Purtell KM. School absenteeism through the transition to kindergarten. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk. 2018;23(1–2):24–38. https://doi​.org/10.1080/10824669​.2018.1438202 .
• Arcia E. Achievement and enrollment status of suspended students: Outcomes in a large, multicultural school district. Education and Urban Society. 2006;38(3):359–69. https://doi​.org/10.1177/0013124506286947 .
• Aronson B, Laughter JC. The theory and practice of culturally relevant education. Review of Educational Research. 2016;86:163–206. https://doi​.org/10.3102/0034654315582066 .
• Artiles AJ. Toward an interdisciplinary understanding of educational equity and difference: The case of the racialization of ability. Educational Researcher. 2011;40(9):431–45. https://doi​.org/10.3102/0013189X11429391 .
• Artiles AJ. Fourteenth annual brown lecture in education research: Reenvisioning equity research: Disability identification disparities as a case in point. Educational Researcher. 2019;48(6):325–35. https://doi​.org/10.3102/0013189X19871949 .
• Artiles AJ, Trent SC. Overrepresentation of minority students in special education: A continuing debate. The Journal of Special Education. 1994;27(4):410–37. https://doi​.org/10.1177​/002246699402700404 .
• Artiles AJ, Rueda R, Salazar J, Higareda I. Within-group diversity in minority disproportionate representation: English language learners in urban school districts. Exceptional Children. 2005;71:283–300. https://doi​.org/10.1177​/001440290507100305 .
• Artiles AJ, Klingner JK, Tate WF. Representation of minority students in special education: Complicating traditional explanations: Editors’ introduction. Educational Researcher. 2006;35(6):3–5. https://doi​.org/10.3102​/0013189X035006003 .
• August D, Shanahan T, Escamilla K. English language learners: Developing literacy in second-language learners—Report of the national literacy panel on language-minority children and youth. Journal of Literacy Research. 2009;41(4):432–52. https://doi​.org/10.1080​/10862960903340165 .
• Baker BD. How money matters for schools. Learning Policy Institute; 2017. https:​//learningpolicyinstitute​.org/product​/how-money-matters-report .
• Baker JA. Contributions of teacher-child relationships to positive school adjustment during elementary school. Journal of School Psychology. 2006;44(3):211–29. https://doi​.org/10.1016/j​.jsp.2006.02.002 .
• Barnard-Brak L, Morales-Alemán MM, Tomeny K, McWilliam RA. Rural and racial/ethnic differences in children receiving early intervention services. Family and Community Health. 2021;44(1):52–8. https://doi​.org/10.1097/FCH​.0000000000000285 . [PubMed: 33214410]
• Barnett WS, Schulman K, Shore R. Preschool Policy Matters. National Institute for Early Education Research; 2004. Class size: What’s the best fit; p. 9. https://nieer​.org/wp-content​/uploads/2016/08/9.pdf .
• Bassok D, Weisner K, Markowitz AJ, Hall T. Virginia PDG B-5 Evaluation: SEE Partnerships Report and The Study of Early Education Through Partnerships. EdPolicyWorks at the University of Virginia; 2021. Teaching young children during COVID-19: Lessons from early educators in Virginia. https://www​.see-partnerships​.com/reports--policy-briefs.html .
• Bates LA, Glick JE. Does it matter if teachers and schools match the student? Racial and ethnic disparities in problem behaviors. Social Science Research. 2013;42(5):1180–90. https://doi​.org/10.1016/j​.ssresearch.2013.04.005 . [PubMed: 23859724]
• Benner AD, Graham S. Latino adolescents’ experiences of discrimination across the first 2 years of high school: Correlates and influences on educational outcomes. Child Development. 2011;82(2):508–19. http://www​.jstor.org/stable/29782849 . [PubMed: 21410910]
• Bialystok E. The bilingual adaptation: How minds accommodate experience. Psychological Bulletin. 2017;143(3):233–62. https://doi​.org/10.1037/bul0000099 . [PMC free article: PMC5324728] [PubMed: 28230411]
• Birch SH, Ladd GW. The teacher-child relationship and children’s early school adjustment. Journal of School Psychology. 1997;35(1):61–79. https://doi​.org/10.1016​/S0022-4405(96)00029-5 .
• Bittencourt A, Aerts D, Alves G, Palazzo L, Monteiro L, Vieira P, Freddo S. Feelings of discrimination among students: Prevalence and associated factors. Revista de Saúde Pública. 2009;43:236–45. https://doi​.org/10.1590​/s0034-89102009005000008 . [PubMed: 19225693]
• Blagg K, Gutierrez E, Lee V. How COVID-19-induced changes to K-12 enrollment and poverty might affect school funding. Washington, DC: Urban Institute; 2021.
• Bodrova E, Leong DJ. Tools of the mind: The Vygotskian-Based early childhood program. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology. 2019;17(3):223–37. https://doi​.org/10.1891/1945-8959​.17.3.223 .
• Boonstra K. Constructing “behavior problems”: Race, disability, and everyday discipline practices in the figured world of kindergarten. Anthropology & Education Quarterly. 2021;52(4):373–90. https://doi​.org/10.1111/aeq.12374 .
• Brooks-Gunn J, Markman-Pithers L, Rouse CE. Starting early: Introducing the issue. The Future of Children. 2016;26(2):3–19. http://www​.jstor.org/stable/43940578 .
• Browne JA, Losen DJ, Wald J. Zero tolerance: Unfair, with little recourse. New Directions for Youth Development. 2001;92:73–99. https://doi​.org/10.1002/yd.23320019206 . [PubMed: 12170831]
• Brunner EJ, Schwegman D, Vincent JM. How much does public school facility funding depend on property wealth. Education Finance and Policy. 2022;18(1):25–51. https://doi​.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00346 .
• Burghardt GM. The Oxford handbook of the development of play. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 2011. Defining and recognizing play; pp. 9–18.
• Buttaro A Jr., Catsambis S. Ability grouping in the early grades: Long-term consequences for educational equity in the United States. Teachers College Record. 2019;121(2):1–50.
• Callahan R, Gándara P. Multilingual Matters. Bristol, UK: Channel View Publications; 2014. The bilingual advantage: Language, literacy and the US labor market.
• Campbell T. Stereotyped at seven? Biases in teacher judgement of pupils’ ability and attainment. Journal of Social Policy. 2015;44(3):517–47.
• Carter PL, Skiba R, Arredondo MI, Pollock M. You can’t fix what you don’t look at: Acknowledging race in addressing racial discipline disparities. Urban Education. 2017;52(2):207–35. https://doi​.org/10.1177/0042085916660350 .
• Castagno AE, Brayboy BMJ. Culturally responsive schooling for Indigenous youth: A review of the literature. Review of Education Research. 2008;78(4):941–93. https://doi​.org/10.3102/0034654308323036 .
• Castro D, Artiles AF. Multilingual Matters. Channel View Publications; 2021. Language, learning, and disability in the education of young bilingual children. https://doi​.org/10.1080/09500782​.2022.2136487 .
• Castro DC, Meek S. Beyond Castañeda and the “language barrier” ideology: Young children and their right to bilingualism. Language Policy. 2022;21:407–25. https://doi​.org/10.1007​/s10993-021-09608-x .
• Cavendish W, Artiles A, Harry B. Tracking inequality 60 years after Brown: Does policy legitimize the racialization of disability. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners. 2014;14:30–40. https://doi​.org/10.5555/2158-396X​.14.2.30 .
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Introduction to COVID-19 racial and ethnic health disparities. 2020. https://www​.cdc.gov/coronavirus​/2019-ncov​/community/health-equity​/racial-ethnic-disparities/index​.html#print .
• Chang H, Romero M. Present, engaged, and accounted for: The critical importance of addressing chronic absence in the early grades. National Center for Children in Poverty, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University; 2008. https://www​.nccp.org​/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/text_837.pdf .
• Chang HN, Bauer L, Byrnes V. Data matters: Using chronic absence to accelerate action for student success. Attendance Works and Everyone Graduates Center; 2018. https://www​.attendanceworks​.org/wp-content​/uploads/2019/01/Data-Matters​_EXEC-Summary_121418-4.pdf .
• Chaudry A, Sandstrom Child care and early education for infants and toddlers. Future of Children. 2020;30(2):165–90. https://files​.eric.ed​.gov/fulltext/EJ1293558.pdf .
• Chen P, Rice C. Advocates for Children of New Jersey. 2017. Showing up matters: Newark chronic absenteeism in the early years. https://files​.eric.ed​.gov/fulltext/ED563781.pdf .
• Cherng H-YS. If they think I can: Teacher bias and youth of color expectations and achievement. Social Science Research. 2017;66:170–86. https://doi​.org/10.1016/j​.ssresearch.2017.04.001 . [PubMed: 28705354]
• Childs J, Lofton R. Masking attendance: How education policy distracts from the wicked problem(s) of chronic absenteeism. Educational Policy. 2021;35(2):213–34. https://doi​.org/10.1177/0895904820986771 .
• Chin MJ. Journal of Urban Economics. 2021. JUE insight: Desegregated but still separated? The impact of school integration on student suspensions and special education classification; p. 103389. https://doi​.org/10.1016/j​.jue.2021.103389 .
• Coalition for Community Schools. Thecoalitionforcommunityschools. Institute for Educational Leadership; 2020. https://www​.communityschools​.org/about/#:~:text=A​%20Community​%20School%20is%20a,that​%20strengthens%20families​%20and%20community .
• Collier V, Thomas W. Validating the power of bilingual schooling: Thirty-two years of large-scale, longitudinal research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. 2017;37:1–15. https://doi​.org/10.1017​/S0267190517000034 .
• Collins BA, O’Connor E, Supplee L, Shaw DS. Behavior problems in elementary school among low-income boys: The role of teacher–child relationships. The Journal of Educational Research. 2017;110(1):72–84. https://doi​.org/10.1080/00220671​.2015.1039113 . [PMC free article: PMC5695687] [PubMed: 29170565]
• Commission on Civil Rights. Public education funding inequity in an era of increasing concentration of poverty and resegregation. 2018. https://www​.usccr.gov​/files/pubs/2018/2018-01-10-Education-Inequity.pdf .
• Connolly F, Olson LS. Early elementary performance and attendance in Baltimore City Schools’ pre-kindergarten and kindergarten. Baltimore Education Research Consortium; 2012. https://eric​.ed.gov/?id=ED535768 .
• Cooc N. Disparities in general education inclusion for students of color with disabilities: Understanding when and why. Journal of School Psychology. 2022;90:43–59. https://doi​.org/10.1016/j​.jsp.2021.10.002 . [PubMed: 34969487]
• Cruz RA, Firestone AR. Understanding the empty backpack: The role of timing in disproportionate special education identification. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity. 2022;8(1):95–113. https://doi​.org/10.1177​/23326492211034890 .
• Cruz RA, Rodl J. An integrative synthesis of literature on disproportionality in special education. The Journal of Special Education. 2018;52(1):002246691875870. https://doi​.org/10.1177/0022466918758707 .
• Cruz RA, Lee JH, Aylward AG, Voulgarides CK. The effect of school funding on opportunity gaps for students with disabilities: Policy and context in a diverse urban district. Journal of Disability Policy Studies. 2020;33(1):3–14. https://doi​.org/10.1177/1044207320970545 .
• Cruz RA, Kulkarni SS, Firestone AR. A QuantCrit analysis of context, discipline, special education, and disproportionality. AERA Open. 2021;7(1):1–16. https://journals​.sagepub​.com/doi/10.1177​/23328584211041354#con3 .
• Dabach DB, Suárez-Orozco C, Hernandez SJ, Brooks MD. Future perfect?: Teachers’ expectations and explanations of their Latino immigrant students’ postsecondary futures. Journal of Latinos and Education. 2018;17(1):38–52. https://doi​.org/10.1080/15348431​.2017.1281809 .
• Dahlin MS, Squires JH. Pre-K attendance: Why it’s important and how to support it. New Brunswick, NJ: Center on Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes; 2016. http://ceelo​.org/wp-content​/uploads/2016​/02/ceelo_fastfact_state​_ece_attendance_2016​_02_01_final_for_web.pdf .
• Dang LC, Donde A, Madison C, O’Neil JP, Jagust WJ. Striatal dopamine influences the default mode network to affect shifting between object features. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 2012;24:1960–70. https://doi​.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00252 . [PMC free article: PMC3510672] [PubMed: 22640392]
• Darling-Hammond L. Investing for student success: Lessons from state school finance reforms. Learning Policy Institute; 2019. https:​//learningpolicyinstitute​.org/product​/investing-student-success-school-finance-reforms-report .
• Darling-Hammond L, Baratz-Snowden J. A good teacher in every classroom: Preparing the highly qualified teachers our children deserve. Educational Horizons. 2007;85(2):111–32. https://files​.eric.ed​.gov/fulltext/EJ750647.pdf .
• Department of Education. Chronic absenteeism in the nation’s schools: A hidden educational crisis. 2019. https://www2​.ed.gov/datastory​/chronicabsenteeism.html .
• Department of Education. 2017-2018 State and national estimations. Office for Civil Rights; 2021a. https://ocrdata​.ed.gov​/estimations/2017-2018 .
• Department of Education. 43rd annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2021. Alexandria, VA: Education Publications Center; 2021b.
• Department of Education. 2017-18 Civil rights data collection, released October 2020, updated May 2021. Office for Civil Rights; 2021c. https://ocrdata​.ed.gov . https://ocrdata​.ed.gov​/assets/downloads/Corporal​_Punishment_Part4_Updated.pdf .
• Department of Education. Nita M. Lowey 21st Century Community Learning Centers. Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. Office for Civil Rights; 2023. https://oese​.ed.gov/offices​/office-of-formula-grantsschool-support-and-accountability​/21st-century-community-learning-centers/
• Department of Justice & Department of Education. Joint “dear colleague” letter. Office for Civil Rights; 2014. https://www2​.ed.gov/about​/offices/list/ocr​/letters/colleague-201401-title-vi​.html .
• Dobbs J, Arnold DH. Relationship between preschool teachers’ reports of children’s behavior and their behavior toward those children. School Psychology Quarterly. 2009;24(2):95–105. https://doi​.org/10.1037/a0016157 . [PMC free article: PMC2860963] [PubMed: 20431714]
• Dorn E, Hancock B, Sarakatsannis J, Viruleg E. COVID-19 and learning loss: Disparities grow and students need help. McKinsey & Company; 2020. https://www​.mckinsey​.com/industries/public-and-social-sector​/our-insights/covid-19-and-learning-loss-disparities-grow-and-students-need-help .
• Downer J, Goble P, Myers S, Pianta R. Teacher-child racial/ethnic match within pre-kindergarten classrooms and children’s early school adjustment. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2016;37 https://doi​.org/10.1016/j​.ecresq.2016.02.007 .
• Downey D, Pribesh S. When race matters: Teachers’ evaluations of students’ classroom behavior. Sociology of Education. 2004;77 https://doi​.org/10.1177​/003804070407700401 .
• Driscoll KC, Pianta RC. Banking time in Head Start: Early efficacy of an intervention designed to promote supportive teacher-child relationships. Early Education and Development. 2010;21(1):38–64. https://doi​.org/10.1080​/10409280802657449 .
• Dubay L, Holla N. Absenteeism in DC public schools early education program: An update for school year 2013-14. Washington, DC: Urban Institute; 2015.
• Dubay L, Holla N. An analysis of DCPS’s early education program. Urban Institute; 2016. Does attendance in early education predict attendance in elementary school. https://greaterdc​.urban​.org/publication/does-attendance-early-education-predict-attendance-elementary-school-analysis-dcpss .
• Duncan BL. Differential social perception and attribution of intergroup violence: Testing the lower limits of stereotyping of Blacks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1976;34(4):590–8. https://doi​.org/10.1037/0022-3514​.34.4.590 . [PubMed: 993976]
• Durkin K, Lipsey MW, Farran DC, Wiesen SE. Effects of a statewide prekindergarten program on children’s achievement and behavior through sixth grade. Developmental Psychology. 2022;58(3):470–84. https://doi​.org/10.1037/dev0001301 . [PMC free article: PMC9716729] [PubMed: 35007113]
• Eberhardt JL, Goff PA, Purdie VJ, Davies PG. Seeing Black: Race, crime, and visual processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2004;87(6):876–93. https://doi​.org/10.1037/0022-3514​.87.6.876 . [PubMed: 15598112]
• EdBuild. 23 billion. 2019. https://edbuild​.org/content/23-billion .
• Ehrlich SB, Gwynne JA, Allensworth EM. Pre-kindergarten attendance matters: Early chronic absence patterns and relationships to learning outcomes. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2018;44:136–51. https://doi​.org/10.1016/j​.ecresq.2018.02.012 .
• Eitle TM, Eitle DJ. Race, cultural capital, and the educational effects of participation in sports. Sociology of Education. 2002;75(2):123–46. https://doi​.org/10.2307/3090288 .
• Eklund K, Burns MK, Oyen K, DeMarchena S, McCollom EM. Addressing chronic absenteeism in schools: A meta-analysis of evidence-based interventions. School Psychology Review. 2022;51(1):95–111. https://doi​.org/10.1080/2372966X​.2020.1789436 .
• EmpowerK12. How COVID-19 regular school closures could impact DC student proficiency in 2020-21. 2020. https://www​.empowerk12​.org/research-source​/covid-school-closures .
• Engzell P, Frey A, Verhagen MD. Learning loss due to school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2021;118(17):e2022376118. https://doi​.org/10.1073/pnas.2022376118 . [PMC free article: PMC8092566] [PubMed: 33827987]
• Epstein R, Godfrey E, Gonzalez T, Javdani S. Data snapshot: 2017-2018 national data on school discipline by race and gender. Georgetown Law Center on Poverty and Inequality; 2020. https:​//genderjusticeandopportunity​.georgetown​.edu/wp-content​/uploads/2020/12/National-Data-on-School-Discipline-by-Race-and-Gender.pdf .
• Ewing AR, Taylor AR. The role of child gender and ethnicity in teacher–child relationship quality and children’s behavioral adjustment in preschool. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2009;24(1):92–105. https://doi​.org/10.1016/j​.ecresq.2008.09.002 .
• Fabelo T, Thompson MD, Plotkin M, Carmichael D, Marchbanks MP, Booth EA. Breaking schools’ rules: A statewide study of how school discipline relates to students’ success and juvenile justice involvement. Office of Justice Programs, U. S. Department of Justice; 2011. NCJ No. 244572. https://www​.ojp.gov/ncjrs​/virtual-library​/abstracts/breaking-schools-rules-statewide-study-how-school-discipline-0 .
• Fabes RA, Catherine E, Quick M, Blevins D, Musgrave A. The price of punishment: Days missed due to suspension in U.S. K-12 public schools. Psychology in the Schools. 2021;58:1980–94. https://doi​.org/10.1002/pits.22565 .
• Fierros EG, Conroy JW. Racial inequity in special education. Harvard Education Publishing Group; 2002. Double jeopardy: An exploration of restrictiveness and race in special education; pp. 39–70.
• Finn J, Pannozzo G, Achilles C. The “why’s” of class size: Student behavior in small classes. Review of Educational Research. 2003;73:321–68. https://doi​.org/10.3102​/00346543073003321 .
• Fish RE. Teacher race and racial disparities in special education. Remedial and Special Education. 2019;40(4):213–24. https://doi​.org/10.1177/0741932518810434 .
• Fisher K, Hirsh-Pasek K, Golinkoff RM, Singer DG, Berk L. The Oxford handbook of the development of play. Oxford University Press; 2011. Playing around in school: Implications for learning and educational policy; pp. 341–60. https://doi​.org/10.1093​/oxfordhb/9780195393002.001.0001 .
• Fitzpatrick C, Côté-Lussier C, Pagani LS, Blair C. I don’t think you like me very much: Child minority status and disadvantage predict relationship quality with teachers. Youth & Society. 2015;47(5):727–43. https://doi​.org/10.1177/0044118X13508962 .
• Ford D. Recruiting & retaining culturally different students in gifted education. Routledge; 2021. https://doi​.org/10.4324/9781003237655 .
• Ford DY, Grantham TC, Whiting GW. Culturally and linguistically diverse students in gifted education: Recruitment and retention issues. Exceptional Children. 2008;74(3):289–306. https://doi​.org/10.1177​/001440290807400302 .
• Fortner A, Hardy A, Schmit S. School-age child care: Overlooked and under-resourced. The Center for Law and Social Policy; 2021. https://www​.clasp.org​/publications/fact-sheet​/school-age-child-care-overlooked-and-under-resourced .
• Frawley T. Gender bias in the classroom: Current controversies and implications for teachers. Childhood Education. 2005;81(4):221.
• Frederick A, Shifrer D. Race and disability: From analogy to intersectionality. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity. 2018;5(2):200–14. https://doi​.org/10.1177/2332649218783480 .
• Fuhs MW, Nesbitt KT, Jackson H. Chronic absenteeism and preschool children’s executive functioning skills development. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk. 2018;23(1–2):39–52. https://doi​.org/10.1080/10824669​.2018.1438201 .
• Fuller SC, Ladd HF. School-based accountability and the distribution of teacher quality across grades in elementary school. Education Finance and Policy. 2013;8(4):528–59. https://files​.eric.ed​.gov/fulltext/ED532767.pdf .
• Gage NA, Katsiyannis A, Carrero KM, Miller R, Pico D. Exploring disproportionate discipline for Latinx students with and without disabilities: A national analysis. Behavioral Disorders. 2021;47(1):3–13. https://doi​.org/10.1177/0198742920961356 .
• Gansen HM. Disciplining difference(s): Reproducing inequalities through disciplinary interactions in preschool. Social Problems. 2021;68(3):740–60. https://doi​.org/10.1093/socpro/spaa011 .
• Gardner M, Roth JL, Brooks-Gunn J. Equity matters. Campaign for Educational Equity. Teachers College, Columbia University; 2009. Can after-school programs help level the academic playing field for disadvantaged youth. Research Review No. 4. https://bgcutah​.org/wp-content​/uploads/2014​/10/Gardner-Roth-and-Brooks-Gunn-Disadvantaged-Youth.pdf .
• Garner PW, Mahatmya D. Affective social competence and teacher–child relationship quality: Race/ethnicity and family income level as moderators. Social Development. 2015;24:678–97. https://doi​.org/10.1111/sode.12114 .
• Garner PW, Shadur JM, Toney T. The effects of teacher–child racial congruence, child race, and emotion situation knowledge on teacher–child relationships and school readiness. Psychology in Schools. 2021;58:1995–2016. https://doi​.org/10.1002/pits.22567 .
• Gay G. Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University; 2010.
• Genesee F, Lindholm-Leary K. Two case studies of content-based language education. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education. 2013;1(1):3–33. https://doi​.org/10.1075/jicb.1.1.02gen .
• Genesee F, Lindholm-Leary K, Saunders WM, Christian D, editors. Educating English language learners: A synthesis of research evidence. Cambridge University Press; 2006. https://doi​.org/10.1017/CBO9780511499913 .
• Gerlinger J, Viano S, Gardella JH, Fisher BW, Chris Curran F, Higgins EM. Exclusionary school discipline and delinquent outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 2021;50(8):1493–509. https://doi​.org/10.1007​/s10964-021-01459-3 . [PubMed: 34117607]
• Gilliam WS, Shahar G. Preschool and child care expulsion and suspension: Rates and predictors in one state. Infants & Young Children. 2006;19(3):228–45. https://doi​.org/10.1097​/00001163-200607000-00007 .
• Gilliam WS, Maupin AN, Reyes CR, Accavitti MR, Shic F. Do early educators’ implicit biases regarding sex and race relate to behavior expectations and recommendations of preschool expulsions and suspensions. New Haven, CT: Yale University, Child Study Center; 2016. https://medicine​.yale​.edu/childstudy/zigler​/publications/Preschool​%20Implicit%20Bias​%20Policy%20Brief​_final_9_26_276766_5379_v1.pdf .
• Goff PA, Jackson MC, Di Leone BAL, Culotta CM, DiTomasso NA. The essence of innocence: Consequences of dehumanizing black children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2014;106(4):526. https://doi​.org/10.1037/a0035663 . [PubMed: 24564373]
• Goldberg M, Iruka I. Early Childhood Education Journal. 2022. The role of teacher–child relationship quality in black and Latino boys’ positive development. https://doi​.org/0.1007​/s10643-021-01300-3 .
• Gonzalez T, de la Rubia MA, Hincz KP, Comas-Lopez M, Subirats L, Fort S, Sacha GM. Influence of COVID-19 confinement on students’ performance in higher education. PLoS One. 2020;15(10):e0239490. https://doi​.org/10.1371/journal​.pone.0239490 . [PMC free article: PMC7546684] [PubMed: 33035228]
• Gottfried MA. Excused versus unexcused: How student absences in elementary school affect academic achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 2009;31(4):392–415.
• Gottfried MA. Can center-based childcare reduce the odds of early chronic absenteeism. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2015;32:160–173. https://doi​.org/10.1016/j​.ecresq.2015.04.002 .
• Government Accountability Office. School facilities. America’s schools report differing conditions. 1996. HEHS-96-103. https://www​.gao.gov/products/hehs-96-103 .
• Government Accountability Office. K-12 education: School districts frequently identified multiple building systems needing updates or replacement. 2020. GAO-20-494. https://www​.gao.gov/products/gao-20-494 .
• Graue E, Hatch K, Rao K, Oen D. The wisdom of class-size reduction. American Educational Research Journal. 2007;44(3):670–700. https://doi​.org/10.3102/00028312073067 .
• Graue E, Rauscher E, Sherfinski M. The synergy of class size reduction and classroom quality. The Elementary School Journal. 2009;110(2):178–201. https://doi​.org/10.1086/648334 .
• Gregory A, Skiba R, Noguera P. The achievement gap and the discipline gap: Two sides of the same coin. Educational Researcher. 2010;39:59–68. https://doi​.org/10.3102/0013189X09357621 .
• Grindal T, Schifter LA, Schwartz G, Hehir T. Racial differences in special education identification and placement: Evidence across three states. Harvard Education Review. 2019;89(4):525–53. https://doi​.org/10.17763/1943-5045-89​.4.525 .
• Grissom J, Redding C. Discretion and disproportionality: Explaining the under-representation of high-achieving students of color in gifted programs. AERA Open. 2016;2(1) https://doi​.org/10.1177/2332858415622175 .
• Halberstadt A, Cooke A, Garner P, Hughes S, Oertwig D, Neupert S. Racialized emotion recognition accuracy and anger bias of children’s faces. Emotion. 2020;22(3):403–17. https://doi​.org/10.1037/emo0000756 . [PubMed: 32614194]
• Hammond Z. Culturally responsive teaching and the brain: Promoting authentic engagement and rigor among culturally and linguistically diverse students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin/Sage; 2015.
• Hamre BK, Pianta RC. Early teacher–child relationships and the trajectory of children’s school outcomes through eighth grade. Child Development. 2001;72(2):625–38. https://doi​.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00301 . [PubMed: 11333089]
• Harlin R, Sirota E, Bailey L. Review of research: The impact of teachers’ expectations on diverse learners’ academic outcomes. Childhood Education. 2009;85(4):253–6. https://doi​.org/10.1080/00094056​.2009.10523092 .
• Harry B, Klingner JK. Why are so many minority students in special education? Understanding race & disability in schools. 2nd ed. New York: Teachers College Press; 2014.
• Henry GT, McNeill SM, Harbatkin E. Accountability-driven school reform: Are there unintended effects on younger children in untested grades. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2022;61:190–208. https://doi​.org/10.1016/j​.ecresq.2022.07.005 .
• Hinnant JB, O’Brien M, Ghazarian SR. The longitudinal relations of teacher expectations to achievement in the early school years. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2009;101(3):662–70. https://doi​.org/10.1037/a0014306 . [PMC free article: PMC2860190] [PubMed: 20428465]
• Hirsh-Pasek K, Golinkoff R, Berk LE, Singer D. A mandate for playful learning in preschool: Presenting the evidence. Oxford University Press; 2009. https://doi​.org/10.1093​/acprof:oso/9780195382716.001.0001 .
• Hirsh-Pasek K, Adamson LB, Bakeman R, Owen MT, Golinkoff RM, Pace A, Yust PK, Suma K. The contribution of early communication quality to low-income children’s language success. Psychological Science. 2015;26(7):1071–83. https://doi​.org/10.1177/0956797615581493 . [PubMed: 26048887]
• Ho H, Gol-Guven M, Bagnato SJ. Classroom observations of teacher–child relationships among racially symmetrical and racially asymmetrical teacher–child dyads. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal. 2012;20(3):329–49. https://doi​.org/10.1080/1350293X​.2012.704759 .
• Horm DM, Jeon S, Clavijo MV, Acton M. Kindergarten through grade 3 outcomes associated with participation in high-quality early care and education: A RCT follow-up study. Education Sciences. 2022;12(12):908. https://doi​.org/10.3390/educsci12120908 .
• Huff K. Quantifying COVID learning loss: At-home testing raises questions. Curriculum Associates; 2020. https://www​.curriculumassociates​.com/research-and-efficacy​/learning-loss-covid-impact-fall-2020 .
• Hugenberg K, Bodenhausen GV. Facing prejudice: Implicit prejudice and the perception of facial threat. Psychological Science. 2003;14(6):640–43. https://doi​.org/10.1046/j​.0956-7976.2003.psci_1478.x . [PubMed: 14629699]
• Hughes JE. The role of teacher knowledge and learning experiences in forming technology-integrated pedagogy. The Journal of Technology and Teacher Education. 2005;13:277–302.
• Humm Patnode A, Gibbons K, Edmunds RR. Attendance and chronic absenteeism: Literature review. University of Minnesota, College of Education and Human Development, Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement; 2018. http://www​.floridarti​.usf.edu/resources/format​/pdf/Chronic%20Absenteeism​%20Lit%20Review%202018.pdf .
• Institute of Medicine (IOM) & National Research Council (NRC). Transforming the workforce for children birth through age 8: A unifying foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2015. [PubMed: 26269871]
• Iruka I, Burchinal M, Cai K. Long-term effect of early relationships for African American children’s academic and social development: An examination from kindergarten to fifth grade. Journal of Black Psychology. 2010;36:144–71. https://doi​.org/10.1177/0095798409353760 .
• Jabbari J, Johnson O Jr. The collateral damage of in-school suspensions: A counterfactual analysis of high-suspension schools, math achievement and college attendance. Urban Education. 2020;58(5):801–37. https://doi​.org/10.1177/0042085920902256 .
• Jackson CK. Does school spending matter? The new literature on an old question. National Bureau of Economic Research; 2018. Working Paper No. 25368. http://www​.nber.org/papers/w25368 .
• Jackson CK, Johnson RC, Persico C. The effects of school spending on educational and economic outcomes: Evidence from school finance reforms. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2016;131(1):157–218. https://doi​.org/10.3386/w20847 .
• Johnson D. The striking outlier. The persistent, painful and problematic practice of corporal punishment in schools. Southern Poverty Law Center and The Center for Civil Rights Remedies; 2019. https://www​.splcenter​.org/20190611/striking-outlier-persistent-painful-and-problematic-practice-corporal-punishment-schools .
• Johnson RC, Jackson CK. Reducing inequality through dynamic complementarity: Evidence Head Start and public school spending. National Bureau of Economic Research; 2018. Working Paper No. 23489. https://www​.nber.org/papers/w23489 .
• Jung K, Barnett WS. Impacts of the pandemic on young children and their parents: Initial findings from NIEER’s May-June 2021 preschool learning activities survey. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers University; 2021.
• Kaeser SC. Suspensions in school discipline. Education and Urban Society. 1979;11(4):465–84.
• Karega Rausch M, Skiba R. Unplanned outcomes: Suspensions and expulsions in Indiana. Indiana Youth Services Association and the Center for Evaluation and Education Policy; Education Policy Briefs. 2004;2(2) https://eric​.ed.gov/?id=ED488917 .
• Katz M, Adams G, Johnson MC. Insights into absenteeism in DCPS early childhood program: Contributing factors and promising strategies. Urban Institute; 2015. https://www​.urban.org​/research/publication​/insights-absenteeism-dcps-early-childhood-program .
• Kearney CA, Childs J. A multi-tiered systems of support blueprint for re-opening schools following Covid-19 shutdown. Children and Youth Services Review. 2021;122:105919. https://doi​.org/10.1016/j​.childyouth.2020.105919 . [PMC free article: PMC9756038] [PubMed: 36540197]
• Kerr J, Price M, Kotch J, Willis S, Fisher M, Silva S. Does contact by a family nurse practitioner decrease early school absence. The Journal of School Nursing. 2011;28(1):38–46. https://doi​.org/10.1177/1059840511422818 . [PubMed: 21918212]
• Kirksey JJ, Gottfried MA. The effect of serving “breakfast after-the-bell” meals on school absenteeism: Comparing results from regression discontinuity designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 2021;43(2):305–28. https://doi​.org/10.3102/0162373721991572 .
• Klingner J, Artiles AJ, Kozleski E, Harry B, Zion S, Tate W, Zamora Durán G, Riley D. Addressing the disproportionate representation of culturally and linguistically diverse students in special education through culturally responsive educational systems. Education Policy Analysis Archives. 2005;13(38) https://doi​.org/10.14507/epaa​.v13n38.2005 .
• Kramarczuk Voulgarides C, Aylward A, Tefera A, Artiles AJ, Alvarado SL, Noguera P. Unpacking the logic of compliance in special education: Contextual influences on discipline racial disparities in suburban schools. Sociology of Education. 2021;94:208–26. https://doi​.org/10.1177​/00380407211013322 .
• Kunemund R, McCullough S, Williams C, Miller C, Sutherland K, Conroy M, Granger K. The mediating role of teacher self-efficacy in the relation between teacher-child race mismatch and conflict. Psychology in the Schools. 2020;57(11):1757–70. https://doi​.org/10.1002/pits.22419 .
• Ladd GW, Burgess KB. Charting the relationship trajectories of aggressive, withdrawn, and aggressive/withdrawn children during early grade school. Child Development. 1999;70(4):910–29. https://doi​.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00066 . [PubMed: 10446726]
• Ladson-Billings G. The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children. Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass; 1994.
• Ladson-Billings G. Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal. 1995;32:465–91. https://doi​.org/10.3102​/00028312032003465 .
• Lafortune J, Rothstein J, Schanzenbach DW. School finance reform and the distribution of student achievement. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics. 2018;10(2):1–26. https://doi​.org/10.1257/app.20160567 .
• Lee P, Bierman KL. Classroom and teacher support in kindergarten: Associations with the behavioral and academic adjustment of low-income students. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly. 2015;61(3):383–411. https://doi​.org/10.13110​/merrpalmquar1982.61.3.0383 . [PMC free article: PMC4889022] [PubMed: 27274606]
• Lehrer-Small A. The74. Sep 22, 2021. “We left those students behind”: 1.9 million low-income youth boxed out of afterschool programs, despite surging parent interest in stem offerings. https://www​.the74million​.org/we-left-those-students-behind-1-9-million-low-income-youth-boxed-out-of-afterschool-programs-despite-surging-parent-interest-in-stem-offerings .
• Lewis K, Kuhfeld M, Ruzek E, McEachin A. Center for School and Student Progress. NWEA Research; 2021. Learning during COVID-19: Reading and math achievement in the 2020-21 school year. Brief. https://content​.acsa​.org/wp-content/uploads​/2021/11/Learning-During-COVID-19-Reading-and-Math-NWEA-Brief.pdf .
• Linick MA, Garcia AN, Grandpre HD. The effect of discipline reform plans on exclusionary discipline outcomes in Minnesota. Regional Educational Laboratory Program, Institute of Education Sciences; 2021. https://ies​.ed.gov/ncee​/rel/Products/Publication/40022 .
• Lloyd S, Harwin A. EducationWeek. 2021. Nation earns a “C” on school finance, reflecting inconsistency in K-12 funding and equity. https://www​.edweek.org​/policypolitics/nation-earns-a-c-on-school-finance-reflecting-inconsistency-in-k-12-funding-and-equity​/2021/06#:~:text=First​%2C%20the%20big​%20picture%3A%20The,0​.3%20points%20over%20last%20year .
• Losen D. The school-to-prison pipeline: The intersections of students of color with disabilities. United States Commission on Civil Rights; Dec 8, 2017. https://www​.childtrends​.org/publications​/school-prison-pipeline-intersections-students-color-disabilities .
• Losen DJ, Whitaker A. 11 million days lost: Race, discipline, and safety at U.S. public schools (Part 1). Center for Civil Rights Remedies, American Civil Liberties Union; 2018. https://www​.aclu.org​/report/11-million-days-lost-race-discipline-and-safety-us-public-schools-part-1 .
• Losen DJ, Hodson CL, Keith MA II, Morrison K, Belway S. Are we closing the school discipline gap. The Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles; 2015. https:​//escholarship​.org/uc/item/2t36g571 .
• Lowenstein AE, Wolf S, Gershoff ET, Sexton HR, Raver CC, Aber JL. The stability of elementary school contexts from kindergarten to third grade. Journal of School Psychology. 2015;53(4):323–35. https://doi​.org/10.1016/j​.jsp.2015.05.002 . [PMC free article: PMC7988801] [PubMed: 26270276]
• Ly J, Zhou Q, Chu K, Chen SH. Teacher–child relationship quality and academic achievement of Chinese American children in immigrant families. Journal of School Psychology. 2012;50(4):535–53. https://doi​.org/10.1016/j​.jsp.2012.03.003 . [PubMed: 22710020]
• Mahoney JL, Parente ME, Zigler EF. Afterschool programs in America: Origins, growth, popularity, and politics. Journal of Youth Development. 2009;4(3) https://doi​.org/10.5195/jyd.2009.250 .
• Maier A, Daniel J, Oakes J, Lam L. Community schools as an effective school improvement strategy: A review of the evidence. Learning Policy Institute; 2017. https:​//learningpolicyinstitute​.org/product​/community-schools-effective-school-improvement-report .
• Marcelo AK, Yates TM. Prospective relations among preschoolers’ play, coping, and adjustment as moderated by stressful events. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. 2014;35(3):223–33. https://doi​.org/10.1016/j​.appdev.2014.01.001 .
• McCormick MP, O’Connor EE. Teacher–child relationship quality and academic achievement in elementary school: Does gender matter. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2015;107(2):502–16. https://doi​.org/10.1037/a0037457 .
• McCoy DC, Yoshikawa H, Ziol-Guest KM, Duncan GJ, Schindler HS, Magnuson K, Yang R, Koepp A, Shonkoff JP. Impacts of early childhood education on medium- and long-term educational outcomes. Educational Researcher. 2017;46(8):474–87. https://doi​.org/10.3102/0013189x17737739 . [PMC free article: PMC6107077] [PubMed: 30147124]
• McGinty A, Gray A, Partee A, Herring W, Soland J. Examining early literacy skills in the wake of COVID-19 spring 2020 school disruptions. University of Virginia; 2021. https://pals​.virginia​.edu/public/pdfs/login​/PALS_Fall_2020_Data​_Report_5_18_final.pdf .
• McIntosh K, Girvan EJ, McDaniel SC, Santiago-Rosario MR, St. Joseph S, Fairbanks Falcon S, Izzard S, Bastable E. Effects of an equity-focused PBIS approach to school improvement on exclusionary discipline and school climate. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth. 2021;65(4):354–61. https://doi​.org/10.1080/1045988X​.2021.1937027 .
• McKown C, Weinstein RS. Teacher expectations, classroom context, and the achievement gap. Journal of School Psychology. 2008;46(3):235–61. https://doi​.org/10.1016/j​.jsp.2007.05.001 . [PubMed: 19083359]
• Meek S, Smith L, Allen R, Catherine E, Edyburn K, Williams C, Fabes R, McIntosh K, Garcia E, Takanishi R, Gordon L, Jimenez-Castellanos O, Hemmeter ML, Gilliam W, Pontier R. Data, research, and an actionable child equity policy agenda. Washington, DC: Children’s Equity Project, Bipartisan Policy Center; 2020. Start with equity: From the early years to the early grades.
• Meek SE, Gilliam WS. Expulsion and suspension in early education as matters of social justice and health equity. National Academy of Medicine; 2016. https://nam​.edu/expulsion-and-suspension-in-early-education-as-matters-of-social-justice-and-health-equity .
• Meloy B, Gardner M, Darling-Hammond L. Untangling the evidence on preschool effectiveness: Insights for policymakers. Learning Policy Institute; 2019. https:​//learningpolicyinstitute​.org/product​/untangling-evidence-preschool-effectiveness-report .
• Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster. 2022. Racialization. https://www​.merriam-webster​.com/dictionary/racialization .
• Migration Policy Institute. Young dual language learners in the United States and by state. 2021. https://www​.migrationpolicy​.org/programs​/data-hub/charts/us-state-profiles-young-dlls .
• Miller SL, Maner JK, Becker DV. Self-protective biases in group categorization: Threat cues shape the psychological boundary between “us” and “them” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2010;99(1):62–77. https://doi​.org/10.1037/a0018086 . [PubMed: 20565186]
• Mills JM. From the principal’s office to prison: How America’s school discipline system defies Brown. University of San Francisco Law Review. 2016;50(31):529.
• Mittleman J. A downward spiral? Childhood suspension and the path to juvenile arrest. Sociology of Education. 2018;91(3):183–204. https://www​.jstor.org/stable/48588580 .
• Molnar AS, Zahorik P, Palmer J, Halbach A, Ehrle K. Wisconsin’s student achievement guarantee in education (SAGE) class-size reduction program: Achievement effects, teaching and classroom implications. The CEIC Review. 2000;9(2) http://www​.classsizematters​.org/wp-content​/uploads/2012/11/Wang-Small-class-size.pdf .
• Morgan I, Amerikaner A. Funding gaps 2018. Too many students do not get their fair share of education funding. The Education Trust; 2018. https://edtrust​.org/resource​/funding-gaps-2018 .
• Morgan PL, Farkas G, Hillemeier MM, Mattison R, Maczuga S, Li H, Cook M. Minorities are disproportionately underrepresented in special education: Longitudinal evidence across five disability conditions. Educational Researcher. 2015;44(5):278–92. https://doi​.org/10.3102/0013189X15591157 . [PMC free article: PMC4950880] [PubMed: 27445414]
• Morris EW, Perry BL. The punishment gap: School suspension and racial disparities in achievement. Social Problems. 2016;63(1):68–86. https://doi​.org/10.1093/socpro/spv026 .
• Muñiz J. Culturally responsive teaching: A reflection guide. New America: 2020. https://www​.newamerica​.org/education-policy​/policy-papers/culturally-responsive-teaching-competencies .
• Murray C, Murray KM, Waas GA. Child and teacher reports of teacher-student relationships: Concordance of perspectives and associations with school adjustment in urban kindergarten classrooms. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. 2008;29(1):49–61. https://doi​.org/10.1016/j​.appdev.2007.10.006 .
• National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (National Academies). Promoting the educational success of children and youth learning English: Promising futures. The National Academies Press; 2017. https://doi​.org/10.17226/24677 .
• National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (National Academies). Vibrant and healthy kids: Aligning science, practice, and policy to advance health equity. The National Academies Press; 2019. https://doi​.org/10.17226/25466 . [PubMed: 31855338]
• National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (National Academies). Addressing the long-term effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on children and families. The National Academies Press; 2023. https://doi​.org/10.17226/26809 . [PubMed: 37733883]
• National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Reading and mathematics scores decline during COVID-19 pandemic. Department of Education; 2022. https://www​.nationsreportcard​.gov/highlights/ltt/2022/
• National Research Council (NRC). Placing children in special education: A strategy for equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 1982.
• National Research Council (NRC). Minority students in special and gifted education. The National Academies Press; 2002. https://doi​.org/10.17226/10128 .
• NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. Early child care and children’s development prior to school entry: Results from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care. American Educational Research Journal. 2002;39(1):133–64. http://www​.jstor.org/stable/3202474 .
• Nichols SL, Berliner DC. Collateral damage: How high-stakes testing corrupts America’s schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press; 2007.
• Nosek BA, Greenwald AG, Banaji MR. Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: II. Method variables and construct validity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2005;31(2):166–80. https://doi​.org/10.1177/0146167204271418 . [PubMed: 15619590]
• O’Connor E, McCartney K. Examining teacher-child relationships and achievement as part of an ecological model of development. American Educational Research Journal. 2007;44:340–69. https://doi​.org/10.3102/0002831207302172 .
• Ohio Department of Education. Data insights: How the pandemic is affecting the 2020-2021 school year. 2021. https://education​.ohio​.gov/Topics/Reset-and-Restart​/Data-Insights-on-the-2020-2021-School-Year .
• Okonofua JA, Eberhardt JL. Two strikes: Race and the disciplining of young students. Psychological Science. 2015;26(5):617–24. https://doi​.org/10.1177/0956797615570365 . [PubMed: 25854276]
• Okonofua JA, Paunesku D, Walton GM. Brief intervention to encourage empathic discipline cuts suspension rates in half among adolescents. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2016;113(19):5221–6. https://doi​.org/10.1073/pnas.1523698113 . [PMC free article: PMC4868443] [PubMed: 27114516]
• Ong-Dean C. Distinguishing disability: Parents, privilege, and special education. University of Chicago Press; 2009. https://doi​.org/10.7208​/chicago/9780226630021.001.0001 .
• Owens J, McLanahan SS. Unpacking the drivers of racial disparities in school suspension and expulsion. Social Forces. 2020;98(4):1548–77. https://doi​.org/10.1093/sf/soz095 . [PMC free article: PMC8133760] [PubMed: 34017149]
• Palermo F, Hanish L, Martin C, Fabes R, Reiser M. Preschoolers’ academic readiness: What role does the teacher-child relationship play. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2007;22 https://doi​.org/10.1016/j​.ecresq.2007.04.002 . [PMC free article: PMC3856866] [PubMed: 24339476]
• Papachristou E, Flouri E, Joshi H, Midouhas E, Lewis G. Ability-grouping and problem behavior trajectories in childhood and adolescence: Results from a UK population-based sample. Child Development. 2022;93(2):341–58. https://doi​.org/10.1111/cdev.13674 . [PubMed: 34585378]
• Paris D. Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice. Educational Researcher. 2012;41(3):93–7. https://doi​.org/10.3102/0013189X12441244 .
• Parker R, Stjerne Thomsen B. Learning through play at school: A study of playful integrated pedagogies that foster children’s holistic skills development in the primary school classroom. The LEGO Foundation; 2019. https://research​.acer​.edu.au/learning_processes/22 .
• Paro KML, Hamre BK, Locasale-Crouch J, Pianta RC, Bryant D, Early D, Clifford R, Barbarin O, Howes C, Burchinal M. Quality in kindergarten classrooms: Observational evidence for the need to increase children’s learning opportunities in early education classrooms. Early Education and Development. 2009;20(4):657–92. https://doi​.org/10.1080​/10409280802541965 .
• Patrick K, Socol A, Morgan I. Inequities in advanced coursework: What’s driving them and what leaders can do. Education Trust; 2020. https://edtrust​.org/wp-content​/uploads/2014​/09/Inequities-in-Advanced-Coursework-Whats-Driving-Them-and-What-Leaders-Can-Do-January-2019.pdf .
• Pearman FA, Curran FC, Fisher B, Gardella J. Are achievement gaps related to discipline gaps? Evidence from national data. AERA Open. 2019;5(4):2332858419875440. https://doi​.org/10.1177/2332858419875440 .
• Perera RM. A promise unfulfilled? How modern federal civil rights enforcement is used to address racial discrimination in school discipline. Annenberg Insitute at Brown University; 2021. Ed Working Paper No. 21-413. https://www​.edworkingpapers.com/ai21-413 .
• Phillips DA, Austin LJ, Whitebook M. The early care and education workforce. The Future of Children. 2016;26:139–158. https://doi​.org/10.1353/foc.2016.0016 .
• Piaget J. Intellectual evolution from adolescence to adulthood. Human Development. 1972;15(1):1–12. https://www​.jstor.org/stable/26763966 .
• Pianta RC, Stuhlman MW. Teacher-child relationships and children’s success in the first years of school. School Psychology Review. 2004;33(3):444–58. https://doi​.org/10.1080/02796015​.2004.12086261 .
• Puma M, Bell S, Cook R, Heid C, Shapiro G, Broene P, Jenkins F, Fletcher P, Quinn L, Friedman J, Ciarico J. Head Start impact study: Final report. Administration for Children and Families (HHS), Office of Planning, Research & Evaluation; 2010. https://eric​.ed.gov/?id=ED507845 .
• Raikes J, Darling-Hammond L. Why our education funding systems are derailing the American dream. Learning Policy Institute; 2019. https:​//learningpolicyinstitute​.org/blog​/why-our-education-funding-systems-are-derailing-american-dream .
• Ramey CT, Ramey SL. Sustaining early childhood learning gains: Program, school, and family influences. Cambridge University Press; 2019. Reframing policy and practice deliberations: Twelve hallmarks of strategies to attain and sustain early childhood gains; pp. 314–49. https://www​.cambridge​.org/core/books/abs​/sustaining-early-childhood-learning-gains​/reframing-policy-and-practice-deliberations​/37B2B7A346D7ED31A99DE2FBEBFD1ACF .
• Redding C. A teacher like me: A review of the effect of student-teacher racial/ethnic matching on teacher perceptions of students and student academic and behavioral outcomes. Review of Educational Research. 2019;89(4):499–535. https://doi​.org/10.3102/0034654319853545 .
• Renaissance Learning. How kids are performing: A snapshot of K-12 academic performance and growth, 2021-2022 school year. Renaissance Learning, Inc.; 2022. https://www​.renaissance​.com/how-kids-are-performing/
• Reynolds A, Temple J, editors. Sustaining early childhood learning gains: Program, school, and family influences. Cambridge University Press; 2019. https://doi​.org/10.1017/9781108349352 .
• Rhodes J, Thomas JM, Liles AR. Predictors of grade retention among children in an elementary school truancy intervention. Journal of At-Risk Issues. 2018;21(1):1–10. https://eric​.ed.gov/?id=EJ1187205 .
• Rickles J, Garet M, Neiman S, Hodgman S. Approaches to remote instruction: How district responses to the pandemic differed across contexts. American Institute for Research; 2020. Research Brief. https://www​.air.org/sites​/default/files/COVID-Survey-Approaches-to-Remote-Instruction-FINAL-Oct-2020.pdf .
• Riddle T, Sinclair S. Racial disparities in school-based disciplinary actions are associated with county-level rates of racial bias. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2019;116(17):8255–60. https://doi​.org/10.1073/pnas.1808307116 . [PMC free article: PMC6486724] [PubMed: 30940747]
• Rimm-Kaufman SE, La Paro KM, Downer JT, Pianta RC. The contribution of classroom setting and quality of instruction to children’s behavior in kindergarten classrooms. The Elementary School Journal. 2005;105(4):377–94. https://doi​.org/10.1086/429948 .
• Romero M, Lee YS. A national portrait of chronic absenteeism in the early grades. National Center for Children in Poverty, Columbia University; 2007. https://doi​.org/10.7916/D89C7650 .
• Roorda DL, Koomen HMY, Spilt JL, Oort FJ. The influence of affective teacher–student relationships on students’ school engagement and achievement: A meta-analytic approach. Review of Educational Research. 2011;81(4):493–529. https://doi​.org/10.3102/0034654311421793 .
• Rosa JD. Standardization, racialization, languagelessness: Raciolinguistic ideologies across communicative contexts. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology. 2016;26:162–83. https://doi​.org/10.1111/jola.12116 .
• Rosenbaum JE. Educational and criminal justice outcomes 12 years after school suspension. Youth & Society. 2020;52(4):515–47. https://doi​.org/10.1177/0044118X17752208 . [PMC free article: PMC7288849] [PubMed: 32528191]
• Ruopp R. Children at the center: Summary findings and their implications. Abt Books; 1979.
• Ryan RM, Deci EL. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2000;25(1):54–67. https://doi​.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020 . [PubMed: 10620381]
• Ryberg R, Her S, Temkin D, Harper K. Child Trends. 2021. Despite reductions since 2011-12, Black students and students with disabilities remain more likely to experience suspension. https://www​.childtrends​.org/publications​/despite-reductions-black-students-and-students-with-disabilities-remain-more-likely-to-experience-suspension .
• Saft EW, Pianta RC. Teachers’ perceptions of their relationships with students: Effects of child age, gender, and ethnicity of teachers and children. School Psychology Quarterly. 2001;16(2):125–41. https://doi​.org/10.1521/scpq​.16.2.125.18698 .
• Schweinhart LJ. Sustaining early childhood learning gains: Program, school, and family influences. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press; 2019. Lessons on sustaining early gains from the life-course study of perry preschool; pp. 254–67.
• Shifrer D. Stigma of a label: Educational expectations for high school students labeled with learning disabilities. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 2013;54(4):462–80. https://doi​.org/10.1177/0022146513503346 . [PubMed: 24311756]
• Shores K, Lee H, Williams N. Increasing Title I funds should target largest sources of school spending inequalities—across states. Brookings Institution; 2021. https://www​.brookings​.edu/blog/brown-center-chalk-board​/2021​/08/06/increasing-title-i-funds-should-target-largest-sources-of-school-spending-inequalities-across-states/
• Singer J, Pogodzinski B, Lenhoff SW, Cook W. Advancing an ecological approach to chronic absenteeism: Evidence from Detroit. Teachers College Record. 2021;123(4):1–36. https://doi​.org/10.1177​/016146812112300406 .
• Skene K, O’Farrelly C, Byrne E, Kirby N, Stevens E, Ramchandani P. Can guidance during play enhance children’s learning and development in educational contexts? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Child Development. 2022;93(4):1162–80. https://doi​.org/10.1111/cdev.13730 . [PMC free article: PMC9545698] [PubMed: 35018635]
• Skiba R, Knesting K. Zero tolerance, zero evidence: An analysis of school disciplinary practice. New Directions for Youth Development. 2001;92:17–43. https://doi​.org/10.1002/yd.23320019204 . [PubMed: 12170829]
• Skiba RJ, Peterson RL. School discipline at a crossroads: From zero tolerance to early response. Exceptional Children. 2000;66(3):335–47. http://www​.rpforschools​.net/articles/School%20Programs​/Skiba​%20&%20Peterson​%202000%20School%20discipline​%20at%20a​%20crossroads%20-%20From​%20Zero%20Tolerance​%20to%20Early%20Response.pdf .
• Skiba RJ, Michael RS, Nardo AC, Peterson R. The color of discipline: Sources of racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment. The Urban Review. 2002;34:317–42. https://doi​.org/10.1023/A:1021320817372 .
• Skiba RJ, Poloni-Staudinger L, Gallini S, Simmons AB, Feggins-Azziz R. Disparate access: The disproportionality of African American students with disabilities across educational environments. Exceptional Children. 2006;72:411–24. https://doi​.org/10.1177​/001440290607200402 .
• Skiba RJ, Simmons A, Ritter S, Gibb A, Rausch M, Cuadrado J, Chung CG. Achieving equity in special education: History, status, and current challenges. Exceptional Children. 2008;74:264–88. https://doi​.org/10.1177​/001440290807400301 .
• Skiba RJ, Horner RH, Chung CG, Rausch MK, May SL, Tobin T. Race is not neutral: A national investigation of African American and Latino disproportionality in school discipline. School Psychology Review. 2011;40:85–107. https://doi​.org/10.1080/02796015​.2011.12087730 .
• Skiba RJ, Arredondo MI, Williams NT. More than a metaphor: The contribution of exclusionary discipline to a school-to-prison pipeline. Equity & Excellence in Education. 2014;47(4):546–64. https://doi​.org/10.1080/10665684​.2014.958965 .
• Skiba RJ, Chung CG, Trachok M, Baker TL, Sheya A, Hughes RL. Parsing disciplinary disproportionality: Contributions of infraction, student, and school characteristics to out-of-school suspension and expulsion. American Educational Research Journal. 2014;51(4):640–70. https://doi​.org/10.3102/0002831214541670 .
• Skiba RJ, Artiles AA, Kozleski EB, Losen DJ, Harry EG. Risks and consequences of oversimplifying educational inequities: A response to Morgan et al. (2015). Educational Researcher. 2016;45(3):221–25. https://doi​.org/10.3102/0013189X16644606 .
• Smythe-Leistico K, Page L. Connect-text: Leveraging text-message communication to mitigate chronic absenteeism and improve parental engagement in the earliest years of schooling. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk. 2018;23(1–2):139–52. https://doi​.org/10.1080/10824669​.2018.1434658 .
• Sorensen LC, Bushway SD, Gifford SJ. Getting tough? The effects of discretionary principal discipline on student outcomes. Education Finance and Policy. 2022;17(2):255–284. https://doi​.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00341 .
• Sorhagen NS. Early teacher expectations disproportionately affect poor children’s high school performance. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2013;105(2):465–77. https://doi​.org/10.1037/a0031754 .
• Sparks R, Patton J, Ganschow L, Humbach N, Javorsky J. Early first-language reading and spelling skills predict later second-language reading and spelling skills. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2008;100:162–174. https://doi​.org/10.1037/0022-0663​.100.1.162 .
• Sparks R, Patton J, Ganschow L, Humbach N. Long-term relationships among early first language skills, second language aptitude, second language affect, and later second language proficiency. Applied Psycholinguistics. 2009a;30:725–55. https://doi​.org/10.1017​/S0142716409990099 .
• Sparks R, Patton J, Ganschow L, Humbach N. Long-term crosslinguistic transfer of skills from L1 to L2. Language Learning. 2009b;59:203–43. https://doi​.org/10.1111/j​.1467-9922.2009.00504.x .
• Stecher B, Bohrnstedt G. Class size reduction in California: Summary of the 1998-99 evaluation findings. RAND Corporation; 2000. https://www​.rand.org​/pubs/reprints/RP903z1.html .
• Steele J, Slater R, Zamarro G, Miller T, Li J, Burkhauser S, Bacon M. Effects of dual-language immersion programs on student achievement: Evidence from lottery data. American Educational Research Journal. 2017;54:282S–306S. https://files​.eric.ed​.gov/fulltext/ED577026.pdf .
• Storey N, Zhang Q. A meta-analysis of COVID learning loss. School of Education, Johns Hopkins University; 2021. https://doi​.org/10.35542/osf.io/qekw2 .
• Sullivan A, Artiles AJ. Theorizing racial inequity in special education: Applying structural inequity theory to disproportionality. Urban Education. 2011;46:1526–52. https://doi​.org/10.1177/0042085911416014 .
• Sullivan A, Johnson B, Owens L, Conway R. Punish them or engage them? Teachers’ views of unproductive student behaviours in the classroom. Australian Journal of Teacher Education. 2014;39 https://doi​.org/10.14221/ajte​.2014v39n6.6 .
• Tefera AA, Siegel-Hawley G, Sjogren AL. The (in)visibility of race in school discipline across urban, suburban, and exurban contexts. Teachers College Record. 2022;124:151–79. https://journals​.sagepub​.com/doi/10.1177​/01614681221093282#con2 .
• Tenenbaum HR, Ruck MD. Are teachers’ expectations different for racial minority than for European American students? A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2007;99(2):253–73. https://doi​.org/10.1037/0022-0663​.99.2.253 .
• Texas Education Agency. Overview of 2021 STAAR results. Texas Education Agency; 2021. https://tea​.texas.gov​/student-assessment​/testing/staar/staar-statewide-summary-reports .
• Trang KT, Hansen DM. The roles of teacher expectations and school composition on teacher–child relationship quality. Journal of Teacher Education. 2021;72(2):152–167. https://doi​.org/10.1177/0022487120902404 .
• United Nations. Convention on the Rights of the Child. 1989. https://www​.unicef.org​/child-rights-convention​/convention-text .
• Umansky IM, Dumont H. English learner labeling: How English learner classification in kindergarten shapes teacher perceptions of student skills and the moderating role of bilingual instructional settings. American Educational Research Journal. 2021;58(5):993–1031. https://doi​.org/10.3102/0002831221997571 .
• Valli L, Buese D. The changing roles of teachers in an era of high-stakes accountability. American Educational Research Journal. 2007;44:519–58. https://doi​.org/10.3102/0002831207306859 .
• Varghese C, Vernon-Feagans L, Bratsch-Hines M. Associations between teacher–child relationships, children’s literacy achievement, and social competencies for struggling and non-struggling readers in early elementary school. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2019;47:124–33. https://doi​.org/10.1016/j​.ecresq.2018.09.005 .
• Verlenden JV, Pampati S, Rasberry CN, Liddon N, Hertz M, Kilmer G, Viox M, Lee S, Cramer NK, Barrios LC, Ethier KA. Association of children’s mode of school instruction with child and parent experiences and well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic—COVID experiences survey, United States, October 8–November 13, 2020. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2021;70(11):369–76. http://dx​.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7011a1 . [PMC free article: PMC7976614] [PubMed: 33735164]
• Vernon-Feagans L, Mokrova IL, Carr RC, Garrett-Peters PT, Burchinal MR. Cumulative years of classroom quality from kindergarten to third grade: Prediction to children’s third grade literacy skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2019;47:531–40. https://doi​.org/10.1016/j​.ecresq.2018.06.005 .
• Waitoller FR, Maggin DM. Can charter schools address racial inequities evidenced in access to the general education classroom? A longitudinal study in Chicago public schools. Remedial and Special Education. 2020;41(3):127–38. https://doi​.org/10.1177/0741932518800392 .
• Waitoller FR, Artiles AJ, Cheney DA. The miner’s canary: A review of overrepresentation research and explanations. The Journal of Special Education. 2010;44(1):29–49. https://doi​.org/10.1177/0022466908329226 .
• Wald J, Losen D. Defining and redirecting a school-to-prison pipeline. New Directions for Youth Development. 2003;99:9–15. https://doi​.org/10.1002/yd.51 . [PubMed: 14635431]
• Weiland C, Greenberg E, Bassok D, Markowitz AJ, Guerrero-Rosada P, Luetmer G, Abenavoli R, Gomez CJ, Johnson AD, Harden BJ, Maier MF, McCormick MP, Morris PA, Nores M, Phillips DA, Snow C. Historic crisis, historic opportunity: Using evidence to mitigate the effects of the COVID-19 crisis on young children and early care and education programs. Urban Institute; 2021. https://www​.urban.org​/policy-centers/center-education-data-and-policy​/projects/historic-crisis-historic-opportunity-using-evidence-mitigate-effects-covid-19-crisis-young-children-and-early-care-and-education-programs .
• Whitford DK, Emerson AM. Empathy intervention to reduce implicit bias in pre-service teachers. Psychological Reports. 2019;122(2):670–88. https://doi​.org/10.1177/0033294118767435 . [PubMed: 29621945]
• Wiley AL, Brigham FJ, Kauffman JM, Bogan JE. Disproportionate poverty, conservatism, and the disproportionate identification of minority students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Education and Treatment of Children. 2013;36(4):29–50. https://doi​.org/10.1353/etc.2013.0033 .
• Wolf KC, Kupchik A. School suspensions and adverse experiences in adulthood. Justice Quarterly. 2017;34(3):407–30. https://doi​.org/10.1080/07418825​.2016.1168475 .
• Yang KE, Ham SH. Truancy as systemic discrimination: Anti-discrimination legislation and its effect on school attendance among immigrant children. The Social Science Journal. 2017;54:216–26. https://doi​.org/10.1016/j​.soscij.2017.02.001 .
• Zatto BRL, Hoglund WLG. Children’s internalizing problems and teacher–child relationship quality across preschool. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2019;49:28–39. https://doi​.org/10.1016/j​.ecresq.2019.05.007 .
• Zeng S, Corr CP, O’Grady C, Guan Y. Adverse childhood experiences and preschool suspension expulsion: A population study. Child Abuse and Neglect. 2019;97:104149. https://doi​.org/10.1016/j​.chiabu.2019.104149 . [PubMed: 31473382]
• Zimmermann CR. The penalty of being a young black girl: Kindergarten teachers’ perceptions of children’s problem behaviors and student–teacher conflict by the intersection of race and gender. Journal of Negro Education. 2018;87:154–68. http://www​.jstor.org/stable/10​.7709/jnegroeducation​.87.2.0154 .
• Zosh J, Hopkins E, Jensen H, Liu C, Neale D, Hirsh-Pasek K, Solis L, Whitebread D. Learning through play: A review of the evidence. The LEGO Foundation; 2017. White paper. https://cms​.learningthroughplay​.com/media​/wmtlmbe0/learning-through-play_web.pdf .
• Zosh JM, Hirsh-Pasek K, Hopkins EJ, Jensen H, Liu C, Neale D, Solis SL, Whitebread D. Accessing the inaccessible: Redefining play as a spectrum. Frontiers in Psychology. 2018;9 https://doi​.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01124 . [PMC free article: PMC6084083] [PubMed: 30116208]