Definitions and measures of early childhood exclusion vary widely across studies, including soft-expulsion practices that only one study captured.¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2022 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Studies varied in which forms of exclusion they captured (pick-ups, suspension, expulsion, risk); nine of 20 captured more than one form, and only one captured voluntary withdrawals. → Katherine M. Zinsser 2022

Evidence¶

Katherine M. Zinsser 2022¶

Katherine M. Zinsser, H. Callie Silver, Elyse R. Shenberger, and Velisha Jackson. (2022). A Systematic Review of Early Childhood Exclusionary Discipline. Review of Educational Research. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543211070047

q2 · i? · review · r3

Review synthesis of Table 2 coding: definitions varied, one study provided no definition, measurement differed by unit of analysis (frequencies at program level, dichotomous ratings for teachers and children), and only Miller et al. (2017) captured voluntary withdrawals indicative of soft exclusion.

"Nine of the 20 studies captured more than one form of exclusion (e.g., suspensions and expulsions), but these were not always analyzed separately."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Definitions of developmental dyscalculia vary widely across studies, with diagnostic cutoffs ranging from below the 3rd to below the 25th percentile — related
• Research on early childhood exclusionary discipline is accelerating but remains dominated by cross-sectional designs and convenience samples of a few hundred teachers. — related
• Annual expulsion rates in early care and education settings range widely, from 6 to 43.3 per 1,000 children enrolled, varying by program type and jurisdiction. — related
• Children's prior expulsion history is positively associated with expulsion risk, while rated disruptiveness of behavior was not a significant predictor in the one study testing both. — related