Schools must be thoughtful when they limit exclusionary discipline practices like suspensions and expulsions so they don’t create an environment where teachers informally remove students from classrooms through practices that are unregulated and undocumented, a recent study concludes.
Those practices start as early as pre-kindergarten, and they range from sending a student to another classroom to complete an assignment to pressuring parents to transfer their child to another school, finds the study published in December in AERA Open, the journal of the American Educational Research Association, the field’s main research association.
“We find that these practices occur when mandates to reduce formal discipline are not paired with adequate resources for alternative restorative behavior-management approaches,” researchers from Stanford University wrote.
The findings come after a wave of reforms during President Barack Obama’s administration that were intended to reduce persistent racial and ethnic disparities in school discipline, including policies that limit suspensions and expulsions for offenses like defiance that are often interpreted subjectively. Because these de facto removal practices aren’t documented like formal discipline, schools cannot monitor their use to ensure they don’t echo racial and ethnic disparities common in formal discipline, the report’s authors conclude.
The qualitative study focused on pre-kindergarten students in the San Francisco school district, where state laws prohibit suspensions for pre-K students and limit them for their older peers. Researchers interviewed 63 parents, teachers, administrators, and behavioral-support specialists of a variety of racial and ethnic backgrounds to gauge their familiarity with informal disciplinary practices, attitudes about their use, and perceived consequences for students who are subjected to them.
“Young kids might not have the vocabulary to articulate it, but they are aware that they are being excluded or being told they don’t belong,” said Lily Steyer, a policy fellow at the California Department of Education, who co-authored the report as a doctoral student at Stanford University.
Those early experiences with exclusion “really stick with kids,” and may contribute to behavioral concerns and further exclusionary discipline in later grades, Steyer said.
Teachers avoid suspensions, use less formal exclusionary practices
Researchers used insights gleaned from the interviews to develop a taxonomy of common de facto removal practices under three categories: within-classroom, within-school, and out-of-school practices.
Within-classroom practices include requiring a student to work in a separate area away from a class activity, asking peers to leave the classroom, or requiring a parent to come and supervise their child as a condition of participation in a field trip or activity.
Within-school practices include sending a student out of the classroom to be supervised by another adult, or requiring a child to sit unsupervised in a hallway. Parents also reported teachers sending their children to work in a different classroom. For example, a kindergarten student may be repeatedly sent to a pre-K classroom, which could lead them to fall behind on grade-level learning, Steyer said.
Out-of-school practices include sending children home early, proactively telling parents to keep their children at home on a given day, placing a pre-K student on a shortened daily schedule, or pressuring parents to transfer their children to other schools.
“Suspension in early [education] does not happen because somebody shows up and says, ‘I’m going to suspend your preschooler,’” an administrator told researchers. “Their suspensions are quiet.”
Of those interviewed, 100% of teachers, 89% of administrators, 87% of parents, and 85% of behavior support specialists were aware of at least one exclusionary practice. Within-school practices were the most frequently discussed.
Sometimes, the boundaries between exclusionary practices and removals are “fuzzy,” the researchers found. As an inclusive practice, a teacher may offer a “cool down corner” for students to sit and regain composure. But that becomes informal discipline when a student is frequently directed to the area and excluded from classroom activities.
Participants reported a variety of causes for exclusionary practices, including racial biases, educator burnout, a lack of training in behavior management or alternatives, and concerns about classroom safety. Some teachers reported practical concerns that drove their practices, like repeatedly having to help children who aren’t potty trained after accidents.
“Staff definitely haven’t ever said, ‘I want them suspended,’ but the outcome has been the same,” one administrator said. “I think sometimes staff just get to the point of exasperation where they just don’t know what to do next.”
Interviews also exposed a perception gap between various stakeholder groups. While 35% of teachers mentioned evacuating a classroom, typically to isolate a student exhibiting dangerous behavior, few parents or administrators mentioned the practice. Parents and behavior specialists were more likely to mention concerns of racial discrimination, disrupted learning, and stigma than teachers and administrators.
“Him being sent home—they’re not realizing that’s affecting my child’s education. That’s affecting his people skills,” one parent said. “My son is seven years old, and he cries and struggles because he can’t read.”
Teachers need support to address students’ behavioral needs, researchers say
Efforts to limit formal exclusionary discipline and address racial disparities are worthy goals, Steyer said. But policymakers and administrators need to ensure they pair new mandates with training to manage children’s behavior and adequate resources to carry out meaningful alternatives, she said.
A separate article Steyer co-authored for the November 2025 issue of Child Policy Nexus outlined policy recommendations:
- Schools should collect data on informal disciplinary practices that can be broken down by student factors, like race and ethnicity, to monitor equity concerns. They should include feedback from parents, teachers, and administrators to ensure they are aware of the array of practices that may be considered exclusionary.
- Policymakers should provide schools with adequate funding to adopt strategies, like tiered behavioral interventions that provide higher levels of support for students with higher levels of need.
- Teachers need preservice training and ongoing professional development, coaching, and emotional support to respond to behavior and prevent burn out.
“Educators do not want to suspend and expel students,” Steyer said. “It’s something they are resorting to because they have found there aren’t enough resources to accommodate their students’ needs in the classroom environment.”
