Childcare providers’ views of challenging child behaviors, suspension, and expulsion: A qualitative analysis

Abstract

Previous research has underscored a need to understand the experiences and decision-making processes that contribute to suspension and expulsion in early care and education settings, particularly among young children of color. The present study conducted qualitative interviews with 20 center- and family-based childcare providers from the Minnesota Early Care and Education (MECE) study. Participants were asked about challenging child behaviors that they have encountered, their perceptions of these behaviors and how they manage them, and their thought processes around suspension and expulsion. Overall, the most frequently reported categories of challenging behaviors were physical aggression and noncompliance/defiance/arguing. The most commonly reported perceived causes of challenging behaviors were typical child development and parenting problems. The primary reported strategy for addressing challenging behaviors was connecting with the child, with relatively few providers reporting using other evidence-based strategies. Finally, the most commonly reported reasons for considering suspension or expulsion were the providers feeling they had exhausted options and could not meet the child’s needs, and the child’s behavior being perceived as dangerous to self or others. Implications for future research and practice (including increased support services for childcare providers) are discussed.

Over the last two decades, several studies have demonstrated that preschool-aged children in the United States are disproportionately suspended and expelled from early care and education (ECE) programs relative to older children, and that children with disabilities and children from racial/ethnic minority backgrounds are removed at even higher rates (Gilliam, 2005; Gilliam & Shahar, 2006). For example, in a seminal study of state-funded American preschool programs, Gilliam (2005) reported that approximately 6.7 out of every 1000 preschoolers was expelled – an expulsion rate more than three times higher than that of Kindergarteners through 12^th graders. Heightened rates of suspension and expulsion have also been documented among preschoolers from racial/ethnic minority backgrounds; those with disabilities; and those who have had adverse childhood experiences (e.g., exposure to domestic violence or parental mental illness; U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, 2014; Zeng et al., 2019). Notably, policies regarding suspension and expulsion from ECE programs vary widely across programs and states, which likely exacerbates inequities at both the local and national levels (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, n.d.).

Understanding the factors that contribute to early childhood suspension and expulsion is an essential step to improving policy and practice. To this end, several studies have identified predictors of suspension and expulsion rates, including classroom size, providers’ levels of job satisfaction, providers’ training in classroom behavior management, and providers’ depressive symptoms (Gilliam & Shahar, 2006; Silver & Zinsser, 2020). Concerns have also arisen about the mental health and well-being of childcare providers, who often work long hours in resource-scarce environments for low pay (e.g., Berlin et al., 2020; Hindman & Bustamante, 2019; Whitebook et al., 2018). However, few studies have employed qualitative methods to understand providers’ lived experiences and decision-making processes around exclusionary discipline. The present study begins to fill this gap by presenting findings from semi-structured interviews with childcare providers. The purpose of these interviews was to investigate providers’ experiences navigating challenging child behaviors, suspension, and expulsion.

Challenging behavior in young children

Challenging behavior in young children is a major stressor for parents, childcare providers, and teachers. Previous research has operationalized challenging behavior in numerous ways, including aggressive, oppositional, and defiant behavior –all of which have been linked to delinquency and poor adjustment outcomes later in life (Powell et al., 2006). Challenging behavior in early childhood, specifically, has been shown to predict poor emotion regulation skills, difficulties with peer relationships, and school dropouts over time (e.g., Alexander et al., 1993; Gagnon et al., 1995). Ultimately, whether children’s behavior is perceived as ‘challenging’ is based on the experiences, beliefs, and values of their caregivers – emphasizing the need to amplify the voices of these individuals in research. Notably, few studies have investigated the specific behaviors that are seen as challenging in childcare settings, highlighting the need for more nuanced conversations about what behavior is seen as manageable and what behavior is seen as difficult or warranting discipline.

In the contexts of preschool and childcare, multiple studies have examined teacher- and systems-level variables in relation to challenging child behaviors. For example, Zinsser and colleagues (2019) investigated the workplace experiences of teachers working at preschool sites that had implemented socioemotional learning (SEL) tools. Teachers who had access to more support (e.g., mental health consultation and teacher training resources) reported feeling more satisfied with their jobs and more supported in navigating difficult classroom environments. Similarly, other researchers have linked challenging classroom behaviors to greater levels of emotional exhaustion amongst teachers and lower quality relationships between children and their teachers (Grayson & Alvarez, 2008; Magro et al., 2020). More research is needed to understand how teachers and childcare providers perceive and manage challenging behaviors in the classroom, and how these factors may specifically relate to suspension and expulsion practices.

Suspension and expulsion in early childhood

Walter Gilliam’s line of research has significantly expanded the field’s understanding of the prevalence of suspension and expulsion in early childhood settings. For example, Gilliam (2005) reported that prekindergarten students in the U.S. were being expelled at approximately three times the rate of students in K-12 programs. Notably, immense disparities were also evident in early childhood suspension and expulsion – with African American children twice as likely to be expelled compared to White children across pre-kindergarten sites. Gender disparities were also identified, with boys being expelled at over 4.5 times the rate of girls in this study. These striking findings highlight the importance of elucidating the mechanisms and decision-making processes that contribute to disparities in suspension and expulsion.

In another study, Gilliam and Shahar (2006) examined rates and predictors of suspension and expulsion in Massachusetts preschool programs. They reported that preschoolers were more likely to be suspended when there was a higher proportion of Latino children in the classroom and when teacher job satisfaction was low. Meanwhile, preschoolers were more likely to be expelled when class sizes were larger, there were higher proportions of three-year-old children in the class, and when teachers expressed high levels of job stress. These results suggest that child-, teacher-, and classroom-level variables likely interact to predict disciplinary practices.

More recently, Zinsser and colleagues (2019) conducted a mixed-methods study evaluating associations among social-emotional learning supports, teacher stress, and expulsions in community-based preschool programs in Chicago. Quantitative results indicated that preschool teachers who utilized SEL supports were less likely to request expulsions, and that teacher stress fully mediated this relationship. Meanwhile, qualitative interviews with preschool teachers (n = 27) indicated that teachers who had requested expulsions were more likely to express feelings of stress than teachers who had not requested expulsions. The former group expressed particularly high levels of stress about their relationships with specific children (particularly when those children were engaging in potentially dangerous behaviors), and about balancing the needs of individual children versus the whole group. Teachers who had requested expulsions also expressed lower awareness and utilization of existing support services, compared to those who had not requested expulsions. These findings suggest that there is a complex interplay between teacher stress, awareness and utilization of existing support services, and disciplinary decision-making processes in early care and education settings.

The Present Study

Ultimately, there is a critical need to further investigate the phenomena of ECE suspension and expulsion, and to highlight the nuanced experiences of childcare providers as they navigate challenging child behaviors, professional issues, and emotional burnout. Although various studies have examined demographic, classroom-level, and other predictors of suspension and expulsion, few have gathered detailed information about childcare providers’ perceptions of challenging child behaviors and their decision-making processes around managing these behaviors. Even fewer have examined these questions utilizing qualitative methodology – a major gap, given that qualitative approaches are particularly well-suited to investigating the interplay between beliefs, goals, and practices (Yoshikawa et al., 2008). The present study addresses this gap by amplifying the voices of a small group of childcare providers who participated in semi-structured interviews about their experiences with challenging child behaviors and disciplinary decision-making. An additional goal for this work was to identify important topics and questions to be examined in future research with larger, more representative samples of both childcare providers and parents.

Method

Study participants from the Minnesota Early Care and Education (MECE) survey study (Carlson et al., 2020; Kerber et al., 2021) were invited to participate in a follow-up interview about their experiences working in childcare. The MECE Study was a statewide survey of licensed childcare providers with the goal of elucidating characteristics of suspensions and expulsions in early care and education settings.

MECE participants were childcare directors, providers, and teachers at licensed family- and center-based sites across the state of Minnesota. For context, in Minnesota, licensed family-based childcare sites serve small numbers of children in home-based settings. Meanwhile, the Minnesota Department of Human Services (n.d.) describes licensed center-based childcare as “generally characterized by a location other than the provider’s or caregiver’s home, with larger numbers of children being cared for, and requirements for staff qualifications and training.” Mandated provider/child ratios are dependent on the site type and the ages of the children being served (Minnesota Administrative Rules, 2007a, 2007b).

In the original MECE Study, stratified random sampling was used to select childcare sites across all 11 Economic Development Regions (EDRs) in Minnesota, including 69 out of 87 counties. Childcare providers were eligible for the follow-up interview if they had reported suspending or expelling at least one child in the MECE study survey. To ensure representation of providers from a variety of site types (e.g., family- and center-based) and geographic regions (e.g., urban/Twin Cities, encompassing Minneapolis and Saint Paul; suburban and rural Minnesota), eligible providers were organized into four categories: (a) Twin Cities family-based site providers, (b) Twin Cities center-based site providers, (c) non-Twin Cities family-based site providers, and (d) non-Twin Cities center-based site providers. Providers were randomly selected within each of the four categories to be invited to participate in the follow up interview. Of the 58 providers invited to participate, 21 completed interviews. One interview recording was lost due to technical difficulties; the final sample for the present study thus included 20 interviewees from across the state of Minnesota.

Follow-up interview participation was voluntary, and institutional review board approval was granted by a large Midwestern university. Each hour-long interview was semi-structured and organized into four sections of questions: introduction and informed consent process, challenging child behavior, childcare provider stress and support, and general reflections on working in childcare. Interviews were conducted and audio-recorded via Zoom Video meetings and used Zoom transcription technology to document interview questions and responses. All interview data were kept confidential (encoded by ID number) and stored in encrypted, secure electronic files in a protected University location. Participants received a $25 gift card for their participation. Following interview data collection, interview audio-based transcripts were reviewed for accuracy by two authors.

The present study focuses on four questions from the interview protocol: (a) “What are the most challenging behaviors of young children? Why? Please provide examples”; (b) “What do you think are the root causes/origins of (insert challenging behavior(s))?”; (c) “What strategies do you find effective in responding to (insert challenging behavior(s))? For example, what strategies would you recommend to other providers? Please provide examples”; and (d) “At what point do you think child suspension or expulsion would be the recommended solution to a challenging behavior? Why?”

For each research question, one coder began the coding process by identifying initial themes from participant responses using inductive (bottom up) thematic analysis. As described by Braun and Clarke (2012), this is a multi-phase process. In the data familiarization phase, both coders reviewed the study transcripts. In the initial code generation phase, the senior coder generated an initial set of codes (drawing on the transcript content, and on her theoretical and conceptual frameworks). At this point, to establish reliability, both coders coded responses separately. After coding separately, they met to discuss and resolve all discrepant codes. In the theme searching and review phases, the coders jointly reviewed the coded data for similarities and themes across codes and refined the code categories accordingly.

Study Sample

Table 1 displays key demographic characteristics for the interview sample. Notably, the present study’s interview sample was composed of 100% White females (2 of Hispanic origin). Slightly more than half of the sample had attained an associate degree or higher. Mean age was 40 years, and mean experience working with young children was 11 years. Almost one-third of participants worked in the Twin Cities metropolitan area, with the remainder of the sample working in a mix of metropolitan and rural areas around Minnesota. The average percentage of White children at providers’ sites (as estimated by the providers) was 73%, though this ranged significantly across sites (1-98%).

Table 1.

Sample demographics

	Present Study (Interview Subsample; n = 20)			Original MECE Study (N = 330)
	# participants	Mean (S.D.)	Range	# participants	Mean (S.D.)	Range
Personal characteristics
Female	20 (100%)	--	--	309 (99.0%)	--	--
White	20 (100%)	--	--	288 (92.0%)	--	--
African American or Black	0 (0%)	--	--	7 (2.2%)	--	--
American Indian or Alaska Native	0 (0%)	--	--	5 (1.6%)	--	--
Asian	0 (0%)	--	--	6 (1.9%)	--	--
Race: Other or prefer not to respond	0 (0%)		--	8 (2.4%)	--	--
Ethnicity: Hispanic	2 (12.5%)	--	--	12 (4.1%)	--	--
Age in years	--	40.00 (13.59)	21-68	--	42.20 (12.69)	18-72
Educational and professional experience
Highest degree – high school diploma or GED	9 (45.0%)	--	--	106 (32.1%)	--	--
Highest degree – associate degree or higher	11 (55.0%)	--	--	224 (67.9%)	--	--
Years teaching/caring for young children	--	11.31 (10.87)	1-37	--	14.91 (11.11)	0-53
Workplace characteristics
Center-based childcare	11 (55.0%)	--	--	157 (47.6%)	--	--
Family-based childcare	9 (45.0%)	--	--	173 (52.4%)	--	--
% White children at site (provider estimate)*	--	73.30 (34.66)	1-100	--	81.79 (26.35)	0-100
% Black or African American children at site (provider estimate)*	--	18.35 (29.65)	0-98	--	9.94 (21.00)	0-100
% Hispanic/Latinx children at site (provider estimate)*	--	3.55 (6.48)	0-25	--	3.18 (7.61)	0-60
% Asian children at site (provider estimate)*	--	1.80 (3.14)	0-10	--	2.64 (7.72)	0-87
% American Indian or Alaska Native children at site (provider estimate)*	--	1.60 (2.58)	0-10	--	1.42 (6.74)	0-100
% children of other races/ethnicities at site (provider estimate)*	--	0.25 (0.91)	0-4	--	1.37 (6.69)	0-97
Twin Cities metropolitan area	6 (30.0%)	--	--	162 (49.1%)	--	--

^*Ns for child race/ethnicity data ranged from 321-322 in the original MECE study.

Table 1 also displays the demographics of the original MECE sample, from which the interview group was drawn. Notably, the original sample of MECE providers was slightly more racially and ethnically diverse. On average, the original sample was also slightly older, had higher levels of educational attainment, and had more years of experience working with children. Nearly half of the original sample worked in the Twin Cities metropolitan area.

These statistics suggest that, although the present study’s interview sample is not fully representative of the original MECE study (or statewide childcare), it does highlight the voices of groups of ECE providers who have not been well-included in past research: providers in non-urban areas, providers working in family-based childcare, and providers with lower levels of educational attainment.

Comparisons of previously reported suspension and expulsion rates.

The representativeness of the present study’s sample can also be assessed by comparing provider-reported suspension and expulsion rates on the original MECE survey. Table 2 compares the suspension and expulsion rates reported by providers on the original MECE survey. In the full original MECE sample (N=320), 11.8% of providers (n=39) reported expelling at least one child, and 13.9% (n=46) reported suspending at least one child, for a total of 66 unique providers who had suspended or expelled at least one child. This subgroup of 66 participants was eligible for participation in the present follow-up study, and 20 ultimately did so.

Table 2.

Comparison of provider-reported suspension and expulsion rates on the original MECE survey

	Present study/interview subsample (n=20)**						Original MECE sample – Only those who reported 1+ suspension or expulsion on the survey (n=66)						Original MECE sample (N=319-320)
	All providers		Family-based providers only		Center-based providers only		All providers		Family-based providers only		Center-based providers only		All providers		Family-based providers only		Center-based providers only
	%	Mean (S.D.)	%	Mean (S.D.)	%	Mean (S.D.)	%	Mean (S.D.)	%	Mean (S.D.)	%	Mean (S.D.)	%	Mean (S.D.)	%	Mean (S.D.)	%	Mean (S.D.)
Any children expelled from classroom between 9/2018 and survey* (1=yes)	65.0% (n=13)	--	88.9% (n=8)	--	45.5% (n=5)	--	59.1% (n=39)	--	69.2% (n=18)	--	52.5% (n=21)	--	11.8% (n=39)	--	11.5% (n=18)	--	12.1% (n=21)	--
Number of children expelled from classroom between 9/2018 and survey*	--	1.20 (1.28)	--	1.44 (1.13)	--	1.00 (1.41)	--	0.82 (0.93)	--	1.00 (0.98)	--	0.70 (0.88)	--	0.17 (0.5,)	--	0.17 (0.54)	--	0.17 (0.53)
Any children suspended from classroom between 9/2018 and survey* (1=yes)	60.0% (n=12)	--	33.3% (n=3)	--	81.8% (n=9)	--	68.2% (n=45)		46.2% (n=12)	--	82.5% (n=33)	--	13.9% (n=46)	--	7.6% (n=12)	--	19.7% (n=34)	--
Number of children suspended from classroom between 9/2018 and survey*	--	0.85 (0.88)	--	0.44 (0.73)	--	1.18 (0.87)	--	1.02 (1.13)	--	0.62 (0.90)	--	1.27 (1.20)	--	0.22 (0.66)	--	0.10 (0.43)	--	0.33 (0.82)

^*The original MECE survey was administered between February 2019 and January 2020.

^**Participants in the interview follow-up study (n=20) were randomly drawn from the group of participants who reported expelling or suspending at least one child on the original MECE survey (n=66). Note that while 66 participants were technically eligible for interview participation, 8 were not invited due to sufficient interviews being completed.

As noted in Table 2, among the full sample of eligible participants (n=66), 59.1% had recently expelled a child, with a mean of 0.82 recent expulsions (S.D.=0.93). Expulsion rates were higher among family-based providers than center-based providers (69.2% versus 52.5% of providers, respectively). Meanwhile, in the present study’s full sample, 65.0% of providers had recently expelled a child, with a mean of 1.20 recent expulsions (S.D.=1.28). The discrepancy in expulsion rates between family- and center-based providers was wider in the included group (88.9% versus 45.5% of providers, respectively) than in the eligible group.

As also noted in Table 2, among the full sample of eligible participants (n=66), 68.2% had recently suspended a child, with a mean of 1.02 (S.D.=1.13) recent suspensions. Suspension rates were higher among center-based providers than family-based providers (82.5% versus 46.2% of providers, respectively). Meanwhile, in the present study’s full sample, 60.0% of providers had recently suspended a child, with a mean of 0.85 (S.D.=0.88) recent suspensions. The discrepancy in suspension rates between center- and family-based providers was wider in the included group (81.8% versus 33.3%) than in the eligible group.

Taken together, these findings indicate slightly higher rates of expulsion and slightly lower rates of suspension in the present study sample (n=20), compared to the eligible sample (n=66), with wider disparities between family- and center-based sites in the present study.

Results

ECE providers’ perceptions of challenging child behaviors

ECE providers were asked what the most challenging child behaviors that they faced in their work were. The most frequently reported challenging behaviors were physical aggression and noncompliance (Table 3).

Table 3.

Coding of ECE provider responses

Perceptions of challenging child behaviors		Perceptions of causes of challenging child behaviors		Effective strategies for addressing challenging child behaviors		Decision-making around child suspension and expulsion
Code	# unique providers	Code	# unique providers	Code	# unique providers	Code	# unique providers
Physical aggression (hitting, kicking, biting, pushing…)	9	Typical child development	9	Talk to the child and build a relationship	10	Have tried everything, unable to meet the child’s needs	10
Noncompliance, defiance, arguing	8	Parenting problems (i.e., low parenting skills, permissive parenting, inconsistent behavior)	9	Teach emotional management strategies (i.e., labeling emotions, deep breathing)	4	Behavior is potentially dangerous to self or others	8
Tantrums and yelling	3	Stressful family events	7	Praise positive behavior	3	Parents are uncooperative	4
Destruction of property	1	Screen time	2	Talk to the parents	3	A certain amount of time has passed, or child has exceeded number of “strikes”	4
Running away	1	Child may have a developmental/mental health disorder	1	Ignore the child	2
Attention-seeking behaviors	1			Distract the child	2	Child’s behavior is compromising staff’s ability to attend to other children	3
Withdrawal	1			Remove the child from the situation	2
				Switch teachers	1
				Time-out	1
				Provide transitional cues (i.e., music)	1

Physical aggression.

Nine out of 20 interviewees (45%) reported that they found it challenging when children engaged in physically aggressive behaviors towards others (e.g., hitting, kicking, pushing, biting). Several providers noted that even though some forms of physical aggression are common in young children, it was difficult to manage this behavior at the classroom level. For example, one family-based childcare provider reflected:

Toddlers, they sometimes get in this hitting thing and…my correction is “No, no” …but it's already happened, you know, by the time that [you say something] … That's probably the most challenging is toddlers learning the…acceptance of the no-hitting rule.

Meanwhile, a center-based childcare provider reflected on the challenges of biting among young children:

In the pre-tot room, ages one to two is the biting stage …We’ve had kids in the past who bite just to bite. And then we have kids who are angry and upset and can't verbalize what they want and then they bite… but I think that is a struggle with some of the kids in the pre-tot age gap…the biting and not being able to communicate and telling us what is wrong and what they need.

Other interviewees expressed concerns about what they perceived as more serious or unsafe behaviors, noting that children who engaged in these behaviors required more intensive staff supervision. For example, a center-based childcare provider said:

I see a lot of, for lack of a better word, violent behaviors. I mean…they get very angry, throwing things, hitting… I mean, not a lot of the students do it. But if you have one student in the classroom that does it, it really makes an impact on all the students.…So I would say, the most challenging is when it becomes a danger to that specific student, or the students in the classroom, or sometimes even the staff…I've worked [in this field]…for 12 years and over that time period I've seen it's escalated quite a bit in those more severe, more angry, violent type behaviors.

Noncompliance and verbal arguing.

Eight out of 20 interviewees (40%) reported child noncompliance (e.g., refusing to follow directions, protesting, defiance) to be challenging. Some providers described the stress of managing developmentally typical forms of protesting (e.g., around toilet training) for multiple children at the same time. For example, a family-based childcare provider shared:

I have three [children] that are in pull-ups, so I'm constantly doing potty breaks and then they fight me on it and then I finally get them to go and…that's really hard.

Other providers reflected on the time and energy required to manage more severe forms of child noncompliance. For example, one family-based childcare provider shared:

I have a little girl right now who…decides she's not gonna do anything. She'll scream for an hour, scream and I'm working on that…When you have one that you really can't quiet down, it's impossible to do anything.

Meanwhile, several interviewees raised concerns about disrespectful or inappropriate language. For example, one family-based childcare provider stated:

The defiance, the entitlement, the talk-back, that kind of stuff. They just flat-out told me no, and I'm just like, “Say what?” You know, like, it is not how I was raised. Like, I was raised to respect adults and I just feel like there's a lack of respect for adults these days, you know…and sometimes I'm like, is it…entitlement? Or is it underlying disability or whatever?… Or lack of attention at home, and like the negative behavior is being noticed [at home], but not the positive behavior?

Another center-based childcare provider also shared:

This one little guy I have this year…he does swear at people and… just refusing to do things, things like that. Those are the hardest, and some of it’s maturity and some of it’s, you know…they just know how to manipulate.

Other challenging behaviors.

Several other challenging child behaviors were spontaneously mentioned by interviewees, though less frequently than the ones previously discussed. Tantrums and yelling, destruction of property, running away, “attention-seeking” behaviors, and withdrawal were lesser-reported categories of challenging child behaviors.

ECE providers’ perceptions of causes of challenging child behaviors

ECE providers were asked what they thought the “root causes/origins” of challenging child behaviors are. The most frequently reported root causes included typical child development, parenting problems, and stress in the home environment (Table 3).

Typical child development.

Nine out of 20 interviewees (45%) suggested that many challenging child behaviors are normative parts of child development, or the result of typical early childhood frustrations. For example, one family-based childcare provider suggested:

Um, someone trying to take a toy from them…you know, not sharing or understanding how to ask to play with the toy…I would say was the biggest cause of…the hitting.

Several providers also acknowledged that young children have limited verbal communication skills, and instead tend to communicate through their behavior. As one family-based childcare provider shared:

A lot of it's like when they can't communicate. I mean…when they just don't know [how]…to tell you what they want or what's on their mind.

Parenting problems.

Nine out of 20 interviewees (45%) attributed challenging behaviors to parenting difficulties. Several interviewees suggested that some parents may not know how to best support their child’s development, or how to effectively respond to challenging child behaviors. For example, one family-based childcare provider stated:

The lack of parenting these days…I sometimes…feel like parents, just don't really parent… It's such a fast-paced world with technology…and trying to keep up with every ding on your phone…so there's the lack of parenting because you're so caught up in your own stuff…

Another family-based childcare provider similarly stated:

I think some of it is parenting style…I think there's this, this feeling that parents…either they're not giving their kids enough time or attention, and so then they… overcompensate…So, then they just give in to their child when their child screams or give in to their child when their child does these things. And so, I feel like I'm doing a lot of parent education too with that…like… “You've got to set up boundaries, even though I know you feel bad because you're only seeing your kid for three hours a day.”

A small number of interviewees also suggested that lower rates of physical discipline (relative to past generations) has contributed to challenging child behaviors. One family-based childcare provider suggested:

I come from that generation that…you know, a swat in the butt does wonders. And it gives respect a little bit and I don't think…the parents have that ability anymore and you know they've… the kids don't respect the parents, so why should they respect the daycare provider, you know, or anyone else? Because they know…that there's no real consequence for it.

Stress in the home environment.

Seven out of 20 interviewees (35%) reported that stress in the home environment may underlie challenging child behaviors. Some interviewees discussed the potential impact of typical family stressors and transitions. For example, one family-based childcare provider stated:

In this [one] case, a brand-new baby came into the house. There’s five children. So…a brand-new baby was born…and yet mom still brought the two youngest…to daycare every day. And that's when it started and I was having some very big issues there…[and] it was very, very obvious you know, that mommy had a new baby and she's staying home with the baby and [the siblings don’t] get to be there.

Other providers acknowledged that more serious family stressors or trauma could also contribute to challenging child behaviors. For example, a center-based childcare provider shared:

Well, I think the root cause of that is like…it’s different for every child because I think…knowing what I know about the background of some of the children [with]… severe, severe behavior issues, there's generally something going on at home that is, you know, either is scary, unsafe, inconsistent.

Other root causes.

Several other possible root causes of challenging child behaviors were spontaneously mentioned by interviewees, though less frequently than the ones previously discussed. Screen time and child mental health issues were lesser-reported possible root causes.

ECE provider-reported strategies for addressing challenging child behaviors

ECE providers were asked about the strategies that they have found most effective in addressing challenging child behaviors. The most frequently reported strategy was attempting to connect with the child, typically through talking (Table 3).

Connecting with the child.

Ten out of 20 interviewees (50%) reported they found connecting with the child (typically by talking to them) was the most effective strategy for addressing challenging child behaviors. For example, one center-based childcare provider explained:

Number one is stay calm. And it's really hard sometimes in the heat of a chaotic situation. But…I feel like we need to be the calm in their storm…and then to acknowledge that you are hearing what they're saying. Sometimes I just simply repeat what they're saying, even if it's not nice, like “You're stupid.” I'll say, “Oh, you think that I'm stupid.” Just so that they know that I'm hearing them…and, again…building that relationship beforehand. I usually will try to build a relationship and the trust with a student before I will…try to redirect too much, because if they don't know me or trust me, why would they listen to what I have to say?… I like to show them that there's a mutual trust.

Similarly, another family-based childcare provider stated:

I usually…get down to their level. And I explain to them, I look them in the eye, and I just say, “You know, that's not nice…we don't hurt our friends,” or “We don't throw coins,” or “We don’t fight” …I've had a little boy that…was very aggressive at a young age. And so…his spot was in the highchair next to me… So, while I was cooking…he was sitting in the high chair and…him and I would just kind of play together.

Other strategies.

Several other strategies for addressing challenging child behaviors were spontaneously mentioned by interviewees, though significantly less frequently than the ones previously discussed. Teaching emotional management strategies, praising positive behavior, working with parents, ignoring negative behaviors, distraction, removing the child from the situation, switching teachers, time-outs, and providing transitional cues were less frequently reported strategies.

ECE-providers’ decision-making around child suspension and expulsion

Finally, ECE providers were asked at what point they thought a child suspension or expulsion would be the recommended solution to a challenging behavior. The most commonly reported reasons for considering suspension and expulsion were when a provider felt that they had tried everything and could not meet the child’s needs, and when a child’s behavior was potentially dangerous to self or others (Table 3).

Unable to meet the child’s needs/ ‘I’ve tried everything.’

Ten out of 20 interviewees (50%) reported that if they felt that they had tried all feasible strategies and still could not meet a child’s needs, they would potentially consider suspension or expulsion. Some interviewees reported that they based this judgment on their own professional experience and intuition. For example, one family-based childcare provider stated:

When I cannot correct it with…I would give it a week's time for me to correct it. If I cannot use my correcting skills to correct it. So, I would say I would give the parents a week.

Other providers reported that they would prefer to collaborate with parents and other providers to try to maintain a child in programming, seeing suspension or expulsion as a last resort when they feel that the child’s best needs are not being met. For example, one center-based childcare provider reflected:

I think it is appropriate and responsible…to make a plan with the family and say, “You know, here's what we can offer…like, you know, there are two teachers in the room when So-and-So has this issue… Like, they really require one-on-one care in order to keep them safe and in order to keep everyone else safe.” …So, I feel like it would be irresponsible…to say that you can continue to provide care for someone knowing that you're not meeting their needs. So, I think that in those cases.…before you…have to say like, “You're kicked out of this program”…you need to have meetings and like get on the same page with a family and be like, “Okay…here are some things that if we're going to continue to provide care…we need you to connect with a mental health provider or something”… or, “We need them to get screened by the…public schools.”

Similarly, another center-based childcare provider stated:

You start with just talking to the families and then after that…we brainstorm ideas together, have a meeting about it, and say, “Okay, this is starting to become a problem. We need to come up with a solution on how we're going to fix it.” And if after we've exhausted many options…[we] have a family meeting, you know, we include the director and we talk about what's going on, try and come up with some solutions. Give it…a couple weeks. See how it goes. Trying out these different redirection tools or you know whatever tools we've decided to use to counteract the behavior. But then…if it's getting to the point where it's all day, every day…or if the behavior escalates even further, then I would think, you know, a suspension or maybe even expulsion of the child would be best.

Potentially dangerous behavior.

Eight out of 20 interviewees (40%) reported they if they believed that a child’s behavior was dangerous to self, peers, or staff, they would potentially consider suspension or expulsion. For example, one family-based childcare provider explained:

Well for me…it would be…like, if you can no longer take care of…the other kids and keep them safe or keep that child safe. Because you can only spread yourself so thin. You know…I'm one person with nine kids and four of them have some sort of special needs… So, it's like, when you can't keep up with that…I feel like that would be it…In the end, it comes down to, you know, our kids being safe in the best environment that they can be in.

Similarly, another family-based childcare provider shared:

I've had to let go of kids, and there was one…he was too rough…like he actually pulled on one of my little guys’ arms and he had to go to the doctor…and then it happened again with two kids…[and] it's like, okay, second time, you got to be done. You know…when they're…really hurting the kids.

Meanwhile, another family-based childcare provider shared an example of other behaviors that made her worry for other children’s safety and well-being:

The last kid I had to let go…there was one day I was in the kitchen, and I heard him.… he had grabbed his self [sic] and…he pulled on his pants, and he asked the kid there, “Do you want some of this?” And then another time, I caught him… and here he had his pants down, jiggling his butt in front of somebody's face. Enough!… And so, I gave that mama two weeks’ notice. The kid was four or five… and it's like, where's this kid hearing this or getting that?… What is he teaching the other kids when he does that?

Other potential reasons for suspension or expulsion.

Several other potential reasons for suspending or expelling a child were spontaneously mentioned by interviewees, though less frequently than the ones previously discussed. Problems with parents (e.g., verbal arguments, lack of payment), a certain amount of time or “strikes” elapsing, and staffing capacity issues were less frequently reported reasons for considering these options.

Discussion

The results of the present study offer valuable insights into the child behaviors which childcare providers find most challenging and the “root causes” that providers believe underlie these behaviors. The results also provide details about the strategies that childcare providers utilize to manage challenging child behaviors, and the “tipping points” at which they consider suspension or expulsion.

ECE provider perceptions

Perceptions of challenging child behaviors.

Interviewees discussed several child behaviors which they perceived as especially challenging. The most frequently reported category of challenging behaviors was physical aggression (e.g., hitting, kicking, pushing, biting). This finding is consistent with previous quantitative research on challenging behaviors in ECE settings (e.g., Perry et al., 2008). It also aligns with spontaneous statements that numerous interviewees made about their perception that, as ECE providers, their ‘first’ or ‘most important’ job is to keep children safe. Qualitatively, when discussing physically aggressive behaviors they had encountered, interviewees’ descriptions ranged in intensity from behaviors that were “frustrating” but generally normative, to more alarming and “violent” behaviors. Interviewees talked about how stressful it can be in-the-moment to respond to a child who is exhibiting physical aggression, while simultaneously trying to monitor other children. Several interviewees also reported feeling worried about the safety of the acting-out child, their classmates, or themselves/other staff during incidents. Finally, multiple interviewees elaborated on the complicated logistics and stress that they experienced in the aftermath of physically aggressive incidents (e.g., seeking medical attention for injuries, having to fill out report paperwork, notifying the parents of the children involved, responding to parental complaints).

Consistent with interviewees’ reports, research has shown that it is developmentally typical for toddlers and preschoolers to engage in some physically aggressive behavior (Hartup, 1974; Tremblay, 2000; Tremblay, 2004; Tremblay et al., 1999). For example, one large longitudinal study found that rates of physical aggression increased after 12 months of age, peaked in toddlerhood, and then declined after 36 months of age (Alink et al., 2006). These normative increases in physical aggression are likely related to other developmental tasks and milestones during early childhood– for example, toddlers’ growing sense of autonomy and environmental exploration, which may result in conflicts with caregivers who attempt to set limits (Alink et al., 2006; Campbell, 2002). Meanwhile, given their limited expressive language and emotion regulation skills, toddlers may engage in physical aggression as a means of expressing anger, resolving arguments with peers, or even initiating play (Brownell & Hazen, 1999; Overton et al., 2004; Tremblay, 2000).

Although it is normative for young children to engage in some physically aggressive behaviors, a small subset exhibits more frequent and severe aggression. For example, a study of children in Head Start and community childcare found that approximately 10% of children exhibited aggressive behaviors at a daily or higher rate (Kupersmidt et al., 2000). This suggests that, in ECE settings, a small handful of children may exhibit more frequent and serious aggressive behaviors than their classmates – and as such, may require higher levels of monitoring and intervention. Related research has begun to identify potential risk factors for more frequent, severe, and long-lasting aggression in early childhood, including poverty, family history/genetic predisposition, negative parenting behaviors, and exposure to stress and violence in the home environment (e.g., Kupersmidt et al., 2000). Several studies have also indicated that young boys exhibit higher rates of both normative and severe forms of physical aggression than young girls (e.g., Alink et al., 2006; Kupersmidt et al., 2000; Webster-Stratton, 1996). Given these findings, it may be particularly important for ECE providers to receive education about typical behaviors among young children and effective strategies for managing aggressive behaviors that fall within the normal range.

In the present study, the second most frequently reported category of challenging behaviors was noncompliance, defiance, and arguing. Many of the interviewees who raised this issue talked about the amount of time and energy that is required to engage with a child who is being argumentative or refusing to comply with directions, and how this seems unfair to the other children who are following rules and directions. Several interviewees also expressed concerns that children who verbally argue with them or who use inappropriate language may set a bad example for their classmates, potentially multiplying the problem at the group-level. A smaller number of providers also expressed concern about the “disrespect” that these behaviors demonstrate to them as adults and authority figures. This concern was raised both for more serious examples (e.g., a child swearing at an ECE provider) and for more normative examples (e.g., a child saying “no” to a provider).

Consistent with interviewees’ reports, research has shown that rates of non-compliance with adult instructions and rules increase during the toddler and preschool years (Kalb & Loeber, 2003; Kochanska, 2002). This normative increase in non-compliance is likely related to other developmental tasks and milestones during this period – for example, increasing autonomy and environmental exploration (Webster-Stratton, 1983). Similarly, as children gain expressive language skills, it is common for them to try out different words and phrases, and to practice expressing their thoughts, feelings, and preferences with both peers and adults. During this period, a small subset of children exhibits more clinically concerning (e.g., frequent, severe) noncompliance and verbal arguing that merits further assessment and intervention. This population shares many of the risk factors that were previously discussed regarding children exhibiting significant physical aggression. Notably, research has also indicated that young boys may be more likely to exhibit significant non-compliance and related behaviors than young girls (Kalb & Loeber, 2003). Given the normative nature of aggression and noncompliance in toddlers and prekindergartners, and the challenges identified by providers in our sample with dealing with these behaviors, trainings or support services for ECEs may be an important avenue of intervention to reduce early childhood suspension and expulsion.

A smaller number of providers also mentioned several other challenging child behaviors, including tantrums and yelling, destruction of property, running away, “attention-seeking” behaviors, and withdrawal. While space limitations preclude a more detailed discussion of these topics, it is noteworthy that all these challenging behaviors (except withdrawal) fall under the externalizing spectrum – again underscoring the time-consuming and emotionally taxing nature of these behaviors for childcare providers, particularly in contexts of resource scarcity and high child-to-teacher ratios.

Perceived causes of challenging child behaviors.

Interviewees discussed several possible “root causes/origins” of challenging child behaviors. The most frequently reported category of causes was behavior challenges related to typical child development (e.g., limited emotion regulation, conflict resolution, and/or expressive language skills among young children) and/or typical, minor stressors in classmate settings (e.g., a child becoming angry when another child steals his toy). This finding is heartening, given that many of the challenging behaviors that interviewees described are indeed, to some extent, developmentally normative in early childhood (e.g., Kalb & Loeber, 2003; Kochanska, 2002; Webster-Stratton, 1983). For example, as noted above, aggressive behaviors typically increase after children’s first birthday and peak in toddlerhood. However, as noted by interviewees, even normative challenging behaviors can be very draining for ECE providers when multiplied by the number of children in a group or classroom (e.g., the interviewee who discussed the stress of navigating several protesting, potty-training toddlers at once as a solo, family-based childcare provider). Furthermore, in some cases, it may be difficult for providers to distinguish between normative challenging behaviors and behaviors that are beginning to reach clinical levels of concern. In such cases, it would likely be helpful for providers to have access to information about developmental milestones and touchpoints, and to screening tools which could help to identify children who would benefit from additional evaluation.

The second most frequently reported category of “root causes/origins” of challenging child behaviors was parenting problems. Qualitatively, interviewees’ comments on this topic ranged from empathetic statements about the challenges of parenting young children, to more provocative comments about modern parenting styles (e.g., “lack of parenting,” comments about generational differences in physical discipline). Interviewees suggested that certain parenting behaviors or styles (particularly ‘permissive’ or ‘inconsistent’ ones) may cause and exacerbate challenging child behaviors. They also discussed the difficulty that children may have when transitioning from more ‘permissive’ or unstructured home environments into childcare settings. These statements align with past work linking different parenting styles to child behavior and adjustment (e.g., Alizadeh et al., 2011; Amato & Fowler, 2002). However, these findings must be carefully considered in the context of families’ broader cultures and communities. To this end, it is important to consider that some of the comments made by this group of White childcare providers may be “coded” language indicative of cultural conflict with families, and/or bias towards families with different childrearing values, practices, and resources. The latter, in turn, could very likely contribute to racial and ethnic disparities in suspension and expulsion. Examining these phenomena in greater nuance should be a high priority in future research.

The third most frequently reported category of “root causes/origins” of challenging child behaviors was stress in the home environment. Most responses in this category revolved around relatively common family stressors (e.g., birth of a new child, parental divorce). A small number of providers also mentioned scary or traumatic events as possible contributors to challenging child behaviors. These statements align with previous research which has linked exposure to both normative stressors and traumatic events to child adjustment and behavior problems (e.g., Cicchetti & Valentino, 2006; Cummings et al., 1994; Milot et al., 2010). Notably, in the present study, several providers noted that they often do not learn that a child has been exposed to a stressful or traumatic event until long after it has occurred, making it challenging for them to effectively contextualize and respond to challenging behaviors.

A smaller number of providers also mentioned several other possible “root/causes/origins” of challenging child behaviors, including excessive screen time at home and child mental health problems. While space limitations preclude a more detailed discussion of these topics, it is noteworthy that both perceived “root causes/origins” point back to parenting, the home environment, and factors beyond the childcare environment. Notably, across interviews, few providers discussed making efforts to tailor their childcare environment (e.g., setting, expectations, practices) in response to families’ cultures, values, or other needs.

ECE providers’ strategies for addressing challenging child behaviors

General strategies.

When asked about effective strategies for addressing challenging child behaviors, the most common category of responses, by far, was connecting with the child (usually by talking). Interviewees discussed the importance of building positive relationships with children before they act out, so that they can lean on that connection during stressful moments. Several interviewees also talked about getting down to children’s levels, looking them in the eyes, and talking to them when they are dysregulated (usually, to give them a direction or to remind them about the rules). It is heartening that so many providers prioritized building positive relationships with the children in their care, and that they reported trying to maintain empathy and connections even in the face of challenging behaviors. Indeed, past research has shown that high-quality teacher/caregiver-child relationships may predict reductions in children’s behavior problems over time (Lei et al., 2019).

Despite the many positive aspects of this relational approach, few providers mentioned any other effective strategies for addressing challenging child behaviors – including behavior management strategies that have been studied and shown to be effective in past research (e.g., Snyder et al., 2011; Williford & Shelton, 2014). For example, only four interviewees mentioned teaching emotional management strategies (e.g., labeling emotions, deep breathing), and only three mentioned praising/reinforcing positive behavior. Furthermore, even though interviewees endorsed parenting problems and family stress as some of the top possible causes of challenging child behavior, only three interviewees mentioned collaborating with parents as an effective management strategy.

Suspension and expulsion.

In the present study, the most commonly reported reason for considering suspension and expulsion was a sense that the ECE provider had “tried everything” and simply could not meet the child’s needs. The amount of time and effort that interviewees were willing to invest varied significantly (e.g., ranging from “one week” to eliminate biting, to months of interventions, referrals, and meetings). Similarly, some interviewees’ responses suggested that they would consider suspending or expelling a child because, in their view, the child was simply not a ‘good fit’ with the values and structure of their center. Other interviewees elaborated more empathetically on their desire to see struggling children receive more intensive support services than they themselves could offer.

The second most frequently reported reason for considering suspension and expulsion was when a child’s behavior was perceived as dangerous to self or others. This aligns with the previous finding that the interviewed providers found physical aggression to be the most challenging-to-manage child behavior. Regarding suspension and expulsion, some providers endorsed a ‘zero-tolerance’ policy for varying levels of physical aggression, while others reported that they would only consider suspension or expulsion if the behavior occurred multiple times. To this end, several interviewees reported stress and emotional exhaustion associated with constantly monitoring children with histories of risky behavior, particularly in settings where providers are working on their own or with limited support staff. Several providers also reported considering the possibility that they would receive complaints, or even lose, other families if they did not remove a child with challenging behaviors. Particularly at sites with lengthy waitlists, providers may not have seen any ‘advantages’ to retaining a child with challenging behaviors when that child’s spot could be easily filled with another child.

A smaller number of providers also mentioned several other reasons for suspension and expulsion, including problems with parents, a certain amount of time or “strikes” elapsing, and staffing capacity issues. While space limitations preclude a more detailed discussion of these topics, it is noteworthy that they point back to parenting difficulties as a perceived “root cause/origin” of challenging child behaviors, and to program-level policies and resources as important constraints on decision-making.

Implications for Practice

The present study’s findings point to several key practice implications related to shifting providers’ perceptions of challenging child behaviors, as well as their strategies for managing them. First, ECE providers would likely benefit from ongoing, systematic professional development on both typical and atypical child development. This should include: (a) information about the causes and prevalence of common challenging behaviors among young children; (b) evidence-based strategies for managing common challenging behaviors; (c) culturally sensitive strategies for building positive, strengths-based relationships with children and families (e.g., in order to better understand individual children, family structures, and practices to support child development); (d) guidance about how to identify and support children with serious emotional and behavioral needs; and (e) best practices around suspension and expulsion (e.g., timelines, strategies for communicating with families, making referrals to alternative sites).

Past research has also shown that caregivers with high levels of psychosocial risk and stress are more likely to perceive challenging child behaviors as stressful, threatening, and uncontrollable; and that providers with high stress and low job satisfaction are more likely to engage in child suspension and expulsion (e.g., Dopke & Milner, 2000; Gilliam & Shahar, 2006; Silver & Zinsser, 2020; Zinsser et al., 2019). This, coupled with the results of the present study, suggest that, in addition to technical information and guidance, there is a need for social and emotional support services and policy changes to enhance ECE providers’ wellbeing, such as reflective supervision (Meuwissen et al., 2021) or mindfulness-based interventions (Berlin et al., 2020).

Infant and early childhood mental health (IECMH) consultants – particularly those who are embedded in ECE settings (e.g., center-based childcare sites) – may be especially well-positioned to provide professional development and other supports to ECE providers. Distinguishing features of IECMH consultation include (a) a developmental framework focusing on the socioemotional experience of young children (e.g., the meaning of behavior in communicating child needs); (b) core concepts related to the developmental impact of trauma on mental health; and (c) equity principles addressing the diversity of familial and cultural influences on child functioning (Cohen & Kauffman, 2005; Mondi & Carlson, 2019). Previous work has linked IECMH consultation in ECE settings to reduced rates of child behavior problems (Conners-Burrow et al., 2012; Gilliam et al., 2016; Perry et al., 2008, 2010; Upshur et al., 2009), increased child socio-emotional skills (Conners-Burrow et al., 2012; Perry et al., 2008; Reyes & Gilliam, 2021), increased satisfaction and perceived self-efficacy among staff (Brennan et al., 2008; Conners-Burrow et al., 2012; Heller et al., 2011), higher quality interactions between children and staff (Virmani et al., 2013; Brennan et al., 2008; Conners-Burrow et al., 2012, 2013; Heller et al., 2012), and lower rates of child suspension and expulsion (Perry et al., 2008; Upshur et al., 2009).

Strengths, Limitations, and Future Research Directions

Strengths.

The present study has several strengths. First, while some past work has examined childcare providers’ broad experiences using qualitative methods (e.g., Shdaimah et al., 2018), relatively few studies have utilized these methods to specifically examine issues pertaining to suspension and expulsion. To this end, the present study’s semi-structured interview protocol enabled collection of rich information about ECE providers’ lived experiences and opinions. Second, the present study recruited both family- and center-based childcare providers working in a variety of community settings (rural, suburban, and urban). Finally, this study’s qualitative coding protocol facilitated rich analysis of themes across participant responses.

Limitations.

It is also important to note several limitations of the present study. First, the small sample size drawn from one state may limit the generalizability of these findings to other populations and settings. Relatedly, although the study sample was geographically diverse, participants were all female and predominately non-Hispanic White, again potentially limiting generalizability. Finally, the semi-structured interview protocol did not allow for extensive follow-up questions or discussion about topics that participants raised.

Future Research Directions.

The present study identified several topics, questions, and approaches which should be addressed in future research. First, there is a critical need for longitudinal, mixed-methods research assessing the predictors, step-by-step decision-making processes, and consequences of suspension and expulsion in ECE settings, as well as the efficacy of different prevention and intervention strategies (e.g., mental health consultation). Such work should be conducted in a range of geographic settings with participants from diverse cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds, to facilitate more nuanced exploration of the factors that contribute to inequities in suspension and expulsion.

Finally, based on the present study’s findings, it would be valuable for future work to incorporate assessments of provider mental health, stress, and burnout, as these factors likely influence providers’ perceptions of challenging child behaviors and their decision-making around suspension and expulsion.

Conclusion

Suspension and expulsion from ECE settings, including childcare, is a major issue in the United States – with significant disparities documented for boys and children of color (Gilliam, 2005; Gilliam & Shahar, 2006; U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, 2014). The present qualitative study highlights the lived experiences of childcare providers in Minnesota around managing challenging child behaviors and making decisions about discipline, suspension, and expulsion. Overall, findings suggest that there is a need for comprehensive policies and interventions which will increase knowledge and reduce emotional burnout among childcare providers, while also providing tailored support services to young children with emotional and behavioral needs. Such strategies should be developed in close consultation with the childcare providers who will use them.

Data Sharing and Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study were collected under a contract with the Minnesota Department of Human Services and are not publicly available due to contractual and privacy restrictions. Readers are encouraged to contact the corresponding author with any questions.