Not a Neutral Space: Early Childhood Education as a Site of Exclusion and Liberation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper provides important insight into the issues that exist within ECE environments and how these issues fit into the broader societal framework of racism/discrimination and the carceral system. While this provides an important analysis, it is likely to receive pushback (as the authors rightly note the tension regarding this topic that is rampant right now in 2025). I think it could be helpful to reframe/define/restructure a few things in order to better frame against the inevitable pushback. Here are some ideas on how to do it:

• It would be helpful to define what “carceral thinking” is
• Preschool teachers are often overworked and underpaid and have often not had nearly enough education/training. I think it is important to make sure to not blame this group of people for their biases but rather note that they are working within a system of biases and have never been taught the skills to have classrooms as you describe in section 5. I realize that this overwork and underpay is alluded to in the paper, but it could be more upfront so as to help readers look for solutions to the problem rather than feel alienated.
• The section called “2.1. Intergenerational and Structural Marginalization” is a bit inconsistent. On page three you talk about lack of access to “high-quality programs.” I was surprised to see you using that term given the inherent bias in rating a program. However, you quickly acknowledge this bias on page 4, but I wonder if you want to still use that framing on page three. It may be something to think about removing or think of a better way to frame the section. Currently it’s organized as something along the lines of “It’s bad that kids don’t have access to high quality education but the notion of high quality education is racist,” so it feels like a bit of quick whiplash.
• “Rather than addressing how systems fail to meet the needs of diverse children and families, responsibility is shifted onto families to adjust or exit. This informal removal process reflects broader patterns of exclusion and demonstrates how carceral logics can operate without any formal disciplinary action.” I think this line could be specified more. Are you wanting the schools/teachers to have these discussions? Or state regulatory divisions? Or politicians? Or everyone? I think emphasizing where these conversations could take place is an important step with helping readers to come up with solutions to the problems.
• It might help to start with the positive things you discussed in the first paragraph of section 5. Putting positive thoughts at the beginning might help hook readers and encourage continued reading.
• In section 5.1 you list the benefits of culturally specific ECE programs as a juxtaposition to the programs designed by the middle class white where exclusionary discipline in a norm. What you wrote about these programs is interesting and important. However, you do not discuss whether these programs have less exclusionary discipline. Do they? Is there any research on it?
• In section 5.3 you list several systems such as the “Pyramid Model,” but do not describe what that actually is. I suggest describing what these systems are in order to help readers understand the solutions to the problem.
• I know that there is ample pushback against charts. However, there is also quite a bit of literature suggesting that it can be helpful for defining expectations so that you can nourish relationships without bickering about minor behavior expectations. For example, Parent Management Training is one of the most studied parenting programs and it uses charts as a technique to do this. Furthermore, there are many programs that have stemmed from this (e.g., KEEP, Parenting Inside Out, KITS, TFCO). To say that there isn’t much research suggesting how charts can be helpful seems to be overlooking quite a bit of the peer reviewed literature. I will note that these are parenting interventions that I just listed and maybe there is reason to believe that it can be helpful at home but in a classroom it can just be embarrassing and create hierarchies (especially when each child’s chart is viewable by the entire class).
• I worry that the paper lacked originality. After reading the paper, I’m left wondering what the main contribution was. It would be helpful if the authors clarified how this paper moves the needle forward? What new perspectives does this bring that haven’t already been discussed?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I believe this article may be misclassified- it's listed as an "article" but it's really more of a note or a policy piece. The piece is not empirical (which is fine), but if the 'article' classification is reserved for empirical work, it may need to be re-classified. Though I found the article to be well-written, my biggest critique is that the article seems quite under-cited. Throughout the piece, there are paragraphs without citation support, or paragraphs with limited citation support. While I understand this area may be understudied, broadening the empirical support for the arguments seems essential. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Your argument is still confusing regarding “tools such as color-coded behavior charts, sticker systems, incident tracking apps, and public reward systems.” You say in lines 522-532 that these practices disproportionately constrain Black boys in early childhood education. However, your citations feel slightly off topic. Bryan et al., 2024 seems to talk about exclusionary discipline, but not necessarily these tools. Zimmer, 2024 talks about elementary school (not early childhood). It appears that you don’t have any references that directly support your bold claims.

This becomes more troubling later down the page. On lines 548-555 you say that models such as a Pyramid Model would work really well. But it seems that you aren’t realizing that pyramid models (e.g., PBIS https://www.pbis.org/) often use behavioral reward systems – where kids are encouraged to comply with school expectations and the school employs an acknowledgement system where they praise kids who are complying. This acknowledgement system often looks like the tools you said above are detrimental to children. You are correct that pyramid models (like PBIS) are specifically designed to reduce exclusionary discipline, so I’m glad you are discussing it. But it seems that you are using it to juxtapose itself (and that’s the confusing part).

Author Response

Our Position  

Our intent in this section is not to dismiss all forms of structure or reinforcement in early learning, but to interrogate the philosophical and implementation-based logics that underlie behavior-management systems. We argue that public, token-based, or surveillance-driven tools (for example, clip charts, color systems, and digital point apps) are problematic not because they are structured, but because they externalize children’s behavior and often amplify bias by disproportionately targeting those deemed “challenging,” particularly Black boys, multilingual learners, and children with disabilities. 

Our position distinguishes between tools that operate through surveillance and compliance and frameworks such as the Pyramid Model that operate through reflection and care. The Pyramid Model is grounded in coaching, environmental design, and relational supports that prevent exclusionary responses. It does not rely on public acknowledgement or token systems but instead builds the adult and systemic capacity needed to sustain belonging. We hope the revised section now clearly captures this philosophical difference, rather than a merely categorical one, and makes explicit that our distinction concerns the logics of implementation, not the existence of behavioral frameworks themselves. 

Revision Summary 

• Evidentiary language revised: softened the earlier statement “clear evidence of harm” to “limited empirical evidence of long-term benefit and only emerging research on potential harms.” 

• Added developmental and ethnographic sources that directly address classroom management tools in early learning contexts: 

• Brownell and Parks (2021), ethnography documenting how clip-chart systems create public hierarchies of “good” and “bad” behavior. 

• Kim and Han (2015), mixed-methods study showing that early childhood teachers’ management practices often diverge from the reflective, culturally sustaining intentions of Developmentally Appropriate Practice. 

• Bulotsky-Shearer et al. (2024), large-scale implementation study demonstrating that high-fidelity Pyramid Model programs reduce challenging behavior and improve social competence through coaching and systemic supports. 

• Clarified equity rationale: explicitly state that token-based systems often target children deemed “challenging,” thereby amplifying teacher bias and the visibility of perceived difference. 

• Revised the Pyramid Model paragraph: 

• Added empirical support from Bulotsky-Shearer et al. (2024) following the sentence on fidelity. 

• Condensed the closing sentences into one summary line emphasizing that the Pyramid Model stands in philosophical contrast to token-based systems dependent on surveillance and compliance. 

• Formatting and traceability: All changes are highlighted in green in the revised manuscript for the reviewers’ convenience. Note that the paragraph order was rearranged for clarity and flow 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author(s) have addressed my comments and I have no further comments. 

Author Response

Reviewer 2 had no further comments. We thank and appreciate them for their time and service provided when reviewing our submission and revised submission.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I feel like the paper is greatly improved!

The only thing that remains confusing is the transition from the newly added part to the part that was already there. It currently reads as follows:

"Each of these approaches become liberatory not through their structure alone, but through the intentional dismantling of deficit ideologies and the centering of children’s full humanity. In these settings, educators are supported to reflect on their own implicit biases, to remain present in moments of emotional escalation, and to engage in guidance practices that affirm children rather than punish them. Relational discipline is not a soft alternative to control. It is a rigorous practice of attention, presence, and accountability. It acknowledges that real safety comes not from compliance, but from trust. 
Abolitionist early learning rejects this logic. It replaces surveillance with relationships. Educators who embrace abolitionist principles do not relinquish structure or boundaries. Instead, they redefine authority as relational, shared, and rooted in mutual respect..."

This wording makes it sound like abolitionists reject the idea that "real safety comes not from compliance but from trust." I think it's just a matter of inserting it without realizing what was next. Please rework that first sentence, and then I think it should be ready for publication.

Author Response

This was an excellent catch, and we appreciate the reviewer's careful reading of our revisions. To improve this transition, we have revised the sentence for clarity. Highlighted in blue, the opening of the paragraph mentioned now reads: "Building on this foundation, abolitionist early learning rejects the carceral belief that safety depends on compliance and control. It replaces surveillance with relationships." This revision maintains the continuity with the preceding paragraph and clarifies that abolitionist early learning extends, rather than contradicts, the idea that real safety emerges from trust.