Counteracting Bias and Advancing Justice in Early Childhood

All young children have the right to early learning opportunities in which they are positioned to learn, grow, and participate as valued members of their families, programs, and communities. However, substantial societal inequities directly impact access to equitable education for all children. Young children navigate social worlds in which racism, ableism, and many other intersecting oppressions operate to create inequitable systems. Although hateful rhetoric and outward displays of racism and ableism have increased in recent years (Crandall et al., 2018; Paluck & Chwe, 2017; Southern Poverty Law Center, 2016), they also work in neutralized and invisible ways (Annamma et al., 2013). Racism and ableism perpetuate implicitly biased interactions that pathologize young children based on race or ability or both. Whether explicit or implicit, bias can have real material, social-emotional, and psychological consequences in early childhood contexts—directly affecting the ways in which young children learn, grow, and become valued members of their communities. We created this topical issue as an intentional outlet for scholars to grapple with the ways early childhood special education might counteract bias and advance justice. The contributing articles of this topical issue provide critical insights into this important topic. In the introductory article, titled “Confronting Racism and Bias Within Early Intervention: The Responsibility of Systems and Individuals to Influence Change and Advance Equity,” Blanchard, Newton, Didericksen, Daniels, and Glosson critically examine the relationship between bioecological systems and each individual in mitigating systemic racism and bias. The authors acknowledge that racism and bias (such as ableist expectations) permeate early intervention (EI) and early childhood special education (ECSE) systems and outline a framework to counter their negative effects. Through discussing the equity-evolution framework, the article identifies ways to recognize where systems might currently be and areas to strive for more in becoming equity-empowered. When systems are equity-empowered, the authors argue that services are centered around those who have had disparate outcomes and focus on rooting out causes for differential outcomes. This article’s focus on system design and individual responsibility is important in pursuing equity through EI/ECSE research, professional language, and early childhood personnel preparation. In the second article, titled “Who is Centered? A Systematic Review of Early Childhood Researchers’ Descriptions of Children and Caregivers from Linguistically Minoritized Communities,” Soto-Boykin, Larson, Olszewski, Velury, and Feldberg delve into language ideologies undergirding descriptions of linguistically minoritized children and caregivers within ECSE research, and ways the ECSE field might counteract linguistic racism. The authors analyzed bilingualism-focused articles in three peer-reviewed journals in early childhood special education. Through their review of literature spanning over three decades, the authors found that deficit-based language was most often used to describe linguistically minoritized groups. The article offers critical recommendations for anti-racist ECSE research and practice that accounts for language ideologies, calling the field to position bilingualism as a strength. In the third article, “Pursuing Justice-Driven Inclusive Education Research: Disability Critical Race Theory (DisCrit) in Early Childhood,” Love and Beneke bring an intersectional lens to examining and counteracting bias in and through early childhood education research. The authors contend that racism and ableism intersect to define normalcy in early childhood, explicating the ways these ideologies dynamically circulate between macro-level institutions and micro-level interactions. Drawing on the theoretical tools of Disability Critical Race Theory (DisCrit; Annamma et al., 2013) the authors highlight how researchers might pursue justice-driven inclusive education research with and for young children and their families. Through a discussion of DisCrit’s seven tenets, the article illuminates how early childhood researchers can interrogate the ways interlocking systems of oppression manifest in everyday early childhood processes. Ultimately, Love and Beneke argue that such an examination affords possibilities for reflexively transforming unjust exclusionary early childhood systems. In the fourth article, “Counteracting Dysconscious Racism and Ableism Through Fieldwork: Applying DisCrit Classroom Ecology in Early Childhood Personnel Preparation,” Hancock, Morgan, and Holly apply DisCrit to teacher education contexts. The authors explicitly reframe bias as a matter of dysconsciousness (i.e., the uncritical acceptance of existing practices and structures). 1007068 TECXXX10.1177/02711214211007068Topics in Early Childhood Special EducationEditorial editorial2021