Category Archives: Early Childhood Education

What Japan’s Rental Family Industry Can Teach Us About Child Care in the United States

When I started reading Elif Batuman’s recent New Yorker piece on Japan’s rental family business, I expected it to be fascinating. What I didn’t expect was that it would offer striking insights on the current debate over credentials and compensation for early childhood workers in the United States. You should really read Batuman’s whole piece, but the key paragraph is here:

In a sense, the idea of a rental partner, parent, or child is perhaps less strange than the idea that childcare and housework should be seen as the manifestations of an unpurchasable romantic love. Patriarchal capitalism has arguably had a vested interest in promoting the latter idea as a human universal: as the Marxist psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich pointed out, with women providing free housework and caregiving, capitalists could pay men less. There were other iniquities, too. As [19th Century Utopian feminist Charlotte Perkins] Gilman observed, when caregiving becomes the exclusive, unpaid purview of wives and mothers, then people without families don’t have access to it: “only married people and their immediate relatives have any right to live in comfort and health.” Her solution was that the unpaid work incumbent on every individual housewife—nursery education, household-work management, food preparation, and so on—should be distributed among paid specialists, of both genders. What often happens instead is that these tasks, rather than becoming respected, well-paid professions, are foisted piecemeal onto socioeconomically disadvantaged women, freeing their more privileged peers to pursue careers.

Ultimately, this is the core of what the debate over early childhood teacher compensation and credentials is about: As I’ve written in the past, too often these debates still reflect a kind of assumption that childcare is a manifestation of “unpurchasable” love (and that because of that, people who care for children don’t deserve to be well-paid).

Due to that assumption and an unwillingness to confront the real costs of caring for children (and really, for one another), our society is unwilling to accord people who care for and educate young children the professional status or economic value they deserve. The resulting system works well for no one, but it means the costs of professional opportunity for the educated and affluent are born disproportionately by low-income, less-educated, often racial and ethnic minority women. The resulting high rates of early educator turnover in many settings are harmful for children’s development.

Changing this system is crucial to children’s development, gender equity, and social justice for early care and education workers. But in order to do so, we must confront both the underlying history and attitudes that continue to affect thinking about the value of caring for young children, and the economic/financing challenge of how to pay fairly for work society has historically expected to get free or at a great discount by oppressing women.

Until we can honestly engage both, we cannot expect anything meaningful to change.

Early Childhood Educator Profession and Competencies: Our Take on What “Power to the Profession” Gets Right and Wrong

Bellwether’s early childhood team regularly publishes research and analysis on the early childhood workforce and advises foundations and other clients seeking to improve early childhood teaching, strengthen the early childhood workforce, and support early childhood educators. In our work we routinely confront the deep disconnect between what research demonstrates about the importance of and skills required for high-quality early childhood teaching and the inconsistent standards, low compensation, and lack of professional prestige accorded to early educators.

two teachers read to preschool students

Courtesy of Allison Shelley/The Verbatim Agency for American Education: Images of Teachers and Students in Action.

In light of this, we’ve been avidly following the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) Power to the Profession process, which seeks to advance the early childhood field by defining a unifying framework for career pathways; knowledge; and competencies, qualifications, standards, and compensation.

This work is being carried out in iterative cycles by a Task Force representing 15 professional associations and organizations related to the early childhood field. In February, the Task Force released draft recommendations for Decision Cycles 3-5, which deal with qualifications requirements for early childhood educators and sources and pathways for acquiring competencies and credentials. The recommendations have sparked lively debate in the field. My overall take, shared with my colleagues Ashley LiBetti and Marnie Kaplan, is that the recommendations would represent progress in setting a baseline of training for early childhood educators in many roles and settings, but could also represent a step backwards in standards for teachers leading publicly funded pre-K classrooms serving 3- and 4-year-olds.

We also believe it’s crucial that any conversation about qualifications for early childhood educators engage seriously with the need to improve quality of early childhood educator preparation programs — as well as the tensions and gaps in knowledge about how best to do so. These conversations also need to provide space for innovative thinking about new models for delivering preparation and training that meet the needs of current and prospective early educators with diverse life and professional experiences and prior education backgrounds.

Marnie, Ashley, and I published our full comments* on these recommendations here:screenshot of first page of Power to the Profession comments

You can learn what others are saying here or comment yourself by visiting NAEYC’s survey here.

Want to know more from Bellwether? Check out our recent research and reports on the Head Start workforce, what we know about coaching as a strategy to improve early childhood teaching quality, the role of community colleges in early childhood preparation, and what it would take to make equitable access to quality higher education a reality for all pre-K teachers.

*Note: The statements contained in this comment reflect the personal views of the authors, and should not be attributed to Bellwether Education Partners or any others within the organization. Bellwether does not take organizational positions except on issues that affect nonprofit organizations as a class.

Equitable Access to Quality Credentials For Pre-K Teachers: What Would it Take?

As Marnie noted last week, there’s a heated debate going on in early childhood policy circles about whether or not educators who work with young children need higher education credentials. By focusing on whether or not early childhood educators should be required to complete existing higher education pathways — namely bachelor’s degrees and state teacher certification programs — this debate largely misses the point.

We know that early childhood teaching is skilled, professional work, and that early childhood teachers need to master a complex array of skills and knowledge about child development, effective instructional practices for young children, and effective strategies for engaging families and supporting children with learning and development differences, among other things. Anybody who’s seen a great preschool teacher knows that this is highly complex work. At the same time, we also know that the higher education landscape is shifting, and the types of degrees, credentials, and pathways to higher education that exist in the future might look very different from what we assume higher education looks like today.

The question, then, is how to envision future postsecondary education systems and supports that enable early childhood educators to obtain the knowledge and skills they need in a high-quality, cost effective way that meets the unique needs of current and future early childhood workers and leads to better practice and improved results for kids. These are questions that Kevin Carey, an expert on higher education innovation and now the Vice President of Education Policy at New America, and I explored together in a paper nearly a decade ago. And it’s the focus of a new paper, co-authored by Lisa Guernsey, Emily Workman, and myself, released jointly by Bellwether and New America today.cover of Pre-K Teachers and Bachelor’s Degrees: Envisioning Equitable Access to High-Quality Preparation Programs

Rather than trying to adjudicate the question of whether early childhood teachers should have degrees, the paper (which focuses primarily on pre-K teachers working with 3- and 4-year-olds in publicly funded settings) draws on interviews with experts in the field and a convening that New America and Bellwether co-hosted last fall to describe the strategies that would be required to increase the number of pre-K teachers with degrees, while ensuring the quality and accessibility of postsecondary programs for pre-K teachers; providing supports for current early childhood teachers to successfully complete postsecondary programs; and maintaining the racial, cultural, and ethnic diversity of the pre-K teaching workforce. The paper also surfaces six crucial areas and themes in need of further research and innovation in the field, including:

  1. More strategies to improve the quality of bachelor’s degree and teacher preparation programs for pre-K teachers
  2. More sophisticated approaches for defining the “early childhood specialization” of a bachelor’s degree program
  3. A deeper understanding of the implications of teacher licensure for pre-K teachers
  4. Reflection on how to motivate higher education institutions to revamp their programs
  5. Strategies for recruiting and retaining the next generation of pre-K teachers
  6. A continued push for improving compensation and workplace quality for pre-K teachers

We’ll be discussing these themes further at a forum at New America this afternoon, and on this blog, social media, and future Bellwether and New America publications in the coming weeks and months. I hope you join the conversation (and you can watch the forum streaming at New America here)!

Community Colleges Have an Important Role to Play in Transforming the Early Childhood Workforce

You may have noticed recent media attention focused on the issue of whether early childhood educators need college degrees. Proponents argue that degrees will lead to greater respect and compensation for early childhood educators and ultimately better results for children. Opponents argue degree requirements are unlikely to increase wages and will hurt the diversity of the early childhood workforce.

But no one is discussing the type of programs early childhood educators are likely to attend — let alone considering the quality of these programs.

Here’s what we know: most early childhood educators looking to obtain a degree attend community college. There are many reasons for this. Community college is affordable and attractive to early childhood educators juggling work and family responsibilities. Beyond practical reasons, early childhood educators attend community college because they have few other choices — the majority of early childhood degree programs in the U.S. are located at two-year institutions.

My new report, “It Takes a Community: Leveraging Community College Capacity to Transform the Early Childhood Workforce,” examines the critical role community colleges play in preparing early childhood educators, details the various challenges these institutions face in helping early educators obtain degrees, and identifies best practices that can address these challenges.

In the last three years since the National Academy of Medicine published “Transforming the Workforce for Children Birth Through 8: A Unifying Foundation,” there has been increased interest in how community colleges can contribute to increasing the number of lead teachers with bachelor’s degrees. It Takes a Community offers recommendations for community college leaders, early childhood advocates, and policymakers seeking to maximize the potential of community colleges to support professional development and credential attainment for early childhood educators.

The paper highlights that any realistic discussion of transforming the early childhood workforce must understand the key role community colleges play in shaping the early childhood workforce. Ultimately, policymakers interested in transforming the early childhood workforce must understand the community college landscape and adopt a clear vision for the role community colleges will play in preparing and developing early childhood workers.

(For more discussion of these issues, tune into a livestream on Monday, February 26th of a panel discussion hosted by New America. I’ll be joined by Shayna Cook of New America, Kathy Glazer of the Virginia Early Childhood Foundation, Sue Russell, of the T.E.A.C.H. Early Childhood® National Center, and Jeneen Interlandi of New York Times Magazine.)

What We Can — and Can’t — Learn From New Jersey to Improve Pre-K Teacher Training and Pay

teacher chalkboard word cloudShould pre-K teachers have degrees? A recent New York Times Magazine article looks at both some of the challenges facing early childhood teachers and the debate over whether or not policymakers should raise education requirements for them. I explored these issues further last week in U.S. News & World Report — but I also wanted to comment on the Times piece’s coverage of New Jersey’s Abbott pre-K program.

Times author Jeneen Interlandi highlights New Jersey’s Abbott pre-K program, which both requires all pre-K teachers to have a bachelor’s degree and pays them comparably with public school teachers. This practice is in sharp contrast with the norm of low education requirements and pay in many other early childhood settings. A little background here: In the 1990s, a court first ordered New Jersey to offer universal pre-K to three- and four-year-olds in thirty-one high-poverty districts and, later, to ensure that teachers in those pre-K programs held both a bachelor’s degree and state certification. As Interlandi argues, the strategies New Jersey used to meet that requirement offer lessons for other efforts to elevate the skills and training of early childhood teachers.

Yet, as someone who’s studied New Jersey’s Abbott program, I fear that the article misses some key points about it that have implications for what policymakers can take away here:

1. Pre-K is pretty much the only part of the Abbott program with evidence of demonstrable, lasting benefits. New Jersey’s Abbott preK was the result of the long-running Abbott v. Burke school finance litigation. Besides mandating pre-K, various Abbott decisions required the state of New Jersey to increase spending in poor districts, repair school facilities and reduce overcrowding, and cover costs of supplemental services to address the needs of children in concentrated poverty. Billions of dollars have been spent on these efforts. Yet there is no clear evidence that they resulted in improved outcomes for students in high-poverty. Abbott Pre-K, however, is the exception.

Interlandi writes: “Abbott studies show fade-out effects, albeit less significant ones than in many other preschool studies.” This statement, while technically correct, underplays the evidence of Abbott pre-K’s results. Research shows that Abbott children made meaningful gains in pre-K — and that a portion of those gains persisted through at least 5th grade.

Interlandi is correct that the magnitude of Abbott pre-K advantage diminished over time, as some degree of fade-out is to be expected over time from any intervention. And, in the context of the Abbott results (or lack thereof) more broadly, the Abbott pre-K results are quite striking. Put another way, the Abbott pre-K results, combined with other evidence on quality early childhood programs, suggest that a marginal education dollar is more likely to generate results if spent on pre-K than if simply added to general education budgets.

2. New Jersey’s pre-K program is expensive — but so is education in New Jersey generally. Interlandi reports that New Jersey spends about $14,000 per child on pre-K — more than double the typical state spending on pre-K. The implication is that requiring pre-K teachers to have a bachelor’s degree is really expensive. Continue reading