What Does Higher Education Need to Do to Regain Its Stature as a Gateway to the ECE Profession?

By Marjorie Kostelnik

Introduction to the Theme of Higher Education

Suggestive of its prominence in early childhood education’s (ECE) thorny knot, the role of higher education in preparing the workforce has been discussed in the pieces extending beyond those identified in this theme section. They have covered topics such as potential impacts of uniform credentialing (Jason Sachs, Albert Wat, Sherri Killins Stewart) and leaps in self-growth and personal esteem gained by early educators furthering their studies and skills (Tracy Ehlert, Jamal Berry). Others focused on variability in quality among teacher preparation programs as well as the skewed relationship between theory and practice that students often experience (Amy Rothschild, Tammy Mann). While some pieces scrutinized access and status barriers of two-year and four-year degrees (Luis Hernandez, Alberto Mares, Fabienne Doucet), others explored issues of content relevance in regard to ECE and child populations with which graduates may work (Maurice Sykes, Laura Bornfreund). Finally, students’ need for higher education funding and other supports, as well as a lack of diversity in higher education among faculty and students are posed as significant challenges for academic institutions and the field as a whole (Tammy Mann). Those in higher education clearly have a lot to think about regarding ECE.

Indeed, Sally Holloway maintains that the education of early childhood teachers needs to be transformed. Similarly, Tammy Mann noted that all our efforts to transform the field in other ways will be for naught unless “ECE’s higher education programs can be counted on to well prepare all of the field’s early childhood educators.” She challenged us to “aggressively examine the barriers that keep higher education at all levels from changing its content and approach to teacher preparation.”

Expanding the Conversation

Responding to these issues, this theme section’s overarching question drives us to probe two dilemmas more deeply. First, what obstacles stand in the way of post-secondary education playing a more central role in developing ECE as a recognizable field of practice? Second, what does higher education need to change and what can it build on to more effectively prepare early childhood educators?

Much good ECE work occurs in two-year and four-year institutions. Too often, though, this work is characterized by fragmentation as well as rigid boundaries among programs, disciplines, and the populations being addressed. Students seeking to learn about working with young children quickly discover that classes dealing with “early childhood” are scattered among various academic homes. Courses are offered at different levels and by faculty whose backgrounds vary considerably, even when the course descriptions sound very much the same. Further, preparation is distributed among CDA, AA, bachelor’s, and master’s credentials. The result is a confusing alphabet soup for aspiring practitioners.

In addition, in many institutions, early childhood development (ECD) and early childhood education (ECE) refer to different fields altogether. Treated as distinct entities, they are located in their own departments and colleges. Higher education institutions also often segregate academic programs, faculty, practicum placements, accreditation standards, and research emphases into disparate age-focused categories: birth to age two, three to four years, and five years on up.

These practices lead to differentiated cadres of practitioners who seldom see themselves as members of the same profession. Infant-toddler and kindergarten educators, for instance, may see no relationship to one another in terms of their education or future work. Instead, they develop unique professional identities, adopt different professional heroes and heroines, acquire idiosyncratic vocabularies, and demonstrate distinct and sometimes conflicting practices. From the very start, ECE preparation programs promote division rather than cohesion.

This division creates a significant barrier to a coherent and recognizable field of ECE practice. With the goal of coherence in mind, those in higher education needs to move beyond tweaking the system (such as adding or subtracting a course here and there) to pursuing genuine reinvention of ECE programs—a reinvention that results in ECE preparation systems that are more comprehensive, more interconnected, and more collaborative. Importantly, institutions can immediately begin active pilot work in this regard. I know this from my experiences as a former dean at the University of Nebraska.

Colleges of education and human development or education and human sciences are already in existence nationwide. Typically, ECD, ECE, and elementary education operate side by side, sometimes acknowledging each other by sharing a few courses, but rarely offering coherent programs that include the entire age-range encompassed by ECE. Instead, colleges could experiment with creating more unified programs within and across their majors. Creating a seamless interdisciplinary core that progresses from beginning to more advanced work across these programs would be in keeping with the Institute of Medicine/National Research Council’s Transforming the Workforce for Children Birth Through Age 8 recommendations.¹ As the people in the field, though, ECE has yet to come to grips with what these recommendations really mean for higher education programs and curricula—and for the improved preparation of early childhood educators.

Obviously higher education is not the sole answer to the many dilemmas the field will face if it chooses to support the comprehensive and integrative field of practice proposed by Power to the Profession.² But it is a significant player, and those of us committed to higher education’s unique contributions to effective practice need to challenge higher education to go beyond tweaking to reinventing its ECE programs.

As in any big issue, many questions remain unanswered. Yet, higher education is trending in ways that suit the ECE field’s needs. For instance, an emphasis on interdisciplinary work is on the rise in many fields³ and strategies for achieving these aims are being actively investigated.⁴ It is especially encouraging that there are calls to reexamine academic guidelines for reappointment, tenure, and promotion to be sure they take into account the work of faculty who address educational challenges by working in teams or across traditional academic boundaries.⁵

It is within our grasp to create a more cohesive, diverse, and supportive field of practice for children and their early educators. The time is ripe for higher education to make changes that support our field’s quest for coherence, and we have the means to keep moving forward, the intellect to bridge conceptual chasms, and the need to do so.

This task is not for the faint of heart. I believe, however, that it is both possible and absolutely necessary.

Questions for Further Exploration

As the “False Choices” discussions continue, here are additional questions to probe:

1. How can higher education address ECE more coherently across professional divides within the academy?
2. How might higher education enhance the use of laboratory schools as dynamic sites of training and research that contribute to the coherence conversation around professional practice?
3. How might diverse accrediting bodies work more closely together to support coherence and consistency across certain areas of ECE practice programs?

Moving into Action

The work envisioned here must be carried out with genuine willingness to reinvent and co-create new approaches. Here are three possibilities for moving into action to achieve greater academic coherence in ECE:

1. Look toward collaborations between early childhood education and special education for examples of models and practical means for creating greater pedagogical coherence across disciplines and ages of children. Create new programs that bridge ECD and ECE with these models in mind.
2. Examine the hard boundaries that separate ECE and ECD and then develop semi-permeable ones that enable a flow of ideas, instruction, and credits that represent more coherent approaches to learning about and teaching young children.
3. Encourage existing colleges of education and human development/human sciences to take on the challenge of creating more comprehensive credentialed programs for early childhood educators that cross multi-unit boundaries in substantive ways.

Marjorie Kostelnik, PhD, is a professor at University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

By Sally Holloway

In her piece, pre-K teacher Amy Rothschild shared her contrasting preparation and education experiences and alerted us to the need to unpack what the letters BA and MA mean in practice. Then Laura Bornfreund, in her piece, suggested that more effort needs to be directed toward “strengthening and aligning early childhood educators’ preparation and education with the field’s expanding knowledge base, growing understanding of essential practitioner competencies, and increasing need for viable clinical experiences” but that this “outcome depends on finding unified agreement on the knowledge and competencies required of early childhood educators.”

Rothschild’s and Bornfreund’s conclusions represent more than just personal viewpoints. According to a discussion paper published by the National Academy of Medicine, “disparities in access to high-quality early care and education exist across socioeconomic status, ethnicity, immigrant status, and geography. These disparities are in part driven by misalignment or inadequate program standards across all care and education settings, differing professional standards for the early childhood workforce, and inequitable resources allocated to implement high-quality care and education in all settings.”⁶

I don’t think I stand alone in thinking that the preparation and education of early childhood educators needs to be transformed so Bornfreund’s aspiration can be achieved. Early childhood education (ECE) higher education faculty need to step forward and begin aggressively addressing disparities in content, pedagogy, and access.

As teacher educators, we are charged with preparing the ECE workforce, ensuring that our graduates meet and exceed the field’s practice standards. Yet at present, degree programs are like shattered mirrors, reflecting broken, scattered images of ECE as a field of practice without clarity or stability. Some programs focus on pre-K, offering little birth-to-age three content. Others focus on child development with little student teaching or curriculum coursework. Still others focus on family policy and child advocacy. Higher education faculty, especially at the bachelor’s degree level, need to figure out how to design their ECE programs so they can be assembled as intact mirrors that reflect ECE’s needs as a field of practice.

Recognized professions⁷ achieve this consistency through accreditation of their higher education programs. The Power to the Profession task force,⁸ a collaborative effort focused on ECE’s advancement as a profession, is developing updated preparation competencies for ECE’s higher education programs. Once approved, teacher educators should vigorously advocate for AA and BA teacher preparation programs to become accredited. Shifting this expectation into a requirement has the potential to create a pipeline of well-prepared early childhood educators regardless of the higher education program setting.

Creating consistent content throughout ECE preparation programs will not, however, address all dimensions of our field’s “thorny knot” of preparation and education, compensation and status, diversity and inclusion. In Washington State, members of the Early Childhood Teacher Preparation Council are working on four strategies for responding to our students’ needs as learners:

1. Removing barriers to accessing higher education. Clear pathways that make the process of degree attainment more meaningful, transparent, and possible are needed. This involves offering an increasing variety of entry and exit points. We have found recruitment and retention improves when transition supports like these are available: initial courses in students’ first languages; tutoring for basic education courses; proactive advising to help students stay on track; and help obtaining scholarship funding.
2. Tailoring delivery of ECE programs to reflect students’ and employers’ needs. Courses are increasingly being offered in a variety of modes: online, hybrids, and traditional face-to-face. Employers and stakeholders are asked to serve on ECE program advisory committees, thereby offering college personnel with feedback on current demands and providing guidance regarding delivery logistics. Additionally, since higher education relies on community child care and early learning centers to provide its students with welcoming practicum sites staffed with reflective supervisors, it is in everyone’s best interest to support on-site supervisors’ development and to reward programs that mentor students.
3. Bridging the gap between research and practice. Simply imparting information is not sufficient. Students need to see theories in action, see best practice modeled. Ultimately, they need to be able to apply what’s being learned in real situations. College faculty work to hear their students say, “now I know why that works so well with children.”
4. Moving beyond cultural responsiveness and cultural competencies to equipping students with culturally sustaining practices. Implicit biases and restrictive approaches have to be deliberately addressed. Faculty are continually exploring new ways of sustaining First Nations’ cultures, for example, through the use of playground designs that highlight natural materials, demonstrate native art, and encourage native language.

I dream of the day I say, “Yes, enter the early childhood education profession. You will find it a challenging, rewarding, and meaningful way to be respected in our community and fairly compensated.” For that day to come, we need a preparation system that ensures the ECE workforce is well educated and accountable for consistently demonstrating the field’s standards, regardless of the program setting. Those in higher education needs to step up to the challenge of making consistent quality programs of study accessible while also offering responsive student supports. Then, ECE’s mirror image will match its responsibilities, and higher education faculty can confidently recruit and prepare the competent, diverse workforce our children and families deserve.

Sally Holloway is the ECE project director at Whatcom Community College in Bellingham, Washington, and co-chair of Washington State’s Early Childhood Teacher Preparation Council.

By Laura Bornfreund

Moving Beyond False Choices' second author cohort appears largely to agree that early childhood educators play an important role in young children’s learning and development. Yet these authors also raise issues needing increased attention if early childhood education (ECE) is to unify around more rigorous expectations for higher education degrees and credentials.

Three issues in particular are worth further exploration:

• the role of family child care providers in the ECE ecosystem,
• how well higher education programs equip early educators with what they need, and
• systemic barriers related to race, gender, and class.

Family child care providers: The need for a sector-specific solution

In 2018, Child Trends reported that 97 percent of child care settings are homes, not centers.⁹ Of those homes, 27.5 percent are family child care providers who receive payment for their services. Based on 2016 data from HHS, this represents approximately 1,037,000 family child care providers as compared to 129,000 child care centers.¹⁰ Yet paradoxically, much of the field’s current discussions and efforts to advance ECE’s workforce are focused on child care centers and public schools.

Jessica Sanger stated in her piece that “limited recognition and compensation [is] accorded FCC educators given their critical contribution to the delivery system of early childhood education (ECE),” an assessment confirmed by the above findings. Since family child care providers have responsibility for deepening—and sometimes even providing—the foundation for future learning for many children, just like their colleagues in center- and school-based settings, they are receiving too little recognition for their important role.

It’s no easy task to assist center-based child care educators acquire the knowledge and competencies necessary for meeting young children’s needs. Doing so for family child care providers presents an entirely different scenario given their unique challenges. As Josephine Queen notes for us,

The family child care providers I know tend to be working or lower class, living paycheck to paycheck. This makes attaining a formal education degree financially out of reach for most of us. Some also are single parents and lack resources to pay for child care while attending classes. Plus, running a home-based business means few of us can carve out time to gain the required practical experience and requisite hours needed for degrees since, typically, working in one’s own home child care under one’s own supervision and tutelage is not credit-bearing.

Naming these issues, as Maurice Sykes cautions us, mustn’t be used to cast blame. Instead, they should alert us to the fact that real challenges exist and underscore that acknowledging them is essential to forging viable solutions for increasing this sector‘s level of education and credentials.

Once we set the right standards for educational and credential requirements and find effective strategies to assist current and future educators meet them, we’re done, right?

Not so fast.

It’s no secret that too many ECE degree programs leave early childhood educators without the knowledge and competencies for effectively interacting with young children. Amy Rothschild explains that she sought out a non-traditional teacher preparation program because it provided extensive practical experiences linked to observations and insights from experienced early childhood educators. To earn her master's degree, she also took courses at a university, and recounts that, “the university courses were too often rote. I felt like I was paying the piper, rather than learning the art of teaching or even the nuts and bolts of practice. Everyone seemingly passed with flying colors just by showing up.”

Setting preparation and education requirements and extending supports for those seeking to meet expanding expectations clearly is insufficient by itself. In fact, these investments may even be detrimental if not linked with educator preparation programs capable of ensuring that early childhood educators

• know the latest science of child development and early learning, including their connections to practice;
• are immersed in content areas such as early math and science;
• have ample opportunities to develop practice skills in a range of settings; and
• engage in meaningful discussions about challenges children confront as learners.

Finally, Maurice Sykes calls on us to shift our conversational focus from adults to children when it comes to teacher degrees and compensation. He contends that “every child needs and deserves a highly qualified, highly effective, and highly competent early childhood educator.” He also reminds us that throughout U.S. history low-income men and women and people of color have successfully attained degrees, leading him to ask, “what’s all the hullabaloo?”

ECE and society at large do have obligations to address systemic barriers related to race, gender, and class that promulgate negative assumptions about what early childhood educators and the children whose learning and development they foster can and cannot accomplish. The challenges too many people face when attempting to advance their education need to be alleviated.

And then there’s the ever-present policy question of who’s going to pay for it.

Transforming the Financing of Early Care and Education proposes a price tag of $140 billion,¹¹ which as Luis Hernandez noted in his post, is a number politicians are unlikely to embrace. Still, this figure at least gives us an estimation of what is needed to develop a competent workforce, inclusive of costs for transforming higher education, supporting degree attainment by ECE’s current workforce, and providing an appropriate level of compensation.

However, while an important part of the equation, increased financing alone won’t ensure every child has well-prepared and highly effective early childhood educators. First, ECE as a field of practice, policymakers, and other stakeholders must learn to value the abilities of early childhood educators to create innovative, sustainable solutions for attaining more rigorous education and credentials—a viewpoint also articulated by Sherri Killins Stewart in an earlier post.

Second, still more effort needs to be directed toward strengthening and aligning early childhood educators’ preparation and education with the field’s expanding knowledge base, growing understanding of essential practitioner competencies, and increasing need for viable clinical experiences. This outcome, though, depends on finding agreement for the knowledge and competencies required of early childhood educators, as well as state incentives—including funding—to incentivize preparation programs to change. Third, strategies must be developed for overcoming barriers of race, gender, and class that have limited past progress and will inhibit future possibilities.

Only if these three oft-overlooked threads are addressed will ECE be able to unify around more rigorous expectations for higher education degrees and credentials and give every child access to the educators they need and deserve.

Laura Bornfreund is the director of early & elementary education policy with the Education Policy program at New America.

By Tammy Mann

Like Maurice Sykes, I readily acknowledge my endorsement of high standards for educational preparation as an essential ingredient for delivering high-quality early care and education (ECE) to young children from birth forward. I note birth here because when not explicitly stated, the mental model that most often comes to mind is a preschool child. Our solutions focus on what happens in the year or two before formal school entry instead of truly reflecting a birth forward perspective. The preschool mental model also shapes how we think about what it means to support early learning and development and the approaches necessary for preparing those engaged in this work. How this work benefits young children, after all, is the north star of why this conversation matters.

I have been fortunate to experience ECE from many vantage points, and this has shaped my perspective on the challenges we face related to questions of preparation and education, compensation and status, and diversity and inclusion. Almost 10 years ago, I transitioned from talking about the intersection of research, practice, and policy at the national level to living this intersection’s impact in leading a large community-based organization. This work spans the “cradle to career continuum” and has been a real source of joy, to channel Luis Hernandez, and at times a challenge, too, as we strive to operate within the numerous quality and accountability systems (i.e., NAEYC accreditation, QRIS, CLASS, Head Start Performance Standards, state and local regulations) that surround our work. I could write a book on the exhaustion that stems from keeping up with countless rule changes and the unintended consequences too often generated for those on the frontlines of this work.

But rather than focus on all three components of the thorny issue that prompted this series, I want to focus on one that has only recently surfaced in other posts, namely those authored by Amy Rothschild and Sally Holloway. I believe an urgent and sharper focus on higher education is imperative if we are to transform the ECE workforce. To focus on whether or not those engaged in ECE actually want to improve or do better, as Sherri Killins Stewart aptly notes, diverts attention from critical issues associated with how well higher education programs prepare students for the hard work of teaching that Jason Sachs underscored for us.

Teaching is a practice-based profession, yet most higher education programs overwhelmingly focus on its theoretical underpinnings without also providing sufficient, direct learning opportunities in ECE settings so aspiring early educators can unpack how these theories shape the process of teaching across diverse populations of young learners. Additionally, Transforming the Workforce for Children Birth Through 8 highlights recent developments in instructional science that seem especially relevant when it comes to connecting research to practice within a developmentally appropriate framework.

Preparation programs also need to sharpen their focus on helping educators develop self-awareness about explicit and implicit bias and its impact on children’s identity development. Personal commitment to self-awareness in this regard should bear the same significance as medicine’s Hippocratic Oath. Our failure to address these practice issues does little to move the needle on better outcomes for all children, especially for those living in communities beset by economic and social challenges.

An unspoken, but nonetheless real barrier in our thinking about reforming higher education centers on long-held, implicit values held about what makes for “real education” and where this kind of education most likely takes place. To a certain extent, the debate over associate and bachelor’s degrees underscores this tension. Too many readily dismiss the idea that it’s possible to get an effective education at two-year institutions. Most see associate degrees as stepping-stones to earning a four-year degree. While it would seem unnatural to expect someone from either of these institutions to argue against the merits of their contributions to preparing early educators, this is where a great deal of energy is currently being spent. I’d argue that we should instead be analyzing the content and structure of programs at each level, and asking in what ways they’re contributing, or not, to helping students develop the competencies needed to excel at teaching young children. I suspect that if more time were spent focused on these kinds of questions, the improvements necessary for preparing and supporting infant and toddler educators, as just one example ripe for action, would readily be uncovered.

The time has come to aggressively examine the barriers that keep higher education at all levels from changing its content and approach to teacher preparation. For too long, our focus has centered on change targets such as increasing seats; intensifying the rigor of how programs and teachers are evaluated; and increasing requirements. But our more challenging change target—altering our implicit values and the preparation and support systems that result—also needs to be confronted.

My fear is that ratcheting up expectations for educators absent transformative improvements in preparation programs will only increase the difficulty of attracting motivated and talented individuals to educate and care for children during one of the most important developmental periods of their lives. Even if we fix financing, get compensation right, and ensure a diverse workforce, if the content and approach of teacher preparation hasn’t been altered, we still run the risk of too few children realizing their full potential. For me, this outcome is unacceptable.

Tammy Mann, PhD, is president & CEO of The Campagna Center.

By Anna Mercer-McLean

As a child care director, I often feel as if early childhood administrators walk a tightrope, starting at one end and staying continually alert to losing their footing before reaching the goals located at the rope’s other end. Early childhood education’s (ECE’s) aspirations regarding the relationship among preparation and education, compensation and status, and diversity and inclusion represent the brass bound ties holding the tightrope in place. Because the competition between and among these three strands is increasing, though, the field’s tightrope is becoming even more difficult to cross.

I believe my ability to navigate ECE’s tightrope as a child care administrator is possible because of my commitment to having a well-prepared teaching staff. While I have appreciated the views of the series’ authors who have preferred options other than four-year degrees for early educators, I am an advocate of the Institute of Medicine’s recommendation¹² promoting four-year degrees for lead teachers, and along with Sue Russell and Albert Wat, think this should be the standard set for early educators.

My program is always staffed by at least 75% Bachelors’ degreed teachers who have both preparation and experience in ECE. Contrary to Amy Rothchild’s and Fabienne Doucet’s views regarding our taken-for-granted assumptions about the meaning of BA degrees or Sherri Killins Stewart’s observation that early childhood educators in Massachusetts reported little connection between their newly minted degrees and their daily work, my lead teachers with BA degrees report notable differences in their practice.

These amazing early educators understand the importance of quality care and education. They rely on developmentally appropriate practices so children’s individual needs are continuously being met. They’ve become more observant of children’s developmental progression, teach with greater intentionality, and better support children’s social emotional learning. Their own cultural and educational values inspire them to want more for our children.

Yet as noted by Amy Rothschild, Sally Holloway, and Laura Bornfreund, problems of inconsistency, relevance, and access exist in teacher preparation programs. Sally Holloway’s contention that higher education faculty should assume more responsibility for early educators’ preparation by helping remove access barriers, if implemented, could help make ECE’s tightrope more navigable. Doing so would make it easier for early childhood educators and administrators to walk the tightrope because enrollment, ongoing student support, and consultation would be available to those choosing to earn two- and/or four-year degrees.

My program also benefits from having degreed early educators in a way too often overlooked. Because I no longer have to constantly work in orientation mode with my staff, I have a more secure tightrope and can redirect my attention to ensuring classrooms are well-resourced and offer professional development opportunities to increase and/or fine-tune educators’ competencies, skills, and knowledge.

Nonetheless, as a Master’s degree child care administrator with a well-respected program, similar to Tracy Ehlert’s experience, my pedigree hasn’t made me immune to comments, such as one from my own brother, that stereotypes my work as babysitting. Those of us who are part of ECE routinely find ourselves having to defend our status. Consequently, I found Sara Mead’s insight in this regard thought provoking, especially when the question of "What would it mean for ECE to be viewed as a professional field?” was posed, because she underscored the importance of values, beliefs, and assumptions in addition to credentials. I was particularly taken by her view that a fundamental expectation of professions is that those who work in the same profession see themselves as professionals and share a similar identity, including shared values and thinking.

Marica Cox Mitchell’s five non-negotiables for moving ECE beyond its rhetoric, therefore, will be essential for next step decision-making regarding ECE’s professionalism and will encourage early educators to risk moving further out on the field’s tightrope. I believe ECE’s professionalism will only be recognized when early educators gain mastery of the field’s practice competencies by developing the necessary skills and knowledge acquired through formal education accompanied by direct classroom experience and by advocating for competitive compensation commensurate with their education.

ECE needs a unified framework if it wishes to be recognized as a profession. Without formal education and, yes, competitive compensation for early educators, child care administrators will be stuck with navigating ECE’s tightrope with uncertainty and having to negotiate the consequences that accompany a tightrope whose brass bound ties are under increasing stress.

Too often, though, the voices of early educators and administrators are omitted from these field-defining conversations. Our experiences and insights bring perspectives too often overlooked or possibly not even known. Further, our views are essential for understanding potential accomplishments, as well as adversities, inherent to ECE’s movement toward degreed early childhood educators. The movement is accelerating because of the field’s need for better-educated practitioners who are regarded as professionals as indicated by their competence and societal status, including level of compensation. Following years of complacency, do we allow ECE’s tightrope to become increasingly challenging to cross or do we strive to achieve the full potential of our ECE profession by setting higher educational standards and demanding competitive compensation?

Anna Mercer-McLean is the director of Community School for People Under Six in Carrboro, North Carolina.

By Amy Rothschild

My experience as an early childhood educator both in public and private schools has taught me that formal teacher preparation offers many benefits, but that the quality of that preparation is vastly uneven. In the course of earning my master’s degree in early childhood education (ECE), I received detailed feedback on my teaching from mentors and corresponded with them in a shared journal. I also made paper plate masks of the Three Little Pigs. Nearly a decade into my career, I still have the observations from my mentors, but I discarded the paper plate masks before the Elmer’s glue had dried.

If, as suggested by Albert Wat, we may be inching towards consensus regarding the importance of four-year degrees and beyond, the question of what a degree represents looms large. If individuals, employers, or governments aim to invest in degrees, what will they be purchasing? Yet to be explored by this series is the question of what is needed to ensure degrees effectively educate adult learners, and through us, children.

When I graduated from college as an English major, I considered my options for becoming an early childhood educator. Accidents of birth and, more importantly, deliberate workings of politics and economics, helped me, a white woman with means, become a teacher very easily. Although preschool teaching was not the path my attorney parents had imagined for me, they nonetheless financially supported me. Consequently, I didn’t have to make the sacrifices so many frontline early childhood educators have to make, sacrifices that Sherri Killins Stewart pointedly details. I didn’t have to navigate the tricky path from support staff to lead teacher that Jamal Berry describes.

I decided to bypass traditional teacher preparation; I didn’t want to spend two years and tens of thousands of dollars in graduate programs friends had characterized as weak. But I also craved more than the six weeks of preparation that most alternative certification programs would provide.

So, I sought out a small apprenticeship program with the guiding philosophy “learn to teach by teaching.” I worked alongside and learned from experienced educators, gradually assuming teaching responsibility. My cohort formed a vibrant community of adult learners pursuing questions vital to our practice. I also decided to pursue the option of earning a master’s degree in tandem, thus securing the legitimacy and mobility that degrees provide.

That step involved taking a few courses at a university highly regarded for its teacher preparation—and unfortunately that’s where the paper plate masks came in. Where the apprenticeship model was supportive, in-depth, and rigorous, the university courses were too often rote. I felt like I was paying the piper, rather than learning the art of teaching or even the nuts and bolts of practice. Everyone seemingly passed with flying colors just by showing up. Instructors enacted bias, with one proclaiming the work of Ezra Jack Keats “too dark” for kindergarteners, and no matter the course title, lectures often devolved into scattershot discussions of the dangers of posting about students on social media.

It might be easy to dismiss my experience with this traditional coursework as anecdotal and isolated, but I fear it is not. At the same time that policy makers¹³ and many ECE thought leaders place great hope in degree programs, many outside the field are concerned about trends in higher education generally: the rise of poorly regulated for-profit institutions,¹⁴ the increasingly corporate structure of public institutions,¹⁵ growing reliance on graduate students and adjunct faculty,¹⁶ rising student debt,¹⁷ and lack of accountability for student outcomes.¹⁸

To these challenges, add those associated with training teachers. Our field’s core knowledge and competencies remain hotly debated, and schools of education have a history of distancing themselves from classroom practice. In The Allure of Order,¹⁹ Harvard researcher Jal Mehta paints a picture of how university schools of education originally “sought to distance themselves from applied questions in order to increase their status,” noting that, “in particular, questions about pedagogy were shunned as potential contaminants because of teaching’s association with low-level, women’s work.” I observed this tension directly. Few of the traditional courses I took merged theory and practice in intentional ways, mostly leaning on one at the expense of the other.

I didn’t have to take on any debt or make great personal sacrifice to complete my graduate degree program. Most educators, though, must do both. Educators should receive the requisite financial and other supports outlined by Sue Russell to take on advanced training. And teacher education programs should meaningfully advance early childhood educators’ preparation.

We teach children that letters have meaning, and it depends on all of us to figure out what exactly the letters BA and MEd signify.

Amy Rothschild teaches a mixed-age Pre-K and kindergarten class at Capitol Hill Day School, a Pre-K through eighth grade private school in Washington, D.C.