Do Education and Degrees Matter?

By Rebecca Kantor and Kristie Kauerz

Introduction to the Theme of Degrees and Education

Do education and degrees matter for early childhood educators? As a field, we have little agreement about the answer to this, a stalemate that dates back 20 years to the National Research Council (NRC) proposal¹ that the BA be the baseline for early care and education (ECE) teachers. In this theme section’s nine pieces, authors’ opinions range from a definitive, “a four-year degree should be the standard” (Albert Wat, Phil Acord) to an equally definitive position that, “given the choice between Violette (a less-than high school educated caregiver) and a caregiver with a college diploma, I would choose Violette every time.” Fabienne Doucet’s position is that Violette’s competencies and caring commitment are what count and cannot be guaranteed by a degree. Similarly, Jamal Berry notes that the necessity for ECE teachers to love children and have a growth mindset “up-ends” the notion that degrees are all-important. Other authors put contingencies on the degree, arguing its importance only for lead teachers or teachers of three- and four-year-olds. Yet, evidence is mounting² that degrees increase program quality and higher quality leads to better child outcomes.

Consensus does exist, however, on issues of racial and gender equity. The ECE field currently has important and laudatory diversity. As Doucet and Luis Hernandez caution, requiring bachelor degrees risks excluding some, plus degrees have not necessarily been wealth generators for Black Americans.³ We agree that the field—indeed, society writ large—must be honest and vigilant about institutional racism, implicit bias, and who benefits from which decisions in building ECE’s workforce. Further, we agree that requiring a degree, given current barriers to higher education, could create the same problematic predominantly white teacher workforce that exists in K–12 education.

For this, and other reasons, Alberto Mares cautions that degrees should not be seen as a silver bullet solution. And Carol Brunson Day suggests those in the field should take an incremental, tiered approach to promote formal education for all ECE teachers.

Ultimately, the fundamental question underlying the pieces in this section is: can we design an inclusive system that builds a workforce with degrees and preserves the diversity we value?

Expanding the Conversation

To address this question, the conversation must expand. To put our stake in the ground: we believe formal education and degrees are essential. Degrees professionalize the field, drive policymakers’ and the public’s buy-in for higher compensation, and unequivocally reflect the importance of working with young children.

What about ECE teachers themselves? What do they want? A recent survey of ECE teachers (both center- and home-based) in Colorado makes clear that they want a degree.⁴ In the sample surveyed, 66 percent were not currently enrolled in a degree program, but 87 percent said they would pursue a degree if provided support.

Often, we hear the argument that higher ed is ill-prepared to support diversity and to provide specialized preparation programs that include intensive, authentic engagement in quality settings with meaningful support and feedback (i.e., practice-based residency approaches). As higher education stakeholders, we believe an inclusive system that builds a workforce with degrees and that preserves diversity can be designed. To date, however, the field’s approach has been rigid and scientific, striving to definitively identify the mix of credits, content, competencies, and accountability that will produce a predictably high-quality workforce. What if we, instead, addressed this dilemma not as scientists with the goal of prescriptive policy but as design thinkers with the goal of innovation and adaptability? An iterative creative process, design-thinking⁵ originated to solve problems in ways that are human-centered, innovative, and iterative. Design thinkers seek a deep understanding of, and an empathy for, those for whom they design products or services.

The design process challenges long-held assumptions and presumes that revision and going “back to the drawing board” are necessary parts of the process. Are those in the field willing to challenge these assumptions, revise systems previously intended to be definitive solutions, and let go of those not serving educators, families, and children? The field’s fragmentation reflects its tendency to add new solutions and bureaucracies, without ever letting any go.

One long-held assumption in ECE, for example, is the forced choice between requiring degrees or valuing teachers’ love for children, growth mindset, and competencies. The irony is that the ECE field is grappling with the same issues for its teachers as it is for the children it serves. For both, there exists a vehement commitment to preserve the value of social-emotional skills and well-being, while policymakers clamber for academic skills and return on investment.

The time has come to declare that, for children, academic preparation (i.e., aptitude in reading and math) is just as important as self-esteem, self-regulation, and joyful engagement in learning. And, simultaneously, for adults, academic preparation (and/or progressive attainment of formal education) is just as important as self-worth, growth mindset, and joyful engagement in learning. In other words, we should increase the number of Violettes who also have college diplomas.

Another assumption is that our best return on investment is “protection,” that is, protecting children and families from poor quality through ratings of settings. Over the past two decades, the ECE field has created vast new Quality Rating & Improvement Systems (QRIS) bureaucracies in most states, on top of an already vast web of licensing rules. Commanding billions of dollars across the country,⁶ research⁷ suggests that QRIS have not improved children’s learning experiences to an extent that significantly correlates to improved child outcomes.

Contemplate instead the possibility of redirecting these billions of dollars to fund degree attainment or ECE teachers’ compensation and other incentives to engage in professional learning and formal education. We believe the time has come to invest in “professionalism” and the assumption that more qualified teachers increase quality and that what’s needed is a system that supports teachers’ attainment of more education.

Are we willing to give up strategies that no longer serve our constituents? While this will take time, we agree with Carol Brunson Day when she says we can’t “just get straight from here to there.” We must not let perfect be the enemy of good enough. We must get started.

Questions for Further Exploration

• To date, the ECE workforce’s career pathways have been lined with professional development, the CDA, competency frameworks, and associate’s degrees. How do we redesign the system, supporting teachers’ advancement to four-year degrees, without wrecking this good work? Can we increase access to higher education for underpaid ECE teachers and for teachers of color simultaneous with degree attainment?
• Innovative institutions of higher education use “credit by evaluation of prior learning"⁸ to link the pathways of non-credit professional development and academic credit. Others are exploring “micro-credentials,” used in other industries as smaller pieces of learning that stack to credit, as more manageable and more affordable ways to make progress toward a degree. Can higher ed embrace these approaches that align with the work/family lives of diverse educators, provide more access to starting a degree, and build teachers’ confidence in doing so? Does the movement to digital delivery of higher ed coursework open new avenues for flexible, cost-effective degree attainment? Though delivered in online formats, how do we not replicate rote approaches to teacher education?

Moving into Action

Pockets of design thinking and innovation exist. For example, in our home state of Colorado, we are designing and iterating a system⁹ that supports multiple on-ramps to formal education to support educators while also sustaining the field’s diversity. A critical piece of this work is the Colorado ECE Competencies Framework¹⁰ that is at the center of all workforce development initiatives including professional development, CDA-, AA-, or BA-oriented opportunities. No single mandate exists for all teachers; instead, we recognize non-credit professional learning and formal education in a single system of workforce development.

The systems design challenge we now face is connecting the lines between professional development and academic credit. Otherwise, ECE educators will have hundreds of professional learning hours that do not advance their careers, and we risk creating a two-tier professional culture. Consistent with design thinking, Colorado is shifting, albeit slowly, to prototype, implement, revise, iterate, and implement again. Colorado is not alone; other states, like Virginia,¹¹ are similarly innovating.

Rebecca Kantor, EdD, is dean of the School of Education & Human Development at the University of Colorado Denver.

Kristie Kauerz, EdD, is director of the National P-3 Center at the University of Colorado Denver.

By Albert Wat

Could it be that a consensus is brewing within the infamously fractured early care and education field?

It’s dangerous to extrapolate from a few data points, but almost all authors in this series so far agreed that attaining higher degrees and credentials is an important part of an early childhood educator’s preparation. Notably, these voices include practitioners and leaders in family child care programs, center-based programs, and public school systems. The apparent agreement among them belies headlines from major news outlets¹² questioning the wisdom of requiring early childhood educators to have a college degree.

For example, Tracy Ehlert and Jamal Berry both described the impact that pursuing higher education has on early childhood educators’ growth and self-respect as professionals and individuals. In addition to noting the impact on personal growth, Sue Russell made the case that attaining higher degrees opened doors for women, framing investment in the early childhood education (ECE) workforce as a feminist and social justice issue. Sherri Killins Stewart’s support for degrees and credentials rested on their leading to more proficient practice and putting in place policies that respect existing educators’ experiences and address the barriers faced in making educational and professional advancements.

So if a consensus is emerging that having early childhood educators with college degrees and formal preparation is more desirable than the status quo, how can the field get from here to there? On that question, there’s less agreement. In fact, Jason Sachs and Berry lay out two very different paths. Sachs provocatively proposes that all pre-k for three- and four-year-olds, and consequently their teachers, become part of the public education system—thereby achieving parity with other K–12 educators in terms of education, compensation, and benefits. This resembles the strategy implemented by the Abbott pre-k program in New Jersey. Like other public-school teachers, Abbott pre-k teachers are required to have a bachelor degree and certification in ECE. Whether teaching in public schools or ECE centers, all are paid the same as public school teachers.¹³ (Center-based teachers do not get the same benefits, however.)

The Abbott program continues to be recognized as a model for professionalizing the ECE workforce. Because New Jersey made intensive investments¹⁴ to assist existing educators in attaining higher education degrees, the proportion of early childhood educators with BAs and teacher certification increased from about one-third to almost 100 percent in six years. Yet, as Killins Stewart reminds us, these investments and supports operate in a society in which women, people of color, and low-income individuals face systemic barriers to personal and professional advancement. Consequently, by themselves, well-intentioned policies may not be enough if educators have no role in crafting them and if a strategy for removing or mitigating barriers isn’t also present. Otherwise, ECE runs the risk of losing the current workforce’s diversity and perpetuating inequities in the system. Indeed, as Sachs acknowledges, the public education system in which he would integrate early childhood educators struggles with an increasing lack of diversity.¹⁵

Berry presents a different pathway than Sachs’ path. He doesn’t minimize the importance of higher education, but he advocates hiring early childhood educators who have a passion for the field plus a “growth mindset” and then providing them with scaffolds that build on their strengths so they can become more proficient and attain higher degrees.

Each path has its tradeoffs and costs financial and otherwise.

Berry’s path attends to the issues of diversity and equity that Stewart highlights, although it’s unclear how compensation will follow. His approach relies on a package of supports for the early childhood educator—scholarships, articulation agreements, peer support, mentoring, accessible coursework, credit for previous experience, etc.—that is challenging to scale up. In contrast, Sachs puts more trust in formal professional preparation in higher education institutions to give novices a basic level of competency before they become “educators.”

Sachs’ path addresses compensation more directly; but without more targeted interventions and perhaps broader reforms in the K–12 and higher education systems, it could lead to a whiter workforce. Finally, while Sachs’ strategy may create systemic change more quickly, it will support mostly pre-k educators, not those who work with younger children.

As the Moving Beyond False Choices for Early Childhood Educators series proceeds, here are questions to consider:

• Which pathway(s) to higher education and credential attainment can best advance the goals of preparation and education, diversity and inclusion, and compensation and status? And can the same pathways be equally effective for different sectors of the ECE workforce (e.g., teachers in pre-k vs. infant and toddler programs; center-based vs. family child care settings) or do we need differentiated pathways?
• As Russell’s piece asserts, the field has had some success with supporting existing early childhood educators, including educators of color, in attaining higher degrees that transform their career trajectories. But how do we scale these strategies up so they transform early childhood education as a field of practice, not just individuals? Where will the funding and political will come from?
• How important is formal education and professional preparation before an individual is entrusted in the ECE classroom, or can these experiences come later as long as beginning early childhood educators have experiences or qualities that are valued as just as important? What is better for children?

As I was drafting this piece, it occurred to me that we are talking about nothing less than professionalizing a workforce (in terms of competencies, compensation, and education) while cultivating one that is diverse and can serve similarly diverse children well. That is a tall order, and early childhood education may be one of the first fields to make this attempt. But it’s one that our children deserve.

Albert Wat is senior policy director of the Alliance for Early Success.

By Jamal Berry

The early learning field has for too long been considered mere “babysitting.” As it grows and matures as a field of practice, challenging questions and issues are inevitable. Regarding the interplay among preparation and education, compensation and status, and diversity and inclusivity, the challenge is being made more complex because higher expectations for early childhood educators are being pitted against demands for equitable compensation and finding effective drivers to transcend the divide.

I began my career driving a van for an after-school program; later I became a pre-K teacher in a child care center. I progressed by obtaining a masters in human development and education and an educational specialist degree, first becoming a Head Start teacher and then a mentor-coach for infant and toddler teachers. Now, I lead Educare DC, a full-day, full-year Head Start program serving 160 children and families in Washington, DC. Educare DC is part of a national network of 23 research-based schools with financing that enables it to employ what the field considers highly qualified teachers and coaches, i.e., teachers with bachelor of art and master of education degrees in early childhood education (ECE).

I begin by introducing my career pathway because I wanted to offer an example of the multiple entry routes into ECE. While on my path, I met awesome early childhood educators. Some of them had high school diplomas; some had a Child Development Associate (CDA) credential, and still others had bachelor degrees. Despite variability in their educations, these teachers shared two things: love for children and a growth mindset, two qualities that up-end the notion that degrees or credentials are all-important for entry-level early childhood educators.

Two of these teachers particularly stand out. Both have completed collegiate course work but neither is credentialed or has a degree. They both have been early childhood educators for over 15 years and are mothers of adult children. The thought of going back to school has simultaneously excited and unnerved them. But because of their willingness to engage in embedded professional development (including reflective supervision, coaching, and communities of practice), they are becoming two of the most effective teachers I know.

As ECE increasingly relies upon education credentials and degrees to indicate competence, I fear that unless these two colleagues complete their bachelor degrees, they will not be afforded the opportunity to advance in their careers. Consequently, I am testing a different hiring approach at Educare DC.

We have begun assessing applicants’ strengths and competencies, rather than their formal credentials and degrees. We assign teachers without formal preparation who are nonetheless considered sufficiently competent based on their strengths and competencies as interim lead teachers in our Early Head Start classrooms, which is possible because they are subject to nominal practitioner requirements. An instructional coach and I provide supervision. Concurrently, these teachers are exposed to professional development circles, such as a weekly community of practice, that I run for lead teachers. Additionally, each teacher develops an individual professional development plan that includes a timeline for applying for school and earning a degree.

In conjunction with salary increases, individuals participating in this pilot become inspired to develop in ways I would not have imagined. According to the prominent developmental psychologist Urie Bronfenbrenner, “in order to develop normally, a child requires progressively more complex joint activity with one or more adults who have an irrational emotional relationship with the child. Somebody's got to be crazy about that kid. That's number one. First, last, and always.” I challenge us to feel this way about adults as well. I think participants in our pilot are blossoming because someone believes in them and expresses elevated expectations for their work. As a community and as a nation, recognizing the incredibly valuable work of ECE teachers is past due.

The ECE field must do more to offer higher compensation, better on-the-job training, and fully resourced programs. Early childhood teachers should never be compelled to seek public assistance to support their own families. Babies’ futures should not be built on the backs of a workforce that earns poverty wages. Rather than think of education and compensation as an either-or choice, we should be thinking in terms of “both-and.” We should both develop the competencies and credentials of our current and future teachers in all their diversity (including those I describe above) and at the same time increase their compensation.

In the process, we should remember that from a business standpoint, even if successful in raising credentials and teacher compensation, most early childhood education programs struggle to keep afloat. Rather than force trade-offs between credentials, compensation, and diversity, we should invest in quality early learning by establishing sustainable structures and funding sources for teachers and programs that can yield the greatest impact for children. I truly believe that by strategically appropriating funding and by working with others to increase program quality through grant-funded trainings and partnerships extending beyond our programs’ walls, all children will be the beneficiaries.

Jamal Berry, EdS, is the deputy director of Educare DC.

By Alberto Mares

As series authors, we’ve been challenged to investigate options for moving beyond early childhood education’s (ECE) false choices so those in the field can fulfill its potential and promises to young children. Yet, as a field, we’re continually focusing on the same false choice: degrees or no degrees for early childhood educators. Choose the former, it’s argued, and a predominantly white workforce, similar to public schools,¹⁶ will be created since, as Maurice Sykes and Sherri Killins Stewart have reminded us, systemic barriers undermine minorities’ educational access. But then Albert Wat warns us that if we avoid degrees, we risk reinforcing the status quo: childcare providers in the private market who are “cash poor, less educated, but rich in diversity.”

Can we please move beyond this false choice?

Reducing ECE’s thorny knot to the polarizing question of whether early childhood educators should be required to earn degrees steers us toward either-or answers. If we want authentic options for developing early childhood educators’ competence, different questions need to be examined, including this one: why does ECE privilege higher education and resist the possibility that multiple pathways may exist for preparing competent early childhood educators?

Results from landmark studies¹⁷ of preschool intervention programs have led to pre-K becoming an intervention strategy that dominates education’s public discourse. They also have fortified the call for quality ECE for all children, which, in turn, have led to increasing demands for early childhood educators with degrees. I think the time has come to interrogate how this research is shaping our field’s obsession with degrees and reinforcing singular intervention thinking.

Single intervention strategies can’t resolve complex, systemic problems. Yet the call for early childhood educators with degrees is morphing into the latest of ECE’s silver bullet solutions and becoming mythicized as yet another ECE panacea. In today’s digitized and globalized world, most, if not all, of the skills needed for competent performance can be acquired through practical experience in conjunction with other supports. Consequently, obtaining degrees need not be viewed as early childhood educators’ only pathway to competence. Further, while credentialing systems can formalize a field’s disciplinary practices and establish common values, gaining this knowledge solely through institutions of higher education—without attending to the systemic inequalities faced by women and other minorities—will only aggravate access issues and continue privileging those for whom eligibility is not an issue.

Developmental psychology (and now neuropsychology) strongly influences the ECE field and informs many of its polarized debates around the content of degree programs. These sciences have inspired curriculum frameworks¹⁸ overly influenced by beliefs and ideals of affluent white and Western families, so that value systems pertaining to children and their development from other cultures too often are ignored and/or undermined. Consequently, before endorsing degrees, it must be remembered that a wide range of ways exists for early childhood educators to effectively interact with children and that this knowledge can be incorporated into preparation programs, regardless of their delivery system. We should ensure that the field remains guided by the experiences of children within the context of their families, communities, and history.

Taking advantage of ECE’s diverse workforce also needs to become a priority. Why are we not capitalizing on this strength by asking educators what they feel is most needed to enhance their effectiveness and promote their career advancement? These individuals have made a commitment to children, and that is what most matters. Rather than mandating formal qualifications, the ECE field should instead be supporting them at each stage of their careers.

ECE and its public needs to move beyond panaceas. In the process, we need to examine how ECE panaceas have affected the use of other available strategies for developing children’s, families’, and communities’ capacities. By moving beyond panaceas, we can relieve the expectations placed on us to serve as society’s saviors. Responsibility for children’s well-being needs to be shared across institutions. Then perhaps, at last, we can direct more of our attention to the systemic barriers blocking too many children and early childhood educators from fulfilling their potential.

Alberto Mares is a doctoral student in early childhood education at New Mexico State University and an ECE consultant and coach with the Early Childhood Services Center at the University of New Mexico.

By Fabienne Doucet

For seven years, my family hosted a group day care in our New York City apartment. The primary caregiver was our son’s favorite at the group day care that ours replaced. In the 13 years we have known her, Violette (a pseudonym) has been the favorite of countless children in our neighborhood. She is kind, warm, and effusive, to be sure, but my observations suggest that what makes her a baby whisperer is her ability to really see each child. Without their needing to say a word, Violette intuitively connects to children’s emotional temperature and responds to their needs, whether it’s a comforting hug, reassuring smile, playful banter, or curiosity about a block structure. Yet Violette did not finish high school, and her emails to parents are grammatically incorrect. But given the choice between Violette and a caregiver with a college diploma, I would choose Violette every time.

This is not because I don’t understand the benefits early childhood educators gain from research-based knowledge about child development and learning, pedagogical skills honed through mentoring by experienced practitioners, and the sense of pride and accomplishment that follows degree completion. Sue Russell, Tracy Ehlert, and Jamal Berry have all elaborated on these benefits. Empirically, though, the evidence is lacking when it comes to scaling these benefits up.

Russell referenced a meta-analysis¹⁹ that makes a strong case for higher levels of education as significantly correlated with higher quality care and education in early childhood education (ECE). To my knowledge, though, a randomized, controlled trial has not been conducted of early childhood educators without bachelor degrees and an experimental group that has been put through a BA program who are tested pre- and post-program to determine whether their knowledge or skills in educating or caring for young children improved as a result of the degree. In contrast, a robust body of evidence from Bob Pianta’s lab at the University of Virginia has shown that emotional support forms the foundation²⁰ for effective teacher-child relationships during the preschool years that, in turn, influence lifelong learning and achievement. So I believe that equivocating these evidence-based traits with a degree is based on faulty reasoning.

I also concur with Marica Cox Mitchell’s argument that “advancing ECE as a profession requires creating a stable 1.0 version, inclusive of compensation, before building towards more visionary versions.” The political will to pay early childhood educators a living wage must be a top priority—not having frontline care providers, typically women of color and working poor folks, pursue degrees in hope of validating their worth. To do otherwise, I’d argue, is putting the cart before the horse.

You see, the thorns I can’t get out of my side when considering ECE’s thorny knot are the seeming taken-for-granted assumptions about what a B.A. actually means when we are talking about what early childhood educators need to know and be able to do to serve children well. These concerns are not mine alone. Sherri Killins Stewart shared that the frontline child care providers with whom she worked “were proud of achieving a higher education certificate or degree; yet they saw little connection between this education and their daily work.” Further, Amy Rothschild, Sally Holloway, and Laura Bornfreund point to problems of consistency, relevance, and access in teacher preparation programs; Rothschild goes so far as to ask us to consider what the letters BA and MEd really mean. These authors, in addition to Berry, also point to the question of competencies and aptitudes as telling us a lot more about how an educator will perform in a classroom than the letters behind their name. Luis Hernandez put it this way: “It is a matter of respect and decency for ECE as a field of practice and as part of human-focused organizations to support and include workers with a range of heart capacity, academic foundations, and joyful commitment to young children.” I agree.

It also is important to consider questions about the economic returns provided by bachelor degrees. According to a 2014 article in The Economist,²¹ “not all degrees are equally useful. And given how much they cost—a residential four-year degree can set you back as much as $60,000 a year—many students end up worse off than if they had started working at 18.” Although small-scale or state-level programs have worked to provide scholarships and other support for early childhood educators seeking bachelor degrees, the issue of scale has been an obstacle to igniting change.

More common are the experiences shared by the educators with whom Killins Stewart worked: “Most…said their modest pay increases did little to compensate for long hours away from family and friends.” Plus, as Maurice Sykes asks, “Why should we encourage women of color to enhance their educational portfolio only to be consigned to a low-wage, low-status job where they will be paid 84 cents for every dollar their white, female counterparts earn?” Underlining Sykes’ point is a piece out of the Brookings Social Media Memo series, “Black Women Are Earning More College Degrees, but That Alone Won’t Close Race Gaps,²² which points out that “an undergraduate degree is not a wealth generator for Black Americans.”

In their pieces for this series, both Josephine Queen and Jessica Sager get real about the obstacles and roadblocks family child care providers face with respect to furthering their education within the sanctioned walls of institutions of higher education. Our beloved caregiver Violette would have to overcome these hurdles and more given her age, prior education, lack of experience in U.S. schools as a first-generation immigrant, and her identity as a Black woman. And the children of my neighborhood would potentially miss out on one of the most gifted caregivers I have ever met.

Fabienne Doucet, PhD, is associate professor of Early Childhood and Urban Education in the Department of Teaching and Learning at the NYU Steinhardt School and program officer at the William T. Grant Foundation.

By Luis A. Hernandez

Hooray for fantastic and lofty goals focused on early childhood educators attaining four-year degrees that enhance and challenge their joyful work with children and their families!…But then, BANG! Rainbows don’t appear across the sky because we hit the wall and the reality of our nation. While the horizon recedes, though, the dream remains…albeit only a dream.

My esteemed colleagues and friends eloquently—and with incredible conviction and determination—make the case for higher academic preparation for the thousands of women who daily work with children. Yes, early childhood education’s (ECE) progress and advancement demonstrate ways to move forward. Yes, mandates and initiatives have spurred successful models that support early childhood educators’ academic advancement. Yes, if we could only be Norway!

As a steadfast optimist, I have profound appreciation for the leaders and pioneers who have challenged and pushed our thinking toward making ECE a professionally prepared workforce. Although each step along the way has been a struggle, new possibilities emerge and higher levels of educator competence are achieved. In turn, awareness of the inherent benefits of our work with young children and their families has increased. I extend my gratitude to those who’ve made the case for early childhood educators’ further academic advancement. As fellow optimists, they recognize we don’t live in a perfect world, but our efforts can still improve the status quo.

Yet, doubt and cynicism unavoidably intrude into our positive thinking because our aspirations are starkly restrained by economics. Even superficial discussions of economic class differences can feel unpleasant; yet, to a great degree, economics define the reality and circumstances of our nation’s communities. Families must, for the most part make child development choices based on economics; their employment is based on economics; their return to school to earn a degree is based on economics. And alas, program quality is defined by economics, too.

I, too, long for Scandinavian-like models where political, economic, and public will create conditions that promote equity and access for all families—from prenatal care, parental leave, to enviable ECE program options. For a much more limited American model, we’ve begun estimating a price tag of about $140 billion a year²³—a figure unlikely to be embraced by our politicians.

No longer can the pretension exist that our country is an idyllic colorful mosaic, melting pot, or mixed salad. Even so, my optimism is elevated by the fact that the dynamics of community life are nourished by family interactions and encounters with the women who work with, take care of, and teach our nation’s young children.

A core belief that education makes a significant difference to individuals and families has become the beacon of the American experience. As Jamal Berry’s piece notes, many in our early childhood education workforce begin their careers by volunteering in a classroom. For others, obtaining a degree represents a symbolic victory earned by becoming the first in their family to attend college. For immigrant women, obtaining a degree can fulfill the American dream of getting a college education.

It is blood, sweat, and tears to return to school as an adult—especially if it involves taking a math class seven times. As Sue Russell points out, the overwhelming message from the women I’m describing centers on “actualization, transformation, and profound appreciation,” affirming their commitment to children and their families.

But those for whom earning a degree is not realistic must still be considered part of ECE. They cannot—should not—be left behind. It is a matter of respect and decency for ECE as a field of practice and as part of human-focused organizations to support and include workers with a range of heart capacity, academic foundations, and joyful commitment to young children. ECE’s on-going professional development efforts must continue to integrate a diversity of talents, skills, and abilities.

It often is said that if you want to see the face of America in 20 years, look at children in a kindergarten classroom. These children represent the new and next America, and their families and teachers are part of this picture. Preserving a sense of hope in our nation will take collective intelligence, compassion, energy, and a belief in dreams and rainbows. Let’s not give oxygen to a culture of have and have-nots. Let’s respect those doing great work wherever they are on their ladder of learning. Let’s collaborate, support, and be vigilant with institutions of higher learning regarding how ECE degree and non-degree programs address the aspirations and needs of adult learners.

Unrealistic expectations of academic uniformity can only turn to dark clouds and unwelcome storms. Our faith needs to be placed in human potential. Optimism for the future is best based on the progress and respect of individuals doing work that is meaningful and important. Although we must move forward cautiously, we should never give up on the belief that genuine optimism can carry our profession forward.

Luis A. Hernandez is an ECE specialist at Training & Technical Assistance Services at Western Kentucky University.

By Carol Brunson Day

I’m inclined to repeat a story I told in 2000 when asked to respond to the National Research Council’s Eager to Learn²⁴ report that first recommended, “each group of children in an early childhood education [ECE] and care program should be assigned a teacher who has a bachelor’s degree.” I was head of the Child Development Associate (CDA) national office at the time, and I opened my remarks with a story about my brother, a big-city Northerner who, having recently moved to a small Southern city, was completely miffed by what Southerners said whenever he asked for directions to a specific location. “Oh, you can’t get there from here.” Inevitably they would then proceed to explain, “well, first you have to go where the Sears used to be. Then turn right onto the main street and then left just past the clock tower, and you’ll get there.”

Although we have since made progress towards early childhood educators having bachelor degrees, what I felt back then I feel even more strongly about today—we can get there, but we can’t just jump from here straight to there. A carefully calculated journey is required, and this is what the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) is working to achieve through the Power to the Profession²⁵ dialogue—creating a route so no one misses the turn where Sears used to be.

Defining the profession²⁶ is something widely acknowledged as exactly what ECE needs to do at this moment. It is audacious and exciting, albeit hazardous and risky, but once done, will strengthen our identity as a field of practice and provide momentum for a continuously evolving process.

Although this process can be painful, I don’t see the fractious strains we’re experiencing as tightening ECE’s thorny knot and leading us nowhere. I see them from a different perspective because they have helped accomplish consensus on some critical points. By way of examples, we all seemingly want children to have the most competent and well-trained teachers possible; we recognize more can be done to increase our options for generating a well-prepared, well-compensated, and inclusive/diverse workforce; and we’re increasingly committed to making plans throughout every sector to remove or mitigate institutional bias barriers to achieving a diverse workforce.

Further, the thorny knot’s three stands have the potential to generate new thinking. So I propose we not see them as either/or debates where one side or the other presents the stronger argument. Instead, we should regard them as dialectic discourse, where, as tensions become more clearly codified, possible resolutions can emerge and be embraced as part of a continuing agenda for our evolving profession to address both intentionally and strategically.

For the sake of argument, let’s take the aspiration that, as a profession, ECE teachers should have bachelor degrees (the “perfect ECE BA” has yet to be defined by our higher education colleagues.) Rather than seeing that as out of the question (because we will lose workforce diversity) or as the only way (because it gains us status and compensation), we would regard the tiered approach proposed in the Power to the Profession’s decision cycles 3, 4, and 5²⁷ as a near-term resolution while simultaneously supporting systems that assist early educators in achieving BA degrees. Sue Russell’s piece provides a recipe for accomplishing better educated, better compensated early childhood educators and workforce diversity. On behalf of the family child care sector, Tracy Ehlert, Josephine Queen, and Jessica Sager reiterate that sustained, multidimensional efforts that build access to formal preparation and degree attainment can work (e.g., tuition dollars, mentoring, embedded professional development). These ideas are not dissimilar from those Albert Wat offered in the piece responsible for catalyzing this series.²⁸

Moreover, it is within the higher education community’s reach to promote formal education of personnel from their first entry point into work with children and to actualize seamless articulation between levels of preparation from CDA to AA to BA and beyond. And as Sally Holloway suggests in her guidelines for transforming the caliber and consistency of preparation programs, weak programs can be strengthened.

Finally, I firmly believe that institutional class, race, and cultural bias can be eliminated. Precisely because these biases permeate our society, the ECE field will always have to promote activism within its ranks by insisting on results that we value. “Naming inequities and using an equity lens for driving decisions,“ as Marica Cox Mitchell states, should always be among our non-negotiables.

Here’s my point: We can have it all if we stop thinking choices have to be made among (1) preparation and education, (2) compensation and status, and (3) diversity and inclusivity. We need only to launch models capable of addressing the contradictions inherent to participation in this struggle.

To this end, Albert Wat’s “Ah-haa!” speaks very deeply to me: “We are talking about nothing less than professionalizing a workforce (in terms of compensation and education) while intentionally cultivating one that is diverse and can serve similarly diverse children well. That is a tall order, and ECE may be one of the first fields to make the attempt.”

So let’s get on with this business, and be the first field to make this happen.

Carol Brunson Day, PhD, is president of Brunson, Phillips & Day consultants, Inc.

By Phil Acord

Currently, child care administrators’ most pressing issue is the ability to hire and retain qualified teaching staff. The issue is even more pronounced for those of us operating programs serving low-income families. Maintaining a high-quality program and compensating educators at a livable wage while also keeping fees affordable for the families we serve often feels like an impossible task. While an issue that has plagued directors for decades, it’s become even harder to navigate in today’s economy. Yet steps for remediating this seemingly intractable problem are available. We just need to recognize them and become more focused in maximizing their potential.

Because of efforts being put forth to legitimize early childhood education (ECE) by structuring it as a profession with credential (CDA) and degree (AA, BA/BS, or higher) requirements, however, this issue is undergoing a shift in terms of its complexity. No longer is it primarily a matter of competing with low-wage service jobs. Now the challenge revolves around recruiting and hiring qualified staff to meet credential/degree requirements. Despite the added challenge this shift creates, though, I support it because it is the only path to becoming a recognized profession. But if we are going to professionalize the early education industry, two steps need to be prioritized: (1) require all teaching staff to have credentials/degrees and (2) pay them a wage commensurate with their education and experience.

Child care center programs such as mine, though, have to compete with public education and the business world when seeking to hire the most capable and qualified people possible. I recently attended a workshop where it was reported²⁹ that the early education industry is comprised of about two million workers. To compensate all of these individuals at a livable wage, much less a professional wage, would cost about $60 billion annually, and obviously the burden of financing the ECE system can’t be placed on the backs of families or classroom teachers.

So, where can the needed funding sources be found?

Despite our tendency to wring its hands and question the probability of ever effectively responding to this longstanding challenge, options are available to help us break new ground. I’m confident that the first step exists in the $5.8 billion that Congress recently approved³⁰ and is distributing to states through the Child Care Development Block Grant (CCDBG). These funds have the potential to help ECE become professionalized if states allocate a majority of their CCDBG funding to their certificate/voucher programs. These funds would give programs needed revenue for increasing teacher wages and benefits. For this tactic to succeed, though, the state’s reimbursement rate has to be based on a current market rate survey that reflects the true cost of care. Additionally, eligibility guidelines have to be high enough to include the families that populate the majority of ECE programs.

A second funding source for increasing teacher salaries is through collaborations and partnerships. The Early Head Start Child Care Partnership program,³¹ for example, has injected a new source of funds into the early education community. It requires program partners to have staff with credentials/degrees and increases compensation accordingly.

Still another option is the TEACH and WAGE$³² programs. These two programs provide great examples of what can be done nationwide to encourage teachers to obtain credentials/degrees, while providing increased wages for those who continue teaching in early education programs following degree attainment. Presently, about 22 states have a TEACH program, although fewer also have the WAGE$ program.³³ A major, national advocacy effort on the part of early education advocates could generate great results in this regard. In my town of Chattanooga, for example, Mayor Andy Berke has put in place a WAGE$ program.³⁴

Even with these opportunities, though, states are going to have to step up to the plate too and invest in ECE. Still, we need not wait until then to tackle the challenge of acquiring better-qualified and fairly compensated teaching staff.

The ECE industry is at a milestone in its evolution. Three forces are at work, each of which is moving us in the right direction: NAEYC’s Power to the Profession initiative,³⁵ Head Start’s credential requirements,³⁶ and the CCDBG monies. They all focus on quality and increased credential/degree requirements.³⁷ Even though the booming economy is making it more difficult to hire qualified staff, rather than being discouraged, this reality should be used to motivate us towards increased credential requirements for teaching staff and advocacy for the funding needed to compensate our workforce in a way commensurate with their education and job responsibilities.

The touchstone of quality early education programs is a high-quality teacher in every classroom, starting with our infants. The best way to ensure teacher quality is through credentials and degrees. Consequently, this needs to be where our time, energy, and money are focused. Since ultimately this will lead to better outcomes for children, we really have no other choice.

Phil Acord is the president/CEO of Chambliss Center for Children in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

By Jason Sachs

Albert Einstein is often given credit for exclaiming, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.” I think most of us who pay attention to the early care and education field (ECE) would agree that neither wages nor education have changed substantially in 25 years. According to the Early Childhood Workforce Index³⁸ from 2016, only 35 percent of center-based teachers have a bachelor degree or higher and 65 percent of lead teachers in these same programs earn less than $15 an hour.

The tragedy continues when we know:

• Americans agree,³⁹ according to polls by Atlantic Media and other groups that we should have a well-trained and -compensated workforce to compete internationally.
• Data⁴⁰ from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that having a higher education degree is associated with improved prosperity.
• A recent paper from the Brookings Institution showed consensus among early childhood education researchers that a strong connection exists between the quality of instruction and student outcomes.
• Especially as more evidence emerges about the demands of effective pedagogy, most would agree that teaching is hard. National studies show teacher instruction, based on measurements of teacher-child interactions,⁴¹ is not at the level necessary for facilitating desired student outcomes,⁴² according to researchers at the Center for the Advanced Study of Teaching and Learning.

Given that most Americans seem to agree that we ought to have an educated and compensated workforce, why are so few preschool teachers well educated or compensated?

ECE’s challenge comes from its ambivalence regarding who defines and sets policy and who defines what preschool⁴³ is as a field of practice. Whether preschool should be designed for educational purposes (i.e., for closing the achievement and opportunity gap), to promote children’s social skills, or to help parents participate in the workforce is debatable. Yet, if preschool were part of the public schools, this debate—both in terms of policy and child outcomes—would be largely resolved because the public education system has a defined set of educational requirements and expected student outcomes. In contrast, when society primarily views preschool in terms of children’s social development or as a support for working families, what the market can afford defines teachers’ educational requirements and compensation, which in turn affects our workforce’s diversity.

The U.S. has a hybrid model comprised of public systems and fee-paying parents, both of which are currently defining preschool’s purpose. Given their differences, these co-existing systems often are confronted with the nasty, unintended consequence of having to pit program quality against access.

To resolve this challenge, I propose that policymakers and advocates agree to make preschool for three- and four-year-olds a public educational right or “good,” shifting it entirely to the public education system. This would establish a policy mandate to educate all Americans, preschool through twelfth grade. This decision alone would raise preschool teachers’ pay to $27 an hour, matching what kindergarten teachers earn, according to 2016 data from the Early Childhood Workforce Index.⁴⁴

This doesn’t mean public schools would have to become the sole delivery system for preschools. What would be obligatory, though, is for public school funding sources and quality assurance policies to be applied to all early childhood providers, especially in terms of degrees, certification, special education, compensation, and access. In Boston, for example, we are developing a mixed delivery system involving public schools and community-based programs. As a result, all preschool teachers are earning the same starting salary as public school teachers. They are required, though, to use the same curricular materials and receive coaching. This program also increases assistant teachers’ and center directors’ salaries.

I realize our public schools have many critics, and I acknowledge that as currently constructed, they are not optimally designed for educating students from preschool to third grade. Knowing this, my proposal requires public schools to develop stronger out-of-school time options, strengthen the PreK–third grade curriculum, and support families to a much greater degree than they currently do. In the case of a mixed delivery system, public schools would also have to develop improved partnerships with community-based providers and create meaningful linkages between curricula and professional development supports.

Yet the benefits have the potential to be transformative for all ECE stakeholders as additional resources become available for birth-to-three programs, and vertical alignment would be greatly strengthened between preschool and early elementary school. While partnerships with public schools may be unsettling for providers who currently lack a relationship with school districts, I would point out that the current system has done little to meaningfully elevate compensation and educational attainment over the last 25 years.

Dramatic change is needed. Every year we wait, we are sentencing students and teachers to an academic and economic trajectory that threatens our country's ability to compete successfully in a global market. If we make this bold change, I believe our focus can at last shift to where it belongs—to student instruction, public school reform, and pathway degree programs for preschool teachers in community-based programs. While this may create a hardship for teachers lacking degrees (and unintentionally threaten the diversity of the ECE workforce), over time, as more and more students succeed in school, ECE will at last find itself celebrating, rather than defending, wise investments in its work.

Jason Sachs, PhD, is executive director of early childhood education at Boston Public Schools.