Getting Unstuck: What’s Needed for ECE to Take a Big Step Forward?

By Laura Bornfreund

Spurred by the seminal 2015 report from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and the National Research Council,¹ a flurry of efforts are underway to revamp the early childhood education² (ECE) workforce. Bringing together the science of learning and knowledge of child development, Transforming the Workforce for Children Birth through Age 8: A Unifying Foundation identifies the competencies and supports early childhood educators need to provide high-quality learning experiences for each and every child. These efforts coincide with heightened public and political attention to families’ access to high-quality child care and pre-K. This attention to both the supply of and demand for competent practitioners elevates the urgency of making meaningful change that spares countless families, especially those who have the least access to quality, the cost of navigating disjointed systems at a detriment to their own children's growth and development.

This urgency is needed because despite more than five years of ECE workforce research and innumerable national and local initiatives since the IOM report’s publication, limited progress is evident. While some good and different things are happening, too many children lack access to high-quality ECE programs; too few early childhood educators have the knowledge and competencies for effective practice; and too often preparation programs fail to equip early educators with sufficient knowledge and skills. At the same time, the field still struggles with recruiting, retaining, and compensating competent educators. And, while the field values and holds up that women of color are a significant part of the teaching force, too often they are working in the field’s lowest paying jobs.³

Why ECE Remains Stuck

Putting aside the fact that meaningful change is rarely easy, I think three overarching issues keep ECE stuck: (1) a lack of field-wide agreement on ECE’s direction; (2) fear of letting go of the status quo; and (3) an imbalance between the push for immediate action and implementation realities.

Lack of Field-wide Agreement Regarding ECE’s Direction

Early childhood educators and other ECE stakeholders disagree on both basic and essential questions. What does the field call itself, for example? Throughout this compendium authors have used the terms early childhood, early care and education, and early childhood education. And there’s still another complex question: is ECE’s scope children birth to five or birth to eight? There’s been a push toward defining the scope as birth to eight or P–3 during the last 15 plus years, but consensus on this front remains elusive. Not even the meaning of P–3 is shared: does the P refer to pre-K, prenatal, or something else? And, while elementary schools, local educational agencies, state education agencies, and other traditional K–12 stakeholders are recognizing they have a role to play, this recognition has yet to be translated into things being done differently in most school districts.

Still another area where an absence of agreement exists is early childhood educator roles. The Power to the Profession Task Force, led by the National Association for the Education of Young Children,⁴ has moved the needle forward and has done important level-setting, but, we as a field have yet to fully come together in support. Resounding agreement is still lacking on not just practitioner roles but also on the knowledge and competencies needed for these roles; on how practitioners should be prepared for their roles; and on requisite qualifications and the extent to which they should—or should not—vary across settings and programs. Simultaneously, in states across the country, educational and qualification requirements for early educators, along with salary and benefits, are becoming increasingly variable depending on program setting and the entity holding them accountable.

Power to the Profession is but one workforce-focused initiative. There are others aimed at transforming credentials, preparation, and compensation for the workforce but may not be in alignment with each other. And, given lack of shared direction among those in the field and other stakeholders, it is timely to ask how national and philanthropic ECE workforce-focused initiatives fit together. Are they working in concert? Are they building on each other? Or, are they discordant?

Alongside the various initiatives focused on professionalizing ECE, states are also playing a dominant role in governing early educators by defining their competencies, roles, and qualification requirements. Given states’ diverse socio-political contexts, considerable variation now exists across the U.S. in terms of the caliber of the ECE workforce. This fact underscores the complexity of the ECE landscape as well as the importance of persistence and realistic timelines for change; many moving pieces need to be harmonized over multiple years if a coordinated implementation plan for ECE is to be achieved.

The famous creator of Pogo, Walt Kelly, said, “we have met the enemy and he is us.”⁵ In the absence of coherent unity the field will likely remain stuck. While some state and community actors will succeed in changing policy and practice, it’s questionable whether discrete actions will move us closer toward a well-qualified and well-compensated ECE workforce that is capable of delivering on the promise of early education, especially to children from the most marginalized communities.

Fear of Letting Go of the Status Quo

Those trying to explain ECE’s current resistance to change say the problem often stems from insufficient resources. While a significant factor, given ECE’s erratic and inadequate progress, the time has come to take stock of what is working well, what is not, for whom, and under what conditions. It’s time to ask hard questions to determine what needs to be done differently, including the possibility of what needs to be halted.

This includes assessing long-standing programs and practices and fostering out-of-the-box thinking. Think of it this way: if we were starting from scratch to envision an ECE system that meets the needs of children, families, and educators, what would it look like? My response would be something much different from what is in place today.⁶

Imbalance Between the Push for Immediate Action and Implementation Realities

Change was needed yesterday. While we certainly don’t want to let the perfect be the enemy of the good, the “good” is only worthwhile if it moves ECE toward an ultimate shared vision. Tinkering around the edges with well-intentioned initiatives such as tax credits and wage supplements will not resolve systemic problems; nor will they dramatically improve the lives of early child educators. Yet, these kinds of activities presently dominate the field. Widespread transformation takes more than a year, or five, or even ten. This reality has to be acknowledged by all of us who are involved with trying to advance ECE. Meaningful change requires multiple iterations accompanied by predictable and sustainable resources. If the field continues to settle for easy wins and what can be accomplished within short time frames, little change is likely to materialize.

Why Now is the Time for ECE to Get Unstuck

ECE has been gifted with an opportunity for big change. Here’s my rationale for this belief: First, leaders at the state and national level are engaged in serious, research-based conversations about how to finance an ECE system that includes a well-qualified and adequately compensated workforce. Second, the quality of ECE programs has become part of the public conversation. Some states are engaging in important work to eliminate child care deserts, decrease the cost of quality care, improve the state of the workforce, and more. Not only are states passing legislation aimed at increasing children’s access to ECE (which has been on a relatively upward trend for 20 years), but they are now also focused on improving program quality and developing creative responses for increasing educator qualifications along with higher compensation. For the first time, nearly all of the 2020 presidential candidates have something to say about ECE and most have a plan.⁷

But if all children and families are to have access to high-quality ECE programs that include a well-prepared, well-resourced, and well-compensated ECE workforce, it’s essential to change the field’s modus operandi. Needed, in my opinion, is a focused, three-pronged, coordinated approach. One prong, as discussed above, is agreeing on a description of early childhood educator roles and the knowledge and competencies required for them in conjunction with the education and qualifications for their attainment. Numerous efforts are underway, but in my opinion, the field has yet to come together. Absent unity, ECE’s thorny knot may be further tightened instead of loosened.

Several authors in this compendium assert the need for transformation in higher education. I agree, and so another prong is developing a plan for transforming higher education for early childhood educators. More attention must be paid to improving their preparation and support as they pursue additional educational credentials. Although higher education reform is sometimes seen as impossible, it is absolutely necessary. Certainly many challenges exist, from rethinking requirements for remedial coursework and providing credit for prior learning to establishing pipelines for well-equipped faculty and valuing adjunct faculty. Pockets of promise exist across the country, including national T.E.A.C.H. Early Childhood scholarships, which provide dollars, mentors, and other supports for students pursuing two- and four-year degrees; efforts like CUNY ASAP in New York that provides wraparound services and academic support for students seeking associate degrees; and the Early Childhood Mentor Network in New Mexico that helps build the capacity for mentorship in current early childhood educators.

In scaling these ideas up and developing new ones it’s important to keep laser focus on how they ensure students pursuing degrees are equipped with the knowledge, competencies, and experiences needed for teaching and caring for young children, especially our growing population of dual language learners.

A third prong then is recognizing ECE, with well-qualified and well-compensated educators, as a public good and in accordance developing a financing plan that includes significantly more public investment. While we are nowhere close to the level of financing needed, current public support and political interest suggest the time is ripe for advancing this aspiration.

In 2017, a group of researchers released Cradle to Kindergarten,⁸ which offers a blueprint for expanding access to high-quality ECE programs for children who would benefit most. In 2018, as a follow-up to the Transforming the Workforce report, the National Academies of Medicine released Transforming the Financing of Early Care and Education, which put a dollar figure on what will be needed to provide high-quality programs with a highly qualified workforce along with recommendations for its achievement. Finally, recent research The Early Advantage 2―Building Systems That Work for Young Children: International Insights from Innovative Early Childhood Systems from a team led by Sharon Lynn Kagan⁹ of Columbia University offers the chance to broaden our thinking by looking to how other countries successfully fund ECE systems.

Why these three issues need to be simultaneously addressed

As I’ve participated in national ECE meetings, visited states and communities, and listened to conversations over the past five years, it has become clear to me that progress is hindered when these three issues do not get addressed in concert with one another, when the persistence and long-term commitments necessary for systemic and adaptive change are ignored, and when practitioners are not included in the thinking from planning to implementation. Consider this: a state approves new competencies and licensing standards that require lead and assistant early educators to obtain BAs and AAs, respectively. The state also increases its investment to cover the tuition costs of those degrees. The state does not check in with institutes of higher education about existing capacity to prepare new degree seekers, however, nor does it provide incentives for institutions to help ensure student success. Without also investing in teacher compensation and ECE program quality and higher education reform, this state’s initiative is inviting failure.

These beliefs are not mine alone. As Goffin notes in the opening piece to our compendium, multiple authors throughout discuss the momentum exists both within the field and beyond to advance ECE. However, more work awaits us.¹⁰ It’s essential to move beyond current thinking and to be prepared to tackle multiple change elements simultaneously in a strategic and coordinated way. A knot cannot be undone until you pay attention to all ends of its threads.