Opening Essay: What Do Equity and Progress Look Like for Children and Their Early Childhood Educators?

By Albert Wat

As a policy professional in early childhood education (ECE), I’m on the record¹ in support of a policy solution to ECE’s thorny knot: supporting and requiring lead teachers in early education programs (from birth through age 5) to attain a bachelor’s degree in ECE in order to maximize the benefits of ECE programs.² This position, while not original, has been the subject of robust debate in recent years, as exemplified by Moving Beyond False Choices for Early Childhood Educators. The question of whether such a policy would lead to inequities among these educators has been raised throughout this New America compendium, and further questions have arisen for me as a result: How do we advance ECE as a profession in an equitable way? Can it be accomplished by relying on higher education as a primary pathway? How do we acknowledge the competencies and diversity of the field’s incumbent workforce and at the same time, build an even stronger profession for the future?

Equity and Diversity in ECE

Before turning to those questions, though, I’ll first share my definition of equity for children and then for their early childhood educators based on the presumption that efforts to achieve equity for early childhood educators should be undertaken to further equity for children in ECE programs.

At the risk of oversimplifying things, to me, an equitable ECE system for children is one in which all children, but especially those furthest from opportunity (because of their class, race, or gender), have access to a highly competent, well compensated, and diverse corps of early childhood educators. Outside of the family, they make the single most important contribution to building a strong foundation for school and long-term success. In turn, an equitable system for their educators is one in which anyone who aspires to join the ECE profession, but especially those furthest from opportunity, have the supports needed to attain the competencies and commensurate level of compensation necessary for fulfilling this expectation.

In this regard, a diverse workforce should be a non-negotiable. The ECE field has historically celebrated its diversity. The question is how this diversity advances equity. What does it mean to take pride in this diversity when inequities like low wages suppress a profession disproportionately made up of women and women of color?³ What does it mean to celebrate this diversity when it is a legacy of our society’s devaluing of “care” and other “house work”⁴ as “women’s work” or, for those more privileged, as work for servants and maids (or earlier in our history, slaves) – work considered as free or cheap labor. To say it bluntly, the diversity that we celebrate today is a legacy of racism and sexism that has legitimized the exploitation of those who care for young children. This legacy binds too many early childhood educators to a life of subsistence and limited opportunities for career advancement, which in turn, limits their ability to create a more equitable future for young children.

Consequently, in addition to worrying about how a new policy strategy, like requirements for higher degrees or credentials, may sustain or create new inequities, we also need to focus on what it will take to disrupt inequities that currently exist. If we truly value ECE’s diversity, more needs to be done to intentionally cultivate it as an asset in service to achieving more equitable outcomes for children. This means fighting not only for fair compensation policies, but also for effective professional training systems and robust ongoing supports that help early childhood educators attain increased competencies.

Role of Professional Preparation and Higher Education

In the final analysis, the clearest path to me for breaking free of the racist and sexist history plaguing ECE – and to bring more equity into the profession – remains higher education, as flawed as it is. I may be biased as an immigrant whose parents uprooted their family to give their children greater educational opportunities. I may be unduly influenced as an undergraduate by the savage inequalities⁵ I read about in our public education system and the research I studied on stereotype threat.⁶ These experiences led me to pursue a career to expand educational opportunities as a matter of social justice.

I believe if we eschew higher education because of its deficiencies, we do so at the peril of the ECE profession. Higher education may not be sufficient, but I believe it’s necessary. First, especially when done in partnership with actual ECE programs, higher education is an important setting to learn the science of early childhood development and the content knowledge that undergirds effective ECE practice – even if it sometimes falls short on training educators about pedagogy. Second, unlike other countries with robust unions and apprenticeship systems, in the U. S. a bachelor degree is still a key pathway to higher compensation. A college education still comes with an earning premium⁷ for women and people of color, even in a field like ECE. While it’s true that people with ECE degrees are among the lowest paid college graduates,⁸ I would argue that’s more a function of how we finance ECE and our advocacy priorities than a function of attaining a bachelor degree in ECE.

Nonetheless, one of the most concerning critiques of higher education as a pathway to advancing the ECE profession is that low-income people and people of color experience systemic barriers to access and success in postsecondary institutions. To me, this suggests the ECE community should work closer with K-12 and higher education advocates and policy leaders to remove these barriers, rather than shunning these institutions as avenues for professional and personal advancement. Otherwise, wouldn’t we just be perpetuating the inequities in ECE that currently exist?

I am open to other pathways that will lead to professional advancement and equity, but those who propose a different path also have a responsibility to show how it can lead to more equitable outcomes for the ECE workforce – one that is highly-competent, well-compensated, and diverse. If the field were to abandon higher education as a strategy, I would want to be confident that we aren’t doing so just because there are implicit or explicit assumptions that a bachelor’s degree would take too long or be too difficult for the ECE workforce to achieve.

Conclusion: Lessons for the Future

For better or worse, the elevation of equity issues in the debate around advancing the ECE profession has had limited impact on my policy position. If anything, my resolve on this issue strengthens every time I see or hear from early childhood educators who achieve any credential or degree – whether it’s a BA, an AA, or CDA. The pride and confidence they express, and what the achievement means to them as a professional, and more often than not, as women and as mothers, is profound.

That said, I recognize that the policy strategy others and I are proposing will bring disruption and even loss to some in the ECE profession. For one, if we do this right, more men will be in the profession. Also, it’s unlikely that the path to progress will “lift all boats” at once. Some policymakers or advocates may decide to first address inequities within the profession by investing in the career advancement and compensation of those who are on the lowest rung of the ladder, like infant and toddler educators and family child care providers. Others may choose to focus more on pre-K or Head Start educators whose professional preparation, growth, and compensation may be easier for the general public and political leaders to understand and support.

If the ECE field were to go down this road, strategies to work through these disruptions, a plan to ensure all early childhood educators have pathways to advancement, and a commitment to securing resources to implement that plan has to be present. A way to honor the competencies and expertise of existing educators that promotes equity within the profession as well as for children has to be present, too.

How we go about this policy endeavor should not be led by or left to people like me, however, which gets to how my approach to this issue has changed. Over the past few years, I’ve grown to recognize the need to do this work with early childhood educators. Earlier on this journey, I don’t think I fully appreciated why they would not willingly join the cause of attaining higher status and greater competencies and compensation as a profession through higher degrees and credentials.

I had to be reminded of all the times in our history when “progress” was made at the expense of the poor, people of color, and women. I was too focused on what higher education can mean personally and professionally to the ECE workforce to notice that a call for higher standards could be interpreted as an insult to the experience and expertise of educators who have given decades of their lives to young children. Finally, and maybe most importantly, as a policy professional, I didn’t invest much energy in listening to and engaging with educators’ ideas, hopes, and fears. (They don’t teach you that in policy school. Perhaps they should…)

I still believe in the merit of policy change, but there’s a huge difference between a policy directive from “above” – even when it’s done with good intentions – and a profession-driven movement for change. Both are necessary, and equity – both in terms of how we make change and the change we’re making – should be a core principle. As policy professionals like me continue to work with colleagues in the ECE field to strive for a better, more equitable future for young children and the ECE profession, I believe these are the lessons we need to act on.

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