Enhancing Collective Capacity to Improve Early Childhood Teacher Preparation in Illinois

Breaking It Down and Building It Out:

University of Illinois at ChicagoCollege of Education

June 2012

Celina Chatman Nelson, Catherine Main, and Jennifer Kushto-Hoban, with Members of the Appraising Early Childhood Teacher Preparation in Illinois work group

Acknowledgements

The work described in this report was made possible by a grant to the College

of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago from The Searle Funds at The

Chicago Community Trust (Dean Victoria Chou, Principal Investigator). We would

like to thank Program Officers Peggy Mueller and Gudelia Lopez for their support

and guidance on the project and for their helpful feedback on earlier versions of this

document. We would also like to thank Deanna Durica, formerly of the Governor’s

Office of Early Childhood Development, and the Workforce Development Committee

of the Illinois Early Learning Council for working with us to identify and engage key

stakeholders in the Illinois early childhood care and education community. We give

special thanks to participants in the Appraising Early Childhood Teacher Preparation

in Illinois work group for volunteering their time and expertise to this project. It is

through their expert knowledge and experience that we were able to identify key

barriers in preparing teachers to work with all young children and their families in

diverse settings and to make recommendations for improvement.

Appraising Early Childhood Teacher Preparation in Illinois work group participants and organizational affiliation:

Barbara Abel University of Illinois at Chicago

Brenda Arksey American Chinese Service League

Jennifer Asimow Harold Washington College

Ava Belisle-Chatterjee Columbia College

Cheryl Bulat Morton College

Celina Chatman Nelson University of Illinois at Chicago

Victoria Chou University of Illinois at Chicago

Rhonda Clark Illinois State Board of Education

Gail Conway Chicago Metro Association for the Education of

Young Children

Isolda Davila City of Chicago: Family Support Services

Marie Donovan DePaul University

Lynn Firsel Roosevelt University

Kay Henderson Illinois State Board of Education (retired)

Tywanda Jiles Govenors State University

Denise Jordan City of Chicago: Family Support Services

Karina Kelly Jump Start

Brenda Klosterman Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville

Jennifer Kushto-Hoban University of Illinois at Chicago

Catherine Main University of Illinois at Chicago

Mark McHugh One Hope United

Marlene McKenzie Centers for New Horizons

Sue Moustakas Sand Box Schools of Early Care and Education

Thomas Phillion Roosevelt University

Deborah Rogers-Jaye Harold Washington College & UIC

Allen Rosales Christopher House

Christine Ryan Chicago Public Schools: Office of Early Childhood

Joni Scritchlow INCCRRA

Kathleen Sheridan National Louis University

Sonia Soltero DePaul University

Patricia Steinhaus Chicago State University

Sharon Syc Erikson Institute

Alethia Travis Happy Holidays Nursery & Kindergarten

Joyce Weiner Ounce of Prevention Fund

Shannon Yeager Kendall College

Breaking It Down and Building It Out: Enhancing Collective Capacity to ImproveEarly Childhood Teacher Preparation in Illinois

Celina Chatman Nelson, Catherine Main, and Jennifer Kushto-Hoban, With Members of the Appraising Early Childhood Teacher Preparation in Illinois work group

University of Illinois at Chicago College of Education

June 2012

About Appraising Early Childhood Teacher Preparation in Illinois

Funded by The Searle Funds at The Chicago Community Trust, Appraising Early Childhood Teacher Education in Illinois (AECTP-IL)1 builds on and extends the work of the Metro Chicago project, also funded by the trust. Both projects emerged out of a collaborative undertaking by the 22 members of the Council of Chicago Area Deans of Education (CCADE) to document and improve their teacher preparation programs, work that was also supported by the Trust. The objectives for AECTP-IL were to (1) conduct in-depth analysis of Illinois’s early learning landscape for quality teaching of children, ages birth to eight years, and (2) use this analysis to recommend an ambitious teacher education action agenda for Illinois early childhood stakeholders. AECTP-IL project staff worked with the Governor’s Office of Early Childhood Development and the Workforce Development Committee of the Illinois Early Learning Council to identify key members of the state’s early childhood care and education community, whom the project invited to participate in a work group to carry out the project objectives.

Project staff extended 26 initial invitations to individuals throughout Chicago and the state, asking each of them to recommend colleagues whom they believed would be appropriate to participate in the project. In all, 32 of a total 38 invited professionals attended at least one meeting or sent a designee. Of these, more than 20 remained engaged for the duration of the project, via communications through a listserv, a project website, and six in-person meetings over the course of an academic year (nine months). Participants represent several sectors related to early childhood care and education, including higher education, community-based organizations, public schools, private (for- and not-for-profit) early childhood care and education providers, local and state agencies and offices, and advocacy organizations. The group sought consensus around key program and policy issues in early childhood teacher education in Illinois and developed a set of consensus recommendations

1 Victoria Chou, Principal Investigator; Celina Chatman Nelson, Project Director; Catherine Main, Early Childhood Specialist/Project Consultant; Jennifer Kushto-Hoban, Project Associate.

1

for addressing these issues. This document describes the group’s conclusions and recommendations based on relevant research and policy.

Introduction

As education reform continues to take center stage in contemporary U.S. government and policy, ECE programs are increasingly tasked with ensuring every child enters formal schooling “ready to learn.” There is considerable debate around what this readiness entails and how best to achieve it, but most experts agree that high-quality ECE experiences most certainly start with a teacher who understands how young children learn and develop. Unlike K–12 education, however, early childhood education takes many different forms and occurs in a variety of settings and is governed and administered by a broad array of entities and institutions.2 This complexity makes it difficult to standardize how we prepare teachers for the ECE classroom, and at the same time, there is a resounding call within the early childhood education and care community to improve preparation and increase the pool of highly qualified teachers.

The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) recently acknowledged this complexity in preparing ECE teachers. AACTE convened a Focus Council on Early Childhood Education, and among its conclusions was that “a miscellany of institutions has historically carried out the preparation of ECE teachers and caregivers, resulting in fragmentation among multiple constituents.”3 The miscellany of institutions is, in fact, a necessary result of the more complex landscape of early childhood education as compared to that of K–12 education. Whereas public K–12 education overwhelmingly occurs in schools, is regulated by state boards of education, and is administered by local education agencies, public early childhood education occurs in a variety of settings both in and out of schools. Hence, although colleges and universities do a large share of preparing and developing teachers, the miscellany of institutions also includes those various entities who hire them to provide services to young children and their families: community-based organizations, state and local education agencies, private for-profit early childhood care and education providers, private for-profit businesses and corporations, individuals, and museums and other public educational entities. Also, there has been increasing interest in teacher residency and alternative teacher certification programs.

For institutions of higher education to be key suppliers of high-quality ECE teachers, there needs to be better coordination and collaboration across all entities involved in preparing and developing the workforce. AECTP-IL’s work suggests that, by working together in new and more efficient ways, the miscellany of institutions—including higher education—can build its collective capacity to improve ECE teacher preparation and ensure a diverse, high-quality workforce that is well prepared to support the academic, social, and emotional development of all children ages

2 See Whitebrook, M., Gomby, D., Bellm, D., Sakai, L., & Kipnis, F. (2009). Preparing teachers of young children: The current state of knowledge, and a blueprint for the future. Part 2: Effective teacher preparation in early care and education: Toward a comprehensive research agenda. Berkeley, CA: Center for the Study of Child Care Employment, Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, University of California, Berkeley.

3 American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Focus Council on Early Childhood Education (2004). The early childhood challenge: Preparing high-quality teachers for a changing society. Washington, DC: AACTE.

2

For institutions of higher education to be key suppliers of high-quality ECE teachers, there needs to be better coordination and collaboration across all entities involved in preparing and developing the workforce.

zero to eight years in diverse settings. We describe the AECTP-IL work group’s conclusions and specific recommendations in this regard, but first we present some background for our work. We begin with a brief overview of what early childhood education entails and follow with a summary of the broader policy context within which this work occurs. We then describe the work group’s deliberations around key issues and challenges in preparing the ECE teaching workforce, guided and informed by our review of existing literature on relevant topics.

What is early childhood education?

Before we can begin to consider how best to prepare ECE teachers, we must first clarify to what early childhood education refers. Generally, outside of the early care and education field, people equate early childhood education with preschool. In fact, however, early childhood covers the range from zero to eight years, generally characterized as comprising three developmental stages—infants and toddlers, preschool age, and school age (early elementary). Both within and across these ages and stages, care and instruction is delivered in a variety of settings and in many different ways (see Figure 1).

Whom do ECE programs serve, and where?

Early childhood education encompasses services for children and their families from the prenatal period through third grade. Although there is substantial variability in individual human development, there are unique sets of needs and circumstances associated with each of the commonly recognized stages of development. For example, as much as 85% of human brain growth and development occurs before children reach three years of age, so very young children benefit greatly from activities that stimulate cognitive functions.4 The preschool years, on the other hand, are marked by children’s greater need to self-regulate their behavior and emotions, and thus education and care for this group has focused heavily on fostering positive social-emotional development. And finally, school-age children—equipped with more highly developed cognitive and self-regulatory skills—can focus on learning specific academic content while continuing to develop in other areas. It is critical that people working with young children and their families understand the differences along this continuum and across developmental stages.

Across the early childhood age continuum, care and instruction is delivered in a variety of settings. The most common types of services include center-based child care; center- and school-based preschool; licensed, home-based family child care; and unlicensed family, friend, and neighbor care. Within these settings, depending largely on cultural beliefs and values about child development, approaches to the learning needs and care of children vary greatly. For example, some programs are driven by a particular philosophy, such as Montessori, Waldorf, constructivist, and Reggio Emilia, while others have no stated philosophy but may focus on a

4 National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Childhood Development. Jack Shonkoff and Deborah A. Phillips, Eds. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2000; Shore, R. (1997). Rethinking the brain: New insights into early development. New York: Families and Work Institute; Thompson, R. (2001). Development in the First Years of Life. The Future of Children, 11(1), pp. 20-33.

3

Generally, outside of the early care and education field, people equate early childhood education with preschool. In fact, however, early childhood covers the range from zero to eight years, or prenatal/birth to third grade.

Teac

her P

olic

y in

the

U.S

.

17

requ

irem

ents

in

m

ost

EC

sect

ors,

incr

easi

ng

the

com

plex

ity o

f the

sys

tem

, the

re is

also

“a

conf

lictin

g pu

sh t

o re

stric

t th

e su

pply

of

teac

hers

to

only

tho

se

teac

hers

w

ho

are

high

ly

qual

ified

” (T

arra

nt,

Gre

enbe

rg, K

agan

, & K

auer

z, 2

008,

p.1

38),

espe

cial

ly

due

to

the

NC

LB

and

curr

ent

natio

nal

pre-

kind

erga

rten

mov

emen

t.

Wha

t is

the

cur

rent

pol

icy

rega

rdin

g re

crui

tmen

t, pr

epar

atio

n, a

nd r

eten

tion

of E

C te

ache

rs in

the

U.S

., w

hat

are

the

chal

leng

es in

volv

ed, a

nd w

hat

can

we

lear

n fr

om it

? Be

ginn

ing

with

the

hist

oric

al ro

ots

and

soci

al c

onte

xts

that

hav

e le

d to

and

for

med

the

cu

rren

t po

licy

fram

ewor

k,

in

the

follo

win

g,

we

desc

ribe:

(a) d

emog

raph

ic p

rofil

e of

Am

eric

a’s

ECEC

te

achi

ng fo

rce,

(b) r

egul

ator

y st

atus

reg

ardi

ng e

ntry

-le

vel t

each

er re

quire

men

ts, (

c) co

nditi

on o

f pre

-ser

vice

te

ache

r tra

inin

g in

hig

her

educ

atio

n in

stitu

tions

, and

(d

) sta

tus

of p

rofe

ssio

nal d

evel

opm

ent a

nd r

eten

tion

effo

rts.

His

tori

cal a

nd C

ultu

ral C

onte

xts

His

toric

ally

the

U.S

. ha

s ha

d a

two

tiere

d EC

sy

stem

(i.e

., ca

re a

nd e

duca

tion)

, and

two

dim

ensi

ons

of

early

ed

ucat

ion

(i.e.

, ge

nera

l ea

rly

child

hood

Figu

re 1

. EC

EC s

ecto

rs in

the

Uni

ted

Stat

es

--- T

houg

h so

me

sect

ors (

e.g.

, bef

ore-

and

afte

r-sch

ool c

are)

are

hou

sed

in p

ublic

scho

ols,

thei

r sta

ff m

ay b

e su

bjec

t to

DH

HS

regu

latio

ns. a F

unde

d an

d ad

min

ister

ed b

y ea

ch st

ate

gove

rnm

ent.

May

use

cen

ter-b

ased

pro

gram

s to

deliv

er se

rvic

es. b F

unde

d an

d m

onito

red

by fe

dera

l gov

ernm

ent.

Can

also

be

deliv

ered

thro

ugh

Hea

d St

art h

ome-

base

d pr

ogra

m o

ptio

n or

hom

e vi

sits.

Scho

ol-b

ased

se

ctor

sC

ente

r-ba

sed

sect

ors

Hom

e-ba

sed

sect

ors

Oth

er

ECEC

Sec

tors

in th

e U

nite

d St

ates

- Pub

lic sc

hool

Pr

imar

y gr

ades

K

inde

rgar

ten

Pr

e-K

inde

rgar

tena

- Non

publ

ic sc

hool

Pr

imar

y gr

ades

K

inde

rgar

ten

Pre-

Kin

derg

arte

na

- Pre

scho

ol S

peci

al

Educ

atio

nb

- Bef

ore-

and

afte

r-sc

hool

car

e

- Hea

d St

artb

- Nur

sery

Sc

hool

s

- Chi

ld C

are

Cen

ters

- Pre

scho

ols

- Fam

ily C

hild

C

are

Hom

es

- Gro

up C

hild

C

are

Hom

es

- Ear

ly

Inte

rven

tion

- Priv

ate

Hom

e C

are

- Car

e pr

ovid

ed

by re

ligio

us

orga

niza

tions

- Em

ploy

er-

spon

sore

d on

site

car

e

Dep

artm

ent o

f Edu

catio

n (D

OE)

D

epar

tmen

t of H

ealth

and

Hum

an S

ervi

ces (

DH

HS)

(rep

rint

ed f

rom

Cho

, E. K

., &

Co

use,

L. J

. (20

08).

Ear

ly C

hild

hoo

d T

each

er P

olic

y in

the

Uni

ted

Sta

tes:

Co

ntin

uing

Is

sues

, Ove

rco

min

g B

arri

ers,

and

Env

isio

ning

the

Fut

ure.

Inte

rnat

iona

l Jo

urna

l of

Chi

ld C

are

and

Ed

ucat

ion

Po

licy,

Vo

l. 2

(2),

pp

. 15-

30.)

Tab

le 1

: A

vera

ge

an

nu

al

wag

es b

y st

aff

ro

le,

pro

gra

m t

ype

an

d s

etti

ng

, an

d t

ypic

al

edu

cati

on

lev

el*†

Pro

gra

m t

ype

& s

etti

ng

D

egre

es a

nd

cre

den

tials

/A

vera

ge

an

nu

al

wag

es

Ro

le/

po

siti

on

A

sst.

Tea

cher

T

each

er

Dir

ecto

r o

r ad

min

istr

ato

r C

ente

r-b

ased

Hea

d S

tart

an

d E

arly

H

ead S

tart

H

igh

sch

oo

l dip

lom

a o

r h

igh

er/

$18,

912

CD

A/$2

2,56

6;

B.A

./$2

9.44

0;

Adva

nce

d

deg

ree/

$35,

030

B.A

. or

hig

her

/$6

8,89

2

Ear

ly H

ead S

tart

ho

me-

bas

ed v

isit

or

CD

A o

r eq

uiv

alen

t/$2

7,49

3 H

ead S

tart

an

d E

arly

Hea

d S

tart

fa

mily

ch

ild c

are

CD

A o

r eq

uiv

alen

t/$2

8,26

0

Cen

ter-

bas

ed c

hild

car

e H

igh

sch

oo

l dip

lom

a o

r h

igh

er/$2

0,87

0 H

igh

sch

oo

l dip

lom

a o

r h

igh

er/$2

5,53

0 B

.A. o

r h

igh

er/$4

3,83

0

Fam

ily c

hild

car

e‡

Hig

h s

cho

ol dip

lom

a o

r h

igh

er/$1

9,33

0 C

ente

r-b

ased

pub

lic p

resc

ho

ol

CD

A o

r eq

uiv

alen

t/$2

0,87

0 A

sso

ciat

e’s

or

hig

her

/$2

8,45

6 B

.A. o

r h

igh

er/$5

2,25

0

Sch

oo

l-b

ased

pub

lic p

resc

ho

ol

CD

A o

r A

sso

ciat

e’s/

$20,

870-

$25,

120§

B.A

. or

hig

her

/$4

2,15

0 M

aste

r’s

or

hig

her

/$7

3,21

0

Pub

lic s

cho

ol ki

nder

gart

en

Ass

oci

ate’

s/$2

5,12

0 B

.A. o

r h

igh

er/$5

2,66

0 (s

cho

ol p

rin

cip

al)

Mas

ter’

s o

r h

igh

er/$9

0,15

0 P

ub

lic s

cho

ol el

emen

tary

gra

des

A

sso

ciat

e’s/

$25,

120

B.A

. or

hig

her

/$5

4,36

0 (s

cho

ol p

rin

cip

al)

Mas

ter’

s o

r h

igh

er/$9

0,15

0

* A

ll H

ead

Sta

rt/

Ear

ly H

ead

Sta

rt d

ata

are

fro

m t

he

2010

-201

1 H

ead

Sta

rt P

rogr

am I

nfo

rmat

ion

Rep

ort

(P

IR);

all

oth

er d

ata

are

fro

m t

he

2010

U.S

. Bure

au o

f L

abo

r Sta

tist

ics

(BL

S)

Occ

up

atio

nal

Em

plo

ymen

t Sta

tist

ics.

†

Ed

uca

tio

n lev

els

liste

d a

re a

ssum

ed t

o b

e ty

pic

al f

or

thes

e p

arti

cula

r ro

les,

set

tin

gs, a

nd

sal

ary

leve

ls; t

hey

do

no

t n

eces

sari

ly r

efle

ct r

equir

ed c

red

enti

als.

‡

Usi

ng

BL

S d

ata

for

“ch

ild c

are

wo

rker

s” in

“ch

ild d

ay c

are

serv

ices

” in

dust

ry, w

hic

h d

oes

no

t d

isti

ngu

ish

bet

wee

n h

om

e- a

nd

cen

ter-

bas

ed s

etti

ngs

. §

No

sal

ary

info

rmat

ion

in

BL

S f

or

this

sub

set,

so

est

imat

e is

hig

her

th

an t

hat

fo

r ce

nte

r-b

ased

pre

sch

oo

l an

d lo

wer

th

an t

hat

fo

r ki

nd

erga

rten

an

d e

lem

enta

ry g

rad

e te

ach

er a

ssis

tan

ts.

particular curriculum (e.g. Creative Curriculum, High Scope); and still many others combine elements from several approaches. Given the variety of settings in which young children learn and grow and the different methods for meeting their unique needs across these settings, it can be quite challenging to ideally prepare teachers to work with all young children and their families.

Who provides early childhood care and education services?

The majority of practitioners enter the field as teaching assistants or classroom aides—positions that typically require just a high school diploma or GED and perhaps a few hours of formal training or education in child development or early childhood education. Overall, less than a third of the current teaching workforce in early childhood education—spanning home-based, center-based, and school-based care settings—has any postsecondary educational experiences. Many practitioners may pursue higher education and credentials as a means of advancing their careers or, in many cases, to keep their existing jobs as requirements continue to change. Often, however, they face difficulties in higher education programs because they lack sufficient academic preparation for the rigor of college-level course work. Moreover, many lack the material and social resources necessary to support their academic pursuits: 19% live at least 200% below the federal poverty level, many have low literacy skills or low English language proficiency, and most work long hours with few or no benefits.5

ECE practitioners are among the lowest paid workers in the United States, falling behind those working in the fields of housekeeping and food services. 6 Average wages for entry-level practitioners, such as classroom aides and teacher assistants, fall somewhere in the range of $8–$10 per hour, and for preschool teachers between $9 and $15 per hour.7 Wages are considerably higher for lead teachers in state prekindergarten programs (among them, highest for those working in public schools), and nearly two thirds of them hold bachelor’s degrees; but these teachers represent only a small fraction of the ECE teaching workforce (see Table 1).8

Finally, racial and ethnic minority teachers—many of whom bring the valued resource of being better able to draw on community resources since they tend to come from and live in the communities where they teach—are severely and increasingly overrepresented in support roles and underrepresented in more senior roles in the current workforce. This is potentially problematic since, although children in ECE programs come from diverse racial, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds and vary greatly in terms of SES, it is estimated that greater than two thirds of lead teachers are white, 99% are female, and most are from middle-class backgrounds.9 Besides having first-hand knowledge about community

5 Kagan, S.L., Kauerz, K., Tarrant, K. (2008). The early care and education teaching workforce at the fulcrum: An agenda for reform. New York: Teachers College Press; Saluja, G., Early, D.M., & Clifford, R.M. (2002). Demographic characteristics of early childhood teachers and structural elements of early care and education in the United States. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 4(1), 2-21

6Kagan et al., 2008. 7American Federation of Teachers, www.aft.org8Kagan et al., 2008.9 Ray, A., Bowman, B., Robbins, J. (2006). Preparing early childhood teachers to successfully educate all children: the contribution of four-year undergraduate teacher preparation. New York, NY: Foundation for Child Development; Saluja et al., 2002.

6

5

ECE program enrollment in Illinois

According to the 2010 Census data, there are approximately 13 million people living in Illinois; of these, 6.5% or more than 836,000 are under 5 years of age. Who cares for the children while their parents or primary care givers are working outside the home? Many of these children are being cared for in license-exempt and unregulated friend, family, and neighbor care, but it is difficult to estimate specific numbers. Figures 2A and 2B, below, provide estimates of the number of children being served in licensed, regulated public and private settings in Illinois.

0

50000

100000

Program Type

76,782

34,310 33,052 20,144

Child Care Type Comparison

PFA

Head Start

Private

Family CC Homes

#

of c

hild

ren

who

atte

nd

Figure 2.A Comparison of Child Care program enrollment in IllinoisSource: Illinois Action for Children Care Data 2007

101380

20144

Centers

Family Child Care Homes

Figure 2.B Number of children served in Center-based care vs Family Child Care Homes in IllinoisSource: Illinois Action for Children Child Care Data 2007

Figure 2.A Comparison of Child Care program enrollment in IllinoisSource: Illinois Action for Children Care Data 2007

Figure 2.B Number of children served in Center-based care vs Family Child Care Homes in IllinoisSource: Illinois Action for Children Care Data 2007

values, challenges, and resources, teachers from backgrounds similar to those of the children and families whom they serve can have positive impacts on the children’s identities, esteem, and even academic achievement.10 Moreover, these teachers may face fewer barriers in communicating with families from within the host community.

Considering the broader policy context

There are three overlapping policy areas that we take into consideration for this work: education policy, workforce policy, and child and family policy. Key issues in each of these areas have significant implications for what ECE teachers need to know and be able to do, how they are trained, how they are hired and retained, how they do their work, and, ultimately, how they factor in young children’s academic achievement and overall development. This is also true for elementary and secondary teacher preparation, but to a lesser extent. Whereas K–12 education traditionally takes place in schools and provides instruction for children ages five to 18 years in basic academic skills and content, the ECE landscape is much more complex and varied. Thus, effective models for preparing teachers to work across the various ECE settings must move beyond mimicking those designed to prepare teachers to work with children in elementary and secondary school classrooms.

Education policy

Education policy as it relates to early childhood education is largely concerned with improving teacher quality and effectiveness, ensuring young children are “ready for school,” and closing achievement gaps—all deriving from the accountability movement in education reform.11 First, although the research evidence on the relation between college degrees and teaching effectiveness is inconclusive, there is a steady push among policymakers and program leaders to require a bachelor’s degree for ECE teachers.12 Similarly, as interest in pre-K through third-grade initiatives continues to grow, there is a concomitant increasing demand for certified teachers who can teach across this continuum within publicly funded elementary schools.13 Second, ECE teachers are carrying the full burden of ensuring that young children are “ready for school”—that they enter kindergarten with the skills seen as necessary for their success in the classroom and, ultimately, that will lead to their successful completion of school. As a result, efforts to link

10 Dee, T. S. (2004). Teachers’ race and student achievement in a randomized experiment. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 86(1), 195-210.

11 Winton, P. J., & MCollum, J.A. (2008). Preparing and supporting high quality early childhood practitioners: Issues, evidence and recommendations. In P. Winton, J. McCollum, & C. Catlett (Eds.). Effective professionals: Evidence and applications in early childhood and early intervention. Washington, DC: Zero to Three Press.

12 Bueno, M. Darling-Hammond, L., & Gonzales, D. (2010). A matter of degrees: Preparing teachers for the Pre-K classroom. Washington, DC: Pre-K Now, Pew Center on the States; Edie, D. (2007). Policy Brief—Making the Grade: making the case for well-educated, well-trained teaching staff in early care and education. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Council for Children and Families; Whitebrook, M. (2003). Early education quality: Higher teacher qualifications for better learning environments—a review of the literature. Berkley, CA: Institute of Industrial Relations; Whitebrook, M., & Ryan, S. (Apr 2011). Degrees in context: Asking the right questions about preparing skilled and effective teachers of young children. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research.

13 Hernandez, D. J., (2011). Double jeopardy: How third-grade reading skills and poverty influence high school graduation. The Annie E. Casey Foundation; Reynolds, A., Magnuson, K., & Ou, S. (2006). PK-3 education: Programs and practices that work in children’s first decade. Foundation for Child Development Working Paper: Advancing PK-3, No. 6.

8

Key issues in education policy, workforce policy, and child and family policy have significant implications for what ECE teachers need to know and be able to do, how they are trained, how they are hired and retained, how they do their work, and, ultimately, how they factor in young children’s academic achievement and overall development.

K–12 teacher practices and characteristics to individual student growth in learning and achievement have now begun to trickle down to the ECE classroom. The challenge for early childhood educators is, of course, even more complicated given the difficulties of developing reliable assessments for young children.14 Finally, national education reform efforts continue to focus heavily on reducing and eliminating achievement gaps, particularly among ethnic/racial minorities and along socioeconomic class lines. Since these gaps exist before children enter preschool, a large portion of the burden to reduce these gaps again falls to the early childhood educator.

Workforce policy

Issues in workforce policy include low compensation and a perception of early childhood teaching as a low-skill vocation rather than a profession, poor working conditions, and uneven entry requirements based on program type and funding source. There are reports that as many as 70% of teachers in state prekindergarten programs—the highest paid professionals in the ECE teaching workforce—report salaries that qualify as low-income.15 Overall, compensation varies widely across states and depends on the source of program funding and regulation, with state prekindergarten paying the highest salaries. In addition to receiving low wages for their work, ECE teachers also frequently experience poor working conditions, such as a lack of classroom resources, low human resource capacity, longer hours, and year-round instructional schedules. These issues of poor compensation and working conditions are somewhat interdependent with issues around raising requirements for ECE teachers. Specifically, while increasing requirements has the potential to professionalize the field—including raising overall compensation and improving working conditions—the majority of the current workforce faces substantial barriers in meeting these raised requirements. All of these problems can lead to the perpetuation of a racially/culturally and socio-economically stratified workforce wherein members of racial/ethnic minority groups and those who have less social and economic capital are relegated to nonteaching, support roles in ECE settings.

Typically, ECE practitioners first embark on their pursuit of postsecondary education to obtain the Child Development Associate (CDA) credential, the most widely accepted credential in early childhood education. Earning the CDA helps practitioners meet requirements for more senior positions or positions in settings where work conditions are better and compensation is higher (for example, moving from a classroom at a community-based organization to a school-based Head Start classroom). But even after obtaining the CDA, many entry-level practitioners still find it difficult and sometimes impossible to advance to roles such as lead teacher or director. Increasingly, ECE practitioners in support roles are finding that they will need to obtain formal degrees and credentials in order to earn higher compensation and advance their careers (see Table 2).

14 See, for example, The Kindergarten Readiness Assessment Stakeholder Committee of the Illinois State Board of Education (2011). A new beginning: The Illinois Kindergarten Individual Development Survey.

15 Fowler, S., Bloom, P. J., Talan, T. N., Beneke, S., & Kelton, R. (2008). Who’s caring for the kids? The status of the early childhood workforce in Illinois—2008. McCormick Tribune Center for Early Childhood Leadership, National Louis University; Kagan et al., 2008; Saluja et al., 2002.

9

Table 2: Early childhood credentials and degrees

Degree Description(s) Who seeks these degrees? CDA The Child Development Associate credential is a

nationally recognized, competency-based, early childhood credential, granted to qualified candidates by the Council for Professional Recognition. Requirements include experience, education, and documentation of competency.1

The child development associate credential acts as a stepping stone to further early childhood credentialing.

2-Year Associates degree AAT- The Associate of Arts in Teaching degree offers courses required for transfer to a four-year college or university. This degree is based on the Illinois Professional Teaching standards and included IAI General Education Core Curriulum.2

AAS- The Associate in Applied Science degrees (A.A.S.) and related occupational certificate programs are designed for students primarily interested in acquiring technical/occupational skills in order to enter the job market.2

Although not exclusively, many ECE professionals seeking an AAT or AAS are currently working in an early childhood center or classroom, but are required to further their education. Early childhood funders, such as Illinois Pre-school for all and Head Start, have increased teacher and teacher assistant credentials for those being paid from these resources. These increases created an incentive for those working in ECE classrooms to further their education.

4-Year-Bachelors degree A B.A. in ECE or Child Development offers coursework leading students to a career working as a Head Teacher in a Head Start classroom or in an administrative type positions in the field. A B.S. in ECE with certification requires similar course work of those seeking a B.A.. However, to obtain certification students must pass both the Basic Skills Exam, the Content Knowledge exam and complete a culminating experience, typically a semester practical experience as a student teacher.

Students seeking a bachelor’s degree in Early Childhood education or Child Development seek to work with young children and their families. Obtaining certification enables the student to work in a public school setting (pre-k- grade 3) or as a Type 04 certified teacher in an Illinois Pre-School for All classroom.

Graduate Degree A Master’s degree in Early Childhood education provides advanced studies in the field. Some students take this opportunity to specialize in one content area while seeking this degree. Graduate degree with certification

There are many reasons to seek a graduate degree in Early Childhood Education. A career changer who already holds a B.A. or B.S. degree in another field may decide they are interested in working with young children and seek a graduate degree in the ECE field. (Initial certification) Another route includes students who already work in the field. These students are often interested in specializing in one particular area, such as administration or to become a reading specialist. (advanced certification) Students seeking a graduate degree can chose whether they are also interested in seeking certification

Alternative Certification Alternative certification programs offer individuals who hold a bachelors degree or higher an expedited route to certification.

Gateways to Opportunity Career Lattice: Illinois Professional Development System

The career lattice provides a leveled progression of ECE competency for students to achieve. Beginning with level one, credentialing is awarded upon completion of 48 hours of early childhood training. The culminating credential, level 6, occurs with the achievement of a graduate degree. In addition to completing the ECE credential or separately, students have the opportunity to specialize their knowledge to obtain the Illinois Director’s credential and/or the Infant Toddler credential.

Professional Development

Staying current on research and happenings in the field is imperative for classroom teachers success. Whether ECE teachers are certified or hold a B.A. they are required to obtain continuing education credits/hours. The regulating body/funding source determines how many hours per year are required. The Early Childhood field is fortunate and plagued by the array of different PD opportunities available. The various opportunities provide teachers with an array of experiences and opportunities to build necessary teaching skills. However, the PD experiences are often unrelated to each other and do not translate into college credit.

The portion of the postsecondary student population that is made up of entry-level ECE practitioners tends to be older than traditional college students, to work full-time for low pay, to have families, to be heads-of-households, and to have lower levels of literacy and other academic skills as compared to other students.16 Consequently, they are faced with balancing family, work, and school obligations, as well as mastering challenging academic material with insufficient preparation and support. These challenges prevent most ECE students, particularly in community colleges, from successfully matriculating through their programs. Even those who successfully matriculate can often take several years to complete the requirements for the degree. Most are enrolled in school only part-time, often experience interruptions in their enrollment, and frequently lose credits for completed work because they transfer to a different institution when they resume their education. All of these problems are exacerbated by the low wages they earn for the demanding work with which they are charged, subjecting them to the threat of being near or in persistent poverty.

Child and family policy

Issues in child and family policy include initiatives that link supports for young children with supports for their families, meeting the needs of the “whole child” versus focusing solely on cognitive development and academic achievement, and closing gaps before children enter classrooms. Examples of these types of initiatives include home-visit programs, such as the Nurse-Family Partnership, which sends certified nurses into the homes of low-income pregnant teenagers and first-time mothers to teach them about child development and support them in caring for their prenatal to five-year-old children. Though comprehensive and not housed in or regulated by education authorities, the program is hailed as an effective approach to closing achievement gaps. Similarly, Head Start programs were designed to meet the needs of the “whole child” but often are criticized for not focusing heavily enough on cognitive development and academic achievement. Such policies have strong implications for how we prepare ECE teachers. For example, while bachelor’s degree programs that lead to certification tend to be housed in schools of education and focus on teaching subject matter, associate’s degree programs tend to be housed in family studies or human development departments and focus on children’s healthy growth and development. A whole child perspective implies integration across these two approaches.

We have only touched on some of the many implications these broader, overlapping policies can have for the where, what, and how of ECE teacher education. This policy context has informed our work in AECTP-IL and provided us with a sense about what policies need to be in place in order to advance any action plan that may come of that work. The greatest challenge to implementation is that the players who are in the position to effect change are unknown or rarely are at the table. We are hopeful that the recent collaboration between the U.S. Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services to form the federal Office of Early Learning will facilitate implementation of some of the solutions we propose for improving ECE teacher preparation here in Illinois and throughout the nation.

16Klostermann, 2010; Kagan et al., 2008.

11

Preparing high-quality, highly effective early childhood education teachers: What, where, why, and how?

Although research on ECE teacher preparation has received increased attention in the past two or three decades, most of this work is largely descriptive. The extant research provides important information about where teachers receive their training and what it consists of, but less is known about the components, features, structure, and design of preparation programs or their effectiveness. For example, little research has examined what models of instructional delivery work best for teacher candidates or what role preparation plays in the effectiveness of teacher practices in supporting young children’s learning and development.

The AACTE Focus Council on Early Childhood Education concluded from its work that there are four key challenges facing schools, colleges, and departments of education:17

• What should admission policies encompass to welcome diverse teachers and also ensure high standards?

• How can we standardize the preparation and credentialing of ECE teachers so that ECE program quality is consistent from class to class and from school to school?

• What are the common expectations across the multiple types of early childhood care and education programs?

• What are basic program components? How can they be organized?

Indeed, this set of questions reflects issues commonly noted in research on ECE teacher preparation. For example, as we describe in some detail elsewhere in this report, the field is criticized for setting standards too low—both for entry into teacher education programs and into the workforce; there is a concern, however, that raising requirements can disproportionately impede access to higher education, credentials, and, hence, career opportunities for some subpopulations. This is problematic in and of itself, but also because it contributes to an imbalanced, incongruent teaching workforce vis-à-vis the populations that fill our nation’s ECE settings and classrooms. Similarly, research has indicated that preparation is inconsistent across postsecondary programs; despite the existence of teaching standards for ECE practitioners, support for teacher practices taught in postsecondary programs varies across settings; and there are few models for how best to prepare ECE teachers, given the complexity of the field.

Where and why: features and goals of preparation programs

As we describe in greater detail next, the vast majority of ECE teachers (especially in child-care settings) receive most of their training in-service; that is, they enter the workforce with little or no experience and no formal education, but while working they continually participate in workshops and other training in child development and early childhood care and education practices. As a result, there

17AACTE, 2004

12

are multiple points of entry into ECE teacher preparation programs in institutions of higher education. Some students enter programs through the traditional postsecondary route with no experience or prior knowledge in child development or early childhood care and education; others enter with some experience but no formal training; and still others enter with no formal education but several years of experience and on-the-job training. There are multiple exit points as well. Some seek training and nondegree professional development credits on a specific topic; some seek a minimum certificate in early childhood care and education; and some seek associate’s, bachelor’s, or advanced degrees and state licensing or certification. As a result, a variety of programs is needed to accommodate the unique situation of ECE teacher preparation. Still, it is presumed that programs share some common goals and features.

Where do teachers receive their training? Unlike elementary and secondary teacher preparation programs, which typically are housed in colleges of education or in schools of arts and sciences, ECE teacher preparation programs are housed in a variety of settings both inside and outside of institutions of higher education. Within institutions of higher education, programs are housed most often in colleges of education, but also in departments of child or human development, family and consumer sciences, arts and sciences, and others. Outside of higher education, ECE teacher preparation and development is offered by private businesses and corporations, boards of education, community-based organizations, faith-based institutions, child-care and early learning program providers, museums and other public educational and cultural institutions, and a host of other entities. Here we limit our discussion to higher education–based programs and what they entail but conclude by suggesting that ECE teacher preparation can be improved through better partnerships between higher-education and other entities involved in teacher preparation and development.

According to a comprehensive study conducted by researchers at the Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, there are about 1,300 higher education–based ECE teacher preparation programs throughout the nation (roughly 70 or so in Illinois).18 Estimates indicated that more than half of these are two-year programs and do not lead to certification. More than half of the programs offer an associate’s degree (primarily the AAS), while fewer than 30% offer an advanced degree. In terms of program content, there was little to no consistency. Across 19 content areas, there was no incidence of greater than 70% agreement across programs in requiring an entire course or more except for “education and care of preschool children” (although nearly all programs addressed all 19 content areas to some extent).

Many ECE teacher preparation programs are challenged by extremely low staff capacity. Some programs have just a single full-time faculty member, and most rely heavily on adjunct instructional staff to teach courses and mentor students in the field. The few full-time faculty in these programs are spread thin with administrative, teaching, and sometimes research responsibilities, as well as mentoring and supervision of students. Therefore, they lack the time and resources for continued professional development, which is crucial since most faculty at four-year institutions typically do not hold degrees in early childhood

18 Maxwell, K. L., Lim, C-I, & Early, D. M. (2006). Early childhood teacher preparation programs in the United States: State report for Illinois. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute.

13

There are multiple points of entry and exit in ECE teacher preparation programs: preservice (no experience) and in-service; early career, mid-career, or near-retirement; for non-degree-granting professional development credits, formal credentials, or postsecondary and advanced degrees.

education or development and many lack direct experience working with young children. On the other hand, faculty at two-year institutions are less likely to hold a doctoral degree, but their degrees are more likely to be in early childhood education or development and most began their careers working directly with young children and their families. Faculty at both types of institutions are overwhelmingly white (about 80%), middle class and female (more than 90%), and on average have little knowledge about or experience with children and families from diverse backgrounds.19

What are the goals of teacher preparation? All programs should prepare teachers, at the most fundamental level, in best practices in direct care and edu cation in these settings and in various roles: educator, home-family support, and professional support. According to NAEYC, programs should instill in students of early childhood education the “professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions in a community of learners making sense of readings, observations, field experiences, and group projects through their interactions with others” (p. 5).20

Thus, a common goal among ECE teacher preparation programs is to produce high-quality, highly effective teachers who can apply knowledge to their practice in working with young children ages zero to eight years and their families from diverse backgrounds across a variety of settings. Issues pertaining to teacher quality—which many agree is essential to ensuring young children receive high-quality early education experiences—abound in this era of accountability in education reform. There are questions, however, around what a high-quality ECE teacher looks like and concerns about inequities in access to higher-education programs that award the credentials that designate a teacher as “highly qualified.”

In the course of teachers becoming more and more central to discussions of education reform, quality has become confounded with qualifications and definitions have become muddled—due in part to language in the 2001 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation. Citing research on teacher qualifications and student outcomes, the act mandated that teachers hired with Title I funds must meet “high quality” specifications. The law defines a “highly qualified” teacher as one who is a) fully certified and/or licensed by the state; b) holds at least a bachelor’s degree from a four-year institution; and c) demonstrates competence in each core academic subject area in which the teacher teaches.21 This definition is problematic for ECE teachers, since these requirements apply only to those working in public school settings governed by state boards of education. Even within public-school settings, every district, school, classroom, and child presents unique contributions to what “high quality” teaching looks like in that particular setting.

Quality might also be defined by the way it has been operationalized. State boards of education and other regulating entities have tried to standardize requirements for high-quality ECE teachers. In Illinois in order to earn a Type 04 (early childhood) teaching certificate, the State Board of Education (ISBE) requires that students complete an accredited teacher preparation program. Institutions can obtain accreditation from ISBE by aligning their curriculums with the Illinois Professional

19Whitebrook et al., 200920 National Association for the Education of Young Children (2009). NAEYC Standards for Early Childhood Professional

Preparation Programs.21United States Department of Education (2004). NCLB: A Toolkit for Teachers.

14

Teaching Standards (IPTS) and the respective content standards for the certificate. The Illinois standards for early childhood education are partially aligned with the 2010 NAEYC standards for initial and advanced early childhood professional preparation programs, approved by NCATE. In addition, accredited programs must have an assessment system by which teacher candidates demonstrate that they meet both IPTS and content area standards. The assessment system includes the Illinois Early Childhood content exam, the Illinois Assessment of Professional Teaching Standards exam (APT), as well as a standards-based assessment completed by school site personnel and at least three other performance assessments developed by the program and approved by ISBE. Illinois is currently pilot-testing the Teacher Performance Assessment Consortium tool (T-PAC) that is expected to be required of all accredited programs. Nationally, non-certification programs seeking NAEYC accreditation at the associate’s, bachelor’s, and master’s/advanced levels are expected to demonstrate that students graduating from their programs demonstrate proficiency in NAEYC’s six core standards (see Table 3).

After graduating from an institution of higher education that aligns its programs to the NAEYC Professional Preparation Standards, the beginning ECE teacher should:

1. have a broad and thorough understanding of development from birth through age eight, including an understanding of the importance of families and communities to young children’s development,

2. have the skills necessary to build developmentally effective approaches and meaningful curriculum as well as the know-how to use assessment to support children and families, and

3. know what it means and how it looks to act as a professional in the field.

In Illinois, students who hold a bachelor’s degree or higher and meet other ISBE requirements are entitled to receive the Illinois ECE teaching certificate (Type 04), which certifies them to teach in settings and classrooms with children ages birth through the third grade. But the developmental gains and needs of children within this broad age grouping are vastly different, breaking out roughly into three distinct phases of development: infants and toddlers, preschoolers, and early elementary grades. Infants and toddlers being cared for in a rural community center require a teacher with different sets of knowledge, skills, and dispositions than one who teaches children in a third-grade classroom in a downtown charter school—yet ECE teachers certified by the State of Illinois are presumed to be prepared to teach this entire age range regardless of setting. A high-quality or highly-qualified teacher would need to understand that the various types of care and education across the birth to third grade range require distinct environments, curricula, and methods of instruction in order to best nurture children’s learning. Currently, there is no standard way to ensure quality defined this way, which presents complex issues for colleges of education, community colleges, and other organizations involved with preparing educators for ECE settings.

A high-quality or highly-qualified ECE teacher would need to understand that the various types of care and education across the birth to third grade range require distinct environments, curricula, and methods of instruction in order to best nurture children’s learning.

15

2010 NAEYC Initial and Advanced Standards: 6 Core Standards

Standard Key Elements

STANDARD 1. PROMOTING CHILD

DEVELOPMENT AND LEARNING

1a: Knowing and understanding young children’s characteristics and

needs, from birth through age 8. 1b: Knowing and understanding the multiple influences on early

development and learning 1c: Using developmental knowledge to create healthy, respectful,

supportive, and challenging learning environments for young children

STANDARD 2. BUILDING FAMILY AND

COMMUNITY RELATIONSHIPS

2a: Knowing about and understanding diverse family and community

characteristics 2b: Supporting and engaging families and communities through

respectful, reciprocal relationships

2c: Involving families and communities in young children’s development

and learning

STANDARD 3. OBSERVING,

DOCUMENTING, AND ASSESSING TO

SUPPORT YOUNG CHILDREN AND

FAMILIES

3a: Understanding the goals, benefits, and uses of assessment – including

its use in development of appropriate goals, curriculum, and teaching

strategies for young children 3b: Knowing about and using observation, documentation, and other

appropriate assessment tools and approaches, including the use of technology in documentation, assessment and data collection.

3c: Understanding and practicing responsible assessment to promote

positive outcomes for each child, including the use of assistive technology

for children with disabilities. 3d: Knowing about assessment partnerships with families and with

professional colleagues to build effective learning environments.

STANDARD 4. USING

DEVELOPMENTALLY EFFECTIVE

APPROACHES

4a: Understanding positive relationships and supportive interactions as

the foundation of their work with young children 4b: Knowing and understanding effective strategies and tools for early

education, including appropriate uses of technology

4c: Using a broad repertoire of developmentally appropriate teaching

/learning approaches

4d: Reflecting on own practice to promote positive outcomes for each

child

STANDARD 5. USING CONTENT

KNOWLEDGE TO BUILD MEANINGFUL

CURRICULUM

5a: Understanding content knowledge and resources in academic

disciplines: language and literacy; the arts – music, creative movement,

dance, drama, visual arts; mathematics; science, physical activity, physical education, health and safety; and social studies.

5b: Knowing and using the central concepts, inquiry tools, and structures

of content areas or academic disciplines

5c: Using own knowledge, appropriate early learning standards, and other

resources to design, implement, and evaluate developmentally meaningful and challenging curriculum for each child.

STANDARD 6. GROWING AS A

PROFESSIONAL

6a: Demonstrating professional identification with and leadership skills in

the early childhood field to think strategically, build consensus, create change, effectively collaborate with and mentor others, and have a

positive influence on outcomes for children, families and the profession. 6b: In-depth understanding and thoughtful application of NAEYC Code

of Ethical Conduct and other professional guidelines relevant to their

professional role

6c: Using professional resources, inquiry skills and research methods to

engage in continuous, collaborative learning and investigation relevant to practice and professional role.

6d: Integrating knowledgeable, reflective, and critical perspectives on

early education based upon mastery of relevant theory and research

6e: Engaging in informed advocacy for children and the profession,

skillfully articulating and advocating for sound professional practices and

public policies. 6f. Demonstrating a high level of oral, written and technological

communication skills with specialization for specific professional role(s) emphasized in the program

Table 3:

Highly effective teaching is even more difficult to demonstrate. While quality refers to the qualifications, characteristics, knowledge, skills, and dispositions teachers should possess, effectiveness refers to their demonstrated ability to apply these attributes in ways that positively affect students’ learning outcomes. Currently, there is an ongoing national debate around the merits of using value-added statistical methods to assess teachers’ effectiveness, defined as their impact on student learning gains. Put simply, value-added methods link student outcomes on standardized tests to teacher practices and characteristics, attributing average learning gains (test score increase) across students assigned to that teacher to effective teaching. Controversial even for elementary and secondary teachers, this approach is especially troubling for ECE settings. Because development between the ages of zero and five years, in particular, is so rapid and varies greatly across individuals, assessments for children this age are highly unreliable.22 Hence, any attempt to link teachers to these unreliable assessments would likewise yield unreliable estimates of teachers’ effectiveness.

Finally, teacher preparation programs in institutions of higher education seek to produce teachers who are committed to serving young and very young children and their families as a career. Retaining the best teachers in early childhood care and education programs remains problematic since wages are notoriously low and working conditions so poor, with turnover estimated at around 30% across the nation.23 For those who do remain in the field, opportunities for professional advancement are not so clear or accessible to many. Responding to this problem, many states have begun to build and implement professional development systems. For example, in Illinois, the Gateways career lattice for ECE professionals, linked to NAEYC standards, education, and training and years of experience in the field (see Figure 3), specifies expectations and requirements for individuals occupying roles from classroom aide to center director; teachers can earn state-recognized credentials to show that they meet these expectations and requirements. These systems can help ECE practitioners at all levels chart their professional pathways within the field, providing clear information about what they would need to do to be eligible for particular roles and positions.

Professional development systems afford the added benefit of enhancing retention in early childhood care and education since they present options and mechanisms for professional advancement and even lateral mobility. But another factor in retention is support and mentoring for new teachers. As former preschool teacher and New America Foundation policy analyst and blogger, Laura Bornfreund, wrote in a recent online article, “Factors that impelled me to leave: inadequate preparation and poor-quality professional development; lack of feedback on what I was doing well and where I could improve; meager time to plan and collaborate with fellow teachers; limited access to important data about students; and no foreseeable paths for career advancement. Other teachers agree.”24

22 Atkins-Burnett, S. (2007). Measuring children’s progress from preschool through 3rd grade. Retrieved December 23, 2011, from http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Pre-k_education/atkins-burnett%20final%20apper%207-3-07.pdf

23 Midwest Child Care Research Consortium. Early childhood workforce retention rates: What factors impact the statistics? University of Missouri--Columbia, Center for Family Policy & Research. Retrieved May 19, 2009, from http://mucenter.missouri.edu/Retention1202.pdf

24 Bornfreund, L. (Dec 7, 2011). Do teachers care about pay? Yes, but not as much as you think. Slate. www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2011/12/07/teacher_pay_are_teachers_quitting_over_pay_or_over_policies_.html.

Many ECE teachers work in the communities where they live and, therefore, bring into their classrooms a wealth of community cultural knowledge, but many of them have not had the opportunity to acquire more formal knowledge about child development and children’s learning.

17

Gat

eway

s to

Opp

ortu

nity

Car

eer L

attic

e

Cred

entia

ls Ke

y: ID

C: Ill

inoi

s D

irect

or C

rede

ntia

l •

ECE C

rede

ntia

l •

ITC:

Infa

nt To

ddle

r Cre

dent

ial

Each

Cre

dent

ial h

as s

peci

fic re

quire

men

ts. F

or m

ore

info

rmat

ion,

visi

t ww

w.il

gate

way

s.com

.

5 3 2 14

Leve

ls

Leve

l

Cont

ent A

reas

Ass

oci

ate’

s D

egre

e

12 S

emes

ter

ho

urs

in E

CE

48 h

ou

r Le

vel 1

EC

E Tr

ain

ing

18 S

emes

ter

ho

urs

in E

CE

Avai

labl

e Cr

eden

tials:

IDC III

In d

evel

opm

ent:

ECE

6 / I

TC 6

Avai

labl

e Cr

eden

tials:

ECE

4 /

ITC

4 / I

DC I

Avai

labl

e Cr

eden

tials:

ECE

2 /

ITC

2

Avai

labl

e Cr

eden

tial: E

CE 1

Avai

labl

e Cr

eden

tials:

ECE

5 /

ITC

5 / I

DC II

Avai

labl

e Cr

eden

tials:

ECE

3 /

ITC

3

6 Grad

uat

e D

egre

e

Hu

man

Gro

wth

an

d D

evel

op

men

t

Hea

lth

, Saf

ety

and

Wel

l-B

ein

g

Ob

serv

atio

n a

nd

Ass

essm

ent

Cu

rric

ulu

m o

r P

rog

ram

Des

ign

Inte

ract

ion

s, R

elat

ion

ship

s an

d E

nvi

ron

men

ts

Fam

ily

and

Co

mm

un

ity

Rel

atio

nsh

ips

Per

son

al a

nd

Pro

fess

ion

al D

evel

op

men

t

Bac

hel

or’

s D

egre

e

PD97

a ©

2010

INCC

RRA

Gat

eway

s to

Opp

ortu

nity

is a

dmin

ister

ed th

roug

h IN

CCRR

A an

d fu

nded

by

the

Illin

ois

Dep

artm

ent o

f Hum

an S

ervi

ces

Bure

au o

f Chi

ld C

are

and

Dev

elop

men

t, th

e M

cCor

mic

k Fo

unda

tion

and

Gra

nd V

icto

ria F

ound

atio

n.

1226

Tow

anda

Pla

za

| B

loom

ingt

on, Il

linoi

s 61

701

| T

elep

hone

: (86

6) 6

97-8

278

|

ww

w.ilg

atew

ays.c

om

Revi

sed

9/20

10

Figu

re 3

:

This is true for elementary and secondary teachers, as well; but again, the issue is more complicated for ECE teachers since they work with children spanning the three developmental stages within early childhood, as well as their families, and across a variety of settings. Two to four years of course work and limited fieldwork is insufficient to prepare teachers for the limitless idiosyncrasies they will undoubtedly encounter in their classrooms, so they need high-quality and consistent mentoring and support from competent, experienced teachers in order to succeed.

Thus far we have described the what and the who of early childhood education: it serves the cognitive, social-emotional, and other distinct developmental needs of children ages zero to eight years, through effective instruction and care by teachers who understand how young children develop and learn. In the next section, we describe what is known so far about how ECE teachers are prepared, including promising models for in-service teachers who want to enhance their knowledge, skills, and effective practices and, ultimately, advance their careers.

How are early childhood education teachers prepared?

ECE teacher preparation is vastly different from elementary teacher preparation. First, the line between preservice preparation and in-service professional development is not as pronounced for early childhood education as it is for K–12. Whereas all elementary and secondary teachers typically must hold a bachelor’s degree and be board certified before they can teach full-time, ECE teachers typically work full-time in early care and education settings before seeking postsecondary education of any sort. Moreover, when ECE teachers first seek postsecondary opportunities, it usually is to enhance their knowledge of a particular topic, build and improve their skills, or earn professional development credit—as opposed to seeking a formal degree or certification. Second, ECE teacher preparation focuses largely on child development and the family context and, in bachelor’s degree programs, pedagogy and perhaps topics in early literacy. In elementary and secondary teacher preparation, on the other hand, less attention is given to child development and even less on the family context, with much of the curriculum being devoted to academic content, foundations, and pedagogy.25

According to the AACTE focus council on early education (2004), “ECE involves a specific and unique body of knowledge, practice, and attitudes which must be included in the curricula of prospective ECE teachers. ECE pedagogy is distinct from other education disciplines” (p. 7). Early learning experiences provide the foundation for children’s later success in multiple life domains: academic, social, emotional, interpersonal, and occupational, among the most salient. And as the landscape of contemporary family living continues to evolve, more and more young children spend some time being cared for by people other than their parents or primary caregivers. These out-of-home caregivers are charged with substantial responsibility to ensure the children’s needs are being met sufficiently. Because these early years are so critical, caring for young children requires a

25 NCATE (2010). The road less traveled: How the developmental sciences can prepare educators to improve student achievement; Whitebrook et al., 2009.

“ECE involves a specific and unique body of knowledge, practice, and attitudes that must be included in the curricula of prospective ECE teachers. ECE pedagogy is distinct from other education disciplines.”

--AACTE, 2004

19

broad set of skills and dispositions and a deep knowledge base about learning and development in early childhood. In contrast, elementary and secondary teachers should have a basic knowledge about child development—not just in early childhood—and, specifically, its implications for student learning and, hence, pedagogy.

In addition, ECE teacher preparation differs from elementary and secondary preparation in a number of ways that stem from how the two systems are delivered, funded, and governed. Federal and state funding for public K–12 education comes almost exclusively from the Department of Education, whereas the funding for early childhood care and education is much more disparate. Funding for early childhood education is provided through federal and state departments of education but also through departments of health and human services. Moreover, because K–12 funding typically is channeled to schools through local educational agencies, such as Chicago Public Schools, funding formulas and administration are relatively simple as compared to those for ECE settings. In early childhood education, funding is channeled through various state and local agencies, each of which has its own set of regulations about how funds must be used. For example, in Illinois, federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) funds are channeled through the Illinois Department of Human Services, but also through the departments of Children and Family Services and the Chicago Department of Family and Support Services (see Table 4).

Each of the agencies providing funding and administration for ECE services and programs determines the standards and requirements for personnel in the various ECE settings supported by their funds (see Figure 4). Thus, teachers who seek new positions or to advance their careers in early childhood education through postsecondary education will first have to decide which type of setting in which they wish to work. Although elementary and secondary teachers also have some choice about the type of setting in which they wish to work (e.g., a charter school or a neighborhood public school), the minimum requirement is fairly standard and straightforward—they must earn a bachelor’s degree and board certification to teach either elementary or secondary grades. Moreover, there is one set of standards that is used to guide programs in preparing elementary and secondary grade teachers—those set forth by the state board of education. One result of this distinction is that elementary and secondary grade teachers have greater career mobility than ECE teachers, whose career tracks are sometimes constrained by their choice to work in a Head Start program, for example, as opposed to a public school preschool classroom. The former setting requires an associate’s degree (but will soon require a bachelor’s for its lead teachers) whereas the latter requires a bachelor’s degree and state certification in early childhood education.

Components of programs. Most programs share a common set of core components that stem in part from published teaching standards and state licensing requirements: course work (content and sequencing), field study (observation and student teaching), coaching or mentoring and supervision, and student assessments (formative and/or exit). How these components are arranged and interrelated varies between programs, as does the specific content that is contained within the components. We provide greater detail on this topic and a few examples in the next section, on program design and structure.

20

  Tabl

e 4

Illin

ois E

arly

Chi

ldho

od M

atrix

So

urce

s: Il

linoi

s Pre

Sch

ool f

or A

ll Im

plem

enta

tion

man

ual,

ISBE

Bir

th to

thre

e pr

ogra

m st

anda

rds/

CPS

Cen

ter-

base

d pr

even

tion

initi

ativ

e m

odel

, Hea

d St

art S

tand

ard,

Illin

ois D

epar

tmen

t of H

uman

Ser

vice

s lic

ensi

ng st

anda

rds

Ear

ly C

hild

hood

Edu

catio

n M

atri

x-B

irth

thro

ugh

Age

Eig

ht

Fun

ding

A

ges

Gov

erna

nce

Cre

dent

ialin

g Pr

ogra

m S

tand

ards

C

ente

r Bas

ed-C

ente

r ba

sed

prog

ram

min

g an

d go

vern

ance

va

ries g

reat

ly a

cros

s se

tting

s. Li

cens

ed

cent

er b

ased

pr

ogra

ms m

eet

Illin

ois s

tate

lice

nsin

g re

quir

emen

ts,

regu

late

d by

the

Illin

ois D

epar

tmen

t of

Chi

ldre

n an

d Fa

mily

Se

rvic

es. I

n te

rms o

f ri

gor,

licen

sing

st

anda

rds a

re th

e le

ast s

trin

gent

. Pr

ogra

ms t

hat a

ccep

t st

ate

and/

or fe

dera

l fu

ndin

g m

ust a

lso

mee

t req

uire

d ad

min

istr

ativ

e an

d cl

assr

oom

gov

erni

ng

stan

dard

s.

Hea

d St

art (

HS)

and

Ear

ly

Hea

d St

art (

EHS)

EH

S-B

irth

to

Age

thre

e

HS-

Thre

e to

Fi

ve y

ears

old

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Hea

lth a

nd H

uman

Ser

vice

: A

dmin

istra

tion

for C

hild

ren

and

Fam

ilies

B

y O

ctob

er 1

, 201

1 H

ead

Star

t cla

ssro

oms

mus

t hav

e a

teac

her w

ho h

as th

e m

inim

um

of a

n as

soci

ate

degr

ee in

Ear

ly C

hild

hood

Ed

ucat

ion.

Oth

er e

quiv

alen

t deg

rees

are

ac

cept

ed a

s lon

g as

the

degr

ee in

clud

es

equi

vale

nt c

hild

dev

elop

men

t cou

rse

wor

k.

Thre

e-ye

ar w

aive

rs a

re g

rant

ed if

eff

orts

to

recr

uit q

ualif

ied

staf

f wer

e un

succ

essf

ul.

Hea

d St

art S

tand

ards

Prev

entio

n In

itiat

ive

Birt

h-A

ge

Thre

e Ea

rly C

hild

hood

Blo

ck G

rant

(Illi

nois

Gen

eral

Rev

enue

Fu

nds e

arm

arke

d fo

r Ear

ly C

are

and

Educ

atio

n)

Min

imum

of a

n A

ssoc

iate

’s d

egre

e in

C

hild

Dev

elop

men

t or E

CE

& sp

ecia

lized

co

llege

leve

l cou

rse

wor

k &

/or

prof

essi

onal

dev

elop

men

t tra

inin

g. B

y 20

15 a

ll In

fant

todd

ler t

each

ers w

ho h

ave

prim

ary

resp

onsi

bilit

y m

ust h

old

a B

.A. i

n C

D o

r EC

E &

a L

evel

V I/

T cr

eden

tial.

Illin

ois E

arly

Lea

rnin

g St

anda

rds (

IELS

)

Pre-

Scho

ol fo

r All

Thre

e to

Fiv

e Y

ears

Ea

rly C

hild

hood

Blo

ck G

rant

(Illi

nois

Gen

eral

Rev

enue

Fu

nds e

arm

arke

d fo

r Ear

ly C

are

and

Educ

atio

n)

Te

achi

ng st

aff m

ust h

old

a ty

pe 0

4 (f

orm

erly

type

02)

cer

tific

ate

befo

re h

ire.

(IEL

S)

Priv

ate

Pre-

Scho

ol-F

ee fo

r Se

rvic

e B

irth-

age

13

Pare

nt p

ay a

nd C

hild

Car

e Su

bsid

y C

ente

rs m

ust m

eet S

tate

Lic

ensi

ng

requ

irem

ents

, but

may

set h

ighe

r cr

eden

tials

for s

taff

.*

(IEL

S)

Hom

e B

ased

- Man

y Ill

inoi

s fam

ilies

rely

on

one

of t

he h

ome

child

car

e pr

ogra

m

mod

els t

o ca

re fo

r and

ed

ucat

e th

eir y

oung

ch

ildre

n. M

any

of

thes

e ch

ild c

are

hom

es a

re fo

rmal

lic

ense

d ca

regi

vers

bu

t oth

ers a

re li

cens

e ex

empt

. The

se

envi

ronm

ents

pro

vide

an

intim

ate

envi

ronm

ent f

or

child

ren

as a

n al

tern

ativ

e to

cen

ter

base

d pr

e-sc

hool

.

Licensed providers

HS/

EHS

Hom

e B

ased

and

HS/

EHS

Fam

ily

Birt

h to

Age

13

.U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of H

ealth

and

Hum

an S

ervi

ce:

Adm

inis

tratio

n fo

r Chi

ldre

n an

d Fa

mili

es

Hom

e V

isito

rs m

ust b

e ve

rsed

in c

hild

de

velo

pmen

t & E

CE

as w

ell a

s co

mm

unic

atin

g w

ith a

nd m

otiv

atin

g pe

ople

.

Hea

d St

art S

tand

ards

Chi

ld C

are

Fee

for S

ervi

ce

Birt

h to

age

13

Pare

nt P

ay a

nd C

hild

Car

e su

bsid

y M

inim

um Il

linoi

s DH

S lic

ensi

ng

stan

dard

s.*

IDH

S Li

cens

ing

stan

dard

s

License-exempt provider

Fam

ily

Frie

nds o

r N

eigh

bor

Birt

h to

age

13

Pare

nt P

ay a

nd C

hild

Car

e su

bsid

y N

/A

Early

In

terv

entio

n H

ome

Vis

itor

Birt

h-Th

ree

Illin

ois D

epar

tmen

t of H

uman

Ser

vice

s Ea

rly In

terv

entio

n Sp

ecia

list c

rede

ntia

l

Scho

ol B

ased

-Man

y el

emen

tary

scho

ols

oper

ate

both

Pre

-sc

hool

and

K-th

ird

grad

e cl

assr

oom

s.

Pre-

Scho

ol fo

r All

Thre

e to

Fiv

e ye

ars o

ld

Early

Chi

ldho

od B

lock

Gra

nt (I

llino

is G

ener

al R

even

ue

Fund

s ear

mar

ked

for E

arly

Car

e an

d Ed

ucat

ion)

Teac

hing

staf

f mus

t hol

d a

type

04

(for

mer

ly ty

pe 0

2) c

ertif

icat

e be

fore

hire

. (I

ELS)

Priv

ate

K-G

rade

Thr

ee

Five

-Eig

ht

Illin

ois S

tate

Boa

rd o

f Edu

catio

n Sc

hool

Spe

cific

Sc

hool

spec

ific

Publ

ic S

choo

l-K-G

rade

Thr

ee

Five

-Eig

ht

Illin

ois S

tate

Boa

rd o

f Edu

catio

n Ty

pe 0

3 or

Typ

e 04

cer

tific

atio

n re

quire

d (I

ELS)

Illin

ois C

hild

Car

e A

ssis

tanc

e Pr

ogra

m(C

CA

P)-

Illin

ois D

epar

tmen

t of

Hum

an S

ervi

ces

Birt

h-A

ge 1

3 C

hild

Car

e su

bsid

y pr

ovid

es lo

w in

com

e, w

orki

ng fa

mili

es’ a

cces

s to

early

car

e an

d ed

ucat

ion.

Thi

s sub

sidy

is p

aid

to th

e pr

ovid

er

of th

e cl

ient

s cho

ice.

Tabl

e 4:

Early

Car

e an

d E

duca

tion

in Il

linoi

s: S

ervi

ng C

hild

ren

Age

3-5

yea

rs o

ld

The

Ear

ly C

hild

hood

Blo

ck G

rant

fund

s P

re-S

choo

l for

A

ll In

Illin

ois:

The

se s

tate

fund

ed d

olla

rs a

re fi

ltere

d th

roug

h IS

BE

exc

ept i

n C

hica

go. C

hica

go fu

nds

are

filte

red

thro

ugh

CP

S. T

his

fund

ing

prov

ides

2.5

hou

rs

per d

ay o

f EC

E p

rogr

amm

ing,

5 d

ays

per w

eek.

H

ead

Star

t fun

ding

is a

ppro

pria

ted

by th

e

fede

ral g

over

nmen

t and

the

com

mun

ity in

w

hich

the

prog

ram

is o

pera

ted.

Lice

nsed

priv

ate-

pres

choo

ls m

ust m

eet I

llinoi

s st

ate

licen

sing

requ

irem

ents

, how

ever

man

y pr

o-gr

ams

acce

pt C

CA

P v

ouch

ers.

The

se p

rogr

ams

oper

ate

unde

r the

gui

danc

e of

a g

over

ning

bod

y,

ofte

n tim

es a

boa

rd o

f dire

ctor

s.

Cen

ter B

ased

Sc

hool

Bas

ed

Teac

her:

TY

PE 0

4/44

C

ertif

icat

ion

*

*

Teac

her

Ass

ista

nt:

30 c

redi

t ho

urs o

f co

llege

co

urse

w

ork

Teac

her:

TY

PE 0

4/44

C

ertif

icat

ion

* *

Teac

her

Ass

ista

nt:

60 c

redi

t ho

urs o

f co

llege

co

urse

w

ork*

**

AA

T EC

E A

AS

ECE

B.S

. EC

E w

ith C

ertif

icat

ion

& o

ther

app

licab

le

endo

rsem

ents

Cen

ter B

ased

Fa

mily

Chi

ld

Car

e (F

CC

)

Teac

her:

M

inim

um o

f A

A in

EC

E or

re

late

d fie

ld.

By

2013

50%

of

teac

hers

na

tion-

wid

e m

ust h

old

a B

.A. i

n EC

E or

rela

ted

field

.

Teac

her

Ass

istan

t:

Min

imum

of C

DA

or

enr

olle

d in

CD

A

prog

ram

with

inte

n-tio

n to

com

plet

e w

ithin

2 y

ears

***

*

* C

CA

P (C

hild

Car

e A

ssis

tanc

e Pr

ogra

m) i

s an

stat

e fu

nded

pro

gram

that

pro

vide

s qua

lifyi

ng fa

mili

es m

onet

ary

supp

ort t

o pa

y fo

r chi

ld c

are.

The

se fu

nds a

re o

ften

used

in c

onju

nctio

n w

ith H

ead

Star

t and

Pre

-Sc

hool

for A

ll to

pro

vide

full

time

serv

ices

. **

Mus

t hav

e a

min

imum

of B

A/B

S de

gree

in o

rder

to e

arn

a ce

rtific

ate.

Add

ition

al e

ndor

sem

ents

may

be

requ

ired

depe

ndin

g on

the

stud

ent p

opul

atio

n **

* O

r one

of t

wo

stat

e–ap

prov

ed li

cens

es: W

orkk

eys o

r Par

apro

or o

btai

n a

para

prof

essi

onal

lice

nse

(or c

ertif

icat

e) fr

om IS

BE

****

Hav

e a

child

dev

elop

men

t ass

ocia

te (C

DA

) cre

dent

ial;

Be

enro

lled

in a

CD

A c

rede

ntia

l pro

gram

that

will

be

com

plet

ed w

ithin

2 y

ears

; or H

ave

an a

ssoc

iate

s or b

acca

laur

eate

deg

ree

(in a

ny a

rea)

or b

e en

-

FCC

wor

kers

mus

t ha

ve p

revi

ous e

arly

ch

ild c

are

expe

rienc

e an

d, a

t a m

inim

um m

ust

enro

ll in

a C

DA

pro

-gr

am, A

A o

r BA

/BS

degr

ee p

rogr

am in

chi

ld

deve

lopm

ent o

r EC

w

ithin

6 m

onth

s of

be-

ginn

ing

serv

ice.

B.A

. in

ECE

or re

late

d fie

ld

AA

S EC

E A

AT

ECE

CD

A

CD

A

Hom

e B

ased

C

hild

Car

e

Cen

ter B

ased

Teac

her:

60

sem

este

r hou

rs

with

six

sem

es-

ter h

ours

in

cour

ses r

elat

ed

dire

ctly

to c

hild

ca

re o

f chi

ld

deve

lopm

ent o

r 15

60 c

lock

ho

urs o

f chi

ld

deve

lopm

ent

Teac

her

As-

sista

nt: A

hi

gh sc

hool

di

plom

a or

eq

uiva

lent

an

d w

ork

unde

r the

su

perv

isio

n of

a te

ache

r.

Prov

ider

s m

ust b

e 18

ye

ars o

ld a

nd

be a

ble

to

prov

ide

proo

f of

a G

ED o

r H

igh

Scho

ol

Dip

lom

a.

AA

T EC

E A

AS

ECE

CD

A

Hig

h Sc

hool

D

iplo

ma

or E

quiv

alen

t

Fund

ing

Bodi

es o

f EC

E pr

ogra

ms*

Prog

ram

Sou

rces

and

Tea

cher

Req

uire

men

ts

Ass

ocia

ted

Cre

dent

ials

Figu

re 5

Pat

hway

s fro

m d

egre

e to

ear

ly c

are

and

educ

atio

n po

sitio

ns

Figu

re 4

:

Illinois to change structure of teacher certification and licensing

As the nation moves forward with implementing Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in K–12 education, states are beginning to make changes to their teacher licensing and certification systems. In Illinois, for example, teachers currently are entitled to teach pre-K through third grade (Type 04), K–9 (Type 03), and grades 9–12 (Type 09), at the most basic level (other certifications and endorsements exist for specialized areas). The state has announced, however, that it is overhauling its certification process and structure. Initially proposed changes called for revising the current K–9 certificate to a K–5 and a 6–8 endorsement on the state teaching license. This structure is problematic since it (a) does not consider that children in the early elementary grades require teachers who have specialized knowledge about child development and critical skills and dispositions that are unique to early childhood education and (b) narrows options for ECE teachers and for the assignment of teachers in the settings in which they work. The Illinois State Board of Education is reconsidering these changes now, largely in response to push-back from the ECE community. This push-back may have been avoided if there was better coordination and partnership across elementary and ECE planning and policy, with ECE practitioners being included in the initial discussion together with elementary-grade personnel. A special advisory group has been assembled at the state level to reexamine how the new state teaching license should be structured, in light of the pushback from the ECE community.

Teacher preparation in early childhood education already struggles with the problem of not covering critical content in sufficient depth. The typical curriculum covers broad content in foundations of education, pedagogy, cultural and linguistic diversity, inclusion, and specialized content in child development. Moreover, early childhood care and education also encompasses the years from zero to three, before children enter preschool, and takes place in a variety of settings outside of publicly funded schools and classrooms. Certification and licensing structures that narrow the range to Pre-K pose the potential to adversely affect K–3 children’s learning and development because teachers in those settings will be ill-prepared in critical content in child development and early learning. Conversely, structures that allow for broad overlap pose the potential to adversely affect young children’s learning and development because teachers’ preparation will not be able to focus on critical content with sufficient depth; overlapping structures tend to result in preparation programs that focus more on the grades at the middle of the range to the detriment of those at the ends.1 The Illinois Association for Early Childhood Teacher Educators (ILAECTE) strongly endorses a birth to eight years old structure for licensing and certification.

1 Bornfreund, L. A. (2011). Getting in sync: Revamping licensing and preparation for teachers in Pre-K, kindergarten, and the early grades. Washington, DC: New America Foundation.

Course work in ECE teacher preparation programs typically consists of foundational, pedagogical, and subject matter content.26 Foundational course work provides students with basic knowledge in educational theory, including the history and philosophy of education. Pedagogical courses focus on methods of teaching, including practices in classroom management, differentiated instruction, and content-specific teaching methods. Content in ECE teacher education typically focuses on child development or on specific aspects of development, such as preliteracy, early math, or social-emotional skills; this is perhaps early childhood education’s greatest departure from elementary and secondary teacher preparation, where content focuses less on child development and more on subject matter. It is not clear whether specific sequencing of course work matters for students’ learning.

In addition to course work, most but not all ECE teacher preparation programs require students to spend some time in ECE settings, observing and interacting with young children and their families, providing classroom instruction (student teaching), or both. While practicums and student teaching are also required in elementary and secondary teacher preparation, there are some challenges that are unique to early childhood education. First, whereas elementary and secondary education takes place almost exclusively in schools and classrooms, early childhood care and education takes place in a variety of settings—each of which requires a different set of knowledge and skills. Second, elementary and secondary teachers typically are prepared to work with a certain age group, wherein variations in developmental needs and skills are minimal; on the other hand, ECE teachers are prepared to work with children ages zero to eight years and their families, wherein development varies substantially from individual to individual and is highly influenced by the family context.

Finally, most ECE teacher preparation programs assign faculty members and veteran teachers to mentor and supervise preservice teachers in their fieldwork, not unlike elementary and secondary teacher preparation programs. Challenges unique to early childhood education, however, include those related to the students’ ages and experience in the field and the variety of settings within which fieldwork occurs. Because students in ECE teacher preparation programs tend to be older and have more practice experience than those in elementary and secondary programs, the dynamic between the student teacher and the supervisor/mentor can be more difficult to navigate. The ECE student teacher may be more resistant to being told how best to interact with children and families than a younger, more traditional K–12 student teacher since many of them may have been working with these populations for years. Similarly, because faculty in ECE teacher education programs are less likely to have had recent experience working directly with children and families, they may lack updated knowledge about what practices work in various settings.

Across programs, there are some common gaps in preparation. Despite their inclusion in national teaching standards, such as those provided by the NAEYC, many critical topics tend to be overlooked in most teacher preparation programs. With all the focus on ensuring preschoolers are ready to enter kindergarten with

26Whitebrook et al., 2009

ECE teachers are prepared to work with children ages zero to eight years and their families, wherein development varies substantially from individual to individual and is highly influenced by the family context.

24

Leadership development needs a critical boost

Directors of ECE programs and principals of elementary schools both are charged with leading teams of educators—and even whole communities—in ensuring young children receive high-quality care and instruction. Each has a set of strengths and weaknesses in meeting this charge. Center directors typically are prior teachers of young children and possess both formal and experiential knowledge about child development, but on the other hand, many directors lack experience and formal training in program administration. The reverse is true for principals. Most are skilled and experienced administrators but lack formal knowledge and training in child development. Illinois has made recent advances in enhancing preparation and development for both center directors and elementary school principals to strengthen their capacity to provide high-quality early learning experiences to the children in their centers, schools, and communities.

For child-care and preschool directors, Illinois Gateways now offers the Illinois Director’s Credential (IDC), and in 2011, the state altered its principal certification to include prekindergarten. Early care and education practitioners can earn the IDC at Level I, II, or III, depending on their formal education credentials, education and training covering content in both early childhood education and administration, ECE and administrative work experience, and contributions to the field. The credential covers seven content areas in early childhood education and development and 10 content areas in ECE program administration and management. Similarly, the new certification for principals requires that preparation programs include content and field experiences in early childhood education. To support this effort, the McCormick Foundation awarded a grant to the University of Illinois at Chicago’s College of Education to document and disseminate lessons learned in integrating ECE principles into its revised urban leadership program.

Both the IDC and the effort to infuse ECE content in principal training programs reflect a national focus on enhancing leadership in early childhood care and education. For example, in 2005, the National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP) published a guide for principals who recognize high-quality early childhood education as “an essential investment” in ensuring all children have the opportunity to succeed.1 Also, NAEYC awards points in its accreditation system for early care and education sites whose leadership holds formally recognized administrator credentials (the IDC was among the first such credentials to be recognized by NAEYC).

Additional challenges in building leaders in early childhood care and education are in the areas of policy and higher education. Although graduate programs in education policy abound, there is little attention given in these programs to issues around early childhood education. As a result, very few people have had any formal preparation to be advocates for early childhood care and education; as it is with ECE teacher pathways, advocates typically began their careers as teachers and became leaders in the field by accumulating knowledge through experience. Likewise, there are few people in the pipeline to become ECE teacher preparation faculty.2 There are only 50 or so doctoral programs in early childhood education throughout the nation, and as noted in this report, most programs are understaffed. This poses a threat both to the quantity and quality of teachers who will be available to staff early care and learning-service sites, through its direct effects on instruction and its indirect effects on enrollment in preparation programs.

1 National Association of Elementary School Principals (2005). Leading Early Childhood Learning Communities: What Principals Should Know and Be Able to Do. Washington, DC: NAESP.

2 Klostermann, Brenda K. (2010). Examining the Chicago early childhood teacher pipeline (IERC 2010-1). Edwardsville, IL: Illinois Education Research Council; Maxwell et al., 2006.

the academic skills that will help them succeed, programs are spending very little time on topics related to the care of infants and toddlers. As a result, there is a shortage of teachers who have the knowledge and skills to meet the special needs of this age group, which are very different than those of preschool-aged children. Second, programs are struggling with how to incorporate content on meeting the needs of racially, culturally, linguistically, and ability diverse children. This is important since greater than 90% of teachers trained in bachelor’s degree programs are white and female while more than 70% of children in subsidized ECE programs are nonwhite. A third gap in teacher preparation is in the area of program management and administration. Preparation in this area is critical to leadership development. Directors and lead teachers need knowledge and skills in these areas to be able to effectively manage their child-care and early education programs and to support and develop their teaching staff. Similarly, because ECE teaching personnel work closely with families and in teams (the latter in part because of low adult-child ratio requirements), preparation in adult learning and development is critical but also overlooked.

Although research interest in teacher preparation has grown tremendously since the early 1980s, very little empirical data are available for answering critical questions about program components and their effectiveness. For example, what program components and features are linked to better learning outcomes for young children? How should program components and features be implemented? How do we ensure fidelity of implementation across various preparation programs? Researchers are just beginning to launch systematic investigations on questions such as these.

Program design and structure. It takes much more time to prepare ECE teachers than is allotted in a four-year program that already is filled to capacity with general educational requirements, professional education requirements, and student teaching requirements—much less a two-year program. Once these various requirements are taken into consideration, there is not enough room left in the curriculum to include all critical content according to national teaching standards for early childhood education. Moreover, there is concern that the required fieldwork is too brief and scattered. As with elementary and secondary teacher preparation, there is growing support in the field to extend programs to five years in order to accommodate all critical content in greater depth as well as longer and more focused opportunities for fieldwork and practicums.27 In fact, both the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) and AACTE recently released reports calling for more clinical residency models in teacher preparation programs at all levels.28 These reports cite the substantial growth in privately operated alternative certification and teacher residency programs over the past several years, which now are no longer required to collaborate with institutions of higher education in developing and administering their programs.

Besides the length of programs, their design and structure must also take into account the sequencing of specific course work and fieldwork and the coordination between course work and fieldwork. For example, there are questions as to whether it makes sense to provide more opportunities for field

27Levine, A. (2006). Educating School Teachers. Washington, DC: The Education Schools Project.28AACTE, 2004; NCATE, 2011

With all the focus on ensuring preschoolers are ready to enter kindergarten with the academic skills that will help them succeed, programs are spending very little time on critical content related to:

• the care of infants and toddlers;

• how to incorporate content on meeting the needs of racially, culturally, linguistically, and ability diverse children;

• program management and administration; and

• adult learning and development.

26

Early childhood education teacher supply and demand in Illinois

Are there enough qualified preschool teachers to fill the available positions? The National Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) projects that between 2008 and 2018 we will see a higher national demand growth for preschool teachers than other occupations. Comparatively, average occupational growth is 10%; however, the BLS projects a growth of 19% for preschool teachers. The BLS suggests this heightened demand stems from increased emphasis on early childhood education and development of programs, such as full-day and universal preschool.

The 2008 ISBE Illinois Educator Supply and Demand report indicates that the number of Type 04 certificates granted increased by 10% between 2004 and 2008.1 At the peak of this increase, in 2007, 1,056 ECE certificates were issued. At this same time, ISBE reported only 194 first-time hires. The supply of graduates greatly outnumbered the number of available public school positions. However, the FY 07 Illinois budget, allocated funds to expand the Early Childhood Block Grant–funded Pre-School for All program by 32,000 children over three years. These classrooms likely operate outside of the public school system in one of the many ECE program models. ISBE Early Childhood Block Grant compliance required a 10 to 1 ratio with a maximum of 20 young children per room and one teacher who holds a Type 04 certificate. This equated to a demand of 1,600 additional ECE teachers who hold a bachelor’s degree and Type 04 certification across Illinois. The Illinois Education Research Council’s analysis of the ECE teacher pipeline reported that Illinois had the capacity to meet this demand, granted the right incentives were put in place to entice Type 04 certificate holders to seek these positions and the continuing production of Type 04 certified teachers.2

1 ISBE Educator Supply and Demand in Illinois-2008 Annual Report. www.isbe.state.il.us/research/pdfs/ed_supply_demand_08.pdf.

2 Presley, J. B., Klostermann, B. K., & White, B. R. (2006). Pipelines and pools: Meeting the demand for early childhood teachers in Illinois (IERC 2006-3). Edwardsville, IL: Illinois Education Research Council.

experience earlier or later in programs and how to account for what is referred to as “the apprenticeship of observation” (accumulated experiences as students informally observing their own teachers).29 Similarly, there are concerns that programs do not sufficiently link content in course work to practices in the field. There has been some movement toward an integrated curriculum, wherein core content is infused across all components of the curriculum.30

Finally, programs vary in their method of delivering instruction, largely depending on the characteristics and circumstances of the students whom they serve. Many programs are moving to online or hybrid programs (combination of online and face-to-face instruction) in order to offer greater flexibility in accommodating students who are working full-time or have family and household obligations. In addition, cohort models show promise for enhancing the postsecondary experiences and increasing program completion rates among black and Latino/a students.31

The preceding review of existing literature on ECE teacher preparation highlights many areas that are in need of improvement. Preparing teachers to work with young children and their families is very different from preparing teachers to work with children in elementary and secondary classroom settings. ECE teachers enter formal education at various stages in their careers and life cycles and with varying levels of knowledge about and experience with young children. They work in a variety of settings with diverse children and families, across a wide range of ages and developmental stages. As a result, programs that prepare ECE teachers vary in their content and curricula, have limited capacity to ideally prepare teachers to work with all young children, are characterized by large gaps in content and a disconnect between theory and practice, and lack clear models for designing effective preparation programs. The work that is needed to improve ECE teacher preparation will be best accomplished through effective partnership and collaboration betweeen the many entities involved in early childhood care and education.

AECTP-IL work group deliberations: Improving early childhood education teacher preparation in Illinois

Our review of the literature related to ECE teacher preparation provided a basis for beginning deliberations of the AECTP-IL work group. Work group deliberations yielded a set of key issues and barriers in ECE teacher preparation that converged almost completely with the problems identified in the literature review. We present these issues and barriers below, followed by a set of consensus recommendations for addressing them within higher education and between higher education and other entities involved in training and developing teachers.

29 Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: a sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, as cited in Rust, F. O. (2009). Shaping new models for early childhood teacher education. June meeting of the National Association for Early Childhood Teacher Educators. Charlotte, NC.

30 Kim, M. M., Andrews, R. L., Carr, D. L. (2004). Traditional versus integrated preservice teacher education curriculum: A case study. Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 55 (4), pp. 341-356.

31Whitebrook et al., 2009

The work that is needed to improve ECE teacher preparation will be best accomplished through effective partnership and collaboration between the many entities involved in early childhood care and education.

28

Key challenges in early childhood education teacher preparation in Illinois

Because AECTP-IL recruited work group participants across a broad range of entities involved in preparing ECE teachers and caregivers, we are confident in our conclusion that this “miscellany of institutions” shares a central objective in ensuring a high-quality ECE teaching workforce:

• Recruiting the best candidates (both in terms of academic achievement and experience/disposition) into teacher education programs.

• Preparing candidates for high-quality and effective teaching in all ECE classrooms.

• Supporting candidates and new teachers in developing and improving their skills.

AECTP-IL identified eight key challenges in meeting this objective, broken down across the areas of recruitment and retention, preparation, and support.

Recruiting the best candidates into teacher education programs. Because teaching young and very young children is very different from teaching elementary, middle, and high school students, identifying the best ECE teacher candidates is rather complex. ECE teachers must have the ability to observe and record children’s learning, transform written curricula into effective practice, use interactive routines to engage young children, engage in thoughtful reflection that improves their ability to meet students’ learning needs, and behave in ways that are highly professional.32 In addition, ECE teachers must possess a disposition that facilitates positive rapport and interactions with both young children and their families from diverse backgrounds. Many ECE teachers work in the communities where they live, and therefore bring into their classrooms a wealth of community cultural knowledge. For these teachers—who make up the majority of the ECE workforce—there are many barriers to access teacher education and advance their careers.

First, entry requirements for teacher education programs, especially for certification programs, are too varied across institutions of higher education and are difficult to attain for many early childhood care and education practitioners—e.g., “gatekeeper” tests, such as the Illinois Basic Skills test, present a significant hurdle for many students. At the same time, however, the field is criticized for requirements being too varied and too low. Thus, substantial tension arises between raising requirements to ensure a high-quality professional standard and increasing access among skilled, experienced practitioners who are not adequately prepared for the academic rigor of degree and certification programs. This is problematic since it contributes to the creation and perpetuation of a

32Kagan et al., 2008

29

Eight key challenges in recruiting, preparing, and

supporting ECE teachers in IllinoisObjective: Recruiting the best candidates into teacher education programs.

Key challenges:

1. While ENTRY REQUIREMENTS for teacher education programs (especially certification

programs) are difficult to attain for many early childhood care and education

practitioners, they are at the same time too varied and too low.

2. Problems with ARTICULATION AND TRANSFER from one college or university program

to another threaten the supply of teachers for ECE classrooms and contribute to

inequalities within the workforce.

3. MATRICULATION SUPPORTS aimed at retaining students throughout the successful

completion of teacher preparation programs, including financial, social, and academic

supports, are insufficient.

Objective: Preparing preservice teachers for high-quality and effective teaching in all

ECE classrooms.

Key challenges:

4. GAPS IN PREPARATION—These gaps include content in the areas of infants and

toddlers; program management and administration; and working with families,

communities, and other adult staff.

5. LACK OF CAPACITY—ECE teacher preparation programs typically suffer from too few

financial resources and faculty and too little time.

6. COURSE WORK AND FIELD APPLICATION—course work is often too theoretical and

not linked to field experiences; practices taught in preparation programs sometimes are

not supported within ECE settings; and field placements often are too brief.

Objective: Supporting pre-service and new teachers in developing and improving their

skills.

Key challenges:

7. Lack sufficient HIGH-QUALITY PLACEMENTS for diverse field experiences.

8. Lack sufficient structures for HIGH-QUALITY MENTORING AND SUPERVISION of

preservice and new teachers.

Problems with Illinois Basic Skills Test

In Illinois, students seeking state certification to teach in public schools—including ECE teachers working in state prekindergarten classrooms—are required to pass the Illinois Basic Skills test as part of the Illinois Certification Testing System (ICTS).1 Recently the Illinois State Board of Education raised the minimum scores required to pass the test, increasing them by as much as 40% (e.g., from 35% to 75% correct responses on the math section of the test). Recent data from the Illinois Education Research Council indicate that, under the changes, passing scores are roughly equivalent to a score of 25 or 26 on the ACT (national average score is 21, which ACT considers the threshold for “college ready”).2

The change in the minimum score requirement has led to a drastic drop-off in the number of people who pass the test and has disproportionately affected some demographic subgroups such as African Americans and Latinos.3 We suspect that students enrolled in early childhood programs are also disproportionately affected by the change, but the data have not been reported in such a way as to allow for a relevant analysis. But if our assumption is correct, this means that early childhood care and education in Illinois will be faced with an imbalanced, racially and ethnically stratified, multitiered workforce wherein highly skilled, experienced practitioners are overrepresented in support positions and underrepresented in high-level instruction positions because they did not meet requirements for entry into postsecondary degree programs.

While we would not dispute that entry assessments can be one useful means of estimating candidates’ potential for successfully completing the academic requirements for teacher licensing and certification programs, it is not clear how useful such assessments are for predicting the extent to which candidates go on to become effective teachers. In fact, by some accounts, exams such as the Basic Skills test are better at predicting who will leave the profession than who will be effective in it, with higher scores being associated with greater likelihood of exiting within five years.4 In any case, in order to attract and retain the best teachers in early childhood care and education, entry exams of any sort are insufficient on their own.

1To be replaced by the Test of Academic Proficiency (TAP) beginning February 20122 Illinois Education Research Consortium (May 2011). Comparison of Illinois Basic Skills Test Results and ACT Scores. Accessed at http://ierc.siue.edu/documents/BW%202011%20BST%20ACT%20analysis.pdf.

3 Grow Your Own Illinois. The Basic Skills Test: Results September 2010 to December 2011. http://www.growyourownteachers.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=114&Itemid=133.

4 Goldhaber, D. (2006). Everybody’s doing it, but what does teacher testing tell us about teacher effectiveness? Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education, University of Washington.

32

racially, culturally, and economically stratified workforce wherein teachers from racial/ethnic minority groups and low socio-economic backgrounds are relegated to support roles in the classroom while lead teachers and directors tend to be white and middle class.33

Second, inconsistency across ECE teacher education programs creates problems with articulation and transfer. Like problems with entry requirements, problems with articulation and transfer from one college/university program to another threaten the supply of teachers for ECE classrooms and contribute to inequalities within the workforce. Despite efforts by accrediting bodies, such as NAEYC and NCATE, to standardize what ECE teachers should know and be able to do, teacher education programs vary greatly in their design, structure, content, and approach. All programs accredited by NAEYC and NCATE are required to align their curriculum and assessments to a set of ECE teaching standards, but such alignments are completely subjective and somewhat arbitrary. As a result, there is great variation in teacher education programs and their quality.

And finally, there is a lack of sufficient matriculation supports, especially for nontraditional students. For example, the problems with both entry requirements and articulation and transfer restrict access to higher education and career advancement among subpopulations within the ECE teaching workforce. Most ECE practitioners begin their postsecondary education with the CDA. Both the improvements in their job-related outcomes (e.g., career advancement and improved compensation) and their sense of personal accomplishment often motivate these practitioners to continue their education even further. Naturally, many assume that they may be able to apply the work they completed for the CDA toward an associate’s degree. However, although the CDA requires that students complete 120 hours of “formal training and education” in early childhood care and education, these hours need not be taken for credit and thus often are not accepted in degree programs. As a result, practitioners holding the CDA are either precluded from entering degree programs or end up repeating course work. The same is true for students who do complete the associate’s degree and transfer to a bachelor’s degree program. As Illinois begins to implement its more stringent teacher evaluation policy, it is also considering how to link teacher performance with the institutions that trained them. This may exacerbate issues with articulation and transfer since four-year programs may be more rigid in their expectations of transfers from other programs.

Among those practitioners who are able to take the next step and enroll in school, there are additional challenges in retaining them in programs through successful completion and advancement into teaching roles. Because many ECE practitioners seeking to advance from entry-level positions face so many challenges, including low wages and low literacy skills, they generally need substantial financial, social, and academic supports to successfully matriculate in postsecondary degree programs. ECE practitioners who return to school to earn an associate’s or bachelor’s degree earn low wages and require financial assistance to pay for their education. Because they tend to continue working full-time for their subsistence and typically have family obligations, they require flexibility in how, when, and where courses are delivered. They also require a great deal of support in adjusting to college life—both as new students and as transfer

33Fowler et al., 2008

students moving from a two-year to a four-year institution. Many of these students are smart, capable professionals but do not possess the social capital that is required to navigate all of these challenges. For example, many of them are first-generation college students and thus do not have preexisting knowledge about what steps they need to take to complete the enrollment process. And once on campus, they may not be aware about the resources available to them as students and do not possess preexisting knowledge about the kinds of questions they should be asking to learn their way through the system.

Preparing preservice teachers for high-quality and effective teaching in all ECE classrooms. Beyond recruiting the best candidates into programs and retaining them in the face of so many personal challenges, ECE teacher education programs face challenges in how best to prepare all teachers for all classrooms. These challenges include gaps in preparation, wherein curricula are so full that some critical content areas are either completely overlooked or not covered in sufficient depth. Relatedly, institutions of higher education lack sufficient resources to ideally deliver instruction and mentor and supervise students. And finally, consistent with the literature on teacher preparation, there is little connection between what students learn in the classroom and what they encounter in their field work.

Curricula in ECE teacher preparation programs is largely driven by the market. That is, programs are designed to help students meet requirements for the various jobs available (typically in their state), which vary widely depending on the type of early care and education setting, funding, and regulation. For example, to teach in a state prekindergarten program in Illinois, teachers will need to obtain a Type 04 certification. On the other hand, Type 04–certified teachers are not required by Head Start programs, which do require teachers with bachelor’s degrees in early childhood education or child development. Since the teaching standards on which these credentials are based are extensive and do not completely overlap, little room is left in the respective curricula for preparation in other critical areas such as ELL/linguistically and culturally diverse learners, infants and toddlers, program management and administration, and working with adult learners. Although the revised Illinois Teaching Standards have done an excellent job of integrating ELL/bilingual standards, the other areas are still largely ignored. It is crucial that high-quality teachers be sufficiently prepared in all of these critical content areas.

As state boards of education and other regulating bodies increasingly recognize gaps in teacher preparation and continue to change requirements accordingly, ECE teacher preparation programs are constantly making adjustments to their curricula. But these programs rarely receive additional resources to meet new demands. Programs typically suffer from too few financial resources and faculty (both in number and experience) and too little time. There are few full-time faculty in ECE teacher preparation programs, and thus, they are overburdened with teaching responsibilities as well as mentoring and supervising students in the field. Moreover, many faculty lack the expertise to teach across critical content areas in sufficient depth, and institutions provide very few opportunities for continued professional development. Faculty would benefit greatly from increased numbers in ECE teacher preparation programs and from continued opportunities to develop their own knowledge and skills. This includes opportunities for working directly

33

ELINCS

Early Learning in Illinois: Networks, Connections, and Structures (ELINCS) is a collaborative effort between University of Illinois at Chicago and Harold Washington College (HWC), one of the City Colleges of Chicago. It is designed specifically to remove or attenuate key barriers in recruiting, retaining, and successfully matriculating high-need ECE students through both an associate’s and a bachelor’s degree program. ELINCS is focused most centrally on creating and sustaining a network of supports for students, including intensive mentoring and counseling services and innovations in instructional delivery that respond to students’ lifestyle needs. In addition to attenuating barriers stemming from a lack of matriculation supports, these activities will address barriers to entry in postsecondary degree programs by helping students build the skills necessary to pass the Illinois Basic Skills test (if they intend to pursue state certification) and meet other academic requirements. ELINCS directly addresses barriers stemming from problems with articulation and transfer through its collaboration between UIC and HWC in developing their respective associate’s and bachelor’s degree programs conjointly with one another. This ensures a seamless connection for students transferring from the two-year to the four-year program.

26

ESL and Bilingual teacher requirements mandated in IllinoisImmigrant families make up 26% of the population in Illinois, and this number continues to grow by almost 36,000

people annually. According to 2010 census data, families in 21.3% of Illinois households speak a language other than

English. Since more than 24% of Illinois households include school-age children, Illinois classrooms are also becoming

more linguistically diverse.

There are a number of challenges that teachers and students alike may face in linguistically diverse classrooms, such

as teachers feeling under prepared to work with special populations and classroom misunderstandings between

teacher and student and/or teacher and parent that are a result of language barriers.1 To address these challenges,

Illinois has made some changes to the law that governs bilingual education services for children in public school

settings. Beginning in 2014, the new school code extends down to preschools, mandating that programs funded

through the Early Childhood Block Grant (ECBG) require specific credentials for teachers working with bilingual

populations. As of July 14, 2014, centers that enroll 20 preschool children who have the same home language are

required to offer a Transitional Bilingual Education (TBE) program, including instruction in the children’s home language

by a teacher who holds a bilingual endorsement. (See rigorous educational requirements below.) Additionally, a

center that has enrolled 19 or fewer preschool children who have the same home language must offer a Transitional

Program of Instruction (TPI) or a TBE program. Teacher’s providing TPI models of instruction must hold either the ESL

endorsement or bilingual approval.

To earn the new bilingual and ESL endorsements, ECE teachers must hold a valid, Illinois teaching certificate. Earning

the ESL endorsement requires that teachers complete 18 hours of course work in five content areas including

linguistics, theoretical foundation of teaching ESL, assessment of the bilingual student, methods of material for

teaching ESL, and cross-cultural studies for teaching limited-English proficient students. The course work also includes

a minimum of 100 clock hours, or three months, teaching English language learners. To earn the bilingual approval

teachers must also demonstrate that they can effectively educate in the language of instruction for which they seek the

approval and successfully pass an examination to demonstrate their competency in that language.

As described elsewhere in this report, early childhood education already faces pressure to increase the credentials

of the teaching workforce. While the state board of education should be credited for putting the children of Illinois

first, these increased credential requirements complicate and add stress to an already fragile ECE workforce. Of

most concern are the ECBG programs offered through the CPS Community Partnership. These programs, offered in

community agencies, are most likely to be serving English language learners, but are least likely to have teaching staff

that hold the required credentials.

Higher-education faculty in ECE teacher preparation programs across Illinois are responding to the increased

requirement through both faculty development and program redesign. The Illinois Resource Center, Illinois Gateways,

Chicago Metro AEYC, and other funded projects are sponsoring faculty conferences, workshops, and trainings. Both

preparation programs and existing ESL and bilingual course work are being redesigned to meet the challenge. For

example, DePaul University has integrated bilingual content into its curriculum, preparing all teacher candidates with

the course work necessary to meet the ESL endorsement or earn the bilingual approval, and the University of Illinois at

Chicago is currently revising its ESL/bilingual endorsement course work to reflect the particular needs of teachers of

young children.

1Daniel, J., & Friedman, S. (2005) Taking the Next Step: Preparing Teachers to Work with Cultural and Linguistically Diverse Children. Beyond the Journal.

with children and families, which most faculty at four-year institutions have never done and those at two-year institutions have long left behind.

Lack of capacity in higher education–based ECE teacher preparation programs also contributes in part to the disconnect between course work and the practices students apply in the field. Course work generally is too theoretical and not clearly and explicitly linked to field experiences. Faculty who are not only knowledgeable about academic content and pedagogy, but who also are experienced in working with today’s young children and their families in diverse settings can more easily and credibly make course work more relevant. In addition to course work being too theoretical, the practices students learn in their course work are sometimes not supported within early childhood care and education settings, and field placements are often too brief to allow opportunities for applying new knowledge.

Supporting preservice and new teachers in developing and improving their skills. In order to become effective, preservice and beginning teachers need ample opportunities for practice. Course work may instruct them in theories about child development, learning, pedagogy, and even best practices, but can not possibly prepare them for all that they will encounter once they begin full-time work as teachers of young children. Ideally, preservice teachers should have ample opportunities for observing good practice in action, applying their own new knowledge and skills in the classroom, and being exposed to children and families of various backgrounds and abilities. In addition, they should be exposed to diverse early care and education settings to provide them with experiences that may not be so ideal. This is the reality of being a teacher, and especially of young children, since they will encounter children who are entering their classrooms at varying levels of development and from various backgrounds. And unlike elementary and the upper grades, ECE teachers have more frequent and deeper interactions with parents and families.

Although teachers learn effective practices best from experience, in the early part of their careers they can receive a critical boost from high-quality mentoring and supervision by more experienced teachers. Mentoring and supervision for ECE teachers has many challenges that are based largely in the complexity of the work. Again, preservice and in-service ECE teachers are placed in a variety of settings with children of diverse ages and backgrounds that demand different types of observation, evaluation, and direction. Thus, mentoring and supervision is intense and time-consuming since mentors must adapt their approaches for the particular settings in which their charges practice. Because faculty in teacher preparation programs are already overburdened, this work can be particularly taxing for them and for the students.

The challenges facing ECE teacher preparation are many and complex, even when considering only those issues around recruitment and retention, preparation, and support for new teachers. Because there are multiple points of entry to preparation and development—both preservice and in-service—the pathway from preparation to credentials to career is not as linear and predictable in early childhood education as it is at the K-12 level. Preparation and development must be overhauled to accommodate the practical needs of the ECE teaching workforce while ensuring all teachers are highly qualified to work with all young children and their families across a variety of early care and education settings.

36

37

Recommendations: Improving early childhood education teacher preparation in Illinois

AECTP-IL concurs with the AACTE focus council’s conclusion (2004) that “a miscellany of institutions has historically carried out the preparation of ECE teachers and caregivers, resulting in fragmentation among multiple constituents.” We know, for example, that several initiatives exist in Illinois to address issues related to recruitment and retention of high-quality ECE teachers, such as the Early Learning Council’s workforce development committee, the Gateways to Opportunity career lattice and professional development system, and the Grow Your Own initiative. The challenge, however, is in identifying the points of intersection among these many and varied initiatives and leveraging them to avoid duplication and hasten progress in improving young children’s learning and development. Accordingly, the AECTP-IL recommendations offered below are based on the organizing principle of strengthening partnerships within and among institutions of higher education, and between them and the various entities involved in ECE teacher preparation and development in Illinois.

Overall objective

a) Recruiting the best candidates (both in terms of academic achievement and experience/disposition) into teacher education programs.

b) Preparing them for high-quality, effective teaching in all ECE settings.

c) Supporting candidates in developing and improving their skills.

Work on the AECTP-IL project—both the literature review and the work group deliberations—has suggested that ECE teacher preparation may need to be completely reconstructed in order to recruit and retain the best candidates, prepare them sufficiently for work with all young children in diverse settings, and support them in those settings. As presently designed, higher education–based programs are modeled too closely to elementary and secondary preparation programs, which, as this report demonstrates, is vastly different from ECE preparation. Moreover, in order to maximize the impact that the “miscellany of institutions” can have on preparing a highly qualified, highly effective ECE teaching workforce, systems need to be built that effectively leverage the combined interests and initiatives of these many institutions.

Recommended actions

1.1 Recruiting the best candidates into programs

a) Entry requirements

i. Overhaul entry requirements completely, including:

38

a. recruiting students already working in the field who exhibit exceptional talent in and commitment to working with young children and their families and demonstrate potential for academic success; and

b. replacing the Illinois Basic Skills test, which has not been shown to predict students’ later performance as teachers, with an assessment or a battery of assessments known to be correlated with relevant outcomes.

ii. Administer assessments earlier, perhaps even in high school. Most often, students complete assessments years after they were exposed to relevant content—usually after their second year of postsecondary education, as part of their application for candidacy. Since many students in ECE teacher preparation programs are returning students, the content is even further removed. Administering assessments earlier could enhance students’ likelihood of passing the exam without lowering the standard.

iii. Work more closely with and support K–12 systems to ensure students seeking entry to postsecondary ECE programs are adequately prepared in academic content, particularly English and math. Currently, too many students are leaving high school without sufficient skills or preparation to successfully manage the academic rigor of college course work. This lack of preparation contributes to the difficulties students have in meeting entry requirements for teacher education programs. The current move toward comprehensive P–20 systems that focus on key transitions from early childhood into early adulthood may be a good start.

iv. Execute broader and better collaboration between institutions of higher education, including pooling resources to support students in preparing to meet entry requirements; and improve collaboration among academic departments within institutions in designing teacher education courses.

b) Articulation and transfer

i. Build stronger relationships with other units and disciplines within institutions of higher education. Better alignment of general education requirements between two- and four-year institutions is critical and can only be accomplished through better collaboration—both between these institutions and among the departments within them.

ii. Build on and support existing efforts to improve articulation and transfer initiatives, such as those by ACCESS and the Illinois Articulation Initiative.

c) Lack of sufficient matriculation supports, especially for nontraditional students

i. Redesign preparation programs in ways that recognize the unique needs of students pursuing degrees in early childhood education and support them accordingly, modeling off of similar programs that support adult learners in other fields.

39

1. Work more closely with other units within institutions of higher education to incorporate flexibility in instructional delivery—such as through providing evening, weekend, online/hybrid, and accelerated programs through departments of continuing education, or a similar arrangement;

2. Partner with businesses, corporations, and foundations to fund and develop financial supports such as scholarships, forgivable loan programs, and paid field experiences.

ii. Design and implement innovative features that can facilitate student learning and success.

1. Consider cohort models that enable students to support and learn from each other; these have been shown to have some promise, particularly for students from underrepresented racial/ethnic minority groups.

2. Institute centralized systems of support that corral all internal and external resources available to students and assist them in navigating the process of leveraging these opportunities.

1.2 Preparing candidates for high-quality, highly effective teaching in all ECE

classrooms.

a) Gaps in preparation

i. Invest in developing alternatively structured programs in order to incorporate all critical content that currently cannot be accommodated in a traditional four-year program, such as by integrating content in a one-year clinical residency, internship, or clinical rotation across a variety of settings.

ii. Redesign programs to incorporate critical content across all course work through supplemental materials (e.g., prerecorded video featuring instruction modules from experts in the field) or other means of advanced technology.

iii. Institute a tiered ECE teacher certification process wherein a basic certificate is offered when candidates meet minimum requirements, and they work toward full certification as they meet requirements for approvals and endorsements in critical content areas.

b) Lack of capacity within higher education

i. Make greater investments in ECE faculty hiring and professional development as this is critical to increasing higher-education capacity for preparing high-quality ECE teachers.

ii. Pool resources within and among institutions of higher education, and between them and other early childhood care and education entities. For example, coteaching among ECE and arts-and-sciences faculty can leverage their dual expertise in delivering the highest quality content to preservice teachers. Similarly, onsite teacher education courses in child-care and preschool classrooms simultaneously provides instruction to both preservice and in-service teachers, as well as professional development for ECE faculty.

c) Disconnect between course work and field application

i. Offer fieldwork experiences very early in students’ preparation, with more intensive mentoring, supervision, and coaching and explicit connections to course work.

ii. Rotate field placements to expose students to a greater diversity of settings and opportunities for applying different practices as appropriate.

iii. Move toward more clinically based programs, integrating course work with field experiences by explicitly applying theory to field-based assignments.

iv. Execute focused collaboration between higher education programs and early care and education provider sites in planning field experiences. This has the potential to enhance alignment of teaching philosophies and practices between them, as well as to provide professional development opportunities for site directors and curriculum leaders.

1.3 Supporting preservice and new teachers in developing and improving their skills.

a) Lack sufficient high-quality placements for diverse field experiences

i. Forge better partnerships between universities and early care and education providers to facilitate better alignment of goals, objectives, and expectations regarding ECE teachers. The reciprocal effects of such partnerships include enhanced quality of both ECE settings and teacher preparation programs. ECE settings benefit from evidence-based professional development opportunities for all staff, and teacher preparation programs benefit from greater opportunities for practical application of what is learned in course work.

ii. Subject provider sites to an application and approval process to facilitate development of a system for matching sites with programs and students. Applications can be entered into a database that could be shared among institutions. Sites may be offered incentives for participating and may be designated as “model” sites for applying key concepts and practices (e.g., linguistic and cultural diversity, special education, and adult learning communities).

40

41

b) Lack of sufficient structures for high-quality mentoring and supervision of preservice and new teachers

i. Pool resources across institutions of higher education to create a system-wide database of mentor teachers, wherein mentors can be assigned to several students regardless of institution.

ii. Assign mentors to students as soon as they begin their preparation programs. Mentors would then support them through their first year of teaching, bridging preservice preparation and in-service induction. Unlike a field work supervisor or mentor, mentoring in this sense is broadened. Responsibilities would go beyond providing guidance related to academics and teaching practice, to include issues related to balancing work, family, and school; navigating the web of institutional supports available to students and taking advantage of opportunities; and embarking on a sustainable career in early childhood education with a clear plan for advancement.

iii. As with placement settings, subject potential mentors to an application process that would provide them with incentives, such as paid release time, additional pay, and continuous training for quality mentoring.

42

43

Suggested citation: Nelson, C. C., Main, C. M., and

Kushto-Hoban, J. (2012). Breaking it down and

building it out: Enhancing collective capacity to

improve early childhood teacher preparation in Ilinois.

Chicago, IL: UIC College of Education

44

Contact Information

University of Illinois at Chicago

College of Education

1040 W. Harrison Street (M/C 147)

Chicago, IL 60607

www.education.uic.edu