Transforming the Workforce for Children Birth Through Age 8: A Unifying Foundation (2015)

10

Qualification Requirements, Evaluation Systems, and Quality Assurance Systems

This chapter examines three important factors that contribute to workforce development and quality professional practice for educators who work with children from birth through age 8: requirements to qualify for professional practice, evaluation of practice quality, and program accreditation and quality improvement systems. Each of these factors is examined in turn in the sections that follow.

STANDARDIZING QUALITY: REQUIREMENTS TO QUALIFY FOR PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

Standards for requirements to be qualified to practice are one tool for contributing to the quality of professional practice among those responsible for the care and education of young children. These standards typically are set through systems that establish and administer either legal licenses to practice or credentials, certificates, or endorsements that may be a legal requirement, a condition for funding, or voluntarily adopted by an employer as a condition of employment or augmentation of baseline qualifications. In addition to these systems for individual practitioners, standards for requirements may be set through systems that establish licensing or funding criteria for a program or center.

Current systems vary widely in what is required, depending on what agency or institution has jurisdiction or authority to set qualification requirements; who administers both required and voluntary qualifications; and the professional role, the practice setting, and the age ranges of children

served.¹ The following section describes this variety of requirements and examines its implications in light of findings from the science of child development that every setting is a learning environment for young children, and every professional who works with these children has a similarly complex and important role in fostering child development and early learning. The subsequent section then delves in more depth into the issue of variability in degree requirements across professional roles.

Current Qualification Requirements for the Care and Education Workforce

Each of the 50 states (as well as U.S. territories) sets its own qualifications for public school teachers, as well as for teachers, assistant teachers, and directors in licensed early childhood programs and for regulated family childcare centers and home-based childcare providers. Table 10-1 provides an overview of the typical differences in qualification expectations across professional roles and settings. In public school systems, educators are required to be individually licensed or certified. By contrast, in settings outside of elementary schools, with the exception of some prekindergarten programs, it is much rarer for educators to be required to be individually licensed or certified (Kleiner, 2013). In most of these settings, state licensing standards for the program or center set the basic level of health and safety requirements for facilities and the education qualifications for teaching and administrative staff. Most of these programs also are supported by federal, state, and/or private funds that prescribe widely varying expectations for preservice and ongoing training, as well as certification. The exceptions are Head Start and Military Child Care, which set uniform national requirements for teachers and other personnel. Varying qualifications across different types of settings reflect the varying historical purposes of early care and education programs: programs originally conceived primarily as childcare support services for working parents generally set lower teacher standards than those originally designed to provide early education (such as preschools and public prekindergarten programs) (Whitebook, 2014).

_____________

¹ Terminology indicating that an educator has obtained the required knowledge and experience to be qualified for teaching varies within and across settings and sectors. In school systems, states use one or more terms—“certification,” “license,” and “credential”—to indicate that a teacher is qualified. In early care and education, a “license” generally indicates that a program, center, or school meets standards rather than referring to educator qualifications, which are more commonly described by the terms “certification” and “credential.” Such documentation of qualifications is not required for most early childhood educators, and the education and experience required to qualify for various certificates and credentials vary depending on setting, funding source, and regulatory agency (Whitebook, 2014).

TABLE 10-1 Overview of Differences in Qualification Expectations for Early Childhood Settings and Early Elementary Settings

^a About one-quarter of teachers in public and private preschools are required to meet individual licensing requirements.

^b Only charter preschools in one state and in Washington, DC, do not require some type of certification for prekindergarten teachers. Certifications in some states are different for prekindergarten teachers who work in school-sponsored and not-school-sponsored settings.

^c There were 1,981,280 elementary and middle school teachers employed in the United States in 2012.

^d Aggregated data reported throughout this table are based on 52 state-funded preschool programs (Barnett et al., 2012).

^e The category “all other center-based programs” includes privately operated childcare and preschools funded by parent fees and/or Child Care Development Fund subsidies. These programs represent a diversity of qualifications for teaching staff.

^f The CDA credential is a competency-based national certification earned by early childhood educators, often those who work as assistant teachers.

^g Twenty-seven percent of Early Head Start teachers working with infants and toddlers held at least a bachelor’s degree in 2013 (Whitebook, 2014).

SOURCE: Adapted from Building a Skilled Workforce (prepared for The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation) (Whitebook, 2014).

State Public School Licensure for Educators of Children from Birth Through Age 8

State public school licensure systems encompass professional roles that entail working with young children. These systems use a number of different age ranges and combinations of grade levels: some extend from birth through age 5 or up to age 8, while others cover ages in public school settings, extending from prekindergarten or kindergarten to as high as sixth grade or higher in the same license. Many states also have multiple licenses that include some segment of the birth through age 8 range; for example, some states have both a birth through age 8 license and a kindergarten through sixth grade license or a prekindergarten through third grade license and one for kindergarten through fifth or sixth grade (Bornfreund, 2011; Crandall et al., 2014).

As of summer 2014, 27 states and the District of Columbia offered public school teachers’ licenses beginning at birth, with some states offering more than one such license. Table 10-2 shows the earliest-age license available across states.

TABLE 10-2 Earliest Points of Available Public School Licensure Across States in 2014

NOTE: B = birth; K = kindergarten; Pre-K = prekindergarten.

SOURCE: Crandall et al., 2014. The University of Arkansas conducted a study through a contract with the National Academy of Sciences that examined the early childhood public school teacher licenses available in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Data were collected in summer 2014 through Internet searches and telephone interviews for each of

Of the configurations of licenses available, a birth to age 8/third grade license is the most prevalent (16 states). The next most prevalent is birth through kindergarten/age 5 (6 states). The remainder of the configurations include birth through second grade (4 states), birth through fifth grade (Georgia), birth through age 4 (Florida), and birth through sixth grade (2 states).

Compared with a prior scan conducted in 2009 (Jones et al., 2009), some changes have occurred over time in the available licenses that apply to the birth through age 8 range. Two states (Alabama and New Jersey) have added licensure beginning at birth since 2009, and a third state (Arkansas) is planning to do so in 2015. In the 2009 scan, Alabama was listed as offering an early childhood certificate covering prekindergarten to grade 3; today the state offers an early childhood education license that covers birth through age 8. New Jersey now offers an early childhood education license that covers birth through third grade, while in 2009 it offered a prekindergarten through third grade certificate. In addition, the Arkansas Board of Education, which currently has a K-6 license, is slated to roll out its birth through kindergarten licensure in fall 2015.

the licensing entities. In all cases, telephone interviews were held to confirm the information. However, such data are fluid because they are based on policy decisions that can change as a result of several possible factors.

Conversely, some states that previously had a license from birth have since dropped it. Five states—Indiana, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Oregon, and West Virginia—were identified in 2009 as offering licensure for public school beginning at birth; as of 2014, each offered licensure only beginning at the prekindergarten level. Three of these five states have not abandoned regulation for those involved professionally with infants and toddlers; rather, they now offer different certification programs. The Oregon Department of Education, for example, now offers birth through age 3 early intervention and age 3 through school entry early childhood special education certification for those involved in early intervention work. Massachusetts now offers certificates for professionals working in various roles within the childcare sector. Nebraska’s early childhood certificate for those working with children under age 3 can be used for childcare settings and is available for those trained at a minimum of the Child Development Associate credential or bachelor’s degree level. Two of the states, however, no longer cover the age span from birth to preschool. The West Virginia Board of Education does not have purview over birth certifications, so it no longer issues licenses covering that age span. Additionally, Indiana now offers a “generalist” early childhood license covering preschool through grade 3 and an early and middle childhood license for teachers of kindergarten through grade 6 (Crandall et al., 2014).

Implications and Consequences of Overlapping State Qualification Standards

In addition to variations in licensure across states, one clear trend is that overlap in state licensure is common. This means that prospective educators can, for example, choose to qualify for a birth to third grade license or a K-8 license (Bornfreund, 2011; Crandall et al., 2014). One of the consequences of this overlap in qualification systems is the possibility that none of the available standards captures the full range of competencies needed for teaching children from birth through age 8. Few states have systems set up in such a way that prospective educators wishing to teach in prekindergarten through third grade only have the option of acquiring a license that is inclusive of early childhood. Because the earliest age span covered in some states ends at or before kindergarten, kindergarten teachers typically obtain a license that extends to the upper elementary grades instead of one focused specifically on the early grades. They are therefore unlikely to have any specific training in early childhood. Florida, like many other states, has overlapping licenses for the early grades and offers an example of the consequences. According to Bornfreund (2011, p. 11):

The structure of licenses also influences how education schools prepare prospective educators. According to Bornfreund (2011), states with overlapping licenses tend also to have overlapping teacher preparation programs. In New Jersey, for example, prospective educators can pursue a prekindergarten through third grade early childhood degree or an elementary degree covering kindergarten through fifth grade. In many states, licenses for these two grade-level spans can be obtained simultaneously in the same program. As a result, these programs may focus on the grades in the middle of this span and neglect the earlier and later grades (Bornfreund, 2011). Take the example of Rider University, whose dual track entails taking the elementary track plus three early childhood courses. Although the course descriptions convey appropriate content, they do not entail field experience in prekindergarten through third grade settings. A student teaching experience is included, but this need not take place in the early grades (Bornfreund, 2011).

Another potential consequence is that licensure structures, in combination with hiring practices, may incentivize educators to obtain the broadest possible degree and license, thereby foregoing more specialized training to prepare them for specific settings and professional roles. Bornfreund (2011, pp. 10-11) illustrates this point by citing the case of Georgia:

Prospective educators are likely to pursue the license that makes them less likely to be subject to disparities in compensation and as employable as possible. Hiring decisions can be driven by the grade-level divisions in public school buildings, and the need for flexibility in being able to place educators in different grade levels over time. This may match the groupings of some licenses better than others. In an elementary school that has kindergarten through fifth grade, for example, an individual with a K-5 license may be a more appealing candidate than one with a birth through age 8 license who is not qualified to teach in fourth and fifth grade. Further, elementary school principals hiring teachers may not fully grasp the differences between preparation for early childhood and elementary educators. Moreover, they may move weaker teachers from an upper elementary grade to an earlier grade so that stronger teachers will be in those grades that are subject to state tests and school accountability (Bornfreund, 2011; Fuller and Ladd, 2013; Goldring et al., 2014).

Unfortunately, little evidence is available on which licensure standards ensure the most effective educators and produce better outcomes for young children. As a result, there are a number of considerations to be weighed in determining state licenses. Some believe that a birth through third grade, or at least prekindergarten through third grade, license is best aligned with how the science of child development and early learning supports the need for consistency and continuity in instructional practices for educators working with young children in this age range. However, this approach does not align well with practice settings. For example, understanding the foundations of development across the age span is key for any care and education professional regardless of setting. However, when it comes to more specialized competencies, educators planning to work in most public school systems will not be working with infants and toddlers, while those interested in working with infants and toddlers will not be working with children in the early elementary grades. Thus there is a rationale for a license that matches age span to setting, with reform not so much in the age span as in the content of the requirement to ensure that expectations for knowledge and competencies are more consistent across roles and settings and align more fully with research on child development and instruction for young children.

Another, similar consideration is flexibility in employment options, from the perspective of both the educator and the principals and administrators who hire and distribute staff. One potential option is a base license that would ensure common competencies across a broader age and grade span but would be accompanied by a required endorsement or certification ensuring specific competencies for subset ranges within that span. An educator might start a career with one endorsement, but could acquire another midcareer if asked to shift between earlier and upper grades.

Nongovernmental Credentialing Systems

Child Development Associate (CDA) credential The CDA credential, administered by the Council for Professional Recognition, is a national accreditation system that provides credentialing for the early childhood workforce. The credential is available for professionals in a number of settings and across the age range from birth to age 5: infant/toddler (birth to age 3) and preschool (3-5) endorsements for center-based programs; birth to age 5 endorsement for family childcare programs; and families with children from birth to age 5 endorsements for home visiting programs. Professionals working in bilingual settings also can earn a bilingual specialization to promote the development of children in a dual language environment (CPR, 2013c).

This credentialing system is intended to ensure that early childhood professionals have the competencies needed to work with children from birth through age 5. The six competencies goals of the CDA credential described by the Council for Professional Recognition (CPR, 2013a) are to

• establish and maintain a safe, healthy learning environment;
• advance physical and intellectual competence;
• support social and emotional development and provide positive guidance;
• establish positive and productive relationships with families;
• ensure a well-run, purposeful program responsive to participant needs; and
• maintain a commitment to professionalism.

The CDA credential may contribute to some aspects of quality and may be beneficial for child outcomes. Specifically, professionals with the credential and with limited formal education may act more positively with children and make more opportunities to engage in play with language than those without knowledge and previous coursework in early childhood education. A 2006 study found that children with CDA-credentialed teachers achieved greater gains in nonstandardized measures than children without a CDA-credentialed teacher, particularly in rhyming and naming letters, numbers, and colors. On standardized measures for language and math, however, there was no evidence that the CDA credential had any impact. The authors suggested that the Council for Professional Recognition review the CDA credentialing process and make the changes needed to improve outcomes, which could mean focusing more strongly on language and math (Early et al., 2006). Other authors recommended that the CDA credential’s contributions to quality be further examined (Tout et al., 2006).

In June 2013, the Council for Professional Recognition launched a

revised CDA credentialing process, developed after feedback was received from professionals and practitioners in early childhood education as well as CDA instructors. The updated system is intended to simplify the credentialing process for candidates. While some components, including competency goals, remain unchanged, certain aspects are new. The updated system includes a CDA professional development specialist who provides the candidate with coaching and facilitates reflection. The professional development specialist also conducts a verification visit with candidates that entails reviewing the required professional portfolio, observing the candidate with children, and reflecting on areas of strength with the candidate.

Those holding a high school diploma (or equivalent) and high school students enrolled in an early childhood education technical program are eligible to apply for the CDA credential. Candidates must complete 120 hours of child development courses at any time prior to submitting the application, as well as 480 hours of direct experience working with children. Candidates can take the CDA exam at any time (CPR, 2013b).

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS), founded in 1987, describes the knowledge and competencies of educators across 25 subject areas and developmental stages (NBPTS, 2014a). Competencies for generalists working in early and middle childhood are included (NBPTS, n.d.). The NBPTS report What Teachers Should Know and Be Able to Do details five core propositions (NBPTS, 1989):

• Teachers are committed to students and their learning.
• Teachers know the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to students.
• Teachers are responsible for managing and monitoring student learning.
• Teachers think systematically about their practice and learn from experience.
• Teachers are members of learning communities.

The NBPTS offers a voluntary certification for education professionals, and licensed teachers with a bachelor’s degree and a minimum of 3 years of teaching experience in an accredited early childhood, elementary, middle, or secondary school are eligible to apply. The application process includes a computer-based assessment through which the candidate must demonstrate content knowledge of developmentally appropriate practices. Candidates also must submit a portfolio including work on differentiation in the classroom, video recordings of teaching practices, and evidence of effective

and reflective practices. Support and financial assistance are available to candidates, varying by state (NBPTS, 2014b).

As of 2014, more than 110,000 teachers across the nation had earned the NBPTS certification; 4,000 earned it in 2013-2014 alone. This number, however, is a small fraction of the number of professionals working in classrooms (NBPTS, 2014c). A 2004 study found that education professionals in affluent and advantaged districts are more likely than those in other districts to apply for the NBPTS credential because of incentives such as the district’s covering the application fee and offering salary increases for those who become certified. It also is not evident that low-quality teachers are being encouraged to apply for the credential (Goldhaber et al., 2004).

According to a report of the National Research Council (NRC) (2008a) the NPBTS certification has varying impacts on student achievement. Some studies show achievement gains on standardized exams for students with NBPTS-certified teachers, whereas others show no impact at all. The report identified only one study that looked at impact on student outcomes beyond achievement on state standardized tests, such as attitudes and motivation in the classroom, which may reflect quality and effectiveness of teachers (NRC, 2008a).

Degree Requirement

While there is wide consensus across states and types of schools that early elementary educators should obtain at least a bachelor’s degree, a similar “educational floor” is not consistently in place for educators working with younger children (Whitebook, 2014). Almost all rigorous studies of early childhood programs that have shown large effects have come from programs with licensed teachers who have bachelor’s degrees (Barnett, 2008). However, as with many areas of education research, existing research on the relationship between the education level of educators and the quality of instruction or children’s learning and development is inconclusive.

Early and colleagues (2007) analyzed data from seven previous studies of prekindergarten programs and found null or contradictory associations between the bachelor’s degree or other features of teachers’ education attainment and classroom quality or child outcomes. Some studies found positive associations, while others found no association or negative associations. They conducted 27 analyses across studies to examine the relationship between the degree attainment of the lead teacher and classroom quality and children’s academic outcomes. They report that only eight of those analyses showed any evidence of association: six in the direction of a positive association and two in the direction of a negative association. In an unpublished working paper, Kelley and Camilli (2007) present a review of 32 studies, with a separate analysis for 18 comparative studies. They found that a college education had a modest, but positive, relationship with classroom quality and children’s learning and development.

Two studies published more recently than those included in these multistudy analyses have also examined this question. When Mashburn and col-

leagues (2008) compared the relative significance of “structural” quality in preschool programs (e.g., teacher’s education level, class size, adult–child ratio) to “process” quality (e.g., quality of instruction, teacher–child interactions, classroom climate), they found that only the latter was significantly related to children’s learning and development. Vu and colleagues (2008) conducted an analysis of California’s state-funded preschool programs to examine the relationship between teachers’ education and classroom quality in the context of other variables, such as program setting (i.e., childcare centers, Head Start, public schools) and program leaders’ qualifications. They found that a bachelor’s degree was associated with higher quality instruction for teachers who worked in childcare and Head Start programs, but not for those in public schools. The authors theorized that public school systems may have the capacity to offset lower education by providing more supports, such as supervision and classroom materials.

In New Jersey, a natural experiment arose when high-quality preschool education, with a requirement for educators with a bachelor’s degree and early childhood certification, was mandated in 31 districts. Prior to implementation, overall observed quality, including factors such as classroom interactions supporting development and learning, was low in private preschool programs. Yet after educators in these programs had the time and financial support to meet the educational and certification requirements (and their compensation was raised to match the qualification standards), observed quality increased, with most private programs rating good or excellent and no difference in quality levels found between private programs and public schools (Barnett, 2011; Frede et al., 2007, 2009). The Abbot preschool program in New Jersey is a well-documented example of successful implementation of a requirement for all lead prekindergarten teachers to have a minimum bachelor’s degree (Barnett et al., 2012).

While these findings from existing studies offer a range of results, the authors’ conclusions are not entirely inconsistent. Even in analyses that found weak or no relationships between educators with a bachelor’s degree and classroom quality and child outcomes, none of the researchers conclude that higher education does not matter, and in fact have stated that their findings should not be construed as indicating that teacher education is not important for quality. Early and colleagues (2007, p. 575) themselves caution that their findings “should not be interpreted as an indictment of the role of education in high-quality programs.” Similarly, the interpretation of Mashburn and colleagues (2008, p. 744) was that structural quality characteristics like teacher’s education may have indirect impacts on children’s learning and development by creating a classroom environment in which quality instruction is more likely. They offer that “teachers with higher credentials may indeed influence children’s outcomes, to the extent

that these qualifications lead to higher quality emotional and instructional interactions that children experience in classrooms.”

There are several reasons why the evidence is difficult to interpret clearly. The design, scale, and original purpose of the studies used in the existing analyses vary greatly, and were typically not designed explicitly to determine the level of education required to ensure high-quality and effective early learning; rather, teacher education is one among several variables studied (Barnett, 2011; Burchinal et al., 2008; Whitebook and Ryan, 2011). As a consequence, it is difficult to determine whether teacher education alone or other variables affect quality and outcomes, and in reporting the analyses described above each of the author groups acknowledges variables they were not able to take into account, often because data were either unavailable or inconsistently reported in the original studies. Similar challenges, and similar inconsistency of findings, are seen in the research literature on teacher qualifications in K-12 education, a system in which all teachers nonetheless are required to have bachelor’s degrees (Barnett, 2011; Early et al., 2006, 2007).

In addition, as noted by the researchers themselves and others, the available studies were not able to take into account factors that affect teacher education and teaching environments, such as the quality and content of the college degree or early childhood major; working conditions that the educators experience, such as access to ongoing professional learning, adequate instructional materials and facilities, effective leadership, and commensurate compensation; the educator’s years of experience; and state and local policies that could promote or hinder effective practice (Early et al., 2007; Hyson et al., 2009; NRC and IOM, 2012; Whitebook and Ryan, 2011). These other variables in question are not insignificant. For example, degree programs vary widely, which means they do not all consistently lead to the same desired quality of practice. In addition, degree requirements set by state or program policies may or may not specify an early childhood focus with a basis in developmental science that includes subject-matter content and pedagogical strategies (Whitebook et al., 2012).

Indeed, one area of agreement emerges across these study authors and perspectives from other researchers in this field. While not ruling out the importance of education levels, the authors of these studies conclude that college education or a specialization in early childhood education alone is not a guarantee of better instruction and improved child outcomes. This assessment is echoed by many who have interpreted the available evidence across studies (Hyson et al., 2009; NRC and IOM, 2012; Whitebook and Ryan, 2011; Zigler et al., 2011). As noted above, many other factors that affect quality practice cannot be ensured solely through the acquisition of a degree. The quality of teachers’ prior learning experiences in higher education and the quality of their ongoing professional learning and work-

ing environments all play important roles in enabling effective teaching and learning. These factors are discussed in more detail elsewhere in this report—in particular, in the preceding chapter on higher education and ongoing professional learning and in the chapter that follows on workforce status and well-being.

The confluence of factors that affects practice quality indicates that policy reforms to address levels of education are unlikely to be as effective as desired unless they also address other interrelated factors. In addition, changes to degree requirements may have effects for those working in early learning settings beyond simply increasing their level of education. It has been suggested that benefits of raising education standards for early care and education professionals could extend beyond improved quality of professional practice to include support for higher compensation; easier recruitment of well-qualified candidates to a wider range of professional roles; and reduced staff turnover, resulting in a more stable workforce (Bueno et al., 2010).

Furthermore, there are consequences of the current disparities in expectations for educators. Lower educational expectations for early childhood educators than for elementary school teachers perpetuates the perception—and policies that reflect the perception—that educating children before kindergarten requires less expertise than educating K-3 students, which makes it difficult to maximize the potential of young children through the early learning programs that serve them. Furthermore, there is also now considerable variation among professional roles working with younger children because a degree is increasingly being required in some early childhood settings as a result of requirements in Head Start and other settings and because more states and municipalities now have publicly funded prekindergarten programs that require educators to obtain preschool through early elementary certification.

These disparate policies create a bifurcated job market in which educators who are more able to seek higher education that qualifies them for better-compensated positions leave programs that serve young children to work in schools with older children, or leave less well-resourced preschool and childcare settings for better resourced ones. This not only introduces disparities for the workforce, it also means inequities for children across and within states and local communities, potentially perpetuating a cycle of disparity in the quality of the learning experiences of young children. Children in early care and education settings that should be equivalent may be experiencing a learning environment with an educator whose background ranges from a master’s degree to no or very little college education (Barnett et al., 2013).

Finally, the implications of more widely requiring a bachelor’s degree for educators need to be carefully considered. There would be an inevitable

and considerable resource need in order to train and employ more college-educated professionals in these roles (Barnett, 2011). The ability to meet such a requirement would also in large part depend on the capacity of the higher education community to provide quality programs for prospective and current early childhood care and education professionals. As discussed in Chapter 9, improvements needed in the higher education system include, among others, sufficient numbers of full-time early childhood–trained faculty who are knowledgeable about the current research and evidence-based practices, appropriate course offerings, application of appropriate accreditation criteria for higher education programs, and articulation programs between 2- and 4-year colleges (Bueno et al., 2010; Hyson et al., 2009). Another factor to consider regarding the ability to meet the requirement of a bachelor’s degree for those typically employed in early childhood settings is the tuition and other costs for a degree, especially when compared with their income, as well as the time required to complete the training while employed full time (Bueno et al., 2010). It is also important to recognize that many higher education and credentialing systems are undergoing significant changes with the advent of online courses and other technology-driven changes, a trend that could have implications for mitigating the challenges facing educators seeking additional qualifications.

Qualification Requirements for Leadership

Given the complexity of early childhood development, the sophisticated knowledge and competencies needed by care and education professionals to be effective, and the important role of the work environment in supporting quality practice, leadership in birth through age 8 settings (administrators, program directors, family childcare owners, coordinators, principals, superintendents) needs to have an understanding of developmental science; of instructional practices for educators of young children; and for how this knowledge should guide decision making on hiring, supervision, evaluation of educator performance, and the development of portfolios of available professional learning supports. Yet there is currently wide variation in the expectation for these leaders (see Table 10-3).

Leadership in Early Childhood Settings

The current standards and expectations for directors in early childhood settings are insufficient for the knowledge and competencies needed to lead in learning environments for young children. Education and certification requirements for directors are inconsistent across states. Twenty-eight states recognize the administrative competency of center directors by issuing a director or administrator credential. In almost all of these states, the credential is voluntary (Bloom et al., 2013). In fact, only four states require a center director to have a degree at any level (Bloom et al., 2013). In 10 states, an individual with a high school diploma or lower educational attainment, with no coursework in early childhood education, can become a center director (Child Care Aware of America, 2013). Only five states (California, Colorado, Florida, New Hampshire, and Texas) require even one college course related to administration or business before the position of director of a licensed childcare center is assumed (Bloom et al., 2013). While the majority of directors hold a bachelor’s degree or higher, that percentage decreased from 72 percent in 2001 to 66 percent in 2008 (McCormick Center for Early Childhood Leadership, 2013).

The Illinois director credential has served as a model for qualification requirements. As of 2013, 520 early childhood professionals held this credential. The core knowledge and skill areas of the credential have been adapted by the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) to define the competencies needed for effective program administration (Bloom et al., 2013; McCormick Center for Early Childhood Leadership, 2012). As of 2016, the Illinois director credential will be em-

TABLE 10-3 Overview of Differences in Qualification Expectations for Leadership in Early Childhood and Early Elementary Settings

^a The prekindergarten through grade 12 principal certification also covers special education and English language learners. Nonmandatory training for principals and other early care and education administrators is encouraged in New Jersey and other states.

SOURCE: Adapted from Building a Skilled Workforce (prepared for The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation) (Whitebook, 2014).

bedded in the state’s Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS). At the national level, 24 states have a director credential or enhanced director qualifications embedded in QRIS.²

_____________

² A regularly updated summary of state director credential initiatives and quality rating requirements for early childhood administrators can be found on the McCormick Center’s website (http://McCormickCenter.nl.edu/category/research-resources-library/director-qualifications [accessed November 9, 2014]).

Leadership in Elementary Schools

Current policies for training or certifying elementary school principals also are not well aligned with the interests of early elementary educators and students. Even though most principals work in elementary schools and the science clearly indicates the importance of the early years for future academic success, public education policies tend not to emphasize early childhood development for elementary school principals. The use of broad K-12 principal licensure allows flexibility across schools and grades in hiring principals, but is not beneficial for the potential contribution of principals to leadership in education for young children. The science of child development and of developmentally appropriate practices becomes just one of an extremely broad range of competencies and expectations. This broad licensure also reduces the specificity of practicum or internship experiences such that they include limited time in early elementary settings and little or no time in prekindergarten settings, even as an increasing number of school systems are implementing prekindergarten programs. Some policies even ascribe a lower status to elementary school principals relative to those in middle and high schools. For example, the average salary for elementary school principals is more than 5 percent lower than that for middle school principals and almost 12 percent lower than that for high school principals (Herbert, 2011). Elementary school principal positions are often seen as “entry level.” Another challenge to principals’ contributing to continuity in learning experiences is the reliance in some cases on community education programs to administer preschool programs. Removing this responsibility from elementary school principals because of their overly broad position description is counter to supporting greater continuity in high-quality learning experiences for children.

EVALUATION OF PRACTICE QUALITY

Current Systems for Evaluating Educators of Children from Birth Through Age 8

As with other aspects of professional learning, evaluation systems used to support continuous quality improvement vary greatly across professional roles and settings for children from birth through age 8 (see Table 10-4 for an overview).

Outside of federally funded Head Start programs or school-based programs, structured systems for evaluation are nearly absent in early childhood settings, with evaluation policies being set program by program. Structured systems for evaluating programs and centers have historically focused on program quality assurance, with educator performance as a component (program quality systems are discussed in a subsequent section).

In public school systems, the past few years have seen a sea change in state and district policies for evaluating the effectiveness of educators and other professionals who work with children. These reforms have been prompted in part by federal initiatives such as Race to the Top and requests for waivers to No Child Left Behind requirements, and in part by states’ own legislators and governors. At both levels, the general intent is to develop more meaningful evaluation methods that improve professional practice and child outcomes by differentiating effective from ineffective instruction, creating a stronger link to student performance, and informing professional development. The most significant changes include the following:

• The inclusion of some measure of student achievement or growth as part of the professional evaluation rating—Forty states and the District of Columbia now require such measures in teacher ratings (NCTQ, 2013).

• The inclusion of some measure of instruction quality as part of the teacher evaluation rating—Forty-four states and the District of Columbia now require classroom observations as part of an evaluation for all teachers (NCTQ, 2013).
• The use of teacher evaluation ratings to make high-stakes decisions about compensation (15 states), tenure (19 states), and dismissal (23 states) (NCTQ, 2013).

In states that have implemented these policies, these reforms apply to all K-3 teachers who work in public school systems. They typically apply also to educators who work with children who have not yet entered kindergarten, especially prekindergarten teachers in state-funded programs or those who teach in other early learning settings that require a public school teaching license (e.g., teachers in state-funded prekindergarten programs or early childhood special education programs) (Connors-Tadros and Horowitz, 2014). Those who work in programs not formally connected to the public education system, such as childcare and home visiting, usually are not subject to these evaluation policies. Nor do the policies apply to Head Start programs unless those programs are administered by school districts that consider their Head Start teachers to be public school employees. In other words, these policies, where applied, affect all educators of children who are aged 5-8 and some educators of children who are aged 3-4 and in some cases, even younger.

The discussion that follows examines the extent to which educator evaluation reforms reflect research on how children learn and develop and on the professional knowledge and competencies needed to support them effectively. Even though current policies typically do not apply to professionals who work with young children but are not licensed by the state’s public education system, the questions raised in this discussion can be applied to their evaluation as well.

Challenges and Reforms in Evaluating Educators of Young Children

Children within the birth through age 8 age range learn in different ways from those of their older peers. As described in Chapters 4 and 6, younger children tend to thrive with environments and learning experiences that are designed intentionally by educators to encourage students to explore their interests, initiate their own inquiries, and at the same time progress along specific learning and developmental trajectories. In such environments, children’s competencies and skills can be taught directly, but young children may acquire them more successfully if they are also taught in an interdisciplinary way, so that, for example, an art activity is also connected to language, math, and socioemotional learning. Younger

TABLE 10-4 Overview of Differences in Evaluation Systems for Early Childhood and Early Elementary Settings

^a Section 641A(c)(2)(F) of the Head Start Act (the Act) requires that the Office of Head Start’s monitoring review process include the use of “a valid and reliable research based observational instrument, implemented by qualified individuals with demonstrated reliability, that assesses classroom quality, including assessing multiple dimensions of teacher-child interactions that are linked to positive child development and later achievement.” The Act also states, in Section 641(c)(1)(D), that such an instrument should be used as part of the system for designation renewal. Grantees with average CLASS™ scores below the established minimum on any of the three CLASS™ domains or receiving scores in the lowest 10 percent of the grantee pool assessed in a given year are required to recompete for funding.

^b Forthcoming data from the National Survey of Early Care and Education will include information about whether teachers receive formal review and feedback on performance at least annually.

SOURCE: Adapted from Building a Skilled Workforce (prepared for The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation) (Whitebook, 2014).

students also demonstrate their knowledge, skills, and understanding of concepts in different ways from those of their older peers. Their skills are more likely to be evidenced in their everyday behaviors than in verbal or written explanations, given that children at these ages are still learning basic verbal and writing skills. Not surprisingly, then, instructional strategies and interactions that work well for children in this age span look different from those that are effective for older students.

Thus, applying the current paradigm for evaluation reforms to those who work with children within the birth through age 8 age span requires addressing a number of challenges that are unique to this group of professionals. More specifically, tying their evaluation results primarily to student performance and observations of instructional practice requires different strategies from doing so with educators of older children. Because of the variable nature of learning and development during these years, triangulating assessment data with other sources of evidence from multiple methods and at multiple times may help educator evaluation systems derive a more reliable and valid measure of student achievement or growth during this age span (Epstein et al., 2004; Goe et al., 2011; Snow, 2011).³ Nonetheless, most states that have implemented these reforms have not developed research-based policies or guidance for evaluating this population of professionals. Only 18 states and the District of Columbia have explicit policies on how to incorporate measures of student performance into evaluations of teachers in any untested grades and subjects, much less for prekindergarten through third grade in particular (NCTQ, 2013). Finally, it is important to examine the extent to which current reform efforts reflect the research—both established and emerging—on how children learn and develop during this period and on what professionals need to know and be able to do to help them be successful in the short and long terms.

Using Student Achievement to Evaluate Educator Performance

Measuring student achievement or growth in prekindergarten programs and in primary grades presents challenges distinct from those of measuring students’ achievement in older grades (see the discussion of child assessment in Chapters 5 and 6) (Marsico Institute for Early Learning and Literacy, 2010; NEGP, 1998; NRC, 2008b). States that have incorporated measures of student performance into their evaluation policies typically rely on statewide standardized test results to evaluate educators from third through

_____________

³ For guiding questions for designing various components of teacher evaluation systems, see http://www.lauragoe.com/LauraGoe/practicalGuideEvalSystems.pdf (accessed March 24, 2015).

eighth grade.⁴ However, standardized tests typically are not administered statewide for children before third grade, nor is it advisable to use them for this age group for high-stakes purposes, such as decisions about educators’ rating, compensation, or tenure (NEGP, 1998).⁵ These tests assume an ability to focus and be sedentary for an extended period of time and a certain level of manual dexterity and literacy skills that younger students have not yet developed. Moreover, young children’s performance on a task on a particular day (or at a particular moment) is variable and highly susceptible to environmental factors, which makes obtaining an accurate and reliable assessment of their ability challenging (Marsico Institute for Early Learning and Literacy, 2010; NEGP, 1998; NRC, 2008b). The typical rate of learning and development during the preschool years also is highly variable (National Early Childhood Accountability Task Force, 2007). Young children who may appear to be “behind” by a certain standard may be well within the normal range of development and catch up with or exceed their peers later. Finally, many students at this age may not be familiar with “tests” and their purpose, and may lack the skills and motivation to perform that older children have (Epstein et al., 2004).

For these reasons, the National Education Goals Panel has stated that “the younger the child, the more difficult it is to obtain reliable and valid assessment data. It is particularly difficult to assess children’s cognitive abilities accurately before age 6.” The panel also recommended that child assessments not be used for high-stakes accountability purposes for students, schools, or educators until the end of third or fourth grade (NEGP, 1998). These cautions against high-stakes uses of assessment results for young children remain relevant. Indeed, the lack of consensus in state and local education systems on the appropriate assessments and outcome data to use as part of the evaluation of preschool and K-3 educators suggests that implementers of evaluation reforms continue to struggle with the issues raised by the National Education Goals Panel and need more research on which guidance can be based.

Because of these challenges, children at these ages commonly are assessed through everyday observation and documentation of their behaviors and performance against clear performance benchmarks or indicators or through one-on-one assessments of specific skills, both of which require the educator to interact with students in small groups or individually (National Early Childhood Accountability Task Force, 2007; NEGP, 1998; Snow,

_____________

⁴ Some states or districts measure student growth by comparing their end-of-year performance on state tests with the previous year’s results. With this approach, third-grade test scores may not be used to evaluate third-grade teachers, since states typically do not require statewide standardized testing for second grade.

⁵ In fact, using standardized tests to measure student achievement or growth is feasible with only about one-third of the K-12 teaching profession. See Prince et al. (2009).

2011). When this approach is used to evaluate an educator’s performance, however, it creates an inherent conflict of interest for the educator. Because of the challenges described above, combining educator-engaged approaches with assessments that children can complete independently is less feasible for younger than for older children.

In addition, young children’s socioemotional development and their growth as effective learners (e.g., ability to focus, self-regulate, persist) are as critical for success as their proficiency in academic content areas such as literacy and math, a balance that continues to be important into the later elementary grades, high school, college, and beyond (Educational Policy Improvement Center, 2013; Farrington et al., 2012; Hein et al., 2013; NAEYC-NAECS/SDE, 2003; NRC, 2008b, 2012). Yet measures of student achievement used in educator evaluation systems tend not to take these skills into account for children of any age, potentially missing a significant aspect of educators’ competencies as professionals.

To be sure, valid and reliable standardized tests of children’s learning and development during the prekindergarten through grade 3 continuum do exist—for certain purposes. Screening tools have been validated, for example, that produce reliable data suggesting that a child may have a developmental delay or disability. Similarly, valid diagnostic tools exist with which to identify specific delays or problems a child may have in different domains of learning and development. There are also validated assessments for this age group that measure growth and achievement in certain domains of learning and development and can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of instruction or interventions. However, policy leaders making decisions about the selection of assessments for educator evaluation purposes should keep in mind that assessments are valid and reliable only for the purposes for which they were designed. Professional associations and expert panels alike have warned against using assessments for purposes for which they have not been validated. Most recently, the Gordon Commission on the Future of Assessment in Education stated, “In all cases, assessment instruments and procedures should not be used for purposes other than those for which they have been designed and for which appropriate validation evidence has been obtained” (Gordon Commission on the Future of Assessment in Education, 2013). This conclusion has been echoed by the NAEYC, the National Education Goals Panel, and the NRC (NEGP, 1998; NRC, 2008b; Snow, 2011).

In addition, when the use of child assessments leads to high-stakes consequences for educators (of any age group), it is of paramount importance that what is attributed to the educator and his or her instruction be as precise as possible. Learning and development are a product of many factors inside and outside the classroom and the school, so using multiple measures of children and the environment in which they live and learn is

critical. For example, an NRC report concluded that any high-stakes use of student assessments in K-12 systems needs to be contextualized with data on the learning environment, the children themselves, and the supports to which the school and educators have access. According to the group, teacher evaluations should not be based on student assessments “without also knowing about access to resources, to professional development, to mental health consultation, to supervision, and so on” (NRC, 2008b, p. 356).

Given the above challenges and limitations, states and districts are adapting their approaches. To derive a measure of students’ achievement or growth in prekindergarten through grade 3 in the absence of standardized test data, states and districts have relied largely on the following strategies (Bornfreund, 2013; Gill et al., 2013; Goe, 2011; Marion and Buckley, 2011; Prince et al., 2009):

• Student learning objectives (SLOs)—SLOs are goals that educators set for their students—either as a class or as subgroups—based on understanding of the students’ competency levels in various learning and developmental areas. SLOs often are developed in collaboration with principals and sometimes with other educators of the same grade. Once SLOs have been identified, educators work with principals and other colleagues to develop an assessment strategy. Assessment can use a commercially available or locally created instrument that relies on assessing children through standardized tasks (i.e., direct assessment), or an authentic assessment process that collects evidence of students’ competency through everyday observations and documentation of students’ work and performance.
• Curriculum-based assessments, other commercial measures, or locally developed assessments—Some states and districts have chosen to adopt a common assessment for each grade within the prekindergarten to grade 3 continuum and use the data to represent the student performance or growth portion of the educator’s evaluation. As with SLOs, these products can rely on direct assessment methods or authentic assessment approaches. Typically, existing assessments for these grade levels are designed for screening, diagnostic, and formative purposes, not for high-stakes educator evaluation.
• Shared attribution—In some districts and states, the student performance measure is derived from a school-wide indicator of achievement or growth, such as growth in reading or math proficiency at the end of third grade. The assumption is that prekindergarten

Observing Professional Practice

Evaluating prekindergarten and early elementary educators’ practice through observation requires a body of knowledge about teaching, learning, and child development different from that needed for observing educators of older students. Yet the most common observation instruments currently used by states and districts for educator evaluation purposes were developed and validated with educators of older students. Many use the same instruments for all educators, including those in prekindergarten through grade 3. The extent to which these instruments can identify effective practices and distinguish them from poor instruction in K-3 classrooms is mainly assumed rather than based on rigorous research (Kane and Staiger, 2012).

For this reason, some states, such as Illinois, New Jersey, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, are adapting existing instruments or providing guidance for observers to help them identify effective or ineffective strategies, interactions, and instruction for prekindergarten through grade 3 students. Effective observations of prekindergarten through grade 3 educators require instruments and observers (e.g., principals) that are sensitive to research-based interactions and instructional strategies that are appropriate for this age group, such as those highlighted by statements of core competencies from the NAEYC, the NBPTS, and the Council of Chief State School Officers (Prince et al., 2009).⁶ Observation instruments may be inappropriate for prekindergarten and early elementary educators if they do not include evidence or examples of practice that reflect effective instructional strategies and other core competencies critical in early elementary classrooms (Pianta, 2012).⁷

A number of observational tools have been developed for use in younger children and have been adopted in many early care and education settings. These tools support the collection of observational data on child–educator interactions, environmental settings, and quality of instruction (Guernsey and Ochshorn, 2011). A few states allow districts and schools to use such observation tools that were designed and validated for earlychildhood classrooms for evaluating prekindergarten through grade 3 edu-

_____________

⁶ For broader discussions of the need to train and support principals to conduct teacher evaluations effectively, see Grossman (2011) and Jerald (2012).

⁷ See http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/report/2012/05/15/11650/implementing-observation-protocols (accessed March 24, 2015) for guiding principles on choosing or designing observation instruments.

cators (Connors-Tadros and Horowitz, 2014). However, doing so requires that principals and other administrators learn how to use multiple tools, and to conduct observations in K-3 classrooms they may need specialized training in best practices and research on early learning to evaluate these educators’ practices effectively, provide appropriate feedback, and offer ongoing support (Szekely, 2013).

PROGRAM ACCREDITATION AND QUALITY IMPROVEMENT SYSTEMS

Accreditation and quality improvement systems with a focus on the quality of the center or program are increasingly being employed in early childhood settings. Given the importance of the professionals working in a setting to the quality of the learning environment, these systems can drive standards for their education requirements and other qualifications, as well as include assessments of and in some cases feedback for these professionals. When designed and implemented well, these quality assurance efforts have the potential to bridge early learning standards, program quality standards, and core competency standards for professionals. They can serve to foster both a quality learning environment for children and an appropriate workplace environment that supports quality practice among care and education professionals. Therefore, quality assurance efforts can serve as a lever to affect individual practitioners’ knowledge, skills, and behaviors even though these efforts are not always thought of in conjunction with or strategically coordinated with professional learning systems. Examples of these systems include national voluntary accreditation systems for family childcare and childcare centers, as well as state and local QRISs (see Box 10-1).

Professional learning can be incorporated in the context of quality assurance systems such as QRISs if their scope and intent are extended to include rating standards that are linked more comprehensively and closely to instructional practices and child outcomes and coordinated with efforts to improve the quality of professional practice. A 2014 report calls for a review and expansion of the conceptual framework for QRISs to include not only the child outcomes that are central to those systems but also outcomes related to increasing family engagement and the professionalization of the early care and education workforce and improving early care and education systems (Zaslow and Tout, 2014).

Coaching in the context of a QRIS is another opportunity to align with broader professional learning aims. The intent of this coaching can be related to the rating process by either preparing providers for the rating, facilitating the rating process, or improving the rating. Often the coaching is focused on overall quality improvement rather than enhancement of specific content areas, skills, or curriculum. Coaching in the QRIS context frequently lasts longer than non-QRIS coaching. Data are not currently available on the impact of coaching on program-level or child outcomes (Isner et al., 2011).

REFERENCES

Barnett, W. S. 2008. Preschool education and its lasting effects: Research and policy implications. East Lansing, MI: Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice.

———. 2011. Minimum requirements for preschool teacher educational qualifications. In The preK debates: Current controversies and issues, edited by E. F. Zigler, W. S. Gilliam and W. S. Barnett. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. Pp. 48-54.

Barnett, W. S., M. E. Carolan, J. Fitzgerald, and J. H. Squires. 2011. The state of preschool 2011: State preschool yearbook. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, National Institute for Early Education Research.

———. 2012. The state of preschool 2012: State preschool yearbook. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, National Institute for Early Education Research.

———. 2013. The state of preschool 2013: State preschool yearbook. Executive summary. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, National Institute for Early Education Research.

Bloom, P. J., S. Jackson, T. N. Talan, and R. Kelton. 2013. Taking charge of change: A 20-year review of empowering early childhood administrators through leadership training. Wheeling, IL: McCormick Center for Early Childhood Leadership.

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.

———. 2013. An ocean of unknowns: Risks and opportunities in using student achievement data to evaluate preK-3rd grade teachers. Washington, DC: New America Foundation.

Brown, K. C., J. Squires, L. Connors-Tadros, and M. Horowitz. 2014. What do we know about principal preparation, licensure requirements, and professional development for school leaders? New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, Center on Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes.

Bueno, M., L. Darling-Hammond, and D. M. Gonzales. 2010. A matter of degrees: Preparing teachers for the pre-K classroom. Washington, DC: PEW Center on the States.

Burchinal, M., M. Hyson, and M. Zaslow. 2008. Competencies and credentials for early childhood educators: What do we know and what do we need to know? NHSA dialog briefs. Alexandria, VA: National Head Start Association.

Child Care Aware of America. 2013. We can do better: Child Care Aware of America’s ranking of state child care center regulations and oversight. Arlington, VA: Child Care Aware of America.

Connors-Tadros, L., and M. Horowitz. 2014. How are early childhood teachers faring in state teacher evaluation systems? CEELO policy report. New Brunswick, NJ: Center on Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes.

CPR (Council for Professional Recognition). 2013a. CDA competency standards. http://www.cdacouncil.org/the-cda-credential/about-the-cda/cda-competency-standards (accessed December 17, 2014).

———. 2013b. CDA questions and answers. http://www.cdacouncil.org/the-cda-credential/230-cda-20-qaa#VV (accessed February 4, 2015).

———. 2013c. CDA settings. http://www.cdacouncil.org/the-cda-credential/about-the-cda/cda-settings (accessed February 4, 2015).

———. 2013d. Council for Professional Recognition. http://www.cdacouncil.org (accessed January 9, 2015).

Crandall, M., J. Henk, and Z. Conley. 2014 (unpublished). An investigation of available public school teaching licenses beginning at birth in the United States in 2014. Paper commissioned by the Committee on the Science of Children Birth to Age 8: Deepening and Broadening the Foundation for Success, IOM/NRC, Washington, DC.

Department for Professional Employees and AFL-CIO (American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations). 2013. Teachers: Preschool through postsecondary. http://dpeaflcio.org/professionals/professionals-in-the-workplace/teachers-and-college-professors (accessed January 9, 2015).

Early, D. M., D. M. Bryant, R. C. Pianta, R. M. Clifford, M. R. Burchinal, S. Ritchie, C. Howes, and O. A. Barbarin. 2006. Are teachers’ education, major, and credentials related to classroom quality and children’s academic gains in pre-kindergarten? Early Childhood Research Quarterly 21:174-195.

Early, D. M., K. L. Maxwell, M. R. Burchinal, S. Alva, R. H. Bender, D. Bryant, K. Cai, R. M. Clifford, C. Ebanks, J. A. Griffin, G. T. Henry, C. Howes, J. Iriondo-Perez, H.-J. Jeon, A. J. Mashburn, E. Peisner-Feinberg, R. C. Pianta, N. Vandergrift, and N. Zill. 2007. Teachers’ education, classroom quality, and young children’s academic skills: Results from seven studies of preschool programs. Child Development 78:558-580.

Educational Policy Improvement Center. 2013. College and career readiness: Preparing students for success beyond high school. http://www.epiconline.org/readiness (accessed October 23, 2014).

Epstein, A. S., L. J. Schweinhart, A. DeBruin-Parecki, and K. B. Robin. 2004. Preschool assessment: A guide to developing a balanced approach. New Brunswick, NJ, and Ypsilanti, MI: National Institute for Early Education Research.

Exstrom, M. 2012. Teaching in charter schools. Washington, DC: National Conference of State Legislatures.

Farrington, C. A., M. Roderick, E. Allensworth, J. Nagaoka, T. S. Keyes, D. W. Johnson, and N. O. Beechum. 2012. Teaching adolescents to become learners: The role of noncognitive factors in shaping school performance: A critical literature review. http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/publications/Noncognitive%20Report.pdf (accessed February 4, 2015).

Florida Department of Education. 2011. Competencies and skills required for teacher certification in Florida, 15th ed. http://www.fldoe.org/accountability/assessments/postsecondaryassessment/ftce/tdi/comps-and-skills.stml#Fifteenth (accessed February 2, 2015).

Frede, E., K. Jung, W. S. Barnett, C. E. Lamy, and A. Figueras. 2007. The Abbott Preschool Program Longitudinal Effects Study (APPLES): Interim report. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, National Institute for Early Education Research.

Frede, E. C., K. Jung, W. S. Barnett, and A. Figueras. 2009. The APPLES Blossom Abbott Preschool Program Longitudinal Effects Study (APPLES): Preliminary results through 2nd grade. Interim report. http://nieer.org/pdf/apples_second_grade_results.pdf (accessed February 4, 2015).

Fuller, S. C., and H. F. Ladd. 2013. School based accountability and the distribution of teacher quality across grades in elementary school. Washington, DC: National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research.

Gill, B., J. Bruch, and K. Booker. 2013. Using alternative student growth measures for evaluating teacher performance: What the literature says. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Mid-Atlantic.

Goe, L. 2011. Measuring teachers’ contributions to student learning growth for nontested grades and subjects. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.

Goe, L., L. Holdheide, and T. Miller. 2011. A practical guide to designing comprehensive teacher evaluation systems: A tool to assist in the development of teacher evaluation systems. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.

Goldhaber, D., D. Perry, and E. Anthony. 2004. The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) process: Who applies and what factors are associated with NBPTS certification? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 26(4):259-280.

Goldring, E. B., C. M. Neumerski, M. Cannata, T. A. Drake, J. A. Grissom, M. Rubin, and P. Schuermann. 2014. Principals’ use of teacher effectiveness data for talent. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt Peabody College.

Gordon Commission on the Future of Assessment in Education. 2013. A public policy statement. Princeton, NJ: Gordon Commission on the Future of Assessment in Education.

Grossman, T. 2011. Preparing principals to evaluate teachers. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices.

Guernsey, L., and S. Ochshorn. 2011. Watching teachers work: Using observation tools to promote effective teaching in the early years and early grades. Washington, DC: New America Foundation.

Hein, V., B. Smerdon, and M. Sambolt. 2013. Predictors of postsecondary success. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.

Herbert, M. 2011. The 11th annual salary survey: They work hard for the money. District Administration. http://www.districtadministration.com/article/11th-annual-salary-survey-they-work-hard-money (accessed January 13, 2015).

Hyson, M., H. Tomlinson, M. Biggar, and A. S. Carol. 2009. Quality improvement in early childhood teacher education: Faculty perspectives and recommendations for the future. Early Childhood Research & Practice 11(1).

Isner, T., K. Tout, M. Zaslow, M. Soli, K. Quinn, L. Rothenberg, and M. Burkhauser. 2011. Coaching in early care and education programs and Quality Rating and Improvement Systems (QRIS): Identifying promising features. Washington, DC: Child Trends, Inc.

Jerald, C. 2012. Ensuring accurate feedback from observations. Seattle, WA: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Jones, R. C., S. Martin, and M. Crandall. 2009. Early childhood public school teacher licensure for the fifty states and Washington, D.C.: An inquiry to ascertain student age ranges for public school licensure. http://arkansasagnews.uark.edu/986.pdf (accessed February 4, 2015).

Kane, T. J., and D. O. Staiger. 2012. Gathering feedback for teaching: Combining high-quality observations with student surveys and achievement gains. Research paper. MET Project. Seattle, WA: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Karoly, L. A. 2014. Validation studies for early learning and care quality rating and improvement systems: A review of the literature. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

Kelley, P., and G. Camilli. 2007. The impact of teacher education on outcomes in center-based early childhood education programs: A meta-analysis. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research.

Kleiner, M. M. 2013. Licensing occupations: How time and regulatory attainment matter. Employment Research 20(4):4-6.

Leadership to Integrate the Learning Continuum. 2015. LINC principal preparation program redesign. http://leadershiplinc.illinoisstate.edu/LINC-principal (accessed January 13, 2015).

LeMoine, S. 2009. Professional development system policy overview. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Marion, S., and K. Buckley. 2011. Approaches and considerations for incorporating student performance results from “non-tested” grades and subjects into educator effectiveness determinations. Denver, CO: National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment.

Marsico Institute for Early Learning and Literacy. 2010. The case against testing young children to evaluate teacher effectiveness: A position statement from the Marsico Institute for Early Learning and Literacy. Denver, CO: University of Denver, Morgridge College of Education.

Mashburn, A. J., R. C. Pianta, B. K. Hamre, J. T. Downer, O. A. Barbarin, D. Bryant, M. Burchinal, D. M. Early, and C. Howes. 2008. Measures of classroom quality in prekindergarten and childrens development of academic, language, and social skills. Child Development 79(3):732-749.

McCormick Center for Early Childhood Leadership. 2012. Director qualifications in state professional development and quality rating and improvement systems. Wheeling, IL: National Louis University.

———. 2013. Leadership Matters. http://mccormickcenter.nl.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Leadership-Matters-11-14-13exp.pdf (accessed November 9, 2014).

Meisels, S. J. 2006. Accountability in early childhood: No easy answers. Chicago, IL: Herr Research Center for Children and Social Policy, Erikson Institute.

NAEYC (National Association for the Education of Young Children). 2006. Press Releases—2006. http://www.naeyc.org/newsroom/pressreleases/archive2006/20060801 (accessed March 14, 2015).

NAEYC-NAECS/SDE (NAEYC-National Association of Early Childhood Specialists/State Departments of Education). 2003. Early childhood curriculum, assessment, and program evaluation: Building an effective, accountable system in programs for children birth through age 8. Position statement. Washington, DC: NAEYC.

NAFCC (National Association for Family Child Care). 2014. National Association for Family Child Care accreditation. http://nafcc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=70&Itemid=765 (accessed January 12, 2015).

National Center on Child Care. 2014. Professional development systems and workforce initiatives. https://childcareta.acf.hhs.gov/stateterritory-professional-development-system-overviews-0 (accessed January 9, 2015).

National Early Childhood Accountability Task Force. 2007. Taking stock: Assessing and improving early childhood learning and program quality: The report of the National Early Childhood Accountability Task Force. Philadelphia, PA: Pew Charitable Trusts.

National Early Childhood Program Accreditation. 2013. NECPA standards. http://necpa.net/necpastandards.php (accessed January 12, 2015).

NBPTS (National Board for Professional Teaching Standards). 1989. What teachers should know and be able to do. Detroit, MI: NBPTS.

———. 2014a. About us. http://www.nbpts.org/national-board-certification (accessed December 17, 2014).

———. 2014b. Guide to national board certification for candidates beginning the national board certification process in 2014-2015: Version 1.5. Detroit, MI: NBPTS.

———. 2014c. National board certification. http://www.nbpts.org/national-board-certification (accessed December 17, 2014).

———. n.d. Certificates, standards, and instructions for first-time candidates. http://boardcertifiedteachers.org/certificate-areas (accessed December 17, 2014).

NCTQ (National Council on Teacher Quality). 2013. State of the states 2013. Connect the dots: Using evaluations of teacher effectiveness to inform policy and practice. Washington, DC: NCTQ.

NEGP (National Education Goals Panel). 1998. Principles and recommendations for early childhood assessments, edited by A. Falk. Washington, DC: NEGP.

NRC (National Research Council). 2008a. Assessing accomplished teaching advanced-level certification programs: Committee on evaluation of teacher certification by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

———. 2008b. Early childhood assessment: Why, what, and how. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

———. 2012. Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century, edited by J. W. Pellegrino and M. L. Hilton. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

NRC and IOM (Institute of Medicine). 2012. The early childhood care and education workforce: Challenges and opportunities: A workshop report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

NSECE (National Survey of Early Care and Education). 2011. Workforce [classroom staff] questionnaire. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation; Administration for Children and Families; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

———. 2013. Number and characteristics of early care education (ECE) teachers and caregivers: Initial findings from the National Survey of Early Care and Education (NSECE). Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation; Administration for Children and Families; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Office of Head Start. 2012. Statutory degree and credentialing requirements for Head Start teaching staff. http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/standards/im/2008/resour_ime_012_0081908.html (accessed January 9, 2015).

———. 2013a. Head Start program facts, fiscal year 2013. http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/mr/factsheets/docs/hs-program-fact-sheet-2013.pdf (accessed January 9, 2015).

———. 2013b. Use of Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) in Head Start. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation; Administration for Children and Families; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Pianta, R. 2012. Implementing observation protocols: Lessons for K-12 education from the field of early childhood. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.

Prince, C. D., P. J. Schuermann, J. W. Guthrie, P. J. Witham, A. T. Milanowski, and C. A. Thorn. 2009. The other 69 percent: Fairly rewarding the performance of teachers of nontested subjects and grades: Guide to implementation: resources for applied practice. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt Peabody College, Center for Educator Compensation Reform.

QRIS (Quality Rating and Improvement System) National Learning Network. 2014. Current status of QRIS in states. www.qrisnetwork.org (accessed January 9, 2015).

Regenstein, E., and R. Romero-Jurado. 2014. Ounce policy conversations: A framework for rethinking state education accountability and support from birth through high school. Chicago, IL: The Ounce.

Rice, C., and V. Costanza. 2011. Building early learning leaders: New Jersey’s preK-3rd leadership training. A case study. Newark: Advocates for Children of New Jersey.

Schmit, S., H. Matthews, S. Smith, and T. Robbins. 2013. Investing in young children: A fact sheet on early care and education participation, access, and quality. New York and Washington, DC: National Center for Children in Poverty, Center for Law and Social Policy.

Snow, K. 2011. Developing kindergarten readiness and other large-scale assessment systems: Necessary considerations in the assessment of young children. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Szekely, A. 2013. Leading for early success: Building school principals’ capacity to lead high-quality early education. Washington, DC: National Governors Association.

Thomsen, J. 2014a. A closer look: Teacher evaluations and reduction-in-force policies. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.

———. 2014b. A closer look: Teacher evaluations and tenure decisions. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.

Tout, K., M. Zaslow, and D. Berry. 2006. Quality and qualifications: Links between professional development and quality in care and education settings. In Critical issues in early childhood professional development, edited by M. Zaslow and I. Martinez-Beck. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Vu, J. A., H.-J. Jeon, and C. Howes. 2008. Formal education, credential, or both: Early childhood program classroom practices. Early Education and Development 19(3):479-504.

Whitebook, M. 2014. Building a skilled teacher workforce: Shared and divergent challenges in early care and education and in grades K-12. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley, Institute for Reseach on Labor and Employment.

Whitebook, M., and S. Ryan. 2011. Degrees in context: Asking the right questions about preparing skilled and effective teachers of young children: Preschool policy brief. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, National Institute for Early Education Research.

Whitebook, M., D. Gomby, D. Bellm, L. Sakai, and F. Kipnis. 2009. Preparing teachers of young children: The current state of knowledge, and a blueprint for the future. Executive summary. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley, Center for the Study of Child Care Employment, Institute for Research on Labor and Employment.

Whitebook, M., L. J. E. Austin, S. Ryan, F. Kipnis, M. Almaraz, and L. Sakai. 2012. By default or by design? Variations in higher education programs for early care and education teachers and their implications for research methodology, policy, and practice. Executive Summary. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley, Center for the Study of Child Care Employment, Institute of Industrial Relations.

Zaslow, M., and K. Tout. 2014. Reviewing and clarifying goals, outcomes, and levels of implementation: Toward the next generation of Quality Rating and Improvement Systems (QRIS). Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation; Administration for Children and Families; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Zigler, E. F., W. S. Gilliam, and W. S. Barnett, eds. 2011. The pre-K debates: Current controversies and issues. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

This page intentionally left blank.