51吃瓜网

Editors鈥� note

The early childhood workforce: Who we are and why we are here

Numerous events and experiences have characterized the development of the early care and education field over 200 years of the history of the United States. Early care and education professionals, advocates, and supporters have worked to solve real and perceived problems within the early childhood education workforce, but without complete success. One ongoing issue is how we鈥攁nd others鈥攄efine who we are.

Any research for references related to 鈥渆arly childhood education鈥� in an index necessitates searching for multiple keywords. In mainstream media, news articles and columns commonly use several different terms, often in the same paragraph, to refer to early childhood education. For example, in a recent听New York Times听article titled 鈥淒ay Care Centers Say Welcome Back, Keep Your Distance,鈥� the reporter uses 11 different terms in 26 references: school (10), preschool (4), daycares and child care (3 each), and once for each of the following: early childhood centers, centers, day care center, day school, family day care, and academy (Abkowitz 2020, 4). This is just one example of how inexact words are used to characterize and discuss early childhood education.

How can a uniform, more precise terminology be introduced? Rhian Evans Allvin explains why 鈥渄ay care鈥� and 鈥渟chool鈥� are inappropriate for describing programs for young children, citing 鈥渆arly learning鈥� as a more accurate phrase to replace the many frequently used words in the media (2016). Among other more precise terms to be considered are:

• early educators, not听preschool teachers听or听child care givers;
• undersourced, not听undervalued;
• investment, not听spending;
• and听professional development, not听training workshops听(Drummond 2002, 82).

Through more precise terms, we can emphasize that we are a profession and professionals who, with the appropriate supports and resources, are prepared to meet the standards and competencies expected of the profession (51吃瓜网 2019). It has been a long road, though, toward unifying terminology to identify who we are.

Another ongoing issue for the early childhood workforce relates to societal and political misconceptions about young children educated and cared for outside of the home. There are many reasons why early learning and care settings are needed (whether in a home-based setting, a center-based setting, or within a school building). One fundamental reason is to meet the needs of families. (Another is to help every child reach their potential!) High-quality early childhood settings offer engaging, safe, and nurturing places for young children while families are working. Yet, the early childhood workforce continues to face opposing views about why we are here and the necessity of accessible, high-quality early learning programs for all families.

To understand how we can overcome these ongoing issues, we need to understand how the past has influenced the present and how, if ignored or left unaddressed, the past will delay the future.

Part I: An overview of the earliest beginnings of early childhood education

As other Our Proud Heritage columns have highlighted, the field of early childhood education has a rich and varied history. Historians have well documented the lessons of the field鈥檚 key founders whose work shapes who we are as professionals and defines why we are here.

For example, John Amos Comenius (1592鈥�1670) is often cited as a major figure from Western Europe who formed the foundation of our profession in the United States. He taught and preached in his native Bohemia (until exiled), Poland, England, Sweden, and the Netherlands (until his death in Amsterdam). Believing that education could unite the world, he wrote about universal education throughout his life.听The School of Infancy听(1633) provided a curriculum for children from birth to 6 years of age to be taught at home by the mother and other adults in the home. Comenius believed any academic subject could be taught to young children, such as astronomy (e.g., show the child the phases of the moon each month and compare bright and dimmer stars). Comenius鈥檚 work continues to shape the beliefs and practices of educators today, along with the contributions of other early education pioneers such as John Locke (England), Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi (Switzerland), Robert Owen (Scotland and the United States), and Friedrich Froebel (Germany).

Certain key events and movements continue to influence today鈥檚 practices as well, including the emergence of the听infant schools,听day nurseries听and听day care centers, and听kindergarten. Infant schools were often placed in schools for older siblings, spread in the United States, but became unpopular and faded by mid-century. Day nurseries and day care centers were typically poorly organized and run without trained early care professionals, and children were kept clean and well-fed but did not play or learn more than hymns and Bible verses. Such settings imprinted an enduring stigma to outside-of-home care.

Nursery schools for 3- and 4-year-old children began in Great Britain and appeared in the United States in the early 20th century. In the beginning, nursery schools were usually part-day, part-week, or part-year, but as more mothers entered the workforce, they lengthened their schedule. Susan Blow and Patty Smith Hill are two major figures that influenced the evolution of kindergarten (and other aspects of early childhood education) in the early part of the 20th century in the United States (Lascarides & Hinitz 2000). Kindergartens were introduced in the United States in two ways: when American women traveled to Europe and discovered the Froebelian programs in Germany or when German families immigrated to the United States and opened their own kindergarten classes.

These programs overlapped in time with one another, meeting the needs of various families. But the stigma associated with day nurseries and day care centers, as well as the tuition fees charged by kindergartens (not in public schools) and nursery schools, tended to segregate families by income and often by race. (This column does not address the significant racial issues that emerged as early childhood education programs developed over time. A future column will provide a comprehensive review on this topic.) There also remained great inconsistencies in who worked in these programs, how they were prepared to educate and care for young children, and what experiences they provided children.

Part II: Maternalism and women in the workforce鈥擜n uneasy coexistence

While families who struggled to find affordable, high-quality care outside of their home, public schools were financially supported through taxes and emerged as a permanent institution. Yet, no other government funds were available for other early learning programs. Why was this the case?

One clue can be found in the growing numbers of women entering the American workforce over time. Indeed, Sonya Michel asked the key question:

Scholars have pointed to one potential answer:听maternalism, which Michel (1999, 311 n16) defined as 鈥渁 politics that claims a position of authority for women in their 鈥榥atural鈥� roles as wives and mothers and seeks to protect the health and welfare of women and children鈥� (Skocpol 1992; Beatty 1995; Stoltzfus 2003). Indeed, Emilie Stoltzfus draws a connection between maternalism and social citizenship, noting: White males were in positions of power and control, allowing them to own property, to vote, to serve on juries, and to enter the military; he was able to earn wages in the market economy for productive labor. White females, however, could do none of these activities, but were relegated with their 鈥渕oral and altruistic services鈥� to the domestic economy of the home, where they kept house and reared children. They earned no wages for unproductive work, though they earned public acknowledgement for rearing the next generation. Even the right to vote in 1920 was reinterpreted to refer to the rearing of children as good citizens through the unique 鈥渇emale鈥� values of nurturance and caring. (2003, 4鈥�5)

As a political and belief system, maternalism permeates our history and influences our present. Beliefs and values create our attitudes that, in turn, govern behaviors and actions鈥攁nd inspire laws. Sharon Lynn Kagan does not speak of maternalism, but her basic themes capture the meaning as she describes the early stages of early childhood education in the United States

1. from the earliest times, public attitudes toward early care and education were primarily framed by the hegemony of the home and the privacy/primacy of the family, and
2. public values did not accord with out-of-home nonmaternal care; the financing of early care and education necessarily remained rooted primarily in the private sector (1991).

Earlier Kagan had observed, 鈥淎ny major effort that fundamentally alters the conceptual orientation of children鈥檚 service delivery (e.g., from targeted to universal, private to public, categorical to entitlement, federal to state) will become embroiled in value-related controversy . . .听More significant, the greater degree to which new children鈥檚 services seek to alter these extant orientations, the more complex the challenge鈥� (1989, 71). This is exactly where we are in early childhood education today.

Part III: The evolution of short-term solutions and long-term misconceptions

Societal attitudes and politics continued to play a role in the evolution of early care and education from the Great Depression and World War II through the decades following the war. Meanwhile, maternalism has continued to factor into decisions about public support and funding for early learning programs.

The initial public support of early childhood education took root in the 1930s during the Great Depression, when the Emergency Nursery Schools (ENS) were established as a result of the Works Project Administration. (In time, the program added parent education and became the Works Progress Administration Child Protection Program, thus rejecting its educational intent.) As the New Deal ended, many of these sites were repurposed during World War II, when the Lanham Act established child care centers for women entering the wartime workforce. Both programs targeted families with low incomes, and both were intended to be short-term solutions. What progress was made seemed fleeting as early education advocates faced numerous roadblocks to establishing and sustaining support for programs. Indeed, the name 鈥淓mergency Nursery Schools鈥� not only reflected the age of children served and its educational nature but also its temporary role, while the Lanham Act child care centers were shuttered once the war was over because funds from the Lanham Act were not originally intended for child care. 鈥淟awmakers instead focused on the perceived 鈥榰nproductivity鈥� of mothers who used welfare grants to be full-time mothers鈥� (Stoltzfus 2003, 240), and no additional public support for child care was forthcoming.

The tide eventually started to turn. During the 1950s and 1960s, a number of non-legislative events occurred: the United States formed the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and different governmental departments focused a variety of publications and conferences on women in the workforce. For example, the Women鈥檚 Bureau and the Children鈥檚 Bureau sponsored a National Conference on Day Care in 1960 (Ranck 2013), and the National Manpower Council (NMC) published two reports about women in the workforce (1957; 1958). Then, in 1962, the Kennedy administration enacted P.L. 87-543, Title IV-A of the Social Security Act (which renamed the Aid for Dependent Children program as the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program). This was the first law authorizing funds to 鈥減rovide assistance to mothers on welfare who are working or job training.鈥� The link between welfare and child care subsidies never ceased (Ranck 2013).

The 1960s also brought the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, also known as the War on Poverty. This legislation established the Office of Economic Opportunity, which would change early childhood education in the United States for good. Head Start incorporated goals related to early childhood education with health, social welfare, and job training for family members. For more than 50 years, Head Start has continued to enhance its impact on the nation, including expanding the age groups that it serves (i.e., Early Head Start for infants and toddlers) and in setting standards for program quality and staff qualifications. For example, although Head Start now has its own performance standards, there were attempts, from the mid-1960s through the 2010s, to establish standards for other federally funded early childhood programs, but I could not locate a current set of national standards aside from the Obama administration鈥檚 call for them (Schulte 2013) and the National Standards and Guidelines from the American Academy of Pediatrics (2011, funded by the US Department of Health and Human Services).

A way forward: Today and the future of the early childhood workforce

The link between the early childhood profession and women in the workforce remains. In a recent study,听data point to specific gender differences that have slowed or stalled, including women鈥檚 employment and the gender pay gap (England, Levine, & Mishel 2020). To prompt growth in both areas, change must come in the form of institutional policies and societal attitudes.

Although other factors must certainly be considered and addressed, history helps us understand how we arrived at the current issues regarding who early childhood educators are and our mission. Given the urgency with which public support and federal funds are needed鈥攅specially due to devastating effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on our field鈥攚e must act to overcome these ongoing challenges to our workforce and profession.

Two major national reports on the workforce have been released this year that provide a blueprint for the future of the early childhood profession:

• Unifying Framework for the Early Childhood Education Profession, released in March 2020,听is the three-year effort of a task force comprised of 51吃瓜网 and 14 other national organizations. The Power to the Profession (P2P) Project task force received input from thousands of early educators and colleagues about the early childhood workforce. Its goal was 鈥渢o define the early childhood education profession, birth through age 8, across states and settings, by establishing a framework for career pathways, preparation, competencies, responsibilities, and compensation . . . to advance a unified, diverse, equitable, and effective early childhood education profession.鈥� The word 鈥渦nifying鈥� is worth underscoring: all 15 organizations came to consensus on the terminology, expectations, and recommendations and to provide a vision and direction for the profession.
• Moving Beyond False Choices for Early Childhood Educators: A Compendium听published by the New America Foundation includes a collection of more than 30 blog posts published during 18 months about key early childhood workforce topics. These were then assigned to five topical questions:

1. Do Education and Degrees Matter?
2. What Does Higher Education Need to Do to Regain Its Stature as a Gateway to the ECE Profession?
3. What is the Role of Race, Class, and Gender in Resolving ECE鈥檚 Thorny Knot?
4. Where Does Family Child Care Fit in the ECE System?
5. Do Educators鈥� Voices Matter in Conversations About the Field鈥檚 Thorny Knot?

The blog authors wrote from years of experience in a variety of professional positions and from different areas of the country. The presentation on March 10, 2020, promised discussions and feedback to improv e the professional lives in the early childhood education field (Goffin & Bornfreund 2020).

The changes recommended are not easily achieved; however, in light of 51吃瓜网鈥檚听Unifying Framework听and New America鈥檚听Compendium,听early care and education professionals and advocates must address every possibility for any reasonable change and pursue it with purposeful intention. This much is owed to the children of this country and of the future.

For additional reading on the founders of early childhood education, see our complete catalog of past Our Proud Heritage columns.

10 Years of Celebrating Our Proud Heritage

References

Abkowitz, A. 2020. 鈥淒ay Care Centers Say Welcome Back, Keep Your Distance.鈥澨齌he New York Times,听June 7, 2020.

Allvin, R. E. 2016. 鈥淒aycare or School? There鈥檚 a Third Way.鈥� 51吃瓜网 blog. November 14, 2016. http://www.naeyc.org/blogs/daycare-or-school-third-way.

51吃瓜网 (51吃瓜网). 2019.听Professional Standards and Competencies for Early Childhood Educators.听November 2019. Washington, DC: 51吃瓜网.

American Academy of Pediatrics, American Public Health Association and National Resource Center for Health and Safety in Child Care and Early Education. 2011.听Caring for Our Children: National Health and Safety Performance Standards; Guidelines for Early Care and Education Programs.听3rd ed. Elk Grove Village, IL: AAP.

Beatty, B. 1995.听Preschool Education in America: The Culture of Young Children from the Colonial Era to the Present.听New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Drummond, T. 2002. 鈥淭he Words We Use.鈥澨齓oung Children听57, no. 6 (November): 82. Washington, DC: 51吃瓜网.

England, P., A. Levine, & E. Mishel. 2020. 鈥淧rogress Toward Gender Equality in the United States has Slowed or Stalled,鈥澨齈roceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,听Vol. 117, No. 13, 6990-6997. . Also available via 鈥�19A: The Brookings Gender Equality Series.鈥� Accessed June 2020 as the source for this column. .

Goffin, S. G. & L. Bornfreund, eds. 2020.听Moving Beyond False Choices for Early Childhood Educators: A Compendium.听Washington, DC: New America Foundation.

Greenberg, P. 1990. 鈥淏efore the Beginning: A Participant鈥檚 View.鈥澨齓oung Children听45, no. 6 (September); 41-52. Washington, DC: 51吃瓜网.

Kagan, S. L. 1989. 鈥淭he Care and Education of America鈥檚 Young Children: At the Brink of a Paradigm Shift?鈥澨齀n听Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science听37, no. 2; 70-83.听New York: The Academy of Political Science.

Kagan, S. L. 1991.听United We Stand: Collaboration for Child Care and Early Education Services.听New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.

Lascarides, V. C. & B. F. Hinitz. 2000.听History of Early Childhood Education.听New York: Falmer Press, Taylor & Francis Group.

Michel, S. 1999.听Children鈥檚 Interests/Mothers鈥� Rights: The Shaping of America鈥檚 Child Care Policy.听New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

51吃瓜网 (51吃瓜网). 2020.听Unifying Framework for the Early Childhood Education Profession.听March 2020. Washington, DC: 51吃瓜网.

National Manpower Council. 1957.听Womanpower: A Statement by the NMC with Chapters by the Council Staff.听New York: Columbia University Press.

National Manpower Council. 1958.听Work in the Lives of Married Women: Proceedings of a Conference on Womanpower.听New York: Columbia University Press.

Ranck, E. R. 2013.听鈥淓arly Care and Education in the 1950s: The Thorny Path When Public Issues Confront Passionately-Held Beliefs.鈥澨齀n听B. F. Hinitz, ed.,听The Hidden History of Early Childhood Education,听98-139; table 6.3. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Schulte, B. 2013. 鈥淗HS Announces First National Child-Care Standards.鈥� May 17, 2013.听The Washington Post.

Skocpol, T. 1992.听Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States.听Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Stoltzfus, E. 2003.听Citizen. Mother. Worker: Debating Public Responsibility for Child Care After the Second World War.听Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.

US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. 1978.听The Appropriateness of the Federal Interagency Day Care Requirements: Report of Findings and Recommendations.听Washington, DC: DHEW.

Zigler, E. & Styfco, S. J. 2010.听The Hidden History of Head Start.听Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Copyright 漏 2020 by the 51吃瓜网. See Permissions and Reprints online at