Sara Mead: To Be Seen as a Real Profession, Early Childhood Ed Needs Open Discussion of Issues. Bachelor’s Degree Debate Is Just the Start
What does it entail to be considered a profession? This is a question that puzzles many fields, and it is currently a contentious issue in early education. The Power to the Profession initiative, which aims to enhance the professional status of early childhood education, has evoked responses that illuminate deep disagreements within the field regarding the necessary qualifications for teachers and other crucial matters. However, these conflicts indicate that the initiative is making progress. In order for the early childhood field to truly become a profession, there needs to be space for vigorous and public debates on issues and tensions, something that has historically been lacking.
Disagreement is not absent in the field: internal debates among early childhood advocates are common, and researchers often engage in heated arguments. However, these disputes tend to primarily occur among elites within a closed-off sphere. They rarely involve individuals outside the early childhood field or, more importantly, those working directly within it. This can be attributed to a combination of a culture of scarcity within the field, where there are significant needs but never enough funding, as well as a deep moral urgency for children, which creates pressure to conform and avoid contentious debates about major policy questions or opportunities.
Power to the Profession brings attention to this problem and offers an opportunity for change. Some stakeholders expected its recommendations to align with those of the 2015 National Academies report called Transforming the Workforce for Children Birth Through Age 8, which emphasized the importance of early childhood teaching and suggested that lead teachers of children aged 0-8 should be required to hold bachelor’s degrees. There is legitimate disagreement concerning the evidence and feasibility of the recommendations put forth by Transforming the Workforce. However, when the report was published, various factors discouraged public dispute. The endorsement of the National Academies and the fear of alienating influential funders created a strong disincentive for individuals in the early education field to question the report’s recommendations. Some were also concerned that scrutinizing the specifics of the report could undermine ongoing efforts to elevate the profession.
This stifled debate is now beginning to emerge within the context of Power to the Profession.
None of this implies that Transforming the Workforce was incorrect (in fact, I happen to agree with much of it). However, a culture that suppresses debate on important matters has detrimental consequences for any field striving for improvement. It is understandable to desire coalitions and aligned messages for policymakers, as well as the desire of funders to have grantees conform to their expectations. Additionally, publicly debating contentious issues in early childhood education comes with risks, as it could lead to acrimonious exchanges, ideological posturing, and unproductive discussions. K-12 education policies, for example, tend to undergo extensive public dialogue, which can advance the field’s thinking but can also devolve into unhelpful arguments. Understandably, early childhood advocates and funders do not want to replicate that and inadvertently present opponents with ammunition or confuse policymakers by airing too many viewpoints.
However, the risks of not engaging in robust dialogue are substantial. A field that cannot internally debate essential issues is ill-equipped to handle criticism from external critics. For instance, recent media coverage of new education standards for childcare workers in Washington, D.C. resulted in ridicule from politicians and journalists. While many of the critiques were unfounded, they raised objections that those seeking to elevate the early childhood profession must be prepared to address. A more comprehensive public dialogue, both within and beyond the field, would assist early childhood leaders in identifying such challenges and developing strategies to prevent or address them.
Furthermore, a more inclusive and robust public dialogue would lead to improved thinking and solutions for the complex challenges facing the field. Research indicates that engaging with diverse perspectives enhances decision-making. Given the intricacies of issues such as expanding access with quality or increasing the pay of early childhood teachers, the field requires the most thoughtful considerations possible.
Lastly, public dialogue on early childhood issues is crucial for the sake of equity and inclusion. Over 90 percent of early educators are women, many of whom are low-income women of color. Their voices have historically been excluded from public and political discussions, and even today, they are often not represented in debates regarding early childhood policies that affect them. It is essential to create space for dialogue that involves not only elite voices but the entire profession in order to elevate early childhood as a profession and promote social justice.
How can the field foster a more inclusive and robust public dialogue? Most importantly, it needs a culture that values diverse perspectives and views debate and disagreement not as threats but as essential characteristics of a healthy profession grappling with challenging and significant issues. Starting with honestly airing and debating the perspectives presented by Power to the Profession would be a good step forward.
Sara Mead is an esteemed partner at Bellwether Education.
Please note: Bellwether Education was co-founded by Andy Rotherham. He currently holds a position on board of directors and also serves as one of the senior editors for the website.
Stay Connected: Join newsletter for latest updates.
Make sure to receive captivating stories like these directly to your email inbox by signing up for Newsletter.
