Preparing and Supporting High-Quality Early Childhood Practitioners: Issues and Evidence

Transcription

1 Copyright 2008 ZERO TO THREE. All rights reserved. Please note: This is a read-only copy. Chapter 1 Preparing and Supporting High-Quality Early Childhood Practitioners: Issues and Evidence Pamela J. Winton and Jeanette A. McCollum Twenty years of research has consistently identified teachers and practitioners as the key to high-quality early childhood programs and child outcomes. This is found in the early childhood literature where the focus is on early childhood teachers (Cost, Quality, Outcomes Study Team, 1995; NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 1996), as well as the literature on inclusion where the focus has been a broader spectrum of teachers, providers, and specialists (Early Childhood Research Institute on Inclusion, 1999). Early childhood teachers and practitioners have received unprecedented attention in the past decade, starting when the National Educational Goals Panel first issued Goal 1: All Children Enter School Ready to Learn in 1991 a nd continuing through the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 and Good Start, Grow Smart (GSGS) initiatives. They are the frontline in ensuring that all children have access to a general kindergarten curriculum and are ready to learn. With increased public attention on the early childhood years, policymakers and administrators are asking questions about early childhood personnel. What constitutes a highly qualified early childhood teacher or practitioner who can effectively serve all children, including those with special needs? What kind of education, training, and ongoing support is necessary and effective for creating and sustaining high-quality personnel and programs? How can effective professional development be delivered across all regions of our country, including those with scant resources? These questions do not have clear answers. For instance, on the basis of research indicating that having a BA degree increases the quality of the classroom and children s academic outcomes (Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes Study Team, 1995), recent policy reports have called for every prekindergarten (pre-k) teacher to have a BA degree (Barnett, Hustedt, Robin, & Schulman, 2004; Graves, 2006). However, a report from the recent joint data analysis project by Early et al. (2007) has demonstrated that the link between teacher education and child outcomes is not as strong as previously stated, calling attention to the need to examine more closely the quality of preparation programs for teachers and practitioners. For early childhood teachers, simply having a degree may not be sufficient for helping all children learn and develop to their highest potential. Furthermore, the early childhood knowledge base is constantly expanding, requiring practitioners to engage in ongoing professional development to stay abreast of new discoveries; professional growth depends on lifelong learning, degree or no degree. Therefore, it is also important to examine the quality of the ongoing professional development and support experiences available to early childhood practitioners. The purpose of this chapter, which serves as an introduction to the book, is twofold: (a) to address current issues shaping the way in which professional development 1 is conceptualized and implemented for early childhood practitioners serving children with and without disabilities from birth to 5 years and (b) to describe the available research on professional development approaches. Chapter 2 addresses issues associated with assessing needs, evaluating impact, and sustaining changes related to professional development. Chapters 3 12 provide information on issues, strategies, and resources for implementing 1 For the purposes of this chapter professional development is defined as structured teaching and learning experiences that are formalized and designed to support the acquisition of professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions as well as the application of this knowledge in practice (National Professional Development Center on Inclusion, 2007). 1

2 2 Copyright 2008 ZERO TO THREE. All rights reserved. Please note: This is a read-only copy. Practical Approaches to Early Childhood Professional Development professional development in 10 critical early childhood content areas: family partnerships, cultural and linguistic diversity, healthy emotional beginnings, behaviors that challenge, typical and atypical development, assessment, emergent literacy, inclusion and natural environments, collaboration, and laws and policies. The final chapter proposes and describes the components of an integrated cross-agency professional development system and provides a set of recommendations for addressing the professional development challenges facing the field of early childhood. Contemporary Issues Shaping How Professional Development Is Conceptualized, Implemented, and Evaluated Increased expectations that early childhood practitioners will ensure that all children will enter school ready to participate and learn have taken place within a complex sociopolitical and educational environment. Four issues that are particularly relevant for understanding the climate within which early practitioners work are (a) the fragmentation of early childhood programs and services, (b) the accountability and standards movement, (c) the changing demographics of the young children and their families being served by education and early intervention programs, and (d) the important but often neglected role of those who provide professional development (e.g., faculty, consultants, trainers, coaches). Fragmentation of Early Childhood Preparation The preparation of early childhood practitioners takes place within a fragmented nonsystem consisting of different agencies and entities with power, money, and authority to credential, license, educate, train, and support a diverse workforce. This issue was addressed in a volume on early childhood personnel preparation published in 1997 (Winton, McCollum, & Catlett, 1997), and the situation has not changed or improved since that time. Fragmentation exists at many levels. Multiple disciplines (e.g., early childhood special education, early education, speech language pathology, occupational therapy, physical therapy, social work, audiology) are involved in teaching, caring for, and serving young children and their families. The interdisciplinary nature of the practitioners serving young children has been heightened by the policy imperative for including children with special needs in natural environments and community-based early care and education, meaning that early educators and specialists, (e.g., speech language pathologists, occupational therapists) are more frequently working together. However, the training/preparation requirements vary widely across these disciplines and range from a graduate degree for entry-level practitioners to no degree whatsoever. Each discipline has its own credentialing and licensure requirements and professional development supports, opportunities, and standards, each of which reflects different theoretical frameworks, codes of ethics, and practice guidelines. Even within the same university, disciplines with early childhood or pediatric concentrations (e.g., allied health, education, and special education) often do not work collaboratively. The strong imperative for interdisciplinary teamwork in early intervention and inclusive early childhood programs, as mandated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 1997 (IDEA), suggests that interdisciplinary coursework and degrees should be readily available to prepare students for collaboration and teaming across disciplines. This is not the case. A recent survey of early intervention faculty (Bruder & Dunst, 2005) indicated that faculty have not embedded content and recommended practices related to interdisciplinary family-centered early intervention introduced to the field 15 years ago. Variations in training requirements also occur within disciplines. This phenomenon can be illustrated by looking at early childhood educators. Each state has its own set of training requirements for lead and assistant early childhood teachers, with the majority of states not requiring a college degree (Barnett et al., 2004). In fact, a recent report published by the Economic Policy Institute indicated that only 30% of U.S. center-based early childhood teachers and administrators have a 4-year college degree or higher (Herzenberg, Price, & Bradley, 2005). However, lead teachers working in publicly funded pre-k programs are more likely to have BA degrees (Clifford et al., 2005), and those working in Head Start programs may be required to have an associate s degree. In other words, the training requirements for early childhood teachers depend on the state, the locale, and the type of early childhood program. These variations go beyond training requirements; compensation (salary and benefits) available

3 Copyright 2008 ZERO TO THREE. All rights reserved. Please note: This is a read-only copy. Preparing and Supporting High-Quality Early Childhood Practitioners 3 to practitioners within and across disciplines also varies widely. According to the Economic Institute Report (Herzenberg et al., 2005), teachers and administrators in center-based early care and education programs earn on average $10 per hour, whereas public school kindergarten teachers are likely to earn more than twice as much (Barnett, 2005). In a study of state-funded pre-k programs in six states, the salary for teachers ranged from $5.21 to $58.25 per hour, with an average of $ Nineteen percent (19%) earned less than $10 per hour (Clifford et al., 2005). In contrast, specialists who often work side by side with teachers are likely to earn much higher salaries, even when the entry-level degree required is the same. In summary, those directly responsible for delivering early care, education, and intervention are a varied group ranging from highly specialized and educated professionals to those without any formal education. The professional development infrastructure that currently supports the workforce comprises varying resources, training requirements, program standards, and approaches. The lack of coordination among the different providers and sponsors of professional development translates into inconsistent content and quality and few opportunities to learn alongside colleagues who work in other roles, disciplines, and agencies. This must be taken into account when developing, implementing, and evaluating professional development. The Accountability Movement The accountability and standards movement is playing a major role in shaping American education and has become increasingly influential in the early childhood realm. New standards, new assessments, and new requirements for teachers are all features of this movement. Several legislative initiatives affecting early childhood are by-products of the movement. One example is the NCLB Act enacted in 2001 (P.L ), which states that all teachers must be highly qualified. NCLB requires that teachers employed in federally funded pre-k programs that are part of a public school district have a bachelor s degree, teaching license or state certification, and competence in content areas taught. Another example is the GSGS initiative, which has encouraged states to create new early learning standards that delineate what young children are expected to know and do. Teachers and practitioners are expected to have the skills, knowledge, and dispositions necessary to ensure that children succeed in the areas outlined in the early learning standards. They also are expected to know and use evidence-based practices when teaching and making intervention decisions, in spite of the fact that there is no agreed-upon definition of what that means, how to find out which practices are acceptable, how to implement practices effectively, or how to integrate the best available research evidence with experience, values, and contextual issues (Buysse & Wesley, 2006; Snyder, 2006; Winton, 2006). The expectations for teachers and practitioners brought about by the accountability movement have been accompanied by heightened expectations for professional development efforts. In apparent recognition of the fragmentation of the early childhood professional development system, the GSGS initiative encourages states to develop professional development plans across all early childhood programs. A recent report stated that the cornerstone of a successful standards-based educational system is standards-based professional development (Snow- Renner & Lauer, 2005). Clearly, professional development is being viewed with more scrutiny. Traditionally, participant satisfaction and self-ratings of knowledge and skills have been adequate outcomes for evaluating professional development. This is no longer an acceptable approach. Policymakers want to know whether professional development efforts are aligned with standards related to children, programs, and personnel. They want to know the value and cost effectiveness of professional development, and they want research-based models of professional development implemented. They are asking how, for whom, and under what circumstances the professional development is making a difference. In summary, the accountability movement has raised the bar in terms of expectations of early childhood teachers and practitioners. It has also focused attention on how those individuals are being prepared and supported in their professional roles and has highlighted the importance of careful evaluation of all professional development efforts. However, because of the fragmentation of the early childhood nonsystem, described in the previous section, the questions of how, for whom, and under what circumstances professional development is making a difference are extremely hard to answer. Much foundational work needs to be done to develop a rigorous research base in early childhood.

4 4 Copyright 2008 ZERO TO THREE. All rights reserved. Please note: This is a read-only copy. Practical Approaches to Early Childhood Professional Development Diversity in Children and Families Being Served in Early Childhood Programs A third issue shaping professional development is the rapidly changing demographic profile of the young children being served in education and early intervention settings. Nearly half of the country s children under age 5 are from racial or ethnic minorities (Cohn & Bahrampour, 2006). The preparation of early childhood personnel has not kept pace. Ninety percent of educators are White (National Education Association [NEA], 2003). The NEA reports the lowest percentage of African American teachers since The vast majority of specialists who serve children with special needs are also most often White and female (American Speech- Language-Hearing Association, 2006; Division for Early Childhood [DEC], 1997). There is an enormous need to recruit more diverse populations of teachers and specialists, as well as to better prepare personnel to work with children of different ethnic, racial, and linguistic backgrounds. Current trends in college and university recruitment do not offer much hope for increasing the diversity of the college-educated early childhood workforce. The gaps in college participation rates between Whites and Latinos/African Americans have only widened in recent years (Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pedersen, & Allen, 1999). A recent national survey of early childhood teacher preparation programs (2-year and 4-year) revealed that the most pressing challenge facing these programs is attracting and retaining ethnically and linguistically diverse faculty (Early & Winton, 2001). Ethnic, racial, and linguistic diversity represent only part of the equation, however. Since 1993, the field of early intervention has embraced the concept of full inclusion for all young children with disabilities (DEC, 1993). The commitment to inclusion at the federal level has grown even stronger since then, as is evident in the emphasis on natural environments in the IDEA reauthorization (IDEA, 1997). In fact, states are now required through the State Performance Process (SPP) to report baseline data on the percentage of children who are being served in inclusive settings and to set rigorous and measurable targets for improvement in this area over the next 6 years. A recent analysis of the State Performance Plans submitted by each state s preschool disability coordinator (Part B Coordinators) indicated that 46% of preschool children with disabilities are enrolled in some type of inclusive early childhood setting (e.g., child care centers and homes, public pre-k; Regional Resource & Federal Center Network, 2006). Although the demands increase for personnel to serve ethnically, racially, linguistically, and abilitydiverse children, research indicates that the workforce is not prepared. A national study indicated that, although 54% of teachers taught students who had limited English proficiency or were from minority backgrounds and 71% taught students with disabilities, only 17% felt well prepared to meet the needs of these students (National Center for Education Statistics, 1998). In other words, early childhood practitioners who vary widely with respect to prior experience and education are expected to apply the new standards and guidelines associated with the accountability movement to an increasingly diverse population of young children, including those with disabilities. It is not surprising that they are struggling to meet that challenge. The Role of Professional Development Leaders Just as we need to define what is meant by the term high-quality early childhood personnel for teaching and serving young children, we need to define the competencies of the individuals who play a critical role in preparing and supporting those personnel. Professional development leaders are defined here as the faculty, consultants, trainers, mentors, and coaches who help mediate the transfer and application of knowledge through some form of professional development and support. Other terms, such as change agent (Havelock & Havelock, 1973), linking agent (Kraft, Mezoff, Sogolow, Neumann, & Thomas, 2000; see also Fixsen, Naoom, Blase, Friedman, & Wallace, 2005), and purveyor (Estabrooks, 2001; Fixsen et al., 2005) have been used to describe individuals or groups who build bridges between research and practice. One might assume, given their status and the likelihood that they have advanced degrees, that faculty are well prepared, confident, and well informed on up-to-date research-based early childhood content. Although there is a slim body of research on this topic, what does exist cautions against making this assumption. As previously mentioned, a recent study indicated that faculty in the early intervention disciplines were not embedding content and recommended practices introduced to the field 15 years ago

5 Copyright 2008 ZERO TO THREE. All rights reserved. Please note: This is a read-only copy. Preparing and Supporting High-Quality Early Childhood Practitioners 5 (Bruder & Dunst, 2005). Results of a survey of early childhood teacher preparation programs indicated that an inadequate amount of required coursework regarding educating and working with children with disabilities and children who are bilingual was being provided in these programs (Chang, Early, & Winton, 2005; Early & Winton, 2001). In addition, a replication and expansion of the Early and Winton survey by Maxwell, Lim, and Early (2006) indicated that 40% of students who graduated with MA and BA degrees (those most likely to serve as professional development leaders) had no coursework in the process skills related to teaching adults. A report from the National Institute on Early Childhood Development and Education (2000) suggests that the lack of accountability of teacher education programs and faculty is one of the barriers to improving the quality of teaching. The little we know about those who provide in- service training and other forms of ongoing professional development and support (i.e., consultants, coaches, and trainers) is not encouraging. A study of early childhood consultants level of confidence and comfort in supporting teachers serving young children with disabilities suggests that they may not be adequately prepared for the role they have been given (Wesley, Buysse, & Skinner, 2001). An examination by Gersten and Woodward (1992) of a coaching model that supported elementary school teachers indicated that the coaches biases, rather than research-based evidence, seemed to determine what they emphasized when supporting teachers. This suggests that professional development leaders have an important role as gatekeepers of knowledge in that they are empowered to share and emphasize practices that they endorse (Winton, 2006). Therefore, it is critical that they have content knowledge in general and special early childhood education and related services, evidence-based practice, and research-based teaching and intervention strategies for teaching and working with all children. In addition, they need skills in working with adult learners and in using effective professional development strategies. Although some guidelines for professional development leaders using an evidence-based practice framework have been identified (Winton, 2006), agreed-upon competencies of a more specific nature have not yet been developed. In summary, the accountability movement has, in unprecedented fashion, raised expectations and focused increased attention on the quality of early childhood personnel and on the systems and people who prepare and support those personnel. However, at the same time that changing demographics and policies have led to profound changes in the population of the children and families being served in early childhood settings, the professional development infrastructure to support the practitioners work in an increasingly diverse society remains fragmented and under-resourced. These contextual variables must be considered in a discussion of how to conceptualize, implement, and evaluate professional development interventions that build and support a high-quality early childhood workforce. The Research Base on Professional Development Interventions Given the current emphasis on accountability and research-based professional development interventions, it is important to examine the literature on this topic. The literature on professional development generally falls into two categories reflecting the ways in which practitioners traditionally have been prepared and supported. One is through pre-service education, in which emphasis is placed on imparting a body of knowledge to individuals preparing to enter the field or obtain a degree or professional credential from an institution of higher education (IHE). Within the early childhood field, this is usually called higher education. The other is through in- service or on-the-job training and support. This is referred to as the trade model by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (2003). Within the early childhood field, this is sometimes referred to by the term training (Maxwell, Feild, & Clifford, 2005). It should be mentioned here that confusion and inconsistency in how to define professional development was identified by Maxwell et al. (2006) as a major stumbling block to researchers attempting to understand the relationship of professional development to early childhood program quality and child outcomes. Maxwell et al. determined that there were no common or consistent definitions of the terms education, training, and credentials in their review of approximately 20 different studies of professional development. That being said, the terms pre-service education and in-service training will be used here to define the two major sets of literature on professional development interventions. There is a third category of literature that is often neglected in discussions of early childhood professional development knowledge

6 6 Copyright 2008 ZERO TO THREE. All rights reserved. Please note: This is a read-only copy. Practical Approaches to Early Childhood Professional Development utilization or implementation. On the basis of the work of Estabrooks (2001), it is defined here as systematic strategies to promote the adaptation, implementation, and institutionalization of research-based practices. The following section provides an overview of the literature on pre-service education, in- service training, and knowledge utilization. Literature on Pre-Service Education Despite the widely held belief that quality pre-service education for teachers based on standards for teacher preparation programs developed by professional organizations (e.g., the National Association for the Education of Young Children [NAEYC; Hyson, 2003], DEC [Stayton, Miller, & Dinnebeil, 2003] and the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education [2000]) is important to the development of high-quality teachers, little is known about the context, content, needs, and practices of early childhood faculty and programs. A survey of a nationally representative sample of chairs/directors of early childhood teacher preparation in 2- and 4-year programs conducted in 1999 provided some data (Chang et al., 2005; Early & Winton, 2001). Findings from this survey indicated the following: Course coverage in key content areas was inadequate. Almost 80% of bachelor s programs indicated that preparing early interventionists or early childhood special educators was part of their mission; of those, 40% did not require even one course in the area of educating and working with children with disabilities (Chang et al., 2005). Although 95% of the associate s programs stated that the age range covered by their program included infants and toddlers, only 60% required a course on the topic, and 63% required a practicum experience (Early & Winton, 2001). Only 10% of bachelor s programs and 8% of associate s programs required a course in working with bilingual children or children with limited English proficiency (Early & Winton, 2001). Early childhood teacher preparation programs were under-resourced. These programs had a smaller number of faculty serving a larger number of students, compared with other departments in their IHEs. The student faculty ratio of 61 to 1 in early childhood teacher preparation programs was 60% higher than the student faculty ratio of 39 to 1 in other departments. This survey did not address program quality in depth, nor did it address the effectiveness of early childhood teacher preparation programs in building teacher knowledge or skills or in effecting child outcomes. In fact, there is little research on this topic (Bredekamp, 1996; Maxwell et al., 2005). Although the survey did not specifically examine faculty knowledge, expertise, or skills, the findings do suggest that high student faculty ratios limit the time or opportunity for faculty to keep abreast of current research or innovative ways of teaching content. A number of projects have had some success providing training and support to higher education faculty as an approach to reforming higher education personnel preparation (Bruder, Littman, & Bologna, 1994; Mellin & Winton, 2003; Winton, 1996; Winton, Catlett, & Houck, 1996). These efforts, for the most part, have targeted early intervention faculty as identified by Part C of IDEA (i.e., allied health, health, psychology, and early childhood special education), with small numbers of early childhood education faculty participating as well. Positive changes in faculty knowledge, skills, and willingness to engage in teaching about early intervention topics were demonstrated on the basis of self-reported data from faculty (Hebbeler, 1997; Winton et al., 1996). These projects did not provide observational data on what actually happens in college classrooms, nor did they track graduates of these programs as they moved through their careers. The literature base on teacher preparation for K 12 teachers is equally limited. Wilson, Floden, and Ferrini-Mundy (2001) conducted a review of the literature and found 300 initial references, but only 57 studies which were rigorous and recent enough to be included in their review. They concluded that the body of research on teacher preparation programs was very limited; however, they did make these general statements as a result of their review: Teachers perceived that their clinical experiences had a powerful influence on their learning. However, these experiences were often disconnected from the pre-service coursework and the quality of the clinical experiences varied widely. Results were mixed in regard to which pedagogical aspects of teacher preparation had an

7 Copyright 2008 ZERO TO THREE. All rights reserved. Please note: This is a read-only copy. Preparing and Supporting High-Quality Early Childhood Practitioners 7 impact on teaching practices and on student achievement. Postbaccalaureate alternate route programs, whereby nontraditional students earn degrees, varied in format and ability to prepare teachers. Brownell, Ross, Colón, and McCallum (2003) identified seven features common to effective teacher education programs, based on an assessment of 30 exemplary programs identified through a nomination process. The seven features were: Coherent program vision Conscious blending of theory, disciplinary knowledge, and subject-specific pedagogical knowledge and practice Carefully crafted field experiences Standards for ensuring quality teaching Active pedagogy using modeling and reflection Focus on meeting the needs of a diverse student population Collaboration as a vehicle for building a professional community Brownell et al. (2003) extended their investigation to include special education teacher preparation programs. They reviewed all publications from 1990 to 2001 describing these programs to determine whether the aforementioned identified features were included in the descriptions of special education programs. Many common positive features among those listed above did emerge. A common feature that was not positive was related to the weak approaches to evaluation associated with the programs. The majority of teacher preparation programs (both special education and general education) relied on very superficial evaluation methods, usually gathering data related to student satisfaction or self-rating, or to faculty and/or clinical supervisors ratings of the program and its graduates. The article concluded that research in special education teacher preparation is almost non-existent (Brownell et al., 2003, p. 7), with few experimental studies examining the effects of different pedagogical approaches on the learning of pre-service students. A comprehensive report from the American Educational Research Association s Panel on Research and Teacher Education concurred with this analysis (Cochran-Smith & Zeichner, 2005). The authors stated that the body of teacher education research that addresses pupil or other desirable outcomes is relatively small and inconclusive; much of the literature on teacher education has been conducted by individual faculty interested in their own courses or programs, making it difficult to generalize across studies. An exception to the lack of research on effective pre-service practices is provided in a recent synthesis of the literature by the Research and Training Center on Early Childhood Development (Trivette, 2005) on a pre-service instructional strategy called guided design. This approach has the following components: (a) a sequential process of mastering course content, (b) a team or small-group processing component, (c) the provision of verbal or written feedback from a facilitator/teacher who as a professional in the field has content expertise, and (d) the use of realistic problems to be solved. The approach was first developed by engineering professors but has been used across a wide variety of disciplines, predominantly in undergraduate programs. In the review of 35 studies, Trivette concluded that guided design is associated with increased ability to retain particular information, the ability to apply the content to solve realistic problems, and the ability to find information to solve problems. This strategy has not been directly tested in early childhood but has promise as an instructional approach. In summary, what we know about pre-service preparation in K 12 education, special education, and early childhood teacher preparation programs is limited and based on a very slim body of empirical research. In a scathing report of teacher preparation programs, based on national surveys of education school alumni, deans and faculty, and school principals, Levine (2006) concluded that the curriculum of the programs is in disarray and disconnected, along with the faculty, from the rest of the university as well as from practitioners. Admission standards are low, and there are insufficient quality controls, along with huge disparities in institutional quality. This recent criticism heightens the importance of attending to issues related to quality and evaluation. Literature on In- service Training There has been a longstanding complaint that traditional in- service training, usually consisting of one-shot workshops, is an inadequate way to affect teaching and intervention practices. In a review of the literature, Guskey (1986) reported that virtually every major study in the preceding 30 years had em-

8 8 Copyright 2008 ZERO TO THREE. All rights reserved. Please note: This is a read-only copy. Practical Approaches to Early Childhood Professional Development phasized the lack of effectiveness of this approach to staff development; yet workshops are still a common approach to in- service training. Teachers perceptions of in- service training substantiate Guskey s (1986) review. In a recent survey, 50% of teachers who were polled reported that the professional development they receive makes little difference to them as teachers (Farkas, Johnson, & Duffett, 2003). In a survey of teachers in two urban school districts in Virginia and California, Sunderman, Tracey, Kim, and Orfield (2004) reported that teachers favored additional time to collaborate with other teachers more than increased professional development as a way to meet high standards and improve student performance. A meta-analysis of research on teacher training in K 12 education by Joyce and Showers (2002) indicated that workshops alone did not translate to changes in classroom practices; however, workshops in conjunction with classroom coaching did result in teachers using new ideas. This study has been cited many times as support for on-site, intensive support to teachers as an integral and necessary component of in- service training. In an attempt to improve the quality of in- service training, several groups have defined and published standards or guidelines for high-quality professional development. The National Education Association ( the Public Education Network ( and the National Staff Development Council ( are among such groups. The organizations guidelines include common themes about what constitutes high-quality professional development. The themes promote professional development that is: Sustained over time, Grounded in practice, Linked to curriculum and student outcomes, Collaborative, and Interactive. Perhaps on the basis of these guidelines, NCLB defines high-quality professional development as programs that are sustained, intensive, and classroom focused; that include instruction in how to use data and assessments to inform classroom practices; and that are not 1-day or short-term workshops or conferences (NCLB Act of 2001, 9101, p. 1963). Despite these guidelines, Russ Whitehurst, Director of the U.S. Department of Education, Institute for Educational Science, stated in 2002 that the recommendations made in the literature for more intense, content-focused experiences, as well as for opportunities for peer collaboration, are not based on rigorous research that compares these approaches with others. The conclusions rely on anecdotal evidence, inferences based on adult learning theories, and survey data related to teacher satisfaction. On the basis of his review, he concluded that, Although the literature on professional development is voluminous, there are only a few high quality studies relating teacher professional development experiences to student outcomes (Whitehurst, 2002, p. 5). An exception to the absence of rigorous research on professional development strategies noted by Whitehurst (2002) is a study by Cohen and Hill (1998) on a math education initiative in California. This study compared the effects of teacher participation in two kinds of workshops: one focused specifically on the math education reform and the other focused on issues that were not directly related to the math reform (e.g., workshops on teaching techniques such as cooperative learning). The more time teachers spent learning about the reform, the more their classroom practices changed to be consistent with reform teaching and learning strategies and the more knowledgeable they became about the reform. In addition, their students scored higher on a test of the math concepts that were part of the new reform curriculum. In other words, this study indicated that professional development focused on academic content and curriculum that is aligned with standards-based reform was more likely to lead to improved teaching practices and higher student achievement, compared with professional development focused on generic teaching strategies. These conclusions make sense. If personnel and program standards, policies, curriculum, assessment and professional development are aligned, impact on outcomes is more likely. Guskey (2003) spoke to this issue in an article on staff development. He suggested that the traditional ways of planning professional development need to be reversed. Rather than starting with what teachers need to do and how professional development leaders (e.g., faculty, consultants) are going to impart these skills (via study groups, workshops, etc.), faculty and trainers need to start with improved student outcomes and work backward. This puts the focus where it should be improving child outcomes and ensures that each of the causal links between outcomes and professional development are

9 Copyright 2008 ZERO TO THREE. All rights reserved. Please note: This is a read-only copy. Preparing and Supporting High-Quality Early Childhood Practitioners 9 considered and aligned. Recent research summaries recommend that professional development interventions should be grounded in classroom practices and curriculum used in the workplace and focus more directly on the specific skills acquired by adults that can be linked to improvements in the classroom (Haskins & Loeb, 2007; Hill, 2007; Pianta, 2005). In keeping with these suggestions, the final chapter of this book (chapter 13) proposes an integrated crossagency professional development system and framework that can guide organizations, districts, and states in addressing the challenges of fragmentation, alignment, and quality. Literature on Knowledge Utilization A large body of literature on knowledge utilization exists and is pertinent to discussions about building stronger connections between research and practice. This body of knowledge is not always included in discussions of early childhood professional development, even though it is directly related to strategies for bringing about positive changes in education and intervention practices. Different terms, such as dissemination, innovation diffusion, technology transfer, research utilization, and knowledge utilization are used in the literature to describe the concept of linking research and practice. Estabrooks (2001) provides some distinctions between these terms in an attempt to bring clarity to the research on knowledge utilization. On the basis of her definition, we define knowledge utilization as systematic strategies to promote the adaptation, implementation, and institutionalization of practices based on research. Researchers and theoreticians working within this framework view the adaptation and use of new knowledge as a dynamic process involving multiple individual, organizational, situational, social, and political factors (Estabrooks, 2001; Fixsen et al., 2005; Hiebert, Gallimore, & Stigler, 2002; Hood, 2002; Omamo, 2004). In addition to these factors, Rogers (1995) described the attributes of the new knowledge itself (e.g. its complexity, relative advantage over other approaches, compatibility with existing practices, observability, trialability) as being strong factors in how readily research is used in practice. Some theoreticians within this tradition emphasize the concept of change as a socially constructed process in which all stakeholders in the process must be active participants in generating, translating, and applying knowledge in ways that lead to changes in practices, programs, and systems (Hood, 2002; Winton, 1990, 2006). Intervention studies conducted from this perspective typically take a broad view of implementation and consider the complexities of organizational structures and policies as well as the individual factors that shape behavior change. Fixsen and his colleagues (2005) conducted a synthesis of the literature on the implementation of innovative models or prototypes, involving a systematic review of 377 articles, including 22 studies that used an experimental analysis of implementation factors. They concluded from their review that information dissemination and training alone are ineffective in creating changes in programs or practices. Instead, long-term multilevel approaches are required that focus on changing individuals, organizations, and policies. Their synthesis identified the use of skillbased training accompanied by assessments of practitioner s implementation of new ideas as one of the most important components of a multilevel approach. Unfortunately, their synthesis yielded little evidence that provides guidance about the type of administrative practices, system intervention methods, or organizational mechanisms that support the implementation of innovative models or prototypes. In summary, although much has been written about knowledge utilization, there is little definitive research that contributes to an understanding of the relative influence of the different factors that contribute to the adaptation, implementation, and institutionalization of new research. What we can learn from this perspective is that change is complex and difficult to study and understand. This should be taken into account when implementing and evaluating all aspects of professional development. Summary and Closing In summarizing and integrating the information available on effective approaches to professional development from these multiple sets of literature, a few tentative conclusions can be reached. It appears that well-crafted clinical experiences and realistic problem-solving opportunities coupled with feedback may be critical components of pre-service students learning. The literature on in- service training and knowledge utilization emphasizes the importance of direct skills training and of assessment and feedback on the use of those skills. This literature also emphasizes the need to align professional de-

10 10 Copyright 2008 ZERO TO THREE. All rights reserved. Please note: This is a read-only copy. Practical Approaches to Early Childhood Professional Development velopment with policies; standards (at the level of child, program, and personnel); and organizational, political and social factors that shape the extent to which individuals can apply new knowledge in an ongoing fashion to their workplace. Taken together, these findings call for a comprehensive and integrated approach to early childhood professional development. Pre-service students need to be taught in the context of the real-world communities where they will eventually practice. Both pre-service students and seasoned practitioners must have opportunities for direct exposure to, practice with, and feedback on their use of research-based intervention and teaching practices. Attention must be paid to the individual, organizational, and external policies, procedures, and resources that support or hinder their attempts to adopt new practices. An overall conclusion, based on the issues and evidence described in this chapter, is that there is a need for a comprehensive cross-agency system for planning, implementing, and evaluating professional development in order to address the challenges of fragmentation, alignment, and quality. The system must be one that is embraced by the multiple disciplines, agencies, and organizations that now have authority and resources for delivering professional development to early childhood practitioners. Such a system could bring together these disparate groups in a way that guides and integrates efforts at national, state, and local levels. The system would need to be organized around a shared vision and framework for planning, implementing, and evaluating professional development. The final chapter of the book describes the components of such a system and concludes with a set of recommendations related to addressing the challenges that face our field in ensuring that every child and family has access to a highly qualified early childhood practitioner. References American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2006). Highlights and trends: ASHA member counts. Retrieved December 5, 2006, from Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (2003, February 19). Research-based characteristics of high-quality teacher preparation (Research brief). Retrieved December 5, 2006, from portal/site/ascd/menuitem.03e1753c019b7a9f989ad324d3108a0c/ Barnett, W. S. (2005). Preschool education: A concept whose time has come. Principal, 85(1), Retrieved December 5, 2006, from Barnett, W. S., Hustedt, J. T., Robin, K. B., & Schulman, K. L. (2004). The state of preschool: 2004 state preschool yearbook. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, National Institute of Early Education Research. Bredekamp, S. (1996). Early childhood education. In J. Sikula, T. Buttery, & E. Grayton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp ). New York: Macmillan. (ERIC Document No. ED400230) Brownell, M. T., Ross, D. R., Colón, E. P., & McCallum, C. L. (2003). Critical features of special education teacher preparation: A comparison with exemplary practices in general teacher education (Executive summary). (COPSSE Document No. RS-4E). Gainesville: University of Florida, Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education. Bruder, M. B., & Dunst, C. J. (2005). Personnel preparation in recommended early intervention practices: Degree of emphasis across disciplines. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 25(1), Bruder, M. B., Littman, C., & Bologna, T. (1994). Personnel preparation in early intervention: Building capacity for program expansion within institutions of higher education. Journal of Early Intervention, 18(1), Buysse, V., & Wesley, P. (Eds.). (2006). Evidence-based practice in the early childhood fi eld. Washington, DC: ZERO TO THREE. Chang, F., Early, D., & Winton, P. (2005). Early childhood teacher preparation in special education at 2- and 4-year institutions of higher education. Journal of Early Intervention, 27, Clifford, R. M., Barbarin, O., Chang, F., Early, D., Bryant, D., Howes, C., et al. (2005). What is pre-kindergarten? Characteristics of public prekindergarten programs. Applied Developmental Science, 9(3), Cochran-Smith, M., & Zeichner, K. M. (Eds.). (2005). Executive summary. Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education (pp. 1 36). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (1998, January). State policy and classroom performance: Mathematics reform in California (CPRE Policy Briefs). Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania. Cohn, D., & Bahrampour, T. (2006, May 10). Of U.S. children under 5, nearly half are minorities. The Washington Post, p. A1. Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes Study Team. (1995). Cost, quality, and child outcomes in child care centers: Public report. Denver: University of Colorado, Department of Economics.

11 Copyright 2008 ZERO TO THREE. All rights reserved. Please note: This is a read-only copy. Preparing and Supporting High-Quality Early Childhood Practitioners 11 Division for Early Childhood. (1993). Position on inclusion. Missoula, MT: Author. Division for Early Childhood. (1997). DEC membership report. Missoula, MT: Author. Early Childhood Research Institute on Inclusion. (1999). Synthesis points. (Brief #11). Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute. Early, D., Maxwell, K., Burchinal, M., Alva, S., Bender, R., Bryant, D., et al. (2007). Teachers education, classroom quality, and young children s academic skills: Results from seven studies of preschool programs. Child Development. 78 (2), Early, D., & Winton, P. (2001). Preparing the workforce: Early childhood teacher preparation at 2- and 4-year institutes of higher education. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 16, Estabrooks, C.A. (2001). Research utilization and qualitative research. In J. M. Morse, J. M. Swanson, & A. J. Kuzel (Eds.), The nature of qualitative research (pp ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Farkas, S., Johnson, J., & Duffett, A. (2003). Stand by me: What teachers say about unions, merit pay and other professional matters. New York. Public Agenda. Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute. Gersten, R., & Woodward, J. (1992). The quest to translate research into classroom practice: Strategies for assisting classroom teachers work with at-risk students and students with disabilities. In D. Carnine & E. Kameenui (Eds.), Higher cognitive functioning for all students (pp ). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Graves, B. (2006, May). PK-3: What is it and how do we know it works. (FCD Policy Brief No. 4). New York: Foundation for Child Development. Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational Researcher, 15(5), Guskey, T. R. (2003). Scooping up meaningful evidence. Journal of Staff Development, 24(4). Retrieved on December 5, 2006, from Haskins, R., & Loeb, S. (2007, Spring). A plan to improve the quality of teaching in American schools [policy brief]. The Future of Children, 17 (1). Havelock, R. C., & Havelock, M. C. (1973). Training for change agents. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research. Hebbeler, K. (Ed.). (1997). Improving the quality of early intervention personnel by enhancing faculty expertise: Findings and recommendations of the Regional Faculty Institutes. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute. Herzenberg, S., Price, M., & Bradley, D. (2005, September 15). Losing ground in New York early childhood education: Declining workforce qualifi cations in an expanding industry, Retrieved December 5, 2006, from org/issuebriefs/216/ib216e-ny.pdf Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., & Stigler, J. W. (2002). A knowledge base for the teaching profession: What would it look like and how can we get one? Educational Researcher, 31(5), Hill, H. C. (2007, Spring). Learning in the teaching workforce [policy brief]. The Future of Children, 17(1), Hood, P. (2002). Perspectives on knowledge utilization in education. San Francisco: WestEd. Hurtado, S., Milem, J., Clayton-Pedersen, A., & Allen. W. (1999). Enacting diverse learning environments: Improving the climate for racial/ethnic diversity in higher education. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 26(8). New York: Wiley. Hyson, M. (2003). Preparing early childhood professionals: NAEYC s standards for programs. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, P.L , 20 U.S.C et seq. (1997) Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Kraft, J. M., Mezoff, J. S., Sogolow, E. D., Neumann, M. S., & Thomas, P. A. (2000). A technology transfer model for effective HIV/AIDS interventions: Science and practice. AIDS Education and Prevention, 12(Suppl. A), Levine, A. (2006). Educating school teachers. Washington, DC: The Education Schools Project. Maxwell, K. L., Feild, C. C., & Clifford, R. M. (2005). Defining and measuring professional development in early childhood research. In M. Zaslow & I. Martinez-Beck (Eds.), Critical issues in early childhood professional development (pp ). Baltimore: Brookes. Maxwell, K. L., Lim, C., & Early, D. (2006). Early childhood teacher preparation programs in the United States: National report. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute.

12 12 Copyright 2008 ZERO TO THREE. All rights reserved. Please note: This is a read-only copy. Practical Approaches to Early Childhood Professional Development Mellin, A., & Winton, P. (2003). Interdisciplinary collaboration among early intervention faculty members. Journal of Early Intervention, 25(3), National Center for Education Statistics. (1998). The condition of education. Washington, DC: Author. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2000). NCATE 2000 standards. Washington, DC: Author. National Education Association. (2003). Status of the American public school teacher Washington, DC: Author. National Institute on Early Childhood Development and Education. (2000). New teachers for a new century: The future of early childhood professional preparation. Jessup, MD: U. S. Department of Education, ED Pubs. National Professional Development Center on Inclusion (2007). Available online at ~ npdci NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (1996). Characteristics of infant child care: Factors contributing to positive caregiving. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 11, No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L , 115 Stat (2002). Available online at esea02/ pdf Omamo, S. W. (2004). Bridging research, policy, and practice in African agriculture (DSGD Discussion Paper No. 10). Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. Pianta, R. (2005). Standardized observation and professional development: A focus on individualized implementation and practices. In M. Zaslow & I. Martinez-Beck (Eds.), Critical issues in early childhood professional development (pp ). Baltimore: Brookes. Regional Resource & Federal Center Network. (2006). Analysis of state performance plans. Retrieved December 11, 2006, from Rogers, E. (1995). The diffusion of innovation. (4th ed.). New York: The Free Press. Snow-Renner, R., & Lauer, P. (2005). Professional development analysis. Denver, CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning. Snyder, P. (2006). Best available research evidence: Impact on research in early childhood. In V. Buysse & P. Wesley (Eds.), Evidence-based practice in the early childhood fi eld (pp ). Washington, DC: ZERO TO THREE. Stayton, V. D., Miller, P. S., & Dinnebeil, L. A. (Eds.). (2003). DEC personnel preparation in early childhood special education: Implementing the DEC recommended practices. Denver, CO: Sopris West. Sunderman, G. L., Tracey, C. A., Kim, J., & Orfield, G. (2004). Listening to teachers: Classroom realities and No Child Left Behind. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University. Retrieved July 6, 2005, from Trivette, C. M. (2005). Effectiveness of guided design learning strategy on the acquisition of adult problem-solving skills. Bridges, 3(1), Asheville, NC: Orelena Hawks Puckett Institute, Research and Training Center on Early Childhood Development. Wesley, P., Buysse, V., & Skinner, D. (2001). Early interventionists perspectives on professional comfort as consultants. Journal of Early Intervention, 24(2), Whitehurst, G. J. (2002, March 5). Research of teacher preparation and professional development. Address to White House Conference on Preparing Tomorrow s Teachers. Retrieved April 26, 2005 from preparingteachersconference/whitehurst.html Wilson, S. M., Floden, R. E., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2001). Teacher preparation research: Current knowledge, gaps, and recommendations. Seattle: University of Washington, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy. Winton, P. (1990). A systemic approach for planning in- service training related to Public Law Infants and Young Children, 3(1), Winton, P. (1996). A model for supporting higher education faculty in their early intervention personnel preparation roles. Infants and Young Children, 8(3), Winton, P. (2006). The evidence-based practice movement and its effect on knowledge utilization. In V. Buysse & P. Wesley (Eds.), Evidence-based practice in the early childhood fi eld (pp ). Washington, DC: ZERO TO THREE. Winton, P. J., McCollum, J. A., & Catlett, C. (Eds.). (1997). Reforming personnel preparation in early intervention: Issues, models, and practical strategies. Baltimore: Brookes. Winton, P., Catlett, C., & Houck, A. (1996). A systems approach. In D. Bricker & A. Widerstrom (Eds.), Preparing personnel to work with infants and young children and their families. (pp ). Baltimore: Brookes. Winton, P., McCollum, J., & Catlett, C. (Eds.). (1997). Reforming personnel preparation in early intervention: Issues, models and practical strategies. Baltimore: Brookes.