xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam a22 u 4500
controlfield tag 008 c20059999azu 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E11-00445
Educational policy analysis archives.
n Vol. 13, no. 23 (March 30, 2005).
Tempe, Ariz. :
b Arizona State University ;
Tampa, Fla. :
University of South Florida.
c March 30, 2005
Using Pressure and Support to Create a Qualified Workforce / Sharon Ryan [and] Debra J. Ackerman.
Arizona State University.
University of South Florida.
t Education Policy Analysis Archives (EPAA)
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
mods:mods xmlns:mods http:www.loc.govmodsv3 xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govmodsv3mods-3-1.xsd
mods:relatedItem type host
mods:identifier issn 1068-2341mods:part
mods:detail volume mods:number 13issue 23series Year mods:caption 20052005Month March3Day 3030mods:originInfo mods:dateIssued iso8601 2005-03-30
E DUCATION P OLICY A NALYSIS A RCHIVES A peer reviewed scholarly journal Editor: Sherman Dorn College of Education University of South Florida Copyright is retained by the first or sole author, who grants right of first publication to the Education Policy Analysis Archives EPAA is published jointly by the Colleges of Education at Arizona State University and the University of South Florida. Articles are indexed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (www.doaj.org). Volume 13 Number 23 March 30 2005 ISSN 1068 2341 Using Pressure and Support to Create a Qualified Workforce Sharon Ryan Debra J. Ackerman Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey Citation: Ryan, S. & Acker man, D. J. (2005, March 30 ). Using p ressure and s upport to c reate a q ualified w orkforce. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(23). Retrieved [date] from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v13n23/. Abstract In order for any new initiative to be implemented, it is generally assumed that policy actors need both motivation to comply with a new initiative and adequate assistance to implement the required change successfully. The study reported here examined the impact of a system of pressure and supports created to enc ourage preschool teachers working in public school, Head Start, and child care settings to obtain a teaching credential by a court imposed deadline. Findings from the sample of 689 teachers indicate that the court mandate, in combination with a scholarship program and an accessible number of certification programs, motivated many preschool teachers to improve their qualifications. Paradoxically, it was also found that the mandate may contribute to a depletion of the workforce if teachers who obtain a qualif ication move out of preschool into higher status positions. Findings of this study suggest that policymakers should consider systems of pressure and support not only to achieve short term goals, but to maintain outcomes over the long term, as well. In ord er for any new initiative to be implemented, it is generally assumed that policy actors need both motivation to comply with a new initiative and adequate assistance, such as updated knowledge or financial resources, to implement the required change success fully (McDonnell & Elmore, 1987; McLaughlin, 1991) Given that improving education is a constant focus of policymakers, pressure and support are recurring themes in the sc hool reform literature. The key role these concepts play can be seen in studies that examine
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 13 No. 23 2 supports for teachers in response to new state standards and assessments (Amrein & Berliner, 2002; Cohen, 1996; Cohen & Hill, 2000, 2001; Elmore, Abelmann, & Fuhrman, 1998; Firestone, Camilli, Yurecko, Monfils, & Mayrowetz, 2000; Kauffman, Johnson, Kardos, Liu, & Peske, 2003) Similarly, studies of the employment of testing data to bring about instructional improvement (Firestone & Mayrowetz, 2000; Goertz, 2001; Herrington & MacDonald, 2001; Massell, 2001) as well as the use of market pressure to provide alternatives to publi c education (Chubb, 2003; Fuller, Burr, Huerta, Puryear, & Wexler, 1999; Levin, 1991, 2000; Rosegrant, 1999; Witte, 1998) are also illustrative of the dilemmas associated with the use of pressure and support to reform school ing. In these studies, the school typically refers to children who attend grades K 12. Educational reform efforts are not exclusive to these grades, however. Policymakers in the United States are increasingly recognizing the benefits of high quality pre school as a strategy for producing improved academic and developmental outcomes for lower income children (Barnett, 2002) As a consequence, the majority of states are providing publicly funded preschool for select populations of pre kindergartners (Barnett, Hustedt, Robin, & Schulman, 2004) and school districts are increasingly incorporating preschool as part of their overall reform efforts (Walker, 2003) The inclusion of preschool as part of public schooling is a significant undertaking. Programs for children who are not yet in kindergarten have tended to operate in isolation from the K 12 sector and, as a result, the provision of preschool has been defined by different goals, regulations, and funding mechanisms (Barnett & Masse, 2003; Bowman, 1999; Clifford, 1999; Mitchell, 1996; Morgan, 2003; Smolkin, 1999; Wolery, 1999) The push to expand publicly funded preschool pr ograms across the country therefore involves the amalgamation of two distinct systems of education, each with differing expectations for quality, curriculum, and teacher qualifications, among other things. Not only is this a mammoth task, but also there is no research information available about how to reform preschool education on a large scale. The research base catalyzing the movement for publicly funded preschool education is mostly composed of longitudinal evaluations of specific programs, such as the High/Scope Perry Preschool Project (Barnett, Young, & Schweinhart, 1998; Weikart, 1998) These studies therefore, tend to focus on child outcomes (Bagnato, Suen, Brickley, Smith Jones, & Dettore, 2002; Bryant, Maxwell, & Burchinal, 1999; Schultz & Lopez, 1996) or which stakeholde rs are necessary to get a program up and running (Knitzer & Page, 1998; Miller, Melaville, & Blank, 2002) While this body of research has been informative to policymakers about the components necessary for high quality preschool programs, without at tention to the implementation of preschool reform on a larger scale, there is the potential that the positive results of these studies will not be replicated. With the aim of building this research base, this paper uses the findings of a survey with teache rs involved in a large scale preschool reform initiative to examine the kinds of pressures and supports necessary to ensure one aspect of a high quality system of preschool education: a qualified teaching workforce. Capacity and Will in Policy Implementat ion Successful implementation of educational reforms depends on both capacity and will (McLaughlin, 1991) If implementation actors do not have an adequate level of information, skills, or other resources, they may also not have sufficient capacity to successfully implement any initiative (Schneider & Ingram, 1990) In educational reform efforts, issues of
Ryan & Ackerman: Using Pressure and Support to Create a Qualified Workforce 3 capacity have generally focused on what types of support are needed to chan ge teachers classroom practice and facilitate their understanding of new curricula (Spillane, 1999, 2002; Spillane, Reiser, & Reimer, 2002) Effective professional development has therefore been viewed as one of the key supports for increasing teachers capacity (Cohen & Hill, 2001) There has also been recognition that capacity is an issue t hat extends beyond individual teachers to schools and districts. Implementation is enhanced when school leaders and the policymaking agencies that are outside of schools are aware of the difficulties inherent in any implementation effort, and provide the n ecessary resources to overcome any constraints faced by those who are on the front lines of implementation (Fullan, 2001) The capacity of local education agencies and districts must be attended to, as well, in order to ensure that new policies are aligned with existing expecta tions (Corcoran & Lawrence, 2003; Spillane & Thompson, 1997) Facilitating will, however, is another matter. As McLaughlin (1991) noted, will is an implementers motivation and commitment (p. 187) to undertaking an initiative. As such, wil l is also reliant upon both implementers and stakeholders assessment of the value of a policy or the appropriateness of a strategy (McLaughlin, 1991, p. 187), and thus can be harder to come by. In educational reform initiatives, policy actors involved in reform efforts must perceive the need for the change as a significant priority, as the short term personal costs of becoming involved in a new activity or approach can often appear to outweigh the long term benefits (Fullan, 1991) This is a particularly salient point fo r teachers. As Fullan (1991) has elaborated: Especially at the beginning, innovation is hard work. It takes extra time and energy, even when release time is provided. It can add significantly to the normal workload. As for increased competence on the job ano ther incentive it is more likely that our competence actually decreases (emphasis in the original) during first attempts at trying something new. (p. 318) Supports alone, then, can be insufficient, especially when the value judgments of key implementers do not generate motivation to comply with any new policy. Policymakers have therefore also relied on various policy tools as a way of providing the motivation that might otherwise be lacking in any reform effort. Policy tools are techniques used to incre ase the probability that agents or targets will take action consistent with the preferred results of policy[and] are instructions about who is supposed to do what as well as the motivating devices for bringing about the desired behavior (Ingram & Schneider, 1990, p. 71) These techniques assume that the specific actions that are required to implement a new policy would not occur without the extra motivation provided by various policy tools. In short, policy tools are important for turning policy goals into concrete acti ons (McDonnell & Elmore, 1987, p. 134) and can mean the difference between superficial compliance and real reform. Policy tools can take various forms, with each form also assuming a type of behavior on the part of a target popula tion and working best under specific conditions. For example, system changing tools alter the authority structures for the provision of a product or service. This choice of policy tool assumes that changes in authority can bring about a more focused or eff icient delivery of a particular good or service. It may also be based on the premise that the status and power of previously marginalized groups will be increased through the restructuring of authority. System changing instruments also rely on accurate as sessments of the additional supports that might be needed to both dissolve old power structures and empower new ones (McDonnell & Elmore, 1987)
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 13 No. 23 4 More typically, however, policymakers rely on the use of mandates as tools for motivating target populations. Th e use of mandates assumes that behaviors need to be either prohibited or prescribed. Although mandates can rely on a specific populations commitment to obey laws or rules, they may also be dependent on both enforcement and negative sanctions. In other wor ds, we may not obey the mandate merely out of a sense of duty, but rather because the cost of noncompliance is higher than the cost of complying (McDonnell & Elmore, 1987; Schneider & Ingram, 1990) Conversely, incentives or inducements without the concurrent utilization of a mandate are also used to encourage compliance. This type of po licy tool assumes that individuals have the capacity to take action, but will not be positively motivated to take that action unless they are influenced, encouraged, or coerced by manipulation of money[or] other tangible payoffs (Schneider & Ingram, 1990, p. 515) Key to both of these policy tools, however, is that any short or long term return is worth it for the actors involved. For example, Liu, Johnson, and Peske (2003) found that teachers participating in the Massachusetts Signing Bonus Program were not motivated to either enter teaching or remain in the field because of the $20,000 incentive provided. Gormley and Lucas (2000) also determined that offering the incentive of a higher reimbursement to child care centers that were accredited only affected those settings that desired to attain a certain level of excellence, and had no effect on centers of poor or mediocre quality. Thus no matter what the policy context, mere provision of pressures and supports is not always enough to guarantee intended outcomes although the evidence suggests that there is more likelihood of implement ation when these policy tools are employed. Pressure and Supports for Reforming Preschool in New Jersey The issues associated with the use of policy tools and capacity building efforts are illustrated in the case of New Jersey and its implementation of p reschool education as part of whole school reform in the 30 Abbott districts. The Abbott vs. Burke (1998, 2000) Supreme Court decisions ordered the 30 urban school districts which serve the states poorest students to embark on an ambitious reform agenda, including creating systems of high quality preschool for all 3 and 4 year old children beginning in the 1999 2000 school year. Reflecting the research base on program quality (Espinosa, 2002; Frede, 1998) the court defined quality preschool progr ams as having a class size of no more than 15 students with a certified teacher and teacher assistant in each classroom. In addition, all programs must use a developmentally appropriate curriculum linked to the states core curriculum content standards, an d provide adequate facilities, special education, bilingual education, transportation, health, and other services as needed. To rapidly implement the integration of child care and education systems, school districts were encouraged to collaborate with exi sting Head Start and private child care programs already offering preschool in their communities in an effort to offer full day year round preschool programs to all. Prior to the Courts decision, however, the credential needed to be a teacher in New Jer seys private preschool centers and Head Start programs was a minimum of a Child Development Associate (CDA) credential (Division of Youth and Family Services, Department of Human Services, & State of New Jersey, 1998) Obtaining the CDA credential involves undertaking 120 clock hours of training in such subjects as promoting a safe and healthy learning environment and supporting childrens social and emotional development (Council for Professional Recognition, 2000) The research base, however, shows that the presence of qualified teachers who have attained a
Ryan & Ackerman: Using Pressure and Support to Create a Qualified Workforce 5 bachelors degree (BA) and additional specialized content in child development or early childh ood education (Barnett, 2003; Whitebook, 2003) is one of the most consistent indicators of improved child outcomes. Therefore to ensure quality in Head Start and private child care programs, the New Jersey Supreme Cour t mandated that all teachers in Abbott preschools unless they already held the Nursery or Kindergarten through Grade 8 certificate and had two years of experience working with preschool aged children must obtain a minimum of a BA with Preschool Grade 3 (P 3) certification by September 2004 In response to this mandate, policymakers and other entities in New Jersey created two key supports for teachers who needed to obtain a P 3 teaching credential. First, most of the states institutions of higher educati on created specialized P 3 certification programs. These programs encompass both alternate route and traditional approaches to teacher preparation, and range from initial licensure at the BA level, to post baccalaureate, Masters level, and endorsement pro grams. In addition, two of these institutions recognized that geographical access to P 3 coursework was limited for teachers working in the states central and southern Abbott districts, and thus offer P 3 related coursework at extension sites in these are as, as well. Secondly, although coursework leading to a P 3 credential was made available to teachers working in New Jerseys Abbott preschool classrooms, the state was also cognizant of the fact that enrolling in college level classes might present an un tenable financial burden for those affected by the mandate. As a result, a scholarship program was initiated for Abbott preschool teachers, and was administered by the New Jersey Professional Development Center, a state funded organization whose mission is to coordinate professional growth activities for the early care and education workforce. The scholarship provides financial assistance of up to $5,000 per year for tuition costs related to attainment of an AA, or BA or MA and teacher certification (New Jersey Professional Development Center for Early Care and Education, 2003) As per credit costs at the three schools which serve almost half of all Abbott preschool teachers range d from $299 to $395 in 2003 2004, the scholarship could potentially cover the cost of full time study (12 credits) per year. Teachers are also eligible for $50 per course for other expenses (New Jersey Professional Development Center for Early Care and Edu cation, 2003). The study reported here examined whether the Courts mandate and this system of supports were sufficient for achieving the intended outcome of a qualified teacher in every Abbott preschool classroom by September 2004. The Study Sample Our sample consists of 689 teachers who worked in public school, Head Start, and private preschool classrooms in New Jerseys 30 Abbott districts during the 2002 03 school year. The overall sample was obtained in two phases. First, we utilized a stratified ran dom sampling method to choose a proportional sample from each of the 30 Abbott districts, using a teacher list obtained from the New Jersey Department of Education. This gave us an initial sample of 800 of the total population of Abbott preschool teachers teaching in 2002 03. Of this initial sample, 182 teachers were found to have left their public school or private center. Therefore the second phase involved adding these teachers replacements to the sample, or replacing them with other teachers from the s ame district and auspice. Out of this reworked sample of 800, however, 111 teachers either declined to be interviewed or could not be contacted despite repeated telephone calls to the numbers they provided, producing a final
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 13 No. 23 6 sample of 689 teachers (270 pub lic school, 94 Head Start, and 325 private preschool teachers). To ensure that accurate predictions could be made, the sample was weighted to represent the total 2003 2004 teaching population of 2825 teachers in the Abbott districts based on data provide d by the New Jersey Department of Education. Table 1 summarizes the demographic characteristics of the Abbott teaching population. The average age of preschool teachers is 38 years (SD = 11.1), similar to the national average (Saluja, Early, & Clifford, 2002) and nearly all are female. Almost half of all preschool teachers working in the Abbot t districts are White (44%). Teachers self identifying as African American comprise 33% of the teaching workforce, while only 16% are Hispanic. A small proportion of teachers in the Abbott districts are from Asian American or Native American backgrounds. H igher proportions of African American and Hispanic teachers work in Head Start (72%) and private child care settings (58%), whereas the teaching population in public schools is predominantly White (70%). Teachers in the Abbott districts have been working i n the classroom for an average of almost 10 years (SD 7.84) and 60% of the teaching population has more than five years of experience. Despite the fact that many of these teachers have been in the profession for some time, 77% of all participants in this s tudy have been teaching at their current place of employment for five years or less. Table 1 Teacher Demographics Teacher Characteristic Population Estimate (weighted n ) = 2825 Mean Percent Auspice s Public school Private Head Start 32.5 % 57.8% 9.7% Age ( X ) 38.0 yrs (SD = 11.1) Female 96.0 % Ethnicity White African American Hispanic Asian Native American Refused 43.6% 32.5% 15.8% 3.1% 0.2% 4.8% Years of experience ( X ) 9.5 yrs (SD = 7.84) > 5 years experience 60% = 5 years experience at current place of employment 77% Data Collection Telephone interviews were conducted by a professional data collection firm, using a computer aided telephone interview (CATI) system. Upon completing the survey, participating teac hers were mailed a $20 gift certificate to a national bookstore chain. Data collection began in December 2002 and concluded September 2003.
Ryan & Ackerman: Using Pressure and Support to Create a Qualified Workforce 7 Teachers were surveyed using a structured protocol developed by the authors (Ackerman & Ryan, 2002). The content of the protocol was determined in consultation with preschool education experts, and piloted with teachers who were outside of the sample and represented a range of educational backgrounds, professional experience, and certification status. The interview pro tocol examined four topics. The first was teachers personal characteristics and work experience. The second was teaching credentials, including progress towards any increased qualification and anticipated completion dates. This section of the protocol als o asked teachers to report on the content of coursework and their evaluations of these experiences. The third was teachers beliefs and practices, measured on a Likert scale (Charlesworth et al., 1993) The fourth topic asked teachers about their ongoing professional development. In this paper we report teachers responses to the first two topics. Data Analysis Des criptive statistics were conducted using the weighted data to calculate enrollment patterns and potential numbers of teachers meeting the mandate. These statistics were also examined according to the auspice in which teachers work. This distinction is impo rtant, as not only has program quality been found to vary between auspices (Kagan, 1991) but 68% of the Abbott preschool teachers work in either private or Head Start programs, and are thus less likely not to have attained a teaching credential prior to the Courts mandate. Findings The question guidin g this study is whether the Courts mandate and a concurrent system of supports were sufficient for achieving the intended outcome of a qualified teacher in every Abbott classroom by September 2004. To answer this question we examine data pertaining to tea chers efforts to improve their credentials, the supports they report using, and whether these efforts have helped them to meet the Abbott mandate. Efforts to Improve Credentials At the time of this study, t he majority (70%) of teachers in the Abbott dis tricts already had a BA and an additional 15% of teachers had attained a Masters degree or higher. Of those teachers with a BA or higher, 68% also have some type of teacher certification. Most of these certified teachers work in public schools. Ninety thr ee percent of public school teachers in our sample already had a minimum of a BA and were certified. Conversely, just 54% of Head Start teachers and 58% of private teachers had similar credentials. Forty six percent of the teachers were undertaking furthe r education, and the majority of these teachers (81.2%) were taking coursework leading to a P 3 teaching credential. Given that until the Abbott mandate teachers in Head Start and private programs were not required to have a four year degree or a teaching credential, a disproportional amount of teachers (88%) in these settings were enrolled in P 3 coursework. Supports Being Used by Teachers At the time of the survey, 12 universities and colleges were offering P 3 programs, and all 12 were being used by te achers in the study. In addition, teachers were attending Associates degree programs at 11 county community colleges. A small number of teachers (7.9%) were enrolled at schools that did not offer P 3 certification. Most of these teachers were already certi fied and pursuing Masters level degrees.
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 13 No. 23 8 As can be seen in Table 2, there are nine distinct pathways through which these teachers are progressing toward a P 3 teaching credential, ranging from an endorsement to initial certification. Eighty four percent of teachers took classes either on the main campus of these institutions, or at a satellite facility of the institutions offering these programs. No matter where they were attending programs in the state, the majority of teachers reported that the location o f their classes made it easier for them to obtain their credential. Table 2 Potential Percentages of Teachers Meeting the Mandate Enrollment Status Stand. Lower Upper Stand. Lower Upper Percent Error 95% 95% Estimate Error 95% 95% Cell n Had both BA & certification in 2002 2003 Not enrolled, but already certified 42.75 2.84 36.71 48.80 1207.71 201.49 778.24 1637.18 321.00 Enrolled in MA, already certified 6.52 0.88 4.64 8.41 184.20 34.02 111.70 256.71 48.00 Working towards a P 3 related credential in 2002 2003 AA 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.35 2.93 2.93 3.32 9.18 1.00 BA, no endorsement noted 2.29 0.80 0.58 4.00 64.59 28.74 3.34 125.83 16.00 BA with P 3 3.10 1.01 0.95 5.25 87.62 36.92 8.93 166.31 20.00 Po st bacc. with P 3 4.77 0.87 2.93 6.62 134.86 29.56 71.85 197.86 26.00 MA, no endorsement noted 1.67 0.50 0.60 2.74 47.17 16.36 12.31 82.04 13.00 MA with P 3 8.55 0.97 6.48 10.62 241.62 53.49 127.62 355.62 59.00 MA with P 3 & additional endorsement 3.32 0.89 1.41 5.23 93.81 32.05 25.49 162.13 22.00 P 3 endorsement only 7.76 1.33 4.92 10.60 219.22 41.04 131.76 306.69 48.00 Alternate Route with P 3 endorsement 1.31 0.44 0.36 2.25 36.90 14.35 6.32 67.48 7.0 0 Not certified & not enrolled in P 3 related program in 2002 2003 1 Not enrolled in any P 3 related program 6.87 1.46 3.75 9.98 194.00 50.66 86.01 301.98 39.00 Working towards a CDA 0.18 0.19 0.21 0.58 5.22 5.22 5.91 16.36 1. 00 Working towards an Alternate Route, non P 3 certificate 0.90 0.60 0.38 2.19 25.48 15.94 8.49 59.46 5.00 Total 90.10 3.06 83.59 96.61 2545.34 433.71 1620.92 3469.7 626.00 1 Teachers in these categories already had a BA and potentially could meet the mandate. However, at the time of this study, the y did not report being enrolled in P 3 coursework.
Ryan & Ackerman: Using Pressure and Support to Create a Qualified Workforce 9 Fifty nine percent of teachers enrolled in coursework are using scholarships funds to pay for their college costs. Another third of the teachers said they were paying out of their own pocket to attend classes. Of those teachers paying for their own schooling, some were not eligible for a tuition scholarship becau se they were working towards a Masters degree without P 3 certification. For those enrolled in P 3 credentialing programs and receiving scholarships, we infer that while their tuition may be covered, they are most likely also incurring out of pocket costs for student fees, books, traveling expenses, and child care. Meeting the Abbott Mandates 2004 Deadline Table 2 examines the Abbott teaching workforce and the proportions of teachers who potentially have met the court imposed deadline for a Bachelors d egree and teaching credential by September 2004. As can be seen, 49.2% of the teaching population is certified and therefore already meets the mandate. In addition 32.9% of teachers who are enrolled in coursework anticipated finishing their degree requirem ents by the deadline. When combined with the proportion of the teaching population in the Abbott districts who are already certified, we thus estimate that 82.2% of Abbott teachers met the mandate. Another 8% of teachers could potentially have met the man date. Teachers within this group already had attained a Bachelors degree, and while not enrolled in a credentialing program at the time of this study, could have enrolled since then and therefore also not have been out of time. However, it is important to note that in 2002 03, 1.1% of these were enrolled in CDA or alternate route programs, which would not lead to any kind of early childhood certification. As can be seen in Table 3, 6.9% of Abbott preschool teachers who are undertaking P 3 related coursewo rk indicated that that they could not meet the mandate, but will be able to complete course requirements within 2 years or by September 2006. However, 2.7% of the teaching population is not attempting to meet the mandate at all. The teachers within this gr oup do not have a Bachelors degree and are not enrolled in any kind of coursework that may lead to an early childhood teaching credential in the near future. Thus 9.6% or approximately 273 Abbott preschool teachers were not able to meet the mandate. All o f these teachers are working either in private child care settings (74.1%) or Head Start programs (25.9%). While a court mandate would seem to facilitate teachers attainment of a Bachelors degree, it should also be noted that 33% of the teachers who ar e enrolled in some kind of teacher preparation program indicated that they intended to leave their positions once they became certified. Eighty percent of these teachers work in private or Head Start preschool settings, and when asked the job they were con sidering taking instead, the majority indicated that they want to teach in a public school setting. The most often cited reasons for wanting to move to the public schools were the additional pay and/or benefits, the better working conditions, and the highe r status or value associated with this job.
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 13 No. 23 10 Table 3 Potential Percentages of Teachers Not Meeting the Mandate Enrollment Status Stand. Lower Upper Stand. Lower Upper Percent Error 95% 95% Estimate Error 95% 95% Cell n Working towards a P 3 related credential in 2002 2003 AA 4.12 2.19 0.54 8.78 116.45 72.17 37.39 270.28 25.00 BA, no endorsement noted 0.96 0.44 0.02 1.90 27.10 14.44 3.67 57.87 7.00 BA with P 3 1.81 0.46 0.84 2.78 51.13 18.24 12.26 90.01 12.00 Post baccalaureate with P 3 . . . . 0.00 MA, no endorsement noted . . . . 0.00 MA with P 3 . . . . 0.00 MA with P 3 & additional endorsement . . . . 0.00 P 3 endorsement o nly . . . . 0.00 Alternate Route with P 3 endorsement . . . . 0.00 Not certified & not enrolled in P 3 related program in 2002 2003 Not enrolled in any P 3 related program 2.20 0.60 0.92 3.48 62.21 23.59 11.94 112.4 8 15.00 Working towards a CDA 0.53 0.36 0.23 1.29 15.04 10.64 7.63 37.71 2.00 Working towards an Alternate Route, non P 3 certificate . . . . 0.00 Total 9.63 3.11 2.99 16.26 271.93 119.32 17.60 526.26 61.00 Disc ussion and Implications Although the findings of this study are limited to the self reports of preschool teachers and therefore may not always be accurate, they do suggest that the combination of a court mandate, along with a scholarship program and an ac cessible number of certification programs, motivated many preschool teachers who needed to improve their qualifications to do so. Our findings indicate that by September 2004, 90% of the Abbott teaching population potentially had a Bachelors degree and wa s at least provisionally certificated. Given that when the 2000 Supreme Court decision was handed down only 15% of teachers in the private settings had a BA in early childhood (Barnett, Tarr, Lamy, & Frede, 2001) and there was no system of professional preparation in place to meet the increased demand for qualified teachers created by this mandate, this outcome is quite remarkable. At the same time, the court mandate and the supports put in place to ensure a qualified preschool teaching workforce have had two unintended consequences that have implications for policy efforts in other states.
Ryan & Ackerman: Using Pressure and Support to Create a Qualified Workforce 11 The first of these is that the combination of pressure and supports used in New Je rsey has apparently not provided the necessary capacity and will for every teacher to take action and become qualified. While the number of teachers at the time of this study who were not enrolled in any kind of program leading to P 3 certification was sma ll (2.7%), the issue for policymakers is why these teachers chose not to respond to the mandate. Similarly, at the time of this study there was also a group of teachers who already had a Bachelors degree and thus had to only enroll in a P 3 certification program to retain their teaching position. Given the little effort required on the part of these teachers to retain their jobs, the concern is why they have chosen not to take action. The top two reasons cited by these non enrolled teachers for why they ar e not attempting to gain a P 3 credential is because they already have all the education they need for the job and they do not get enough time off from their work duties to undertake further study. While further research is needed that can examine the dif fering factors that interplay with a teachers decision to risk losing his/her job rather than undertake further education, the findings of this study would suggest that in addition to scholarships, other incentives might be needed to both motivate and sup port teachers to upgrade their qualifications. Providing time to study and attend classes might be one such incentive. In addition, given that many teachers working in private preschool settings and Head Start already work long hours and are nontraditional students juggling work and family responsibilities, it may also be necessary to think about ways to bring P 3 credentialing programs to their work sites. In addition to the small group of teachers not responding at all to the mandate, there is also the paradoxical issue that the very mandate that is designed to increase the quantity of qualified teachers in New Jerseys Abbott preschools may effectively serve to lessen numbers of qualified preschool teachers working in these districts. Although teachers particularly those in private settings are increasing their qualifications, once they obtain their BA and certification they are also eligible for other job opportunities. It is quite possible that these teachers may take up a preschool teaching position i n a public school setting within an Abbott district, but it is also likely that some of these teachers may take a job in a non Abbott district. While we cannot predict where these teachers will go, there are further ramifications from this issue, as the ab sence of continuity of care has been shown to negatively impact childrens learning and development (Whitebook, Phillips, & Howes, 1993) Moreover, as many of these teachers are from diverse ethnic backgrounds th ere is also the concern that this reported turnover will impact the diversity of the private and Head Start program workforce. While New Jersey is attempting to ensure parity in salary for all teachers within the Abbott districts, the fact remains that th ere still exists a two tiered system of working conditions within the current preschool system both in the state and across the nation. Although we did not ask teachers what they meant by "better working conditions," given that those who care for and educa te young children often must work longer hours than public school teachers and feel "they seldom receive recognition for their important work" (Whitebook & Sakai, 2004, p. x) we might assume that these conditions revolve ar ound issues of benefits and status. Therefore in order for teachers not to feel shortchanged, efforts must be made to alleviate any differences in the working conditions and benefits between public schools and private settings and Head Starts. Providing te achers in these latter settings with a financial bonus if they agree to remain in their current position for at least three years once they become qualified may also serve as an initial incentive while this process gets underway.
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 13 No. 23 12 In conclusion, the case of New Jerseys Abbott districts demonstrated that it is possible to create a qualified preschool teaching workforce in a short period of time. This feat would arguably not have been realized without the coordinated system of pressure and supports implemen ted in the state. The findings of this study also suggest, however, that policymakers must be mindful not only of the short term outcomes of any system of pressure and supports, but whether these outcomes will facilitate reaching the goal of any policy in the long term, as well. A court mandate and a system of supports have created a qualified workforce, but further pressure and supports will be needed to maintain the goal of a qualified teacher in every classroom.
Ryan & Ackerman: Using Pressure and Support to Create a Qualified Workforce 13 Author Note This study was jointly funded through a grant from the Foundation for Child Development and funds received from the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the National Institute for Early Education Research at Rutgers University. This study would not have been possible without the teac hers who participated in this study and the statistical expertise of Hao Song and Don Yarosz. The authors also wish to acknowledge the contributions to this project made by Dr. Ellen Frede, Assistant to the Commissioner for Early Childhood Education at the New Jersey D epartment of Education and Dr. William S. Barnett, Director of the National Institute for Early Education Research at Rutgers University. References Abbott v. Burke, 153 N.J. 480 (1998). Abbott v. Burke, 163 N.J. 95 (2000). Ackerman, D. J ., & Ryan, S. (2002). New Jersey early care and education teacher survey protocol. New Brunswick, NJ: NIEER. Amrein, A. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2002). High stakes testing, uncertainty, and student learning. Education Policy Analysis Arch ives, 10 (18). Retrieved March 28, 2005 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n18 Bagnato, S. J., Suen, H. K., Brickley, D., Smith Jones, J., & Dettore, E. (2002). Child developmental impact of Pittsburgh's Earl y Childhood Initiative (ECI) in high risk communities: First phase authentic evaluation research. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17 559 580. Barnett, W. S. (2002). Early childhood education. In A. Molnar (Ed.), School reform proposals: The research e vidence (pp. 1 26). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Barnett, W. S. (2003). Better teachers, better preschools: Student achievement linked to teacher qualifications, Preschool Policy Matters, 2 New Brunswick, NJ: NIEER. Barnett, W. S., Hustedt, J. T., Robin, K., & Schulman, K. (2004). The state of preschool: 2004 state preschool yearbook New Brunswick, NJ: NIEER. Barnett, W. S., & Masse, L. N. (2003). Funding issues for early childhood education and care programs. In D. Cryer & R. M. Clifford (E ds.), Early childhood education & care in the USA (pp. 137 165). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. Barnett, W. S., Tarr, J. E., Lamy, C. E., & Frede, E. C. (2001). Fragile lives, shattered dreams: A report on implementation of preschool education i n New Jersey's Abbott districts New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Early Education Research. Barnett, W. S., Young, J. W., & Schweinhart, L. J. (1998). How preschool education influences long term cognitive development and school success: A causal model. In W. S. Barnett & S. S. Boocock (Eds.), Early care and education for children in poverty: Promises, programs, and long term results (pp. 167 184). Albany: State University of New York Press. Bowman, B. T. (1999). Kindergarten practices with children from low i ncome families. In R. C. Pianta & M. J. Cox (Eds.), The transition to kindergarten Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 13 No. 23 14 Bryant, D. M., Maxwell, K. L., & Burchinal, M. (1999). Effects of a community initiative on the quality of child care. Early Child hood Research Quarterly, 14 449 464. Charlesworth, R., Hart, C. H., Burts, D. C., Thomasson, R. H., Mosley, J., & Fleege, P. (1993). Measuring the developmental appropriateness of kindergarten teachers' beliefs and practices. Early Childhood Research Quar terly, 8 255 276. Chubb, J. E. (2003). Real choice. In P. E. Peterson (Ed.), Our schools and our future...Are we still at risk? (pp. 329 361). Stanford, CA: Hoover Press. Clifford, R. M. (1999). Personnel preparation and the transition to kindergarten. In R. C. Pianta & M. J. Cox (Eds.), The transition to kindergarten (pp. 317 324). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. Cohen, D. K. (1996). Standards based school reform: Policy, practice, and performance. In H. Ladd (Ed.), Holding schools accountable ( pp. 99 127). Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution. Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2000). Instructional policy and classroom performance: The mathematics reform in California. Teachers College Record, 102 294 343. Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2001). L earning policy: When state education reform works New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Corcoran, T., & Lawrence, N. (2003). Changing district culture and capacity: The impact of the Merck Institute for Science Education Partnership (CPRE Research Report Series RR 054) Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Council for Professional Recognition. (2000). The Child Development Associate national credentialing program: Making a difference in the early care and education of young children Washington, DC: Author. Division of Youth and Family Services, Department of Human Services, & State of New Jersey. (1998). Manual of requirements for child care centers Trenton, NJ: Bureau of Licensing. Elmore, R. F., Abelmann, C. H., & Fuhrman, S. H. (1 998). The new accountability in state education reform: From process to performance. In R. J. S. Macpherson (Ed.), The politics of accountability: Educative and international perspectives Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. Espinosa, L. M. (2002). High quality preschool: Why we need it and what it looks like, Preschool Policy Matters New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research. Firestone, W. A., Camilli, G., Yurecko, M., Monfils, L., & Mayrowetz, D. (2000). State standards, socio fiscal context and opportunity to learn in New Jersey. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8 (35), Online journal available at http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n35/ Firestone, W. A., & Mayrowetz, D. (2000). Rethin king "high stakes": Lessons from the United States and England and Wales. Teachers College Record, 102 724 749. Frede, E. C. (1998). Preschool program quality in programs for children in poverty. In W. S. Barnett & S. S. Boocock (Eds.), Early care and edu cation for children in poverty: Promises, programs, and long term results (pp. 77 98). Albany: State University of New York Press. Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (Third ed.). New York: Teachers College Press. Fullan, M. G. (1991). The new meaning of educational change (Second ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Ryan & Ackerman: Using Pressure and Support to Create a Qualified Workforce 15 Fuller, B., Burr, E., Huerta, L., Puryear, S., & Wexler, E. (1999). School choice: Abundant hopes, scarce evidence of results Berkeley, CA: Policy Analysis for Californ ia Education (PACE). Goertz, M. E. (2001). Standards based accountability: Horse trade or horse whip? In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), From the classroom to the capital: Standards based reform in the states (pp. 39 59). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gormley J., W. T., & Lucas, J. K. (2000). Money, accreditation, and child care center quality New York: Foundation for Child Development. Available at http://ffcd.org/pdfs/gormley1.pdf Herrington, C. D., & Mac Donald, V. M. (2001). Accountability as a school reform strategy: A thirty year perspective on Florida. In C. D. Herrington & K. Katsen (Eds.), Florida 2001: Educational policy alternatives Jacksonville, FL: University of North Florida. Ingram, H., & Schn eider, A. (1990). Improving implementation through framing smarter statutes. Journal of Public Policy, 10 67 88. Kagan, S. L. (1991). Examining profit and nonprofit child care: An odyssey of quality and auspices. Journal of Social Issues, 47 87 104. Kauf fman, D., Johnson, S. M., Kardos, S. M., Liu, E., & Peske, H. G. (2003). "Lost at sea": New teachers' experiences with curriculum and assessment. Teachers College Record, 104 273 300. Knitzer, J., & Page, S. (1998). Map and track: State initiatives for yo ung children and families New York: National Center for Children in Poverty. Levin, H. M. (1991). The economics of educational choice. Economics of Education Review, 10 137 158. Levin, H. M. (2000). A comprehensive framework for evaluating educational vo uchers New York: National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education, Teachers College, Columbia University. Liu, E., Johnson, S. M., & Peske, H. G. (2003). New teachers and the Massachusetts Signing Bonus: The limits of inducements. Paper present ed at the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, April 2003. Massell, D. (2001). The theory and practice of using data to build capacity: State and local strategies and their effects. In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), From the classroom to the capitol: Standards based reform in the states (pp. 148 169). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. McDonnell, L. M., & Elmore, R. F. (1987). Getting the job done: Alternative policy instruments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9 (2), 133 152. McLaughlin, M. W. (1991). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. In A. R. Odden (Ed.), Education Policy Implementation (pp. 185 195). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Miller, L., Melaville, A., & Blank, H. (2002). Bringing it tog ether: State driven community early childhood initiatives Washington, DC: Children's Defense Fund. Mitchell, A. (1996). Licensing: Lessons from other occupations. In S. L. Kagan & N. E. Cohen (Eds.), Reinventing early care and education: A vision for a qu ality system (pp. 101 123). San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers. Morgan, G. G. (2003). Staff roles, education, and compensation. In D. Cryer & R. M. Clifford (Eds.), Early childhood education and care in the USA (pp. 87 105). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes P ublishing Inc. New Jersey Professional Development Center for Early Care and Education. (2003). Annual report of the New Jersey Professional Development Center for Early Care and Education, 2002 2003 Union, NJ: Kean University.
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 13 No. 23 16 Rosegrant, S. (1999). The C leveland school voucher program: A question of choice Cambridge, MA: John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Saluja, G., Early, D. M., & Clifford, R. M. (2002). Demographic characteristics of early childhood teachers and structural eleme nts of early care and education in the United States. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 4 (1), online journal available at http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v4n1/saluja.html Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1990). B ehavioral assumptions of policy tools. Journal of Politics, 52 510 529. Schultz, T., & Lopez, E. (1996). Early childhood reform in seven communities: Front line practice, agency management, and public policy Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Smolkin, L. B. (1999). The practice of effective transitions: Players who make a winning team. In R. J. Pianta & M. J. Cox (Eds.), The transition to kindergarten (pp. 325 349). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Pu blishing Co. Spillane, J. P. (1999). External reform initiatives and teachers' efforts to reconstruct their practice: The mediating role of teachers' zones of enactment. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31 143 175. Spillane, J. P. (2002). Local theories of teacher change: The pedagogy of district policies and programs. Teachers College Record, 104 377 420. Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Edu cational Research, 72 387 431. Spillane, J. P., & Thompson, C. L. (1997). Reconstructing conceptions of local capacity: The local education agency's capacity for ambitious instructional reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19 185 203. Walk er, E. (2003). Whole school reform and preschool education: The role of preschool education in policy decisions regarding the improvement of disadvantaged school systems. Journal of Children & Poverty, 9 71 88. Weikart, D. P. (1998). Changing early childh ood development through educational intervention. Preventive Medicine, 27 233 237. Whitebook, M. (2003). Bachelor's degrees are best: Higher qualifications for pre kindergarten teachers lead to better learning environments for children Washington, DC: Th e Trust for Early Education. Whitebook, M., Phillips, D., & Howes, C. (1993). The National Child Care Staffing Study revisited: Four years in the life of center based child care Oakland, CA: Child Care Employee Project. Whitebook, M., & Sakai, L. (2004). By a thread: How child care centers hold on to teachers, how teachers build lasting careers Kalamazoo, MI: W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. Witte, J. F. (1998). The Milwaukee voucher experiment. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 2 0 229 251. Wolery, M. (1999). Children with disabilities in early elementary school. In R. C. Pianta & M. J. Cox (Eds.), The transition to kindergarten (pp. 253 280). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Ryan & Ackerman: Using Pressure and Support to Create a Qualified Workforce 17 About the Authors Sharon Ryan Graduate Sc hool of Education Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey 10 Seminary Place New Brunswick, NJ 08901 email@example.com Sharon Ryan is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Learning and Teaching an d a Research Associate at the National Institute for Early Education Research, both at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey. Her research is concerned with the work of teachers of young children and the implementation of early childhood policy. De bra J. Ackerman National Institute for Early Education Research 120 Albany Street, Tower 1, Suite 500 New Brunswick, NJ 08901 firstname.lastname@example.org Debra Ackerman is a research associate at the Nat ional Institute for Early Education Research and a Ph.D. candidate in Education at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey. Her research focuses on policy issues related to the early care and education workforce.
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 13 No. 23 18 Education Policy Analysis Archives http://epaa.asu.edu Editor: Sherman Dorn University of South Florida Production Assistant: Chris Murrell, Arizona State University General questions about appropriateness of topics or particular articles may be addressed to the Edi tor, Sherman Dorn, epaa editor@shermando rn .com EPAA Editorial Board Michael W. Apple University of Wisconsin David C. Berliner Ariz ona State University Greg Camilli Rutgers University Linda Darling Hammond Stanford University Mark E. Fetler California Commission on Teacher Credentialing Gustavo E. Fischman Arizona State Univeristy Richard Garlikov Birmingham, Alabama Gene V Glass Arizona State University Thomas F. Green Syracuse University Aimee Howley Oh io University Craig B. Howley Appalachia Educational Laboratory William Hunter University of Ontario Institute of Technology Patricia Fey Jarvis Seattle, Washington Daniel Kalls Ume University Benjamin Levin University of Manitoba Thomas Mauhs Pugh Green Mountain College Les McLean University of Toronto Heinrich Mintrop University of California, Berkeley Michele Moses Arizona State University Gary Orfield Harv ard University Anthony G. Rud Jr. Purdue University Jay Paredes Scribner University of Missouri Michael Scriven Western Michigan University Lorrie A. Shepard University of Colorado, Boulder Robert E. Stake University of Illinois UC Kevin Welner University of Colorado, Boulder Terrence G. Wiley Arizona State University John Willinsky University of British Columbia
Ryan & Ackerman: Using Pressure and Support to Create a Qualified Workforce 19 Archivos Analticos de Polticas Educativas Associate Editors Gustavo E. Fischman & Pablo Gentili Arizona State University & Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro Founding Associate Editor for Spanish Language (1998 2003) Roberto Rodrguez Gmez Editorial Board Hugo Aboites Universidad Autnoma Metropolitana Xochimilco Adrin Acosta Universidad de Gua dalajara Mxico Claudio Almonacid Avila Universidad Metropolitana de Ciencias de la Educacin, Chile Dalila Andrade de Oliveira Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brasil Alejandra Birgin Ministerio de Educacin, Argentina Teresa Bracho Centro de Investigacin y Docencia Econmica CIDE Alejandro Canales Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico Ursula Casanova Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona Sigfredo Chiroque Instituto de Pedagoga Popular, Per Erwin Epstein Loyola University, Chicago, Il linois Mariano Fernndez Enguita Universidad de Salamanca. Espaa Gaudncio Frigotto Universidade Estadual do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Rollin Kent Universidad Autnoma de Puebla. Puebla, Mxico Wal ter Kohan Universidade Estadual do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Roberto Leher Universidade Estadual do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Daniel C. Levy University at Albany, SUNY, Albany, New York Nilma Limo Gomes Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte Pi a Lindquist Wong California State University, Sacramento, California Mara Loreto Egaa Programa Interdisciplinario de Investigacin en Educacin Mariano Narodowski Universidad Torcuato Di Tella, Argentina Iolanda de Oliveira Universidade Federal Flumin ense, Brasil Grover Pango Foro Latinoamericano de Polticas Educativas, Per Vanilda Paiva Universidade Estadual Do Rio De Janeiro, Brasil Miguel Pereira Catedratico Universidad de Granada, Espaa Angel Ignacio Prez Gmez Universidad de Mlaga Mnica Pini Universidad Nacional de San Martin, Argentina Romualdo Portella do Oliveira Universidade de So Paulo Diana Rhoten Social Science Research Council, New York, New York Jos Gimeno Sacristn Universidad de Valencia, Espaa Daniel Schugurensky Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Canada Susan Street Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropologia Social Occidente, Guadalajara, Mxico Nelly P. Stromquist University o f Southern California, Los Angeles, California Daniel Suarez Laboratorio de Politicas Publicas Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina Antonio Teodoro Universidade Lusfona Lisboa, Carlos A. To rres UCLA Jurjo Torres Santom Universidad de la Corua, Espaa